Civil Disobedience: Sin or Duty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pope_Noah_I

Guest
I was told recently by a priest that civil disobedience in any form is always inherently sinful, even if the government is, well, evil. I asked him to back up this claim with Church documents, but he said something to the effect of “I went to seminary for 8 years, I don’t have to back up my claims.” I for the life of me cannot understand it. If the government started persecuting Catholics, are we supposed to pay taxes, regardless of the evils being done? If the government is allowing the murder of children and the marriage of gays, are we supposed to be funding them and their activities? I think nonviolent, noncooperation is a duty, but I am told it is a sin. That’s a big difference, and I would really like some clarification.
 
From W**hat about “Just Government”

**
Yes, I am at it again. 🤷
Another post from my blog:

With all the news these days about governments (both here and in Canada) ruling against various religious activities and speech, I am just wondering if today’s governments can be considered “just” in their rule. Looking through the Catechism, the following leaps out:**1902 **Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”.[1]
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.[2]
**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.”[3]
**1904 **“It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.”[4]
————————————————————–
[1] GS 74 # 2.
[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 93, 3, ad 2
[3] John XXIII PT 51.
[4] CA 44.
We are suppose to participate in government to the best of our abilities (mainly through voting). But, what if the government becomes so unjust that participation become impossible or illegal do to our following the truths of Natural Law set down by God and propagated by the Catholic Church. What is our recourse? **Violence is not an answer to the questions put forth.**If this looks familiar, I did post about this a number of years back under another login which I unofficially retired.

In essence, if the “positive law” goes against God’s Natural Law it is our duty to oppose and disobey such “positive laws” even to our own personal detriment (i.e. persecution).
 
I was told recently by a priest that civil disobedience in any form is always inherently sinful

If the government started persecuting Catholics, are we supposed to pay taxes, regardless of the evils being done?

If the government is allowing the murder of children and the marriage of gays, are we supposed to be funding them and their activities?

I think nonviolent, noncooperation is a duty, but I am told it is a sin. That’s a big difference, and I would really like some clarification.
Are you talking about not paying taxes or civil disobediance?

AFAIK we are to pay our taxes “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”:
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:
*Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46*
but not always our obedience “We must obey God rather than men”:
CCC 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
 
Civil Disobedience might be necessary in this day and age. The United States Government is not working towards any kind of common good. In fact, why would a state would work towards the common good when it can satisfy the interest of its rulers? The elite make the decisions and are essentially the ones with incentives.
 
Well I was looking for references to disobeying unjust laws in the Catechism and thank you for the references above. The last post was July 2008- what a long distance downhill we have gone eh? HHS Mandate, Obamacare…
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
Code:
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top