E. Michael Jones on the SSPX and Thomas on Schism

It may be in bad form to drag up an old argument, but I was recently given a copy of a very old (1993) article:

E. Michael Jones's "How I won the Debate."

In this article Mr. Jones, editor of Culture Wars, arrogantly recounts a debate he had with Michael Davies, RIP, concerning whether the SSPX is schismatic.

One of Mr. Jones's key points is that Mr. Davies's distinction between acts of disobedience and acts of schism is false, that Mr. Davies's insistence that a particular intention is necessary for disobedience to be schismatic is heterodox.

He writes,

Mr. Davies implies more than once that only a person who denies that he is subject to the pope is guilty of schism. He contrasts this with what he terms mere disobedience, where the person refuses to do what the Pope orders.

He continues,

In a letter to the editor which appeared in Daily Telegraph of July 6, 1988 [Davies] writes that "a Catholic who for some grave reason, on a matter not involving faith or morals, feels bound in conscience to disobey the pope in a particular instance without wishing to sever himself from the Church or deny the authority of he Pope, cannot be said to be in schism."

Finally Jones concludes:

These definitions are, as they say, interesting, but they are totally the creation of Michael Davies. As before, Davies puts heavy emphasis on the subjective. In true liberal fashion he claims that the subjective state of the person committing the act is more important than the ontological status of the act itself.

To substantiate this point, that the subjectivity of Davies's subjective understanding of schism is false, he calls on the 1983 and 1917 codes of canon law. He then appeals to St. Thomas. All three use a similar definition of schism: A refusal either to submit to the Pope or to be in communion with those who do submit to the Pope.

He quotes Thomas: "Schismatics are those who refuse obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him." He goes on to conclude that this string of passages,

shows that Mr. Davies [sic] definition is unique to Mr. Davies. There are no subjectivist escape clauses in the Church's definition of schism.

This argument shows either intentional deception or utter incompetence on the part of Mr. Jones. The citation from St. Thomas is from IIaIIae, Q.39, a.1. This article could not more clearly stress that an intention of division is of the essence of schism. Indeed, the article is asking whether schism is a distinct species of sin, and the answer is that it is only because it includes the specific intention of division.

Let me quote from the body of the article whose concluding sentence Mr. Jones lifted:

Unde peccatum schismatis dicitur quod directe et per se opponitur unitati, . . . In quibus [rebus moralibus] id quod est intentum est per se, quod autem sequitur praeter intentionem est quasi per accidens. Et ideo peccatum schismatis proprie est speciale peccatum ex eo quod intendit se ab unitate separare quam caritas facit. . . . Et ideo proprie schismatici dicuntur qui propria sponte et intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant, . . .

I translate:

Whence that is called the sin of schism which directly and per se opposes unity, . . . For in moral things that which is intended is per se, but that which follows unintended is as if accidental. And therefore the sin of schism is properly a specific sin because [the schismatic] intends to separate himself from the unity that charity makes . . . and therefore they are properly called schismatics who freely and intentionally separate themselves from the Church, . . .

The whole point of this article is to justify that schism names a particular species of sin, which Thomas does only by teaching that schism is constituted as such by a particular intention: namely, the intention to divide oneself from the Church.

The irony is overwhelming: This is one of the most radically subjective passages in Thomas's moral corpus (right next to IaIIae Q. 72, a 9, ad 2), and Mr. Jones uses it to prove that Mr. Davies is too subjective. As I said, deception or incompetence.