For Greater Glory?

[Bubba_Switzler]

My wife and I finally watched the film, For Greater Glory, “based on the true story of the Cristero War (1926–29), a rebellion which arose out of the Mexican government’s persecution of the Catholic Church.”

One of the (many) themes of the film was a debate about whether or not to use violence in the struggle against persecution. This is not a new debate, of course and arguably goes all the way back to Macabees. (Moses, according to scripture, never resorted to violence since God took care of the Egyptians for him, though there was the incident with the golden calf. And Israel’s conquest of Cannan and other wars were national, not rebellious.) And, of course, the early Christians, according to tradition, endured much without resorting to violence while Israel destroyed itself fighting Rome.

I am interested in raising this question here on a philosophical/theological level by stating it this way:

As Cathoics we live in a largley non-Catholic world. As Americans we live in a non-Catholic, and increasingly post-Christian country. There has, is, and probably will always be a tension between our Catholic faith and the secular world around us. (Paul had much to say on this.) Obamacare has brought this tension into much sharper relief and several bishops promised to go to jail over it. This creates a form of suffering in and of itself, we know how things ought to be but we see them otherwise, we endure the tension between the two. (And I don’t want to minimize our own sinfulness as if non-Catholics were the sole source of suffering and evil.)

We can categorize responses to this situation broadly as:

1. Get along, go along.
2. Political and social activism.
3. Subversion.
4. Violent resistance.

My impression is that, for the most part, Catholic teaching confers considerable legitimacy upon secular government, whatever it’s form, and discourages the later two options. But this impression is very vague and I am wondering whether there it is anywhere addressed more substantively.

All thoughts are welcome.

 

[Dmitri451]

I re-read the Declaration of Independence recently, and came to the clear assessment that our grievances against the federal government surpass those mentioned in the Declaration against the King. Granted, the Declaration is not Holy Scripture, and Jefferson was not the pope. Nevertheless, I believe it is a good application of Just War Theory. I’m just sayin’.

 

[JRKH]

The early Church flowered under persecution. I expect she will do so again. There is much in the NT letters as well as the Gospels to help us in this.

If the common understandings of the run up to Jesus return are accurate, we can expect just this sort of thing where many will choose option 1 and wind up falling away. Likewise those who choose option 4 run a very grave risk to their immortal soul.

The other options you offer might need more explanation, but based just on what is presented, I would favor number 2 as being the most Christian of responses as it is, by it’s nature, both honest and reflective of the Love our faith requires of us. Choice number three smacks of dishonesty…and this increases the risk to one’s soul.

Of course if the Church is eventually driven entirely underground…none of these options may be viable…and we are left with perseverance and quiet evangelization.

Seek first the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world. That means - remain in grace, protect your soul from evil and live in Love.

Peace
James

 

[zro_x]

ah yes, the age old question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The other options you offer might need more explanation, but based just on what is presented, I would favor number 2 as being the most Christian of responses as it is, by it’s nature, both honest and reflective of the Love our faith requires of us. Choice number three smacks of dishonesty…and this increases the risk to one’s soul.

I am open to any alternative categorization of options but, just to clarify and elaborate on my own, #2 I would describe as acting entirely within the law (or, at most, very civil disobedience in the tradition of MLK) but mostly I mean fighting for legal change while accepting the law as is when you lose the ballot or in court. #3, as you correctly infer, would inevitably ential some form of dishonesty as I had in mind there everything short of violence but more than civil disobedience as for example when the Mexicans held mass in secret and helped the rebels by hiding and caring for their wounded.

 

[JRKH]

I am open to any alternative categorization of options but, just to clarify and elaborate on my own, #2 I would describe as acting entirely within the law (or, at most, very civil disobedience in the tradition of MLK) but mostly I mean fighting for legal change while accepting the law as is when you lose the ballot or in court. #3, as you correctly infer, would inevitably entail some form of dishonesty as I had in mind there everything short of violence but more than civil disobedience as for example when the Mexicans held mass in secret and helped the rebels by hiding and caring for their wounded.

Thanks for the clarification…your explanation fits nicely with what I was understanding, so obviously we are on the “same page” here.

The only issue I would see is that 2 and 3 could be slippery…I mean at what point does your description of number two step over the line into your description of number three?
These two are bound to have rather soft borders between them.

