Articulus I
Whether Discord Is a Sin?
Arg. 1 Objection 1
Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod discordia non sit peccatum. Discordare enim ab aliquo est recedere ab alterius voluntate. Sed hoc non videtur esse peccatum, quia voluntas proximi non est regula voluntatis nostrae, sed sola voluntas divina. Ergo discordia non est peccatum.
It would seem that discord is not a sin. For to disaccord with man is to sever oneself from another's will. But this does not seem to be a sin, because God's will alone, and not our neighbor's, is the rule of our own will. Therefore discord is not a sin.
Arg. 2 Objection 2
Praeterea, quicumque inducit aliquem ad peccandum, et ipse peccat. Sed inducere inter aliquos discordiam non videtur esse peccatum, dicitur enim Act. XXIII, quod sciens Paulus quia una pars esset Sadducaeorum et altera Pharisaeorum, exclamavit in Concilio, viri fratres, ego Pharisaeus sum, filius Pharisaeorum, de spe et resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor. Et cum haec dixisset, facta est dissensio inter Pharisaeos et Sadducaeos. Ergo discordia non est peccatum.
Further, whoever induces another to sin, sins also himself. But it appears not to be a sin to incite others to discord, for it is written (Acts 23:6) that Paul, knowing that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, cried out in the council: "Men brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of Pharisees, concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees." Therefore discord is not a sin.
Arg. 3 Objection 3
Praeterea, peccatum, praecipue mortale, in sanctis viris non invenitur. Sed in sanctis viris invenitur discordia, dicitur enim Act. XV, facta est dissensio inter Paulum et Barnabam, ita ut discederent ab invicem. Ergo discordia non est peccatum, et maxime mortale.
Further, sin, especially mortal sin, is not to be found in a holy man. But discord is to be found even among holy men, for it is written (Acts 15:39): "There arose a dissension" between Paul and Barnabas, "so that they departed one from another." Therefore discord is not a sin, and least of all a mortal sin.
Sed contra On the contrary
Sed contra est quod ad Gal. V dissensiones, idest discordiae, ponuntur inter opera carnis, de quibus subditur, qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non consequuntur. Nihil autem excludit a regno Dei nisi peccatum mortale. Ergo discordia est peccatum mortale.
On the contrary, "Dissensions," that is, discords, are reckoned among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20), of which it is said afterwards (Gal. 5:21) that "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." Now nothing, save mortal sin, excludes man from the kingdom of God. Therefore discord is a mortal sin.
Respondeo I answer that
Respondeo dicendum quod discordia concordiae opponitur. Concordia autem, ut supra dictum est, ex caritate causatur, inquantum scilicet caritas multorum corda coniungit in aliquid unum, quod est principaliter quidem bonum divinum, secundario autem bonum proximi. Discordia igitur ea ratione est peccatum, inquantum huiusmodi concordiae contrariatur. Sed sciendum quod haec concordia per discordiam tollitur dupliciter, uno quidem modo, per se; alio vero modo, per accidens. Per se quidem in humanis actibus et motibus dicitur esse id quod est secundum intentionem. Unde per se discordat aliquis a proximo quando scienter et ex intentione dissentit a bono divino et a proximi bono, in quo debet consentire. Et hoc est peccatum mortale ex suo genere, propter contrarietatem ad caritatem, licet primi motus huius discordiae, propter imperfectionem actus, sint peccata venialia. Per accidens autem in humanis actibus consideratur ex hoc quod aliquid est praeter intentionem. Unde cum intentio aliquorum est ad aliquod bonum quod pertinet ad honorem Dei vel utilitatem proximi, sed unus aestimat hoc esse bonum, alius autem habet contrariam opinionem, discordia tunc est per accidens contra bonum divinum vel proximi. Et talis discordia non est peccatum, nec repugnat caritati, nisi huiusmodi discordia sit vel cum errore circa ea quae sunt de necessitate salutis, vel pertinacia indebite adhibeatur, cum etiam supra dictum est quod concordia quae est caritatis effectus est unio voluntatum, non unio opinionum. Ex quo patet quod discordia quandoque est ex peccato unius tantum, puta cum unus vult bonum, cui alius scienter resistit, quandoque autem est cum peccato utriusque, puta cum uterque dissentit a bono alterius, et uterque diligit bonum proprium.
