The Sin of Unbelief

The Sin of Unbelief.—Unbelief in general is a want of faith. It is of two kinds, negative and positive.

(a) Negative unbelief is the absence of faith in a person who has never heard of it at all, or only insufficiently. Thus, the Indians in America before the coming of Christian missionaries were negative unbelievers. This kind of unbelief is a punishment, since it results from original sin; but it is not a sin itself, and those who die in negative unbelief are lost, not on account of this, but on account of sins against the natural law (John, xv. 22; Rom., x. 14). With this kind of unbelief we are not here concerned.

(b) Positive unbelief is the absence of faith in one who has heard it sufficiently, so that the lack of it is due to his own fault. This kind of unbelief is, of course, a sin, for it supposes that one is acting against the light one has received.

Positive unbelief is either a refusal or a renouncement of faith. (a) Ordinary unbelief is a refusal of faith, that is, non-acceptance of faith by one who has never had faith; (b) apostasy, or desertion, is the abandonment of faith by one who formerly accepted it. This is not a distinct kind of unbelief, since, like ordinary unbelief, it has for its object or term the denial of revealed truth; but it is an aggravating circumstance of unbelief (II Peter, ii. 21).

The sin of unbelief is, committed either directly or indirectly. (a) It is committed directly, when one rejects what pertains to faith (its acts, objects or motive); (b) it is committed indirectly, when one guiltily places oneself or others in the occasion or danger of unbelief. The dangers against faith will be considered after the sins of unbelief (see 848-886).

Direct sins of unbelief are those opposed to the elements that belong to the nature of faith and that are contained in its definition (see 751, 798). (a) Opposed to the act of assent are sins of non-assent or dissent (see 817-839); (b) opposed to the certitude and firmness of assent are sins of doubt (840-846); (c) opposed to the right object of faith are sins of credulity (847); (d) opposed to the motive of faith is rationalism (847).

Sins of non-assent are those by which one omits to make an act of faith when one should. This kind of sin will be treated when we come to the commandments of faith as to its internal and external acts (see 925 sqq.)

Sins of dissent are sins of commission, and are of two kinds: (a) privative unbelief, which is the want of faith in one who has heard the faith sufficiently and should realize the obligation of embracing it, but who refuses to believe, although he makes no opposition to faith; (b) contrary unbelief, which is the want of faith in one who has heard the faith and its motives of credibility sufficiently to know the duty of embracing it, and who not only refuses to believe, but even accepts the errors opposed to faith.

What is the gravity of sins of dissent, doubt, and rationalism? (a) From their nature, these sins are always mortal, for they refuse to God the homage of the intellect and will that is due Him, deprive man of the beginning of spiritual life, and lead to eternal condemnation (Mark, xvi. 16). (b) From their circumstances, these and other sins against faith may be venial (see 180-184). Thus, if a man refuses to believe or accepts error, not having sufficient knowledge of his obligation or not fully consenting to the sin, his fault is venial subjectively or formally.

Are sins against faith more serious than all other kinds of sin? (a) From their nature, sins against faith are worse than sins against the moral virtues, for the former offend directly against God Himself, but not so the latter. Hatred of God, however, is a greater sin than sins of unbelief, as will be shown when we treat of sins against charity. (b) From their circumstances, sins against faith may be less serious than sins against the moral virtues. Example: A venial sin against faith is less serious than a mortal sin against justice.

With regard to the effect of sins against faith on good acts it should be noted: (a) an unbeliever is able to perform works that are ethically or naturally good (Rom., ii. 14), and the Church has condemned the opposite teaching of Baius (Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 1025). (b) an unbeliever is not able to perform works that are supernaturally good and meritorious (see 112).

Contrary unbelief (see 818), which not only refuses to believe but also assents to contrary errors, has three degrees according to the greater or less number of truths denied or errors admitted in these three degrees. Some theologians see different species of unbelief, while other theologians regard them as only accidental modes or circumstances of the one species of sin.

