Are popular revolutions wrong?

[mgoforth]

There is obviously a lot of anger and frustration in many countries around the world right now, and it saddens me. I feel very confused regarding earthly authorities and our obligations as Catholics to submit to them. I’m in the US, but I wonder what I would do if I were living in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Greece, Spain, etc during these turbulent times. I just finished watching a video of Spanish police beating unarmed protesters and felt that what I was watching the police do was horribly wrong. I wonder what I would do if some day the same problems that are currently facing ordinary citizens of these countries (namely government repression of peaceful protests) began to occur in America. I feel with all my heart that these governments are wrong to repress the free speech of their people, but maybe that’s just my point of view as an American?

Is it wrong for people to protest peacefully when they are unhappy with their governments? And if peaceful protests are violently repressed, does it ever become “acceptable” in God’s eyes for people to forcefully change their governments or install an entirely new one? Of course when revolutions occur, the rebels are always called “criminals” by the government. As they say, the winners write the history books.

Actually I guess this does apply to Americans, since our country had it’s start with the colonists rebelling against the British king… Again, it’s hard to reconcile those historical events that I’ve always been taught were heroic/patriotic actions by the colonists with the instruction for people to submit to earthly authority.

Am I mis-understanding the command to obey earthly authority?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

We are obligated to submit to JUST authority. From the Catechism:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

Thus, an illegitimate tyrant – or even a legitimate ruler who becomes illegitimate by way of ruling unjustly – is not ruling in a manner that we are morally obligated to obey.

Peace,
Dante

 

[pinay]

Jesus set the perfect example for this.

Jesus did what we need to do when faced with unjust authority. Stand your ground and call for change in a peaceful manner, subjecting yourself to the law of the land and its consequences even if it means you forfeit your life for it.

 

[karow]

Am I mis-understanding the command to obey earthly authority?

A brief list of non-violent revolutionaries who saw it as their moral imperative to stand up to civil authorities:

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Cesar Chavez
The man who blocked the tank at Tienanmen Square
Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho
Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
Dorothy Day
All the civilians who creatively thwarted Soviet soldiers during the Prague Spring
Las Mariposas of the Dominican Republic
Rainer Eppelmann, Günter Nooke and Thomas Welz
Sophie and Hans Scholl
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Mother Jones
Elizabeth Caddy Stanton

and, of course, the most powerful non-violent social revolutionary of all time:

Jesus of Nazareth

I don’t think many would consider these people wrong for their actions.

 

[mgoforth]

Thank you both for your responses.

Thus, an illegitimate tyrant – or even a legitimate ruler who becomes illegitimate by way of ruling unjustly – is not ruling in a manner that we are morally obligated to obey.

This seems to make sense to me, as I know that God is perfectly just and desires us to strive for perfect justice ourselves.

Jesus set the perfect example for this.

Jesus did what we need to do when faced with unjust authority. Stand your ground and call for change in a peaceful manner, subjecting yourself to the law of the land and its consequences even if it means you forfeit your life for it.

So, can this statement be reconciled with the one above? I agree that peaceful change is what Jesus wants, but somehow it also seems wrong (from my confused point of view) to think of passively allowing a government that is abusive to abuse me (if it came to that here).

I guess I’ve never really understood what is meant by “turning the other cheek”. Why does God want us to do that? On one level it seems clear that we should love our enemies, and forgive them rather than seeking revenge. But doesn’t the Church actually advocate self-defense? If someone kicks down the door of my house, comes in with a gun and threatens me with it, would the Church encourage me to use my own gun in self-defense or to passively allow myself to be shot? Does it make any difference if the “someone” was an unjust ruler?

Seems far-fetched I know, but I’m concerned that the US is headed down a dangerously similar path to the state-sponsored abuses we’re seeing in the rest of the world. Recently there was a state supreme court decision (I can’t recall which state, but will try to post a link) that declared it illegal to interfere with a police officer in any way if he/she enters your home, even if the officer’s entry is itself illegal. This was shocking to me. Even asking the officer to leave your property was considered illegally interfering! It seems like the “rulers” of that state would like their citizens to not only follow Jesus’ example of submitting, but to do so silently as well.

