Two surefire ways of being cut off from Christ's Mystical Body are heresy and schism. In our previous post we discussed heresy. In this post we will discuss schism.
In the schismatic mind, heresy and disobedience may be rationalized because the authority in question has been judged as commanding something harmful to the faith, or as being unsound in his teaching, insofar as this teaching is opposed to the schismatic's own overvalued opinion. He clings to his own will, thinking, "I must oppose this! It is just wrong!" However, in doing so, and then rejecting legitimate rule, he becomes a rule unto himself.
This tyranny of ego is precisely that for which our Lord gave us a remedy in the Church hierarchy of authority.
How does one judge whether we are defending truth, or merely defending our own opinion? whether we are fighting evil, or rebelling against legitimate authority? The difference is crucial. It is the difference between virtuous fortitude, and a sin against unity that may end up severing us from our only source of salvation. I set out to answer this question in this article.
Formal Schism
A schismatic is one who refuses "to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy." ST. II-II, 39, A. 1
This act of intentional separation from the unity of the Church is formal schism. Material schism on the other hand, refers to the state of schism itself without reference to the intention of the person in that state.
Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head…Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. ST.II-II.39.1.C.2
By their contempt for communion with other members of the Church and their rebellion against Church authority, schismatics cut themselves off from Christ Himself.
Root Causes of Schism
Schism is one of three sins specifically contrary to the unity brought about by charity: discord, contention, and schism. Discord is in the heart and contention is in speech, while schism is in deed. (ST, II-II, 37) All three share similar root faults.
According to St. Thomas, these sins against unity are caused by pride, vainglory, and envy. First, out of pride a person seeks his own greatness inordinately, then from vainglory he wants to appear as good or better than others.
[P]ride covets excellence inordinately: while vainglory covets the outward show of excellence. ST.II-II.162.8.ad2
From vainglory springs envy because a person resents others for fear they may receive honor at his expense.
As Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45), “the capital vices are so closely akin to one another that one springs from the other. For the first offspring of pride is vainglory, which by corrupting the mind it occupies, begets envy, since while it craves for the power of an empty name, it repines for fear lest another should acquire that power.” ST.II-II.36.4.ad1
Vainglory is divided according to how a person tries to show that he is not inferior to others.
In another way a man strives to make known his excellence by showing that he is not inferior to another, and this in four ways. First, as regards the intellect, and thus we have obstinacy, by which a man is too much attached to his own opinion, being unwilling to believe one that is better. Second, as regards the will, and then we have discord, whereby a man is unwilling to give up his own will, and agree with others. Third, as regards speech, and then we have contention, whereby a man quarrels noisily with another. Fourth as regards deeds, and this is disobedience, whereby a man refuses to carry out the command of his superiors. ST.II-II.132.5.Obj3
The schismatic act begins in the intellect with a person’s obstinate belief in his own opinion, an attachment not sufficiently based on evidence. His will follows in his refusal to try to understand another perspective or to seek agreement with others, even those who have God-given authority. From there comes his contentious speech, and his acts of disobedience. Rebellious disobedience is the essence of the deed of schism.
The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say rebelliously, since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to submit to her judgment. ST.II-II.39.1.ad2
Schism has its root in vainglory, that repulsion from appearing inferior to others, which ends in priding oneself in one’s refusal to submit to authority, as if that very obstinance is something to glory in.
Anger is not the cause of discord and contention, except in conjunction with vainglory, in that a man thinks it a glorious thing for him not to yield to the will and words of others. ST.II-II.132.5.ad2
Vainglory moves schismatics to think they ‘know better’ and to rely on their own strength of intellect and will, rather than to be open to the will of God revealed through the legitimate authority figures He has put in their life.
The Schism Heresy Connection
Contention is complete and is a mortal sin when, in contending before a judge a man gainsays the truth of justice, or in a disputation intends to impugn the true doctrine. ST.II-II.38,1,ad3
Heresy rejects God Himself as Truth, whereas schism rejects charitable union with His Church.
Thus heresy is worse than schism because it has God as its object, while schism is the worst sin against neighbor because it harms the spiritual good of the whole community, rending the Mystical Body of Christ.
Though two different sins, there is a natural connection between them.
Wherefore Jerome adds (In Ep. ad Tit. iii, 10) that at the outset it is possible, in a certain respect, to find a difference between schism and heresy: yet there is no schism that does not devise some heresy for itself, that it may appear to have had a reason for separating from the Church. ST II-II 39, 1, ad 3
When one rejects the authority of the Church that naturally leads to heresy. Certainly the heresy of denying papal authority and infallibility is likely, but other heresies must certainly follow.
