Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum poena schismaticorum sit conveniens ut excommunicentur Whether schismatics are rightly punished with excommunication? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod poena schismaticorum non sit conveniens ut excommunicentur. Excommunicatio enim maxime separat hominem a communione sacramentorum. Sed Augustinus dicit, in libro contra Donatist., quod Baptisma potest recipi a schismatico. Ergo videtur quod excommunicatio non est conveniens poena schismatis. Objection 1: It would seem that schismatics are not rightly punished with excommunication. For excommunication deprives a man chiefly of a share in the sacraments. But Augustine says (Contra Donat. vi, 5) that Baptism can be received from a schismatic. Therefore it seems that excommunication is not a fitting punishment for schismatics. Praeterea, ad fideles Christi pertinet ut eos qui sunt dispersi reducant, unde contra quosdam dicitur Ezech. XXXIV, quod abiectum est non reduxistis, quod perierat non quaesistis. Sed schismatici convenientius reducuntur per aliquos qui eis communicent. Ergo videtur quod non sint excommunicandi. Obj. 2: Further, it is the duty of Christ’s faithful to lead back those who have gone astray, wherefore it is written against certain persons (Ezek 34:4): That which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost. Now schismatics are more easily brought back by such as may hold communion with them. Therefore it seems that they ought not to be excommunicated. Praeterea, pro eodem peccato non infligitur duplex poena, secundum illud Nahum I, non iudicabit Deus bis in idipsum. Sed pro peccato schismatis aliqui poena temporali puniuntur, ut habetur XXIII, qu. V, ubi dicitur, divinae et mundanae leges statuerunt ut ab Ecclesiae unitate divisi, et eius pacem perturbantes, a saecularibus potestatibus comprimantur. Non ergo sunt puniendi per excommunicationem. Obj. 3: Further, a double punishment is not inflicted for one and the same sin, according to Nahum 1:9: God will not judge the same twice. Now some receive a temporal punishment for the sin of schism, according to 23, qu. 5, where it is stated: Both divine and earthly laws have laid down that those who are severed from the unity of the Church, and disturb her peace, must be punished by the secular power. Therefore they ought not to be punished with excommunication. Sed contra est quod Num. XVI dicitur, recedite a tabernaculis hominum impiorum, qui scilicet schisma fecerant, et nolite tangere quae ad eos pertinent, ne involvamini in peccatis eorum. On the contrary, It is written (Num 16:26): Depart from the tents of these wicked men, those, to wit, who had caused the schism, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be involved in their sins. Respondeo dicendum quod per quae peccat quis, per ea debet puniri, ut dicitur Sap. XI. Schismaticus autem, ut ex dictis patet, in duobus peccat. In uno quidem, quia separat se a communione membrorum Ecclesiae. Et quantum ad hoc conveniens poena schismaticorum est ut excommunicentur. In alio vero, quia subdi recusant capiti Ecclesiae. Et ideo, quia coerceri nolunt per spiritualem potestatem Ecclesiae, iustum est ut potestate temporali coerceantur. I answer that, According to Wis. 11:11, By what things a man sinneth, by the same also he should be punished. Now a schismatic, as shown above (A. 1), commits a twofold sin: first by separating himself from communion with the members of the Church, and in this respect the fitting punishment for schismatics is that they be excommunicated. Second, they refuse submission to the head of the Church, wherefore, since they are unwilling to be controlled by the Church’s spiritual power, it is just that they should be compelled by the secular power. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Baptismum a schismaticis recipere non licet nisi in articulo necessitatis, quia melius est de hac vita cum signo Christi exire, a quocumque detur, etiam si sit Iudaeus vel Paganus, quam sine hoc signo, quod per Baptismum confertur. Reply Obj. 1: It is not lawful to receive Baptism from a schismatic, save in a case of necessity, since it is better for a man to quit this life, marked with the sign of Christ, no matter from whom he may receive it, whether from a Jew or a pagan, than deprived of that mark, which is bestowed in Baptism. Ad secundum dicendum quod per excommunicationem non interdicitur illa communicatio per quam aliquis salubribus monitis divisos reducit ad Ecclesiae unitatem. Tamen et ipsa separatio quodammodo eos reducit, dum, de sua separatione confusi, quandoque ad poenitentiam adducuntur. Reply Obj. 2: Excommunication does not forbid the intercourse whereby a person by salutary admonitions leads back to the unity of the Church those who are separated from her. Indeed this very separation brings them back somewhat, because through confusion at their separation, they are sometimes led to do penance. Ad tertium dicendum quod poenae praesentis vitae sunt medicinales; et