Maybe I’m wrong to be so frustrated about this. Please pray for me to come to a clearer understanding of what God would want.

 

[mgoforth]

Here is the Indiana Supreme Court ruling I referred to earlier:

abajournal.com/news/article/in_indiana_no_right_to_resist_unlawful_police_entry_at_home/

 

[nordskoven]

If you go and read LIFE magazine and other rags of the era, the Cuban “revolution” was cast as a populist revolution in spite of knowing the background of the Communist leaders. I think genocidal types appeal to all the liberals who hate their parents and want to kill, kill, kill. This is “Springtime for Hitler” not Muslim Spring with the strings being pulled to emplace the NAZI’s best buddies, the Muslim Brotherhood, in power in the Middle East. Gotta give George Soros’ his due…May the Most High grant Jerusalem His perfect peace.

 

[mgoforth]

If you go and read LIFE magazine and other rags of the era, the Cuban “revolution” was cast as a populist revolution in spite of knowing the background of the Communist leaders. I think genocidal types appeal to all the liberals who hate their parents and want to kill, kill, kill. This is “Springtime for Hitler” not Muslim Spring with the strings being pulled to emplace the NAZI’s best buddies, the Muslim Brotherhood, in power in the Middle East. Gotta give George Soros’ his due…May the Most High grant Jerusalem His perfect peace.

Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure I follow what you’re trying to say with some of those references, but I gather you’re against popular revolutions?

 

[ChrisM4]

Actually I guess this does apply to Americans, since our country had it’s start with the colonists rebelling against the British king… Again, it’s hard to reconcile those historical events that I’ve always been taught were heroic/patriotic actions by the colonists with the instruction for people to submit to earthly authority.

Am I mis-understanding the command to obey earthly authority?

It all depends on the reasons and motivation. As you say, the USA is built on the foundations of revolution. One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter.

What we’ve been witnessing in north Africa and Middle East is the result of decades of repression. In a digitally-networked world, it’s no longer possible to hide other - free - realities from a repressed population. Sooner or later, the lid will blow.

The M15 peoples’ protests in Spain have been peaceful, and likewise spread through the use of social networking sites.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Jesus set the perfect example for this.

Jesus did what we need to do when faced with unjust authority. Stand your ground and call for change in a peaceful manner, subjecting yourself to the law of the land and its consequences even if it means you forfeit your life for it.

Jesus did not come her to facilitate political change. He came to atone for the sins of the world.

 

[St_Francis]

The CCC gives the criteria for civil situations in the same section as the Just War criteria.

The evil must be strong enough, the disruption to society proportionate, the chances for success high enough, and all other peaceful means for resolution exhausted.

In a democracy such as the US, there are many avenues for resolving differences. This is why an uprising wrt abortion would not be right, because there are still peaceful avenues.

 

[didymus]

We are obligated to submit to JUST authority. From the Catechism:

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

By that definition our Founding Fathers were rebels w/o a just cause. George III was certainly legitimate and hardly a tyrant by any standard at the time.

I just watched a couple movies, Defiance about Jewish partisans and the Wind that Shakes the Barley about the Irish struggle against the English. The film ends with with Ireland falling into civil war as the IRA rejects the legitimacy or the Free State. So even a just rebellion may have unleash evil consequences.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

By that definition our Founding Fathers were rebels w/o a just cause. George III was certainly legitimate and hardly a tyrant by any standard at the time.

I just watched a couple movies, Defiance about Jewish partisans and the Wind that Shakes the Barley about the Irish struggle against the English. The film ends with with Ireland falling into civil war as the IRA rejects the legitimacy or the Free State. So even a just rebellion may have unleash evil consequences.

Yeah, so what?

Anything can have bad consequences. You do what’s right, you don’t make yourself paranoid speculating about the millions of possible consequences.