This is usually where these kinds of conversations turn to the “hiding Jews” type examples…Good examples…very common…

Peace
James

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Practically speaking, our Church, and all Christians in this country much first be granted the gift of martyrs before we can really consider this question. Obviously, Just War theory is a matter of faith and morals. And the Popes have often spoken on the subject. If violence falls within the purview of the Just War theory, then it is legitimate and not immoral.

…does anyone know whether the Cristro rebellion is considered justified by the Church?

If the Cristero rebellion was justified, then obviously a similar response to similar persecution would be justified as well.

 

[R_C]

One of the (many) themes of the film was a debate about whether or not to use violence in the struggle against persecution.

Well, as far as I understand this historical moment, it was more like an ongoing slaughter of Catholics (sources say over ninety thousand were murdered in three years, but the numbers are likely to be much wider).

The Cristeros did not use violence against persecution: they simply had to stop the murder of the innocents. It falls, I believe, under the aspects of the “just war” doctrine (legitimate defense by military force subject to all of the following conditions: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.).

It would not be proper to compare that historical moment with other times in which the scenario is entirely different. It would be, I think, especially detrimental to attempt to compare too much our current issues with those serious struggles: we still live in a land where freedom of religion, no matter what, is assured in the Constitution, unlike many brothers in Christ who live in places where their faith can lead to certain death (and often does, given that over a hundred thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, more than any other religious group).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Practically speaking, our Church, and all Christians in this country much first be granted the gift of martyrs before we can really consider this question. Obviously, Just War theory is a matter of faith and morals. And the Popes have often spoken on the subject. If violence falls within the purview of the Just War theory, then it is legitimate and not immoral.

…does anyone know whether the Cristro rebellion is considered justified by the Church?

If the Cristero rebellion was justified, then obviously a similar response to similar persecution would be justified as well.

The film described “Rome” as neutral on the rebellion, neither supporting nor opposing it.

You’re the second poster to mention Just War Theory. That is a very well developed topic but is there anything equivalent on this question? One of the critical elements of Just War is an organized and responsible armed forces but rebellions rarely so qualify as such, especially at the start, though if they are successful they will become more organized and structured.

And what about subversive acts like holding mass in secret? In China, for example, it is against the law to catechise to minors.

 

[JRKH]

The film described “Rome” as neutral on the rebellion, neither supporting nor opposing it.

You’re the second poster to mention Just War Theory. That is a very well developed topic but is there anything equivalent on this question? One of the critical elements of Just War is an organized and responsible armed forces but rebellions rarely so qualify as such, especially at the start, though if they are successful they will become more organized and structured.

And what about subversive acts like holding mass in secret? In China, for example, it is against the law to catechise to minors.

Question on a definition…
This is the second time that you have mentioned holding mass in secret as “subversive”…
I would not classify it as subversive act, but rather as an act of “civil disobedience”. Holding a secret mass may be disobedient, but what does it subvert?

Just trying to be clear…

Peace
James

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Well, as far as I understand this historical moment, it was more like an ongoing slaughter of Catholics (sources say over ninety thousand were murdered in three years, but the numbers are likely to be much wider).

The Cristeros did not use violence against persecution: they simply had to stop the murder of the innocents. It falls, I believe, under the aspects of the “just war” doctrine (legitimate defense by military force subject to all of the following conditions: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.).

It would not be proper to compare that historical moment with other times in which the scenario is entirely different. It would be, I think, especially detrimental to attempt to compare too much our current issues with those serious struggles: we still live in a land where freedom of religion, no matter what, is assured in the Constitution, unlike many brothers in Christ who live in places where their faith can lead to certain death (and often does, given that over a hundred thousand Christians are martyred every year for their faith, more than any other religious group).

A third mention of Just War but part of the focus of the film is the process of creating a unified armed force out of dispersed elements (hiring General Enrique Gorostieta who molds them together but who also rejects the negotiated settlment).

My point is not the compare one instance with another but to find some Catholic source of teaching on the more general subject including the whole range of responses, not just the most dramatic extreme.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Question on a definition…This is the second time that you have mentioned holding mass in secret as “subversive”… I would not classify it as subversive act, but rather as an act of “civil disobedience”. Holding a secret mass may be disobedient, but what does it subvert?

