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)