ideo quando una poena non sufficit ad coercendum hominem, superadditur altera, sicut et medici diversas medicinas corporales apponunt quando una non est efficax et ita Ecclesia, quando aliqui per excommunicationem non sufficienter reprimuntur, adhibet coercionem brachii saecularis. Sed si una poena sit sufficiens, non debet alia adhiberi. Reply Obj. 3: The punishments of the present life are medicinal, and therefore when one punishment does not suffice to compel a man, another is added: just as physicians employ several body medicines when one has no effect. In like manner the Church, when excommunication does not sufficiently restrain certain men, employs the compulsion of the secular arm. If, however, one punishment suffices, another should not be employed. Quaestio 40 Question 40 De bello War Deinde considerandum est de bello. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider war, under which head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum aliquod bellum sit licitum. (1) Whether some kind of war is lawful? Secundo, utrum clericis sit licitum bellare. (2) Whether it is lawful for clerics to fight? Tertio, utrum liceat bellantibus uti insidiis. (3) Whether it is lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes? Quarto, utrum liceat in diebus festis bellare. (4) Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum bellare semper sit peccatum Whether it is always sinful to wage war? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod bellare semper sit peccatum. Poena enim non infligitur nisi pro peccato. Sed bellantibus a domino indicitur poena, secundum illud Matth. XXVI, omnis qui acceperit gladium gladio peribit. Ergo omne bellum est illicitum. Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matt. 26:52: All that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Therefore all wars are unlawful. Praeterea, quidquid contrariatur divino praecepto est peccatum. Sed bellare contrariatur divino praecepto, dicitur enim Matth. V, ego dico vobis non resistere malo; et Rom. XII dicitur, non vos defendentes, carissimi, sed date locum irae. Ergo bellare semper est peccatum. Obj. 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matt 5:39): But I say to you not to resist evil; and (Rom 12:19): Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath. Therefore war is always sinful. Praeterea, nihil contrariatur actui virtutis nisi peccatum. Sed bellum contrariatur paci. Ergo bellum semper est peccatum. Obj. 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin. Praeterea, omne exercitium ad rem licitam licitum est, sicut patet in exercitiis scientiarum. Sed exercitia bellorum, quae fiunt in torneamentis, prohibentur ab Ecclesia, quia morientes in huiusmodi tyrociniis ecclesiastica sepultura privantur. Ergo bellum videtur esse simpliciter peccatum. Obj. 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in sermone de puero centurionis, si Christiana disciplina omnino bella culparet, hoc potius consilium salutis petentibus in Evangelio daretur, ut abiicerent arma, seque militiae omnino subtraherent. Dictum est autem eis, neminem concutiatis; estote contenti stipendiis vestris. Quibus proprium stipendium sufficere praecepit, militare non prohibuit. On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion: If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay.’ If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering. Respondeo dicendum quod ad hoc quod aliquod bellum sit iustum, tria requiruntur. Primo quidem, auctoritas principis, cuius mandato bellum est gerendum. Non enim pertinet ad personam privatam bellum movere, quia potest ius suum in iudicio superioris prosequi. Similiter etiam quia convocare multitudinem, quod in bellis oportet fieri, non pertinet ad privatam personam. Cum autem cura reipublicae commissa sit principibus, ad eos pertinet rem publicam civitatis vel regni seu provinciae sibi subditae tueri. I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. Et sicut licite defendunt eam materiali gladio contra interiores quidem perturbatores, dum malefactores puniunt, secundum illud apostoli, ad Rom. XIII, non sine causa gladium portat, minister enim Dei est, vindex in iram ei qui male agit; ita etiam gladio bellico ad eos pertinet rempublicam tueri ab exterioribus hostibus. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom 13:4): He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Unde et principibus dicitur in Psalm., eripite pauperem, et egenum de manu peccatoris liberate. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra Faust., ordo naturalis, mortalium paci accommodatus, hoc poscit, ut suscipiendi belli auctoritas atque consilium penes principes sit. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps 81:4): Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority. Secundo, requiritur causa iusta, ut scilicet illi qui impugnantur propter aliquam culpam impugnationem mereantur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro quaest., iusta bella solent definiri quae ulciscuntur iniurias, si gens vel civitas plectenda est quae vel vindicare neglexerit quod a suis improbe factum est, vel reddere quod per iniuriam ablatum est. Second, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly. Tertio, requiritur ut sit intentio bellantium recta, qua scilicet intenditur vel ut bonum promoveatur, vel ut malum vitetur. Unde Augustinus, in libro de verbis Dom., apud veros Dei cultores etiam illa bella pacata sunt quae non cupiditate aut crudelitate, sed pacis studio geruntur, ut mali coerceantur et boni subleventur. Potest autem contingere quod etiam si sit legitima auctoritas indicentis bellum et causa iusta, nihilominus propter pravam intentionem bellum reddatur illicitum. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro contra Faust., nocendi cupiditas, ulciscendi crudelitas, implacatus et implacabilis animus, feritas rebellandi, libido dominandi, et si qua sunt similia, haec sunt quae in bellis iure culpantur. Third, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. ): True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in II Lib. contra Manich., ille accipit gladium qui, nulla superiori aut legitima potestate aut iubente vel concedente, in sanguinem alicuius armatur. Qui vero ex auctoritate principis vel iudicis, si sit persona privata; vel ex zelo iustitiae, quasi ex auctoritate Dei, si sit persona publica, gladio utitur, non ipse accipit gladium, sed ab alio sibi commisso utitur. Unde ei poena non debetur. Nec tamen illi etiam qui cum peccato gladio utuntur semper gladio occiduntur. Sed ipso suo gladio semper pereunt, quia pro peccato gladii aeternaliter puniuntur, nisi poeniteant. Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority. On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to take the sword, but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword. Ad secundum dicendum quod huiusmodi praecepta, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, semper sunt servanda in praeparatione animi, ut scilicet semper homo sit paratus non resistere vel non se defendere si opus fuerit. Sed quandoque est aliter agendum propter commune bonum, et etiam illorum cum quibus pugnatur. Unde Augustinus dicit, in Epist. ad Marcellinum, agenda sunt multa etiam cum invitis benigna quadam asperitate plectendis. Nam cui licentia iniquitatis eripitur, utiliter vincitur, quoniam nihil est infelicius felicitate peccantium, qua poenalis nutritur impunitas, et mala voluntas, velut hostis interior, roboratur. Reply Obj. 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy. Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam illi qui iusta bella gerunt pacem intendunt. Et ita paci non contrariantur nisi malae, quam dominus non venit mittere in terram, ut dicitur Matth. X. Unde Augustinus dicit, ad Bonifacium, non quaeritur pax ut bellum exerceatur, sed bellum geritur ut pax acquiratur. Esto ergo bellando pacificus, ut eos quos expugnas ad pacis utilitatem vincendo perducas. Reply Obj. 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord came not to send upon earth (Matt 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace. Ad quartum dicendum quod exercitia hominum ad res bellicas non sunt universaliter prohibita, sed inordinata exercitia et periculosa, ex quibus occisiones et depraedationes proveniunt. Apud antiquos autem exercitationes ad bella sine huiusmodi periculis erant, et ideo vocabantur meditationes armorum, vel bella sine sanguine, ut per Hieronymum patet, in quadam epistola. Reply Obj. 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called exercises of arms or bloodless wars, as Jerome states in an epistle. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum clericis et episcopis liceat pugnare Whether it is lawful for clerics and bishops to fight? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod clericis et episcopis liceat pugnare. Bella enim intantum sunt licita et iusta, sicut dictum est, inquantum tuentur pauperes et totam rempublicam ab hostium iniuriis. Sed hoc maxime videtur ad praelatos pertinere, dicit enim Gregorius, in quadam homilia, lupus super oves venit, cum quilibet iniustus et raptor fideles quosque atque humiles opprimit. Sed is qui pastor videbatur esse et non erat, relinquit oves et fugit, quia dum sibi ab eo periculum metuit, resistere eius iniustitiae non praesumit. Ergo praelatis et clericis licitum est pugnare. Objection 1: It would seem lawful for clerics and bishops to fight. For, as stated above (A. 1), wars are lawful and just insofar as they protect the poor and the entire common weal from suffering at the hands of the foe. Now this seems to be above all the duty of prelates, for Gregory says (Hom. in Ev. xiv): The wolf comes upon the sheep, when any unjust and rapacious man oppresses those who are faithful and humble. But he who was thought to be the shepherd, and was not, leaveth the sheep, and flieth, for he fears lest the wolf hurt him, and dares not stand up against his injustice. Therefore it is lawful for prelates and clerics to fight.