(a) The most extensive denial of faith is found in infidelity, which rejects both Christ and His revelation. To this form of unbelief belong atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, paganism, polytheism, animism, and denials of Christ and Christianity. The chief religious bodies today that profess such errors are: Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism (founded in China and Japan), which are polytheistic and practise idolatry and ancestor worship; Brahmanism (founded about 14 centuries before Christ), which is polytheistic or animistic: Buddhism (founded 6th century B.C. in India), which is polytheistic and practises idolatry; Zoroastrianism (founded in Persia about the 7th century B.C.), which is dualistic; Mohammedanism (founded in Arabia in the 6th century A.D.), which makes Mohammed and his religion superior to Christ and Christianity, and rejects the Trinity and the Incarnation. (b) A less complete departure from faith is found when Christ and His revelation are accepted as contained in the figures and prophecies of the Old Testament, but rejected in their fulfillment and development in Jesus and the New Testament. This is the error of Judaism, which today has about 15 million adherents.

(c) A still smaller degree of rejection of faith exists when Christ is recognized as leader and teacher, but not all of His revelation is accepted. This kind of error is called heresy, and those bodies which profess it are known as sects. The chief heresies in times past were Gnosticism and Manicheism in the first centuries; Arianism and Macedonianism in the fourth century; Nestorianism, Monophysism and Pelagianism in the fifth century; Monothelism in the seventh century; Iconoclasm in the eighth century; Photianism in the ninth century; Albigensianism in the eleventh century; Waldensianism in the twelfth century; Wicliffism in the fourteenth century; Hussism in the fifteenth century; Protestantism in the sixteenth century, and Modernism in the twentieth century. Today, the erring Christian groups outside the Church are the Orientals, called Orthodox, and the Protestants.

Since error is not consistent, false teachings are found that accept all the above-mentioned degrees of unbelief, or borrow impartially from all.

(a) Indifferentism or Latitudinarianism holds that all forms of religion are equally true, and that it makes no difference whether one is Buddhist, Jew or Christian. In a modified form, Indifferentism teaches that any form of Christian belief, provided it suits the inclinations of the individual concerned, may be followed, and hence it is left to each one to decide whether he prefers Catholicism or one of the bodies of the Orthodox Church or of Protestantism. Many who profess a denominational creed or confession are Indifferentists in belief.

(b) Syncretism holds that there are truths in all separate religions, but that none of them has all the truth, and hence that one must select what is good from each, rejecting the evil. Thus, the Judaizers of the first century borrowed from Judaism, the Gnostics and Manicheans from paganism, while today Freemasonry, Theosophy, Christian Science and Spiritism accept, along with the Gospel, ancient pagan, Buddhistic, Brahmanistic and Mohammedan theories; finally, Mormonism endeavors to unite characteristics of the Old and the New Testament dispensations. In a restricted form, religious Syncretism teaches the doctrine of Pan-Christianism—that is, that truth is scattered among the various Christian denominations, and that all should confederate as equals on the basis of more important doctrines to be agreed on by all.

What is the order of gravity in unbelief, as between infidelity, Judaism, heresy?

(a) The gravity of a sin against faith is to be determined primarily from the subjective resistance made to faith, so that he sins more against the light to whom greater light was given. The sin of unbelief in one who has received the Gospel (heresy), is greater than the same sin in one who has accepted only the Old Testament (Judaism); in one who has received the revelation of the Old Testament (Judaism) the sin of unbelief is more serious than the same sin in one who has not received that revelation (infidelity).

(b) The gravity of unbelief is measured secondarily from the objective opposition of error to truth, so that he is farther away from faith who is farther away from Christ and the Gospel. Thus, a Buddhist denies Christian truths more radically than a Jew, and a Jew more radically than a Protestant. Hence, of three apostates, one to Protestantism, another to Judaism and a third to Buddhism, the second sins more grievously than the first, the third more grievously than the second.