Has not the Pope been tasked not only with uniting the Church under Christ but also of preserving and explicating the doctrines of the Faith? Who can replace him in our lives if we refuse to hear him?
Still, despite the close connection between heresy and schism, they are distinct sins with distinct objectives (i.e. ‘objects of the act.’)
Augustine (Contra Faust. xx, 3; Contra Crescon. ii, 4) distinguishes between schism and heresy, for he says that “a schismatic is one who holds the same faith, and practices the same worship, as others, and takes pleasure in the mere disunion of the community, whereas a heretic is one who holds another faith from that of the Catholic Church.” ST II-II, 39, 1, ad 2
Although the sins against unity do not have heresy as their object, they may lead to heresy simply because when a person is bent on being contentious or divisive, he will contradict commands and magisterial teaching on the sole basis of his clinging to his own opinion and setting his will against another's.
The Root Sin Envy
Insofar as the vices against unity – discord, contention and schism – tend, as an end, toward one’s own false glory, they are caused by pride and vainglory. On the other hand, that from which they recede is another person's good, and that cause is the sin of envy.
Contention, like discord, is akin to envy insofar as a man severs himself from the one with whom he is discordant, or with whom he contends, but insofar as a contentious man holds to something, it is akin to pride and vainglory, because, to wit, he clings to his own opinion, as stated above (Q. 37, A. 2, ad 1). ST.II-II.38.2.ad1
By envy is not meant coveting another's good, as that is a distinct sin, but rather simply being opposed to the good of another.
Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) calls envy a species of sorrow, and says that "envy is sorrow for another’s good"... [S]orrow can be about another’s good… insofar as it conduces to the lessening of one’s own good name or excellence. It is in this way that envy grieves for another’s good. ST.II-II.36.1.C
Schismatics have so much fear of the deficiencies they see in other Catholics, that they 'throw the baby out with the bathwater,' rejecting both the good and evil alike.
Schism, even more than discord and contention, is connected to the evil of envy because schism is not just against another individual, but against the whole Church. The good which this envy derides is both a spiritual good and a common good, higher than both any temporal good and any private good. It is the good proper to the communion of saints.
Further, "The good of the multitude is greater and more godlike than the good of the individual," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. i, 2). Now schism is opposed to the good of the multitude, namely, ecclesiastical unity... ST.II-II.39.2.Obj2
The common good is greater than any private good and yet it is still good for the individual. In the communion of saints we each can achieve a holiness that is not possible without each other. When one seeks his own private good contrary to the common good, he harms the community, but also himself, since the common good is a shared good that he cannot have at all unless in common.
Jerome in commenting on Matt. 12:25, Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate, says: Just as concord makes small things thrive, so discord brings the greatest things to ruin. The reason why concord makes small things thrive, while discord brings the greatest to ruin, is because the more united a force is, the stronger it is, while the more disunited it is the weaker it becomes (De Causis xvii). ST.II-II.37.2.Obj/ad3
Ecclesiastical unity is a common good for the salvation of souls, a good which schism opposes.
An Unforgivable Sin
According to the great Thomist Charles de Koninck (p.13), Satan’s sin was preferring his private personal good over the common good. Hating the common good, Satan seeks to divide and conquer us. He has a particular fondness for the sin of envy which he himself is the father of, as St. Thomas says:
[W]hen the devil tempts us to envy, he is enticing us to that which has its chief place in his heart, for as quoted further on in the same passage, by the envy of the devil, death came into the world (Wis 2:24). There is, however, a kind of envy which is accounted among the most grievous sins, viz. envy of another’s spiritual good, which envy is a sorrow for the increase of God’s grace, and not merely for our neighbor’s good. Hence it is accounted a sin against the Holy Spirit, because thereby a man envies, as it were, the Holy Spirit Himself, Who is glorified in His works. ST.II-II.Q36.A4.Rep2
The envy which is contrary to others’ spiritual good is the worst kind of envy. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit, the 'unforgivable sin.’
(De Bap. contra Donat. vi, 35): "a man who spurns the truth is either envious of his brethren to whom the truth is revealed, or ungrateful to God, by Whose inspiration the Church is taught," and therefore, seemingly, sins against the Holy Spirit. ST.II-II.14.2.SC
This envy against those in the Church who teach us truth and guide us in the way of salvation is an ‘unforgivable sin’ not because the all-merciful God refuses to forgive it, but rather because by its nature it prevents a person from seeking forgiveness. The reason is that this envy is contempt of that grace which moves a person to obtain forgiveness. Explaining this St. Thomas says:
[M]an is hindered from sinning…by… the assistance of inward grace, against which there is envy of a brother’s spiritual good, when, namely, a man is envious not only of his brother’s person, but also of the increase of Divine grace in the world. ST.II-II.14.2.C
Such is the envy involved in schism. It is a cancer which so overtakes a person’s soul that he chooses to cut himself off from the Church and to be deprived of the graces he knows to be available in her, rather than commune with those whose opinions he condemns.
