Sedition is opposed to the unity and peace of a people

Image: Statue of George Washington toppled in Portland, OR (Eric Patterson/KGW)

Sedition is a special sin, having something in common with war and strife, and differing somewhat from them. It has something in common with them, in so far as it implies a certain antagonism, and it differs from them in two points. First, because war and strife denote actual aggression on either side, whereas sedition may be said to denote either actual aggression, or the preparation for such aggression. Hence a gloss on 2 Corinthians 12:20 says that “seditions are tumults tending to fight,” when, to wit, a number of people make preparations with the intention of fighting. Secondly, they differ in that war is, properly speaking, carried on against external foes, being as it were between one people and another, whereas strife is between one individual and another, or between few people on one side and few on the other side, while sedition, in its proper sense, is between mutually dissentient parts of one people, as when one part of the state rises in tumult against another part. Wherefore, since sedition is opposed to a special kind of good, namely the unity and peace of a people, it is a special kind of sin…

[S]edition is contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21) that “wise men understand the word people to designate not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the common good.” Wherefore it is evident that the unity to which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the greater according as the common good which it assails surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife.

Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends himself, as stated above (II-II:41:1).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 42, Articles 1 and 2)

Whether hatred arises from envy?

Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 88) that “out of envy cometh hatred.”

As stated above (Article 5), hatred of his neighbor is a man's last step in the path of sin, because it is opposed to the love which he naturally has for his neighbor. Now if a man declines from that which is natural, it is because he intends to avoid that which is naturally an object to be shunned. Now every animal naturally avoids sorrow, just as it desires pleasure, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. vii, x). Accordingly just as love arises from pleasure, so does hatred arise from sorrow. For just as we are moved to love whatever gives us pleasure, in as much as for that very reason it assumes the aspect of good; so we are moved to hate whatever displeases us, in so far as for this very reason it assumes the aspect of evil. Wherefore, since envy is sorrow for our neighbor's good, it follows that our neighbor's good becomes hateful to us, so that “out of envy cometh hatred” . . .

Nothing prevents a thing arising from various causes in various respects, and accordingly hatred may arise both from anger and from envy. However it arises more directly from envy, which looks upon the very good of our neighbor as displeasing and therefore hateful, whereas hatred arises from anger by way of increase. For at first, through anger, we desire our neighbor's evil according to a certain measure, that is in so far as that evil has the aspect of vengeance: but afterwards, through the continuance of anger, man goes so far as absolutely to desire his neighbor's evil, which desire is part of hatred. Wherefore it is evident that hatred is caused by envy formally as regards the aspect of the object, but dispositively by anger.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 34, Article 6)

America goes over the precipice of destruction

I have learned not to worry or to be overly concerned about national and political conditions, or of the encroachment of religious error, or of worldly lusts that threaten to engulf the society of today. The message of Revelation has taught me the lesson of faith in God and dependence upon the Christ, the King and Judge, to handle the situation. Our part is to pray, trust, and do the very best we can to remedy the situation; beyond that all is in His hand… I have learned that Revelation echoes and emphasizes the message of the prophets—the nation that leaves God out of its thinking, rejects Him, or fights against Him, is doomed to destruction by the judgement of Christ… This nation [America] faces a choice: [1] repent of its ungodly wickedness and recognize that God is on the throne in the person of His Son, acknowledge Him as God and Creator... that He rules in national affairs, and continue to exist as a nation; or [2] continue on the road it is traveling and go over the precipice of destruction by a judgement from heaven. In this view, I pray for a change of our national heart; but if there is no change, I pray that the faith of our brethren will sustain them in the inevitable judgement that lies ahead.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (p. 437)

Whether we ought to love sinners out of charity?

Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 30) that “when it is said: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor,’ it is evident that we ought to look upon every man as our neighbor.” Now sinners do not cease to be men, for sin does not destroy nature. Therefore we ought to love sinners out of charity.

Two things may be considered in the sinner: his nature and his guilt. According to his nature, which he has from God, he has a capacity for happiness, on the fellowship of which charity is based, as stated above (Article 3; II-II:23:5), wherefore we ought to love sinners, out of charity, in respect of their nature.

On the other hand their guilt is opposed to God, and is an obstacle to happiness. Wherefore, in respect of their guilt whereby they are opposed to God, all sinners are to be hated, even one's father or mother or kindred, according to Luke 14:26. For it is our duty to hate, in the sinner, his being a sinner, and to love in him, his being a man capable of bliss; and this is to love him truly, out of charity, for God's sake.