A good question.The classic defintion of “civil disobedience” (that I am familiar with) is breaking the law openly and accepting punishment. For example, holding a protest without a permit and allowing yourself to be arrested. It’s a symbolic violation of the law.

In the context of the Cristero War, when holding mass was illegal, it was subverting the law with a clear intent not to accept punishment. It would not fall under the classic defintion of civil disobedience as I understand it. In contrast to civil disobedience, it not only subverts the law at hand but subverts respect for the law, generally.

In that sense, it is no different than cheating on your taxes.

A public mass would be an example of civil disobedience.

 

[JRKH]

A good question.The classic defintion of “civil disobedience” (that I am familiar with) is breaking the law openly and accepting punishment. For example, holding a protest without a permit and allowing yourself to be arrested. It’s a symbolic violation of the law.

In the context of the Cristero War, when holding mass was illegal, it was subverting the law with a clear intent not to accept punishment. It would not fall under the classic defintion of civil disobedience as I understand it. In contrast to civil disobedience, it not only subverts the law at hand but subverts respect for the law, generally.

In that sense, it is no different than cheating on your taxes.

A public mass would be an example of civil disobedience.

Thanks…I understand now…

With that understanding then…Something that is important in recognizing the value of civil disobedience is the ability to make the matter public. In this a (relatively) free press is very important…Or in the absence of a free press…some other organized way to let others know what has happened.
Case in point would be the Civil rights actions in the U.S. in the 1960s. The images beamed into our living rooms by the nightly news of people, peacefully demonstrating, being beaten with clubs, sprayed with high pressure fire hoses, bitten by dogs was extremely powerful.

Of course today, with the internet and social media etc. it is almost impossible to control the news…except perhaps through flooding it with contradictory messages…

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

 

[Dmitri451]

In that sense, it is no different than cheating on your taxes.

A public mass would be an example of civil disobedience.

There’s a huge difference. A law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion is an unjust law, and therefore has no binding value at all. We are not only free to disobey it, but in fact are obligated to do so. And by disobeying it we are actually enhancing respect for the law generally by acknowledging the just imits of the govenment’s rights.

Not paying your just taxes is a violation of a just law.

Going to Mass, even a clandestine Mass can never be considered subversive of the true good of society, though it will certainly subvert an unjust government.

 

[tafan]

My wife and I finally watched the film, For Greater Glory, “based on the true story of the Cristero War (1926–29), a rebellion which arose out of the Mexican government’s persecution of the Catholic Church.”

One of the (many) themes of the film was a debate about whether or not to use violence in the struggle against persecution. This is not a new debate, of course and arguably goes all the way back to Macabees. (Moses, according to scripture, never resorted to violence since God took care of the Egyptians for him, though there was the incident with the golden calf. And Israel’s conquest of Cannan and other wars were national, not rebellious.) And, of course, the early Christians, according to tradition, endured much without resorting to violence while Israel destroyed itself fighting Rome.

I am interested in raising this question here on a philosophical/theological level by stating it this way:

As Cathoics we live in a largley non-Catholic world. As Americans we live in a non-Catholic, and increasingly post-Christian country. There has, is, and probably will always be a tension between our Catholic faith and the secular world around us. (Paul had much to say on this.) Obamacare has brought this tension into much sharper relief and several bishops promised to go to jail over it. This creates a form of suffering in and of itself, we know how things ought to be but we see them otherwise, we endure the tension between the two. (And I don’t want to minimize our own sinfulness as if non-Catholics were the sole source of suffering and evil.)

We can categorize responses to this situation broadly as:

1. Get along, go along.
2. Political and social activism.
3. Subversion.
4. Violent resistance.

My impression is that, for the most part, Catholic teaching confers considerable legitimacy upon secular government, whatever it’s form, and discourages the later two options. But this impression is very vague and I am wondering whether there it is anywhere addressed more substantively.

All thoughts are welcome.

