Is it wrong to be a revolutionary when it comes to government?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is EWTN wrong for suing the government over the HHS mandate :D?

I’m sure that if the government is bad enough and imposes unjust laws, it would be morally acceptable and even necessary to overthrow or attempt to change the government. Hmmm I wonder if there is a document in the Compendium of the Church’s Social Doctrine that says something about it…
 
Revolutions can take many forms and some can be wrong and others just.
The idea of revolution is built into our national psyche by the line in the Declaration of Independence that says, “… whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Violent Revolutions (insurrection), are frustratingly difficult to control once set in motion and one can never be sure what one will end up with when it is all over.
Peaceful Revolutions (civil disobedience) can take longer and require greater discipline in order to keep them from becoming violent. In some ways they are easier to control and keep on course, but not always. Plus “peaceful revolutions” are often not thought of as revolutions at all…

Once a revolution is begun, there can and will be many forces acting on it. Some forces good and others bad. I recall a scene in the movie “King of Kings” where Barabbas determines to use the crowds following after Jesus for his own ends. If I remember right he says something to the effect of, “Jesus will supply the crowd. Well we will borrow them (for an attack on the Romans). Then when we are done, we will give them back to Jesus”…
Revolutions can spawn this sort of thing…

So I suppose that, in any discussion, one must be clear about what sort of “revolution” one is talking about.

Peace
James
 
It’s not wrong to stand up against injustice.
It is true though, there are many ways of revolting and some ways might be just as wrong as whatever you’re standing up against.
At least in the United States, we have a duty to set our government straight sometimes since it is a government that has pledged itself to be ‘for the people’ and is ‘by the people’.
I think we need specific examples since situations are different to judge whether a revolution is okay or not.
 
The CCC shows that the rules for civil unrest are very similar to the rules of the Just War Theory. As usual with Catholic teaching, balance is very important!

From the CCC: ¶ 2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
 
Oumashta said:
Is EWTN wrong for suing the government over the HHS mandate :D?

I’m sure that if the government is bad enough and imposes unjust laws, it would be morally acceptable and even necessary to overthrow or attempt to change the government. …
Click to expand...
👍

But revolution for the sake of revolution would be wrong.
“The issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue!” – Counter culture Leftist revolutionary activist of the '60s.
 
sedonaman said:
👍

But revolution for the sake of revolution would be wrong.
“The issue is not the issue; the revolution is the issue!” – Counter culture Leftist revolutionary activist of the '60s.
Click to expand...
Yes, HAHA 😃 As long as you’re not trying to overthrow the government just because you want power.
 
St_Francis said:
The CCC shows that the rules for civil unrest are very similar to the rules of the Just War Theory. As usual with Catholic teaching, balance is very important!

From the CCC: ¶ 2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
Click to expand...
It’s funny that I thought of Obama when you posted that quote from the Catechism 😛 I wonder if the bishops would call Catholics to try to overthrow Obama or something, since it seems to be heading in that direction.
 
Here is what St. Paul has to say: Romans 13: 1-7 “1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 4 for it is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience. 6 For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing. 7 Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.”

Look at verse 2! Is George Washington in hell? Anyway, what does St. Paul know?
 
Usually, yes. Only entities with the competent authority can utilise physical force. If the Government does something immoral, to only way to resolve it is through non-violent action and negotiation. In the case of America, the Revolution was immoral, because the actions of the British could not in all fairness be considered so oppressive that only a physical response was necessary. A controversial opinion, I admit, but one I am willing to defend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top