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 25, Article 6)

The Breakdown of Democracy

Image: A man poses in front of a burning car during a protest Atlanta, Georgia. Photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images/AFPSource:AFP

Below is an excerpt taken from Chapter Three (The Breakdown of Democracy) in Stanley Payne’s book The Spanish Civil War. There are many similarities between Spain of the 1930s and the USA today. The leftists' attempt to overthrow the traditional, conservative, religious democratic republic of Spain and replace it with a revolutionary, communistic, atheistic authoritarian regime failed. Will the leftists succeed in overthrowing the USA today? Or will tradition, religion, and freedom prevail? Time will tell. The excerpt below points out some of the machinations used by the leftists to overthrow the democratic republic of Spain and eliminate their political enemies. Watch for the same tactics to be used in the USA today. In fact, many of these tactics are being used now...

The variety and volume of constitutional violations [committed by the leftists] in Spain between February and July 1936 were without precedent in the history of parliamentary regimes. They included: 

• The great strike wave, featuring many strikes without practical goals but seeking instead to dominate property, often accompanied by violence and destruction.

• Illegal seizures of property, especially in the southern provinces, sometimes legalized ex post facto…

• A wave of arson and property destruction, especially in the south.

• Seizure of churches and church properties in the south and east.

• Major economic decline… with a severe stock market decline, flight of capital, and in some southern provinces the abandonment of cultivation, when the costs became greater than market value…

• Broad censorship, with severe limitations on freedom of expression and assembly.

• Several thousand arbitrary arrests…

• Virtual immunity for members of the (leftist) Popular Front parties, who were rarely arrested…

• Politicization of justice through the creation of a special tribunal to censor and purge the judiciary, as well as through regulations and policies to facilitate political arrests and to place rightist parties outside the law.

• Dissolution of rightist groups, beginning with the Falangists in March and the Catholic trade unions in May, and moving to the monarchist Renovacion Espanola in July.

• Increasing electoral coercion, culminating in the suppression or opposition activity in the special elections of May in Cuenca and Granada.

• Arbitrary municipal and provincial government, with most local administration placed in the hands of appointees of the central government. Municipal elections originally scheduled for March 31, 1936 were postponed sine die.

• Politicization and subversion of the security forces.

• Growth of political violence, albeit very unequal in its extent in different parts of the country…

Gil Robles sharply protested such unprecedented abuses, observing that every day he read in leftist newspapers declarations that “the enemy must be smashed” or one must “practice a policy of extermination.” He continued:

“I know that you are carrying out a policy of persecution, violence, and extermination against everything that is rightist. But you are profoundly mistaken: however great may be the violence, the reaction will be greater still. For everyone killed another combatant will rise up… You who today are fostering violence will become the victims of it. The phrase that revolutions, like Saturn, devour their own children is commonplace, but no less true for so being. Today you are complacent, because you see an adversary fall. But the day will come when the same violence that you have unleashed will be turned again to you.”

Stanley G. Payne, The Spanish Civil War (pp. 59-61)

Satan’s final furious effort to destroy the church

“And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Revelation 20:7-10).

Many questionable theories have been built upon the Gog and Magog of John’s vision. Some say the scene points to a great physical battle to be fought in Palestine at some future date with Russia, the United States, and other nations participating. Unfortunately for the theory, God through Ezekiel explains who the Gog and Magog are. “Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Art thou he of whom I spake in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, that prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring thee against them?” (38:17). God said that He had spoken of Gog’s coming, but no prophet ever named Gog or Magog. Yet the prophets foretold over and over of the heathen enemies who would come against Israel and who would be defeated and destroyed by His hand. Therefore we conclude that Gog of the land of Magog symbolized all the heathen enemies of God’s people from the time of the prophets to the Roman Empire, all of who sought to thwart His purpose and to destroy His king. The seer now prophesies that toward the end of time there would be a horde gathered and led by Satan in a final furious effort to destroy the church.

