Freedom of Speech versus Romans 13:1-4

[PseuTonym]

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

• Romans 13:1-4

Is there a way to reconcile the above passage with a right under the law to freedom of speech?

A government could allow people to quote Romans 13:1-4, and ban them from quoting anything else in the Bible. A government could announce that all Bibles in its jurisdiction are to be handed over for destruction, and that no Bibles are to be imported. The same government could make it a crime punishable by one year of imprisonment for anybody to propose changing these anti-Bible laws, and a crime punishable by death for two or more people to join together in peacefully protesting against, or expressing written or spoken disapproval of, the anti-Bible laws.

Note:
I am not talking about an unlimited right to freedom of speech. There could be, and in my opinion should be, restrictions against such things as: defamation, conspiracy to commit a crime, threatening to physically harm people such as to influence their future behavior or to take revenge against them for having done something that they had a right to do.

 

[PseuTonym]

Is there a way to reconcile the above passage with a right under the law to freedom of speech?

That question does not seem to make any sense. I apologize for the errors. To correct the errors, it seems to be necessary to make two points.

The first point is that there seems to be a right involved that is more fundamental than free speech rights. If you have obtained, without violating any law or moral principle, ownership of or access to some copy of some book or other representation of information, then it seems that a government would be violating your rights if the government were either to deliberately deprive you of that access, or (in the process of pursuing its goals) to impose on you restrictions that have the effect of depriving you of that access, even though there may be no intention of the law makers or law enforcers to deprive you of that access, and even though it would be possible to organize things so that allowing you access does not impede the government in achieving its goals.

Perhaps we can use the label “Quiet Enjoyment of Information” for the right described above.

The violation of rights would seem to be more serious if the government were to make an effort to destroy all originals (drafts and manuscripts) and also all copies of the book or books or other information. Such an effort to obliterate information would also have the curious effect of making it impossible to write a complete history of the government’s own motivations, goals, plans and actions, because it would be impossible in future to identify exactly what was obliterated, and for the same reason difficult to explain the precise motivation for the obliteration, and difficult to explain why no alternative to obliteration was thought to be acceptable.

The second point is that we would have nothing but strict legalism and no concept of justice if we insisted that the only rights are rights under the law, and that there is no such thing as a moral right. If we accept that there are moral rights, and that any particular collection of laws is to be judged based on its compatibility with moral rights, then we face the problem of reconciling Romans 13:1-4 with moral rights, and also the more specific problem of reconciling Roman 13:1-4 with a right to Quiet Enjoyment of Information (see above).

Two questions remain unanswered:

First, how can we reconcile Romans 13:1-4 with moral rights?

Second, how can we reconcile Romans 13:1-4 with a right to Quiet Enjoyment of Information?

 

[Genesis315]

That passage in Romans doesn’t give rulers unlimited, absolute power to do anything they want. The passage notes that rulers’ power comes from God and is for the purpose of executing justice against evildoers and not to be a terror against those who do good.

As such, since their power is from God, rulers cannot legitimately make laws that violate the laws of God (God does not grant authority contrary to His own) as such laws would be a terror to the doers of good and would not exact justice against those who do evil.

This is why the Catholic Church teaches that rulers must measure their decisions against divinely revealed truth, otherwise they will arrogate to themselves the totalitarian power over man you are worried about.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

This is why the Catholic Church teaches the following about free speech:
Pope St. John XXIII:

1. …[Man] has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events.

 

[bjryman]

That passage in Romans doesn’t give rulers unlimited, absolute power to do anything they want. The passage notes that rulers’ power comes from God and is for the purpose of executing justice against evildoers and not to be a terror against those who do good.

As such, since their power is from God, rulers cannot legitimately make laws that violate the laws of God (God does not grant authority contrary to His own) as such laws would be a terror to the doers of good and would not exact justice against those who do evil.