If we leave out of consideration the radical truth of divine revelation (formal object of faith), it is possible that a heretic, in spite of his acceptance of Christ and the scriptures, should be farther away objectively from faith than an infidel—that is, that he should deny more revealed truths (material objects of faith). Thus, the Manicheans called themselves followers and disciples of Christ, but their teaching on God contains more errors than does the doctrine of many pagans.

Dangers of Profession of Unbelief.—The principal dangers of making external profession of false religion, if not of losing faith itself, are the following: (a) membership in forbidden societies; (b) communication in sectarian services; (c) cooperation in activities whose tendency or principles are erroneous.

It is TO BE NOTED, from St. Bonaventura on those words Lucas 19. Non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem: eo quod non cognoveris tempus visitationis tuae — There shall not be left in thee a stone upon a stone: because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation — that Infidelity is the ruin of the spiritual edifice; just as faith, on the contrary, is the foundation of that edifice. But this is Infidelity, not that which is opposed to Fidelity, which is a moral virtue inclining toward faith, or a promise to be kept, of which Eccles. 5. Displicet Deo infidelis promissio — An unfaithful promise displeaseth God — as the holy Doctor warns on that passage; but it is the infidelity that is opposed to the Theological virtue, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 1., with St. Bonau. That Infidelity is a sin, I showed in disput. 1. quaest. 14. and the following, where the obligation to believe the articles of faith, and other matters, were treated of; and therefore it can be sinned against by grave omission, in not learning the things of faith that have been sufficiently proposed.

But Infidelity can be sinned against in TWO WAYS: either positively, by attacking and refusing the truth of faith once acknowledged, and this is called infidelity of contrariety; Or privatively, by lacking the due knowledge. Some add another negative lack, which is through invincible ignorance, but this the majority do not admit, with St. Bonavent. 3. dist. 21. art. 1. quaest. 3., of which I treated in Prima secundae, tract. de peccato, disp. 1. quaest 1.

Infidelity is DIVIDED, moreover, into Heresy, Judaism, and Paganism, by St. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 5. and St. Bonau. p. 1. Gentil. sect. 26. There the holy Doctor proves that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, viz. Ioan. 16. Arguet mundum de peccato, etc. quia non crediderunt in me — He will argue the world of sin, etc. because they believed not in me. He calls this Sin antonomastically. And Ioan. 3. Qui non credit, iam iudicatus est: quia non credidit in nomine Unigeniti filii Dei — He that doth not believe is already judged: because he hath not believed in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And of Mark, at the end: Qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur — But he that believeth not shall be condemned — as if the supreme punishment were prepared for the unfaithful. I said, with St. Bonau., that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, because no one on the way hates God expressly, but only interpretatively, as St. Bonau. teaches on those words Ioan. 15. Et oderunt me, et Patrem meum — And they hated me, and my Father. Interpretatively indeed they hate, insofar as they are turned away from Him through sins, or would not be punished; but formal hatred is the proper possession of the damned.

St. THOMAS compares infidelity with the hatred of God, and says that this is worse, because it is opposed to Charity, which is greater, 1 Corinth. 13. But that Infidelity is greater, he says, than Despair, as I shall say in disp. 6. quaest. un., although the latter is more perilous. See also Tannerus T. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 1.

Furthermore, the holy Doctor places infidelity in the intellect, in 3. dist. 5. quaest. 5. ad 4.; for it is opposed to faith, which is in the intellect and the will, or in free choice, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 18. Of this treat Suarez disp. 16. sect. 3., Hurtado disp. 67., Lugo disp. 18. sect. 1. They ask especially: whether the sin of infidelity is always consummated in the intellect; whether sometimes in the Will alone.

Suarez loc. cit., Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 3., Tannerus 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dubio secundo, Fuliens. lib. 3. cap 6. DENY it.

Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 10. p. 1., Hurtado disp. 68. sect. 2. ASSERT it, which opinion, understood Metaphysically, pleases Lugo, num. 9, although, speaking commonly, he adheres to the former. Fuliens., however, says that the objective malice is in the intellect, which fails from faith; but the formal [malice] in the will, from which the perverse act of the intellect freely goes forth.

The sectaries of this time clamor that all the works of infidels are sins. So Luther, art. 36. among those condemned by Leo X; Melanchthon in Apol. confess. Augustana; Bucerus lib. de concordia communi; Calvin lib. 2. Instit. cap. 3.; Kemnitius in examine sess. 6. can. 7.

But the opinion of Gregory of Rimini was, 2. sent. dist. 41. quaest. un. art. 2., that every action of that infidel is evil who is wholly ignorant of God; but not the actions of heretics, who at least acknowledge God. Capreolus, however, in 2. dist. 41. quaest. un. art. 3., thinks that at least every commanded action, done by an infidel at the time it is commanded, is evil, because it ought to be referred to the true God, which infidels do not do, since they do not know the true God: and in this he favors Gregory.

Yet it is most true that some works of infidels are good.

It is proved first from St. Bonaventure, 3. dist. 38. dub. 2. ex 7 primo Exodi, where the midwives of Egypt are praised, because against the king's command they kept alive the Hebrew infants, to which they were bound by both Divine and natural law. Now those midwives were infidels. And of them it is said: Quia timuerunt Deum, aedificavit eis domos — Because they feared God, he built them houses. There St. Jerome says: AEdificavit eis domos spirituales: Ergo aliquam spiritualem rem adeptae sunt — He built them spiritual houses: therefore they attained some spiritual thing.

It is proved second from the Saintly Doctor, from what is said in prima secundae, tract. 5. qui de Gratia, disp. 1. quaest. 10., where it is shown that by the powers of nature one can perform a good moral work.

It is proved third from the Saintly Doctor here, because neither faith nor sanctifying grace is required for a good moral work, as the Council of Trent defines, sess. 6. cap. 7., where under anathema they condemn those who say that every action of man before justification is sin.

The same is proved from the Fathers: Ambrose lib. 1. de Abraham, cap. 2.; Jerome in fine lib. 2. com. in epistolam ad Galat.; Augustine lib. de spiritu, et litt. cap. 27. et 28.; Chrysostom homil. 67. ad popul. See Tanner disp. 1. q. 8. dub. 4.

They object certain passages of Scripture, Matth. 7. Non potest arbor mala bonos fructus facere — A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

The Saintly Doctor answers here, from St. Augustine lib. 1. cont. Iulianum, cap. 3. et in Enchir. cap. 15., that the bad tree is said to be the will, insofar as it wills something badly, or insofar as the will of that infidel is not perfectly good. So also Tanner and others.

Second they object that word of Ioan. 15. Sine me nihil potestis facere — Without me you can do nothing.

The Saintly Doctor answers on that passage, and in 2. dist. 28. art. 2. quaest. 3., that He speaks of meritorious works, and of those which are a disposition to salvation de congruo. Then it suffices that the help of God be present, so that one may act on account of God known as the author of nature, even if faith is absent.

They object third, Rom. 14. Omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est — All that is not of faith is sin.

The Saintly Doctor answers, in 3. dist. 23. dub. 2. et in 4. dist. 39. q. 3., that he there speaks of conscience in the manner of a work, so that a deed done against conscience is evil. Thus it is expounded by St. Chrysostom, homil. 26. in epistolam ad Romanos, and by others. So also Tanner loco citato.

They object fourth that word of Titus 1: Coinquinatis, et infidelibus nihil est mundum — To the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean.

It is answered from St. Bonaventure here, and St. Chrysostom homil. 3. ibi, that all things are unclean to infidels when they superstitiously perform their actions; for an infidel can judge one thing unclean, for instance a little wine, as well as a sow. See the rest in Valencia quaest. 10. p. 2.; Tanner loco citato.