I answer that, Discord is opposed to concord. Now, as stated above (Q. 29, AA. 1, 3) concord results from charity, in as much as charity directs many hearts together to one thing, which is chiefly the Divine good, secondarily, the good of our neighbor. Wherefore discord is a sin, in so far as it is opposed to this concord.
But it must be observed that this concord is destroyed by discord in two ways: first, directly; secondly, accidentally. Now, human acts and movements are said to be direct when they are according to one's intention. Wherefore a man directly disaccords with his neighbor, when he knowingly and intentionally dissents from the Divine good and his neighbor's good, to which he ought to consent. This is a mortal sin in respect of its genus, because it is contrary to charity, although the first movements of such discord are venial sins by reason of their being imperfect acts.
The accidental in human acts is that which occurs beside the intention. Hence when several intend a good pertaining to God's honor, or our neighbor's profit, while one deems a certain thing good, and another thinks contrariwise, the discord is in this case accidentally contrary to the Divine good or that of our neighbor. Such like discord is neither sinful nor against charity, unless it be accompanied by an error about things necessary to salvation, or by undue obstinacy, since it has also been stated above (Q. 29, AA. 1, 3, ad 2) that the concord which is an effect of charity, is union of wills not of opinions. It follows from this that discord is sometimes the sin of one party only, for instance, when one wills a good which the other knowingly resists; while sometimes it implies sin in both parties, as when each dissents from the other's good, and loves his own.
Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod voluntas unius hominis secundum se considerata non est regula voluntatis alterius. Sed inquantum voluntas proximi inhaeret voluntati Dei, fit per consequens regula regulata secundum primam regulam. Et ideo discordare a tali voluntate est peccatum, quia per hoc discordatur a regula divina.
One man's will considered in itself is not the rule of another man's will; but in so far as our neighbor's will adheres to God's will, it becomes in consequence, a rule regulated according to its proper measure. Wherefore it is a sin to disaccord with such a will, because by that very fact one disaccords with the Divine rule.
Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2
Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut voluntas hominis adhaerens Deo est quaedam regula recta, a qua peccatum est discordare; ita etiam voluntas hominis Deo contraria est quaedam perversa regula, a qua bonum est discordare. Facere ergo discordiam per quam tollitur bona concordia quam caritas facit, est grave peccatum, unde dicitur Prov. VI, sex sunt quae odit dominus, et septimum detestatur anima eius, et hoc septimum ponit eum qui seminat inter fratres discordias. Sed causare discordiam per quam tollitur mala concordia, scilicet in mala voluntate, est laudabile. Et hoc modo laudabile fuit quod Paulus dissensionem posuit inter eos qui erant concordes in malo, nam et dominus de se dicit, Matth. X, non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium.
Just as a man's will that adheres to God is a right rule, to disaccord with which is a sin, so too a man's will that is opposed to God is a perverse rule, to disaccord with which is good. Hence to cause a discord, whereby a good concord resulting from charity is destroyed, is a grave sin: wherefore it is written (Prov. 6:16): "Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth," which seventh is stated (Prov. 6:19) to be "him that soweth discord among brethren." On the other hand, to arouse a discord whereby an evil concord (i.e. concord in an evil will) is destroyed, is praiseworthy. In this way Paul was to be commended for sowing discord among those who concorded together in evil, because Our Lord also said of Himself (Matt. 10:34): "I came not to send peace, but the sword."
Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3
Ad tertium dicendum quod discordia quae fuit inter Paulum et Barnabam fuit per accidens et non per se, uterque enim intendebat bonum, sed uni videbatur hoc esse bonum, alii aliud. Quod ad defectum humanum pertinebat, non enim erat talis controversia in his quae sunt de necessitate salutis. Quamvis hoc ipsum fuerit ex divina providentia ordinatum, propter utilitatem inde consequentem.
The discord between Paul and Barnabas was accidental and not direct: because each intended some good, yet the one thought one thing good, while the other thought something else, which was owing to human deficiency: for that controversy was not about things necessary to salvation. Moreover all this was ordained by Divine providence, on account of the good which would ensue.