Far from a physical conflict, this battle will be a moral and spiritual one. Satan’s Gog and Magog symbolize such forces and agencies as atheism, humanism, communism, materialism, astrology, and all manner of false and perverted religions. Gog and Magog also represent such forces as anarchy (rebellion against all principles and standards of truth); corruption in government and business; immorality with its decay of home, lack of natural affection and devotion to children; sodomy; alcoholism; and total abandonment to a base and sordid life of the flesh. Satan will use the anti-God, immoral standards and practices that he is using today, but probably to a more intense and flagrant degree. Gog and Magog do not gather around a conference table and offer themselves to the devil in a nefarious pact; but being deceived, they are drawn to him as were the kings of old.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (pp. 396-7)

Whether charity is caused in us by infusion?

The Apostle says (Romans 5:5): “The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us.”

As stated above (II-II:23:1), charity is a friendship of man for God, founded upon the fellowship of everlasting happiness. Now this fellowship is in respect, not of natural, but of gratuitous gifts, for, according to Romans 6:23, “the grace of God is life everlasting”: wherefore charity itself surpasses our natural facilities. Now that which surpasses the faculty of nature, cannot be natural or acquired by the natural powers, since a natural effect does not transcend its cause.

Therefore charity can be in us neither naturally, nor through acquisition by the natural powers, but by the infusion of the Holy Ghost, Who is the love of the Father and the Son, and the participation of Whom in us is created charity, as stated above (II-II:23:2).

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 24, Article 2)

The daunting level of responsibility that freedom imposes

Image: Shelby Steele

The greatest black problem in America today is freedom. All underdeveloped, formerly oppressed groups first experience new freedom as a shock and a humiliation because freedom shows them their underdevelopment and their inability to compete as equals. Freedom seems to confirm all the ugly stereotypes about the group—especially the charge of inferiority—and yet the group no longer has the excuse of oppression. Without oppression—and it must be acknowledged that blacks are no longer oppressed in America—the group itself becomes automatically responsible for its inferiority and non-competitiveness. So freedom not only comes as a humiliation but also as an overwhelming burden of responsibility. Thus, inevitably, there is a retreat from freedom. No group that has been oppressed to the point of inferiority is going to face the realities of new freedom without flinching. Almost always, oppressed groups enter freedom by denying that they are in fact free, this is a way of avoiding the daunting level of responsibility that freedom imposes.

Shelby Steele, White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era (pp. 67-8)     

God pours out the bowls of wrath upon America

“And the second angel poured out his bowl into the sea; and it became blood as of a dead man; and every living soul died, even the things that were in the sea” (Revelation 16:3).

Moses wrote that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). Consequently, when the life is gone, decay and rottenness set in until one returns to the dust from whence he came. This is the irrevocable judgement of God from the very beginning (Gen. 3:19). Likewise, when the spiritual quality of a society decays, like a sea of coagulated blood from dead men, it putrefies and rots, issuing a foul and obnoxious odor. Eventually it returns to the unseen (Sheol, Ps. 9:17); this, too, is by the judgement of God. Consider Sodom, the Canaanites, Israel, Judah, and all the rest of ancient nations; when, due to spiritual decay, they were no longer fit to continue, God removed them. A society abandoned to idolatry and its consequent morals, as was the Roman Empire of John’s day, is spiritually dead. In such a society, morals decline to the lowest level; the family collapses, schools breed anarchy and rebellion, business ethics are forgotten, entertainment becomes base and sordid, and printing presses exude smut and filth, until the whole is strangled in its own death blood and suffocated by its own stench. Our society too must listen to the trumpet warnings before God pours out the bowls of wrath.

Homer Hailey, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (p. 328)  

Whether faith is infused into man by God?

It is written (Ephesians 2:8-9): “By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves . . . that no man may glory . . . for it is the gift of God.”

Two things are requisite for faith. First, that the things which are of faith should be proposed to man: this is necessary in order that man believe anything explicitly. The second thing requisite for faith is the assent of the believer to the things which are proposed to him. Accordingly, as regards the first of these, faith must needs be from God. Because those things which are of faith surpass human reason, hence they do not come to man's knowledge, unless God reveal them. To some, indeed, they are revealed by God immediately, as those things which were revealed to the apostles and prophets, while to some they are proposed by God in sending preachers of the faith, according to Romans 10:15: “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?”

As regards the second, viz. man's assent to the things which are of faith, we may observe a twofold cause, one of external inducement, such as seeing a miracle, or being persuaded by someone to embrace the faith: neither of which is a sufficient cause, since of those who see the same miracle, or who hear the same sermon, some believe, and some do not. Hence we must assert another internal cause, which moves man inwardly to assent to matters of faith.

The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man's free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace.


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (II-II Question 6)