How does a government gain legitimacy in Catholic thought?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barricade
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Barricade

Guest
In the news, we constantly hear about revolutions, and new governments coming to power and I often ask myself, from a Catholic perspective, how are we to know which governments are legitimate and which are not? And more broadly speaking, **how does a power gain governing legitimacy in the first place? **

Do a conquered people who suffered defeat in an unjust war waged against them owe obedience to the power that conquered them?

Do a people who live under a government that came to power illegally owe that government obedience?

In an absence of discernible government, in a wild west type scenario, in what manner does a power emerge that has the rightful claim to create laws, demand taxes etc?

These are just some questions that come to mind, but I can’t seem to find anything in Church sources that speaks to how legitimate civil authorities emerge, or what legitimacy would entail, perhaps someone here could provide some answers and sources.
 
The only thing I found in the catechism was expressly related to providing for common defense, and submitting to authority.

Aquinas discusses legitimate civic authority but I the means to look that up at the moment.

I do not know what the Holy See’s criteria is for determining the legitimacy or legality of a nation. The Holy See represents the Vatican City State in international affairs. Here is the Secretariat of State (whose office it’s deputed by the Pope) webpage: vaticanstate.va/content/vaticanstate/en/stato-e-governo/rapporti-internazionali.html
 
modern politics is so complicated that I too do not know how to determine the legitimate government. so I will just watch and learn from the comments of other people. … as long as they are not contrary to the little I know
 
Since I created this thread, I decided to do some more research and I read some things from the Catholic Encyclopedia over at newdavent.org.

But just to get things straight, is the Catholic encyclopedia a reliable source of authentic Catholic teaching? I would certainly hope so, but I just want to make sure.

In the article titled “Civil Authority” I received an answer to at least one of my questions, regarding obedience to a government that came to power illegally. According to this article (Bottom of the 5th paragraph) once the transition to a new government is complete (even if it be unlawful) it rules “by right of accomplished fact”. newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm

I guess one of my main curiosities at this point is how new states legitimately form. It’s hard to consider this now with the globe being pretty much filled up and territorial lines drawn. But in earlier times, how did this occur? According to the Catholic encyclopedia article “Civil Authority” it talks about how a collection of families coming together and being controlled by a common authority constitutes a state. But I just don’t understand how this is supposed to happen. Is no state said to exist until someone simply “claims” that authority? Could their claim be justly rejected? What gives an individual or group the right to make such a claim? If it’s not through claiming authority, then is it by the consent of the families that form the state to confer that authority on one person, group, etc?
 
New Advent is perfectly legit.

I’ve been looking for more resources, but the other forum I PMd to you is a good starting place. I’d also recommend that you check the blogs of the CAL apologists, such as, Jimmy Akin.

I also believe it’s quiet tonight not only because it’s the weekend, but people are preparing for Divine Mercy Sunday as well as the canonizations tomorrow.
 
The way Ive always understood this is, if a coup happens and is successful, then Yes, the people living in that particular country are required to submit to the new people in power, and obey their laws, but if its just a coup attempt, then I dont think they deserve anything, the key is whether it is successful or not, but once it is successful, that is that, done deal.
 
I’m getting even more confused with these responses.

if you must obey the government of your area, what about people living in places like North Korea where it is illegal to preach Christianity? How do you live in such places?

what about in El Salvador during the time of Archbishop Oscar Romero when the government decided to convert a church to a barrack? do you obey the government in such places?

the most important question to me right now is WHICH GOVERNMENT SHOULD A CHRISTIAN OBEY IN UKRAINE? objectively is the former president still in power like he claims; which in effect makes the present government illegal? and as the chains of events were reported by BBC, are the present pro-Russia people who have seized certain areas of Ukraine to be obeyed since they are claiming power exactly as the present government did to get into office? who is the real government to be obeyed now in Ukraine?

and should the Catholics in Crimea have participated in the referendum to join Russia or should they have boycotted it? are the people of any town free to vote and join any country of their choice at will? like if we have 99% of people living in new york city as ethnically and traditionally from Congo, can they vote to make new york city a part of Congo?
 
pacomius said:
the most important question to me right now is WHICH GOVERNMENT SHOULD A CHRISTIAN OBEY IN UKRAINE? objectively is the former president still in power like he claims; which in effect makes the present government illegal?
Click to expand...
This is a very good question one that I have been wondering about. my initial answer was that the new government was illegal and illegitimate because it seemed they came to power violating the agreement made in February, and in violation of the Ukrainian constitution. But having read certain things in the Catholic encyclopedia I am less certain. Is there is a lot of grey area here? Is knowing clearly who the legitimate authority is hard to discern until “the dust settles” so to speak?

If a group of militants stormed DC and ousted Obama and the Congress and the Supreme Court and declared themselves to be the new authority, but were then ousted themselves days later, did they ever actually have authority? Or did they simply have momentary success in an ongoing struggle? Likewise, is the current Ukrainian government simply enjoying that momentary success in a conflict that is still going on? If they then ultimately lose and Yanukovych returns to resume what he likely believes is his legitimate presidency does that settle the dispute? Or conversely, if the government continues to exist as is, years down the road when the conflict is said to be over, does their continued hold on power indicate that they are now the legitimate authority?
 
mikekle said:
The way Ive always understood this is, if a coup happens and is successful, then Yes, the people living in that particular country are required to submit to the new people in power, and obey their laws, but if its just a coup attempt, then I dont think they deserve anything, the key is whether it is successful or not, but once it is successful, that is that, done deal.
Click to expand...
So basically, “might makes right”?

That is a perplexing idea of what constitutes the good, considering that we as the faithful are not to do evil that good might come. Yet, somehow, the rest of the world can do evil and that’s good now and back and forth… yeah, I don’t get it.
 
after reading so church documents on the legitimacy of authorities, I was beginning to think I now have answers to my questions until I read something about Syria that got me thinking again. … if you area is swinging back and forth between two totally different governments, which one should you obey? like in Syria’s Aleppo which is swinging between radically Islamic sharia Al-nustra and the Christian government troops?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top