It’s possible that, who knows, maybe if I don’t steal a car tomorrow, I won’t be able to drive to a place where I will end up saving ten lives. But, consider me not at all worried about that.

 

[pinay]

Jesus did not come her to facilitate political change. He came to atone for the sins of the world.

Scott, the time that Jesus chose to be born is a time where religion and politics are one and the same. Jesus peacefully rebelled against the Sanhedrin in his ministry. It was a very political rebellion which ended up in him being judged with capital punishment.

Jesus did not have to work through the politics of the region. He could have just gotten himself an army and take over the Sanhedrin and had himself assasinated to atone for the sins of the world. He didn’t do that. Because - it is not how the Kingdom of God works.

 

[pinay]

A brief list of non-violent revolutionaries who saw it as their moral imperative to stand up to civil authorities:

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Cesar Chavez
The man who blocked the tank at Tienanmen Square
Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho
Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi
Dorothy Day
All the civilians who creatively thwarted Soviet soldiers during the Prague Spring
Las Mariposas of the Dominican Republic
Rainer Eppelmann, Günter Nooke and Thomas Welz
Sophie and Hans Scholl
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Mother Jones
Elizabeth Caddy Stanton

and, of course, the most powerful non-violent social revolutionary of all time:

Jesus of Nazareth

I don’t think many would consider these people wrong for their actions.

You forgot the Edsa “People Power” Revolution that ousted President Marcos - the Philippine Dictator!

Check out these images - on one side is the people, on the other side is the military (we were under Martial Law).

http://ofwnow.com/wp-content/uploads/image/_2011/feb/edsa revolution.jpg

And in this Peaceful Revolution you see people passing bread, hot chocolate, and flowers from the people to the military…


Marcos ceded the government to the people without a war erupting… he was a faithful Catholic, after all.

 

[pinay]

Thank you both for your responses.

This seems to make sense to me, as I know that God is perfectly just and desires us to strive for perfect justice ourselves.

So, can this statement be reconciled with the one above? I agree that peaceful change is what Jesus wants, but somehow it also seems wrong (from my confused point of view) to think of passively allowing a government that is abusive to abuse me (if it came to that here).

I guess I’ve never really understood what is meant by “turning the other cheek”. Why does God want us to do that? On one level it seems clear that we should love our enemies, and forgive them rather than seeking revenge. But doesn’t the Church actually advocate self-defense? If someone kicks down the door of my house, comes in with a gun and threatens me with it, would the Church encourage me to use my own gun in self-defense or to passively allow myself to be shot? Does it make any difference if the “someone” was an unjust ruler?

Seems far-fetched I know, but I’m concerned that the US is headed down a dangerously similar path to the state-sponsored abuses we’re seeing in the rest of the world. Recently there was a state supreme court decision (I can’t recall which state, but will try to post a link) that declared it illegal to interfere with a police officer in any way if he/she enters your home, even if the officer’s entry is itself illegal. This was shocking to me. Even asking the officer to leave your property was considered illegally interfering! It seems like the “rulers” of that state would like their citizens to not only follow Jesus’ example of submitting, but to do so silently as well.

Maybe I’m wrong to be so frustrated about this. Please pray for me to come to a clearer understanding of what God would want.

Hi Mgoforth. I have a really good discussion that answers your dilemma here.
lds.org/new-era/1993/07/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

This article is addressed to LDS teen-age children but it does contain a lot universal concepts.

Here’s an excerpt:

Fighting someone who is disrespectful towards you or your friends is a complete waste of time and effort. It solves nothing and does little to preserve your so-called “honor.” You know what kind of person you are. Having someone call you names won’t change that.

There are times, of course, when we are called upon to fight for more significant reasons—to defend our homes, our countries, our lives, our religion, or to help someone preserve their rights against a stronger force. We can respond with confidence to those causes.