This is why the Catholic Church teaches that rulers must measure their decisions against divinely revealed truth, otherwise they will arrogate to themselves the totalitarian power over man you are worried about.

This is why the Catholic Church teaches the following about free speech:

And that is why…“moral order and the common good” then becomes the defining elements of the whole topic. Both can be in the eye of the beholder who looks upon various subjective (name removed by moderator)uts and teachings. How many times can one remember being told something like “well EVERYONE knows that’s true” regading boundaries of Faith and Morals. The more we try to codify it all, the more it slips away. The original idea here of doing what’s right and good, and not evil, should prevail. Being ever diligent to the meanings of right and good are equally critical

 

[Brendan]

Not only that, but nowhere in the passage does God gve the authority of choosing what is good or evil to the State.

That right belongs to God alone and articulated infallibility through His Church.

So it is not punishment if what is evil in the eyes if the State. Where the State gas divine authority to punish, but only that which us evil in the eyes of God.

 

[bjryman]

Not only that, but nowhere in the passage does God gve the authority of choosing what is good or evil to the State.

That right belongs to God alone and articulated infallibility through His Church.

So it is not punishment if what is evil in the eyes if the State. Where the State gas divine authority to punish, but only that which us evil in the eyes of God.

---

The real historical problem we have as Catholics is that the Church of the Middle Ages taught, unambiguously, that Church and State should not be separated. In fact, the State, where the population was predominately Catholic, should voice the Church’s viewpoint. In States where the Catholic population was a minority, the State should absolutely not persecute it or show other religious preferences

I’m not sure how many Catholics understand those teachings which were changed later, especially by Vatican II. That historical teaching of combined Church/State is why the countries with majority Roman Catholic populations have seen such a tie between the two. It also is why the change to more separation of Church and State has been more difficult for them. In great part it was the US and Northern European Bishops that drove home the need at Vatican II to settle the separation issue.

So, now that we have various versions of that separation theme in place around the world, questions like this one take on a whole new challenge

 

[Genesis315]

Could you point out where Vatican II changed this issue? I don’t really see it.

The Church prior to Vatican II taught that there are two spheres, the temporal and the spiritual, and two powers, supreme in their own spheres, governing them. However, they are both subject to the same God and therefore the same truth, have the good of man as their aim, and therefore they should work together in harmony–whether this is expressed in a formal, juridical way or not. They are separate in that there are two powers, but united in that they work for good according to the same truth. It teaches the same now. Here’s one example from before the Council:
Leo XIII:

1. The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. But, inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing – related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing – might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, therefore God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other. “For the powers that are, are ordained of God.”[17] Were this not so, deplorable contentions and conflicts would often arise, and, not infrequently, men, like travelers at the meeting of two roads, would hesitate in anxiety and doubt, not knowing what course to follow. Two powers would be commanding contrary things, and it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two.
2. But it would be most repugnant to them to think thus of the wisdom and goodness of God. Even in physical things, albeit of a lower order, the Almighty has so combined the forces and springs of nature with tempered action and wondrous harmony that no one of them clashes with any other, and all of them most fitly and aptly work together for the great purpose of the universe. There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as We have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other, the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given command that what is Caesar’s is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God.

Vatican II teaches the exact same thing in Gaudium et Spes:
Vatican II:

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same men. The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all. For man’s horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, he preserves intact his eternal vocation.

Vatican II also teaches that the state should act according to the truth taught by the Church, that we are to ensure that “the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city” (Gaudium et Spes 43) and infused “into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13).

The post Vatican II catechism teaches political authorities to measure their decisions according to the true religion:

CCC:

The political community and the Church

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51

And the Church passes legitimate judgment on such political decisions:
CCC quoting Vatican II:

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

 

[bjryman]

Could you point out where Vatican II changed this issue? I don’t really see it.