For any violent resistance against a governmentI, Just War Theory should apply:

1. The damage a government is doing must be grave, lasting, AND certain
2. All other means of stopping the evil have proven to be ineffective and this is very likely to remain the case
3. There is a reasonable possibility of success
4. The use of violence must not product evils greater than the evils being fought

All of these conditions would need to be in effect for any violent rebellion against a secular government. Hence we can see that violent means to end abortion in this day and age is not justified, as condition 1 is certainly met; but conditions 2 and 3 are not, and condition 4 would depend on the situation as to the type of violence.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There’s a huge difference. A law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion is an unjust law, and therefore has no binding value at all. We are not only free to disobey it, but in fact are obligated to do so. And by disobeying it we are actually enhancing respect for the law generally by acknowledging the just imits of the govenment’s rights.

Not paying your just taxes is a violation of a just law.

Going to Mass, even a clandestine Mass can never be considered subversive of the true good of society, though it will certainly subvert an unjust government.

Of course, a clandestine Mass is not subversive of the “true good of society” but that is exactly the tension that I raised in the OP, that between the secular law and the true good. The question is how best to deal with that inevitable tension. Obviously, too, the tension will be greater or lesser in different societies but even nominally Catholic countries (e.g. 1930s Mexico) can be pretty bad. Note that even then (according to the film, and I have no reason to believe this was incorrect), “Rome” did not endorse to the Cristados rebellion, though it did not condemn it either.

My first question is this: what is your source for your claim? (I’m guessing this is not in the catechism, I can’t recall seeing anything on it.)

Without arguing with you, I think it’s important to point out the implications of your claim. I divided up my categories that way because what you are proposing inevitably, if not immediatly, entails dishonesty, as at least one previous poster feared. This obviously is a big topic in and of itself as other threads on the subject show (search for “when is it ok to lie?”). It is also quite easy to slip from dishonesty into violence.

Consider, for example, what happens when the federales knock on the door where you are holding a clandestine Mass. Do you lie to them. If they shoot, do you shoot back? As one poster noted, whole villages were being slaughtered until they renounced Catholic practice.

Now, again, I don’t want to minimize the ubiquitousness of ordinary sin, against which the Church has largely focused itself. But it does seem odd not to be able to find anything substantive on this issue given the persecution of the Church under the Romans and at other points in history.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For any violent resistance against a governmentI, Just War Theory should apply:

1. The damage a government is doing must be grave, lasting, AND certain
2. All other means of stopping the evil have proven to be ineffective and this is very likely to remain the case
3. There is a reasonable possibility of success
4. The use of violence must not product evils greater than the evils being fought

All of these conditions would need to be in effect for any violent rebellion against a secular government. Hence we can see that violent means to end abortion in this day and age is not justified, as condition 1 is certainly met; but conditions 2 and 3 are not, and condition 4 would depend on the situation as to the type of violence.

There is one more requirement of Just War, however, which refutes its application here:

“A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.”

mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

My impression is that those who developed Just War theory explicitly rejected its application to rebellion.

Edit:

Rereading the wiki entry, it looks like I may have been relying on Thomas Aquinas’ antiquated definition. The definition you gave is more recent and does not include the criteria of legitimate authority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Formally_described_Just_War

 

[JDaniel]

For any violent resistance against a governmentI, Just War Theory should apply:

1. The damage a government is doing must be grave, lasting, AND certain
2. All other means of stopping the evil have proven to be ineffective and this is very likely to remain the case
3. There is a reasonable possibility of success
4. The use of violence must not product evils greater than the evils being fought

All of these conditions would need to be in effect for any violent rebellion against a secular government. Hence we can see that violent means to end abortion in this day and age is not justified, as condition 1 is certainly met; but conditions 2 and 3 are not, and condition 4 would depend on the situation as to the type of violence.

Tafan:

Question: do we have an obligation to self-defend (up to and including the force used against us)?

God bless,
jd

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Edit:

Rereading the wiki entry, it looks like I may have been relying on Thomas Aquinas’ antiquated definition. The definition you gave is more recent and does not include the criteria of legitimate authority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Formally_described_Just_War

Well, reareading it a third time I am back to my original position or just plain unsure:

Jonathan Riley-Smith writes,"… Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority…)"

And “Competent authority” is listed as a criteria of Just war in a later section:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory

 

[JDaniel]

Well, reareading it a third time I am back to my original position or just plain unsure:

Bubba:

I’ll ask you, then. Do we have an obligation to self-defend?

God bless,
jd