The Sin of Schism: A Contribution to the Discussion of Membership in the Church

THE SIN OF SCHISM: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH ACURRENT definition of the sin of schism goes like this: the external rupture of the unity of the Church by refusal to obey the lawful authority, but without denial of any truth of faith.1 How adequate is such a definition ? The mind is caught by the expressions, "external rupture " and "refusal to obey," and wonders whether this is all that Canon Law means by its definition of a schismatic (allowing for the distinction of the definita, viz., "schism" and "schismatic") : "if one, after the reception of baptism ... refuses submission to the Supreme Pontiff or rejects communion with the members of the Church subject to the latter, he is a schismatic." 2 This canon is taken almost literally from the Summa Theologiae: "Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff and reject communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him." 3 There is only one difference: the canon joins the two clauses with an "or," the Summa with an "and." Is this significant ? Perhaps the canonical formula reflects the modern way of conceiving the distinction between the visible and juridical aspect of the Church and the invisible and gracious aspect of it, which may not be the same as St. Thomas'. However , since the two formulas are basically identical, it will be profitable to study that of St. Thomas in the context of the question he devotes to schism. This is the first aim of this paper. The more important aim is to apply the results of this 1 Bernard Haring, The Law of Christ II, (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 196~) p. 5~5, no. 46. • CIC, c. 13~5, II. ~. 3 Summa Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 1. 59 60 JAMES M. EGAN investigation of the sin of schism (with the help of Cajetan's extraordinary commentary on it) to the much discussed contemporary question of who is a member of the Church. It is obvious that there is a fruitful tension of opinion among Catholic scholars on this latter question. Sincere students , inspired by a deep love both of the Church of Christ and of all those Christians who are, in fact, not in communion with the bishops and faithful throughout the world who are in union with the See of Peter, are pulled, as it were, some to the side of the Church, others to the side of the noncommunicating brethren. The debate centers around the ratio 4 of member of the Church, member of the Mystical Body of Christ. The first group are impelled to adopt a ratio of member which is quite precise in order to preserve the unique identity of the Mystical Body, the Church of Christ. The second group prefer a less precise ratio of member in order to embrace all (or most) of those who do accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and are validly baptized. Both sides seem to agree on one note in their ratios of member as crucial-the note of visible, juridical subjection to the See of Peter. The first group tend to see this note as essential to the ratio of member, so that without it a person, even though validly baptized, is not a member of the Church, but only related to it by desire. The second group seem to consider the visible juridical note, as essential, not to the ratio of member, but of perfect membe1·. This divergence of emphasis is sometimes presented in the following terms: 5 the first group have a univocal ratio of member , the second an analogical ratio, meaning that the first group admits of no degrees of membership, while the second does. This is a tricky distinction and it may help to clarify later discussion if we explore its implications a bit. First of all, no one really questions the fact that the ratio • This term is used throughout the paper to refer to the concept, idea, meaning of a name, which will always be italicized. • Cf. GB "Who belongs to the Church?" in The Ecumenist I (April-May 1968) 4. THE SIN OF SCHISM 61 of member...