Is the idea that governments get their authority from the consent of the governed compatible with Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JelloPudding
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JelloPudding

Guest
In general I agree with the idea that governments get their authority from the consent of the governed, and yet it seems the church teaching is they only get their authority from God.

From Pope Leo XII:
  1. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.
Click to expand...
  1. But, as regards political power, the Church rightly teaches that it comes from God, for it finds this clearly testified in the sacred Scriptures and in the monuments of antiquity; besides, no other doctrine can be conceived which is more agreeable to reason, or more in accord with the safety of both princes and peoples.
Click to expand...
  1. Those who believe civil society to have risen from the free consent of men…the pact which they allege… has no authority to confer on political power such great force, dignity, and firmness as the safety of the State and the common good of the citizens require.
Click to expand...
I am having a hard time seeing how these two things are compatible? Are they? If not, how could revolution ever be justified? And is self governance not a right?
 
JelloPudding said:
In general I agree with the idea that governments get their authority from the consent of the governed, and yet it seems the church teaching is they only get their authority from God.

From Pope Leo XII:
  1. Indeed, very many men of more recent times, walking in the footsteps of those who in a former age assumed to themselves the name of philosophers,(2) say that all power comes from the people; so that those who exercise it in the State do so not as their own, but as delegated to them by the people, and that, by this rule, it can be revoked by the will of the very people by whom it was delegated. But from these, Catholics dissent, who affirm that the right to rule is from God, as from a natural and necessary principle.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain. I have the exact same objections. But then again, I am that strangest of all creatures, an American Catholic monarchist. I am of one mind with Charles Coulombe, who brings out what this would look like in this fascinating little book:

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Spangled-Crown-Simple-American-Monarchy/dp/1944339051

The Kindle edition, which I have, is very nice.
Click to expand...
 
JelloPudding said:
I am having a hard time seeing how these two things are compatible? Are they? If not, how could revolution ever be justified? And is self governance not a right?
Click to expand...
They really aren’t. The authority to govern does come from God. Several passages of scripture speak to this. The idea of consent of the governed is an enlightenment concept that doesn’t really square with Christianity.

That being said, God does hold rulers accountable. Psalm 82 for example demonstrates this, and we see in scripture that at times God does punish unjust governance through both internal and external actors. The Christian however is called to submit to the ruling authorities except in the cases where the government forces one to choose between being obedient to the governing authorities or God. However, in those cases, my impression from scripture is we are called to suffer unjustly for Christ, rather than rebel.
 
If that is the case, is it generally Catholic thought that the American Revolution, (and similar revolutions where people gained self determination) was unjust?
 
JelloPudding said:
If that is the case, is it generally Catholic thought that the American Revolution, (and similar revolutions where people gained self determination) was unjust?
Click to expand...
I won’t attribute my opinion to the Catholic Church. Given what scripture says, our rebellion against the British probably was unjust. That doesn’t however mean that our current government is not ordained by God and given the authority to implement and enforce just laws.
 
Pope Leo gives the true doctrine in the OP–it is incompatible conceived in the way he describes there.

But this doesn’t mean that a society cannot choose for itself a form of government or decide who holds the offices that wield their power delegated from God.

Here is another important passage from Leo XIII:
  1. However, here it must be carefully observed that whatever be the form of civil power in a nation, it cannot be considered so definitive as to have the right to remain immutable, even though such were the intention of those who, in the beginning, determined it… Only the Church of Jesus Christ has been able to preserve, and surely will preserve unto the consummation of time, her form of government. Founded by Him who was, who is, and who will be forever,(8) she has received from Him, since her very origin, all that she requires for the pursuing of her divine mission across the changeable ocean of human affairs. And, far from wishing to transform her essential constitution, she has not the power even to relinquish the conditions of true liberty and sovereign independence with which Providence has endowed her in the general interest of souls . . . But, in regard to purely human societies, it is an oft-repeated historical fact that time, that great transformer of all things here below, operates great changes in their political institutions. On some occasions it limits itself to modifying something in the form of the established government; or, again, it will go so far as to substitute other forms for the primitive ones-forms totally different, even as regards the mode of transmitting sovereign power.
  2. And how are these political changes of which We speak produced? They sometimes follow in the wake of violent crises, too often of a bloody character, in the midst of which pre-existing governments totally disappear; then anarchy holds sway, and soon public order is shaken to its very foundations and finally overthrown. From that time onward a social need obtrudes itself upon the nation; it must provide for itself without delay. Is it not its privilege - or, better still, its duty - to defend itself against a state of affairs troubling it so deeply, and to re-establish public peace in the tranquillity of order? Now, this social need justifies the creation and the existence of new governments, whatever form they take; since, in the hypothesis wherein we reason, these new governments are a requisite to public order, all public order being impossible without a government. Thence it follows that, in similar junctures, all the novelty is limited to the political form of civil power, or to its mode of transmission; it in no wise affects the power considered in itself. This continues to be immutable and worthy of respect, as, considered in its nature, it is constituted to provide for the common good, the supreme end which gives human society its origin. To put it otherwise, in all hypotheses, civil power, considered as such, is from God, always from God: “For there is no power but from God.”(9)
Click to expand...
http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-x..._enc_16021892_au-milieu-des-sollicitudes.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top