 

[stevicus]

This is an issue which is interesting to me as well, as I had gravitated towards political radicals and revolutionary ideals for decades, mainly while I was lapsed and away from the Church. I think this is why I hit bottom and needed to come back to the Church, because for many years, revolutionary hatred and anger were my best and only friends. I’m convinced that God has been calling me back. I’ve been getting these little “signals” lately, indications of what might be in store for me if I don’t straighten up and get right with the Lord. Late at night, I would get these strong impulses of fear and anxiety, a sense of being buried alive or locked in a box, with an implied message, “this is what your Afterlife will be like.” That’s what is bringing me back to my senses.

I can’t really say if popular revolutions are right or wrong, but at the very least, I can say that they’re dangerous and can go either way if one is not careful. Even if one believes one’s cause to be righteous, it’s easy to get caught up in twisted logic and twisted morality. One finds oneself believing that “those who are not with us are against us.”

I remember a professor who grew up in Eastern Europe during World War 2 telling me that “it was just a bunch of crazy men running around with guns.” He didn’t really elaborate much, as he didn’t like talking about it, but he was right there as the Nazis and Soviets fought it out and saw what they were capable of. I don’t believe it was like we see in the movies. Just consider every kook, misfit, psycho, and lunatic you might see in real life, and imagine those same people with automatic weapons in the middle of some massive upheaval. It’s those kinds of thoughts which keep me up nights and put the fear of God in me. There are certain segments of the population which are so easy to manipulate, rile up, and incite, it isn’t funny. It scares the daylights out of me now, even though I may have been seduced by it before.

I finally had to reach the conclusion that I’m not going to give up my immortal soul just for the sake of a cause that, even if successful, would only be temporary anyway. Nothing lasts. Even a thousand years is just a mere drop in the bucket compared to all of eternity.

The main thing that I see happening now is that the governments and rulers of the world have overextended themselves and behaved fiscally and politically irresponsibly. Our own government can’t borrow any more; we’re at the limit, even while generations have grown accustomed to government hand-outs and a relatively high standard of living built mostly on borrowed money. Food prices are shooting up out of sight. Other resources (such as oil) are dwindling in supply. Everywhere I look, people are saying to “buy gold, buy gold, buy gold,” which is also not a good sign.

I just read an article that it’s going to be a very boring summer for America’s urban youth, as the summer programs which generations have grown accustomed to are being cut left and right. For a lot of kids, there will be no summer camps, no library summer reading programs, no recreation centers, no city pools, as there’s no money to fund these things anymore. As a consequence, many of these kids will probably find other things to do. The younger generations today will probably feel short-changed and resentful, as they’re going to have to pay for the irresponsibility and debts of previous generations.

That’s where it gets a bit murky, at least as far as determining whether a popular revolution is right or wrong. Historically, before revolutions ever become violent, there is a stage of dissent, peaceful protest, and perhaps a few minor uprisings and acts of violence. So, there are usually enough warnings and opportunities for peaceful compromise prior to anything major breaking out. It seems like there’s a great deal of polarization and an unwillingness to compromise between rival factions these days. It’s easy to get very intransigent and incendiary under such conditions.

I want to do what’s right by God, according to His truth, justice, and wisdom. I’ve tried praying on this, and my only sense at the moment is that God just wants me to sit down and shut up. For the longest time, I thought it was God pushing me in the direction of revolution and extremism, but only recently, I got a wake-up call that I’ve been on the wrong path all along. I realize now that I have my work cut out for me on just saving my own soul. Saving the world will have to wait.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Scott, the time that Jesus chose to be born is a time where religion and politics are one and the same. Jesus peacefully rebelled against the Sanhedrin in his ministry. It was a very political rebellion which ended up in him being judged with capital punishment.

Jesus did not have to work through the politics of the region. He could have just gotten himself an army and take over the Sanhedrin and had himself assasinated to atone for the sins of the world. He didn’t do that. Because - it is not how the Kingdom of God works.

Jesus was sentenced with capital punishment for claiming the truth, that He is God. The Sanhedrin was so hard headed that they could no see Him for what He was.

 

[sedonaman]

When the issue ceases being the issue, and the revolution becomes the issue, yes it is wrong.