The Church prior to Vatican II taught that there are two spheres, the temporal and the spiritual, and two powers, supreme in their own spheres, governing them. However, they are both subject to the same God and therefore the same truth, have the good of man as their aim, and therefore they should work together in harmony–whether this is expressed in a formal, juridical way or not. They are separate in that there are two powers, but united in that they work for good according to the same truth. It teaches the same now. Here’s one example from before the Council:

Vatican II teaches the exact same thing in Gaudium et Spes:

Vatican II also teaches that the state should act according to the truth taught by the Church, that we are to ensure that “the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city” (Gaudium et Spes 43) and infused “into the mentality, customs, laws, and structures of the community in which one lives” (Apostolicam Actuositatem 13).

The post Vatican II catechism teaches political authorities to measure their decisions according to the true religion:

And the Church passes legitimate judgment on such political decisions:

Yes, of course. But the issue pre-Vatican II was much more physical connection betweeen Church and State. The Vatican II texts you note are a statement of personal responsibiity of all members of the rulling class (secualr and spiritual).

But the days of the King getting the Pope’s (or Bishop’s) approval before allowing a law to pass are over. The institution of the type of Democratic Republic established by the United States only added to the change.

A key issue with the election of President Kennedy was that the Protestant world believed that the Catholic Churches teachings mandated certain actions by President Kennedy that would preclude his remaining open to religious freedom…and laws passed by US Congress. He took office in the middle of Vatcan II, and clarified the Church/State separation issues quite eloquently.

 

[PseuTonym]

But the days of the King getting the Pope’s (or Bishop’s) approval before allowing a law to pass are over.

Did Kings or Emperors in the past ever have a practice of consulting religious authorities before authorizing an execution? For example, we could imagine that Pontius Pilate could have requested authorization from Herod. Herod could have requested authorization from the Roman Emperor. The Roman Emperor could have requested authorization from Jesus.

Jesus could have said, “No, of course I do not authorize you to have me executed,” The Roman Emperor could then refrain from disclosing some information to Pilate. After all, there is no need to embarrass an employee of the government. It is good enough to specify that an execution is not authorized. The Roman Emperor would not have to provide Pilate with an explanation or justification.

Of course, the Roman Emperor would have the option of providing an explanation. For example, “Although these ungrateful people do not appreciate that we are civilizing them, and civilization requires iron discipline, it might set a bad precedent if we have an execution before having a trial in a court of law. Also, we don’t want to make a martyr out of this fellow. Look at how much fuss has been made about Socrates and Archimedes. People won’t shut up about them, and neither of them was even a religious leader.”

 

[bjryman]

Did Kings or Emperors in the past ever have a practice of consulting religious authorities before authorizing an execution? For example, we could imagine that Pontius Pilate could have requested authorization from Herod. Herod could have requested authorization from the Roman Emperor. The Roman Emperor could have requested authorization from Jesus.

Jesus could have said, “No, of course I do not authorize you to have me executed,” The Roman Emperor could then refrain from disclosing some information to Pilate. After all, there is no need to embarrass an employee of the government. It is good enough to specify that an execution is not authorized. The Roman Emperor would not have to provide Pilate with an explanation or justification.

Of course, the Roman Emperor would have the option of providing an explanation. For example, “Although these ungrateful people do not appreciate that we are civilizing them, and civilization requires iron discipline, it might set a bad precedent if we have an execution before having a trial in a court of law. Also, we don’t want to make a martyr out of this fellow. Look at how much fuss has been made about Socrates and Archimedes. People won’t shut up about them, and neither of them was even a religious leader.”

You’re in the wrong time horizon.

It took decades, if not centuries after Constantine established the Christian Church as the State Religion before the transition to Catholic Church, and Magisterium was completed. Council of Trent probably solidified that era. Nevertheless, in the High Middle Ages , the Church and State were very close, especially at the local bishop level. The State used the Church to help control the people and local Church officials oftentimes became part of the whole secular organization…at the detriment to their spritual mandate.

It was not until the US Revolution and resultant Bill of Rights came about, that the need to provide ever greater separation took place