His sin begins in excessively clinging to his own way and his own opinion, and ends in his rejecting his own greatest good.
When Dissension is Praiseworthy
[D]iscords, are reckoned among the works of the flesh, of which it is said afterwards that "they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." (Gal 5:21) ST.II-II.37.1.SC
Discord, contention, and schism are sins. However, we must not flinch from disaccording when defending truth, or fighting an evil cause. So St. Paul virtuously caused his persecutors to disaccord. (Acts 23:6)
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 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.” ST.II-II.Q37.A1.C.3
Some distinctions that St. Thomas makes are helpful in distinguishing between reprehensible discord and praiseworthy disaccord.
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… ST.II-II.37.1.C.2
The key here is being united with others in willing the good even when our opinions differ.
St. Thomas defends the intentions of Sts. Paul and Barnabas in their discord:
(Acts 15:39): “There arose a dissension between Paul and Barnabas, so that they departed one from another.” …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. ST.II-II.Q37.A1.Rep3
A discord is acceptable when both parties are prudentially willing different goods, and the matter of contention is “not about things necessary for salvation.” We will discuss what are these “things necessary for salvation” shortly.
Even in matters of Faith, as long as they are not yet defined, it is not a sin to differ as long as that difference is subject to the law of charity.
Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed…even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church. ST.II-II.Q11.A2.Rep3
Things Necessary for Salvation
The categories of Church doctrine are relevant in distinguishing such accidental disagreements from sinful discord. The first two categories of doctrine are infallibly defined dogmas about revealed matters, requiring the assent of faith. It is heresy to deny defined dogma and so disagreement on these teachings cannot be virtuous.
Third category doctrines, however, are not necessarily true, and therefore in some circumstances may be open to healthy discussion. But only up to a point. This third kind of teaching is a conclusion that must be respected and in the end even be submitted to, until such time as the Church either changes that tentative teaching or defines it. “Third-category teachings are not (and sometimes cannot be) definitively proposed, and thus require a different kind of assent, or rather submission.” (See my post Notes on Magisterium.)
To obstinately differ on matters of third category teachings is called ‘dissent,’ and belongs to one of the three sins against Church unity, specifically 'contention.'
Dissent and schism happen because although a Catholic is willing to assent to infallible Church teaching, at the same time he may refuse to submit regarding something he sees as questionable, or even false. What he fails to recognize is that theological Faith can only have as its object, revealed truths, i.e. dogmas of the first and second category, whereas any other conviction can only be mere opinion, even though perhaps pious and true opinion.
Faith is certain, but opinion is not. To be resolute about dogmas is commendable, but
to have preference of one’s own opinion over the judgment of the Church, is an act of discord (the sin of thought.) It is to give one’s own intellectual opinion too much weight.
To then promote that opinion obstinately is an even greater sin – contention (the sin of speech) which is dissent if about authoritative teaching,
which can lead to then severing one's ties to the Church, the worst sin against unity, schism (the sin of deed.)
We may be convinced of our opinion, but we must not confuse opinion with Faith. Make no mistake: to defend our opinion is not equivalent to defending the truth.
There is much more that can be said on the religious submission of intellect and will which we owe to Church authority in respect of a third category teaching… fodder for another post. An excellent explanation, relevant to this conversation, on how a theologian should respond to “non-irreformable” teachings of the Magisterium can be found in Donum Veritatis (para.3), an instruction of the Cong for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It is easy to rationalize one's disobedience when one sees how faulty those in positions of authority are. We can cling to the idea of the perfect Church rather than to the flesh and blood institution that Christ has founded on weak human beings... including His betrayer Judas and St Peter who denied Him. But ultimately, schismatics are not within the Church and therefore, cannot be saved.
Christ did not leave us alone to our own devises as schismatics would have it. We have His promise to always be with His Church.
He asks us to become like little children, completing trusting in His omnipotent ability to guide His Church... even through such weak instruments as those that schismatics reject. If we keep our eyes focused on Him with humility, trustful confidence, and charity toward our Catholic brethren, He will keep us from these vices that lead to schism, and give us the grace to instead build up the Body of Christ.