G
Gavroche
Guest
The issues of our duty as Catholics towards our civil authority is something that has confused me for quite some time and was hoping for some discussion and good information anyone happens to have on the topic.
Two relevant passages from the Catechism are as follows (edited and emphasis mine, found at:scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm#2234) :
The bolded portion I find confusing here, because, let’s say that a coup d’etat takes place in a particular government, and the new leaders acquire power unlawfully from the previous government. Do the people now need to see these new leaders as representatives of God and their legitimate civil authority? Or imagine the cases of natives, having their lands seized and political institutions overthrown by an imperial or colonizing power, are the natives now under a moral obligation to obey this new government, and if so, on what basis?
So what is the mark of legitimacy among those who claim to exercise legitimate authority? Many state, or state-like institutions can claim authority, but claims will contradict, or claims might be entirely false, but in the end what is it that makes a claim to power legitimate or not?
And here are some notable instances where confusion seems to exist for me in regards to what is in the Catechism…
Was the Vichy government in France after the defeat at the hands of the Nazis a legitimate authority?
Was the US authority over land taken from Native American tribes legitimate, and did those Natives living there acquire a moral obligation obey the US government?
Was the control exercised by European colonial powers legitimate in places like Africa, South America, Asia, etc.?
Was the Soviet control over Poland and Eastern European countries after WW2 legitimate?
And in these cases, would people be obliged to obey these authorities and consider their leaders as “representatives of God, and stewards of his gifts” as said in paragraph 2238 of the Catechism? If so, on what grounds?
Two relevant passages from the Catechism are as follows (edited and emphasis mine, found at:scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm#2234) :
So concerning this, I have been puzzled about how all of this works in terms of the eyes of God, and the main question really is: what makes a civil authority legitimate in the eyes of God?
The bolded portion I find confusing here, because, let’s say that a coup d’etat takes place in a particular government, and the new leaders acquire power unlawfully from the previous government. Do the people now need to see these new leaders as representatives of God and their legitimate civil authority? Or imagine the cases of natives, having their lands seized and political institutions overthrown by an imperial or colonizing power, are the natives now under a moral obligation to obey this new government, and if so, on what basis?
So what is the mark of legitimacy among those who claim to exercise legitimate authority? Many state, or state-like institutions can claim authority, but claims will contradict, or claims might be entirely false, but in the end what is it that makes a claim to power legitimate or not?
And here are some notable instances where confusion seems to exist for me in regards to what is in the Catechism…
Was the Vichy government in France after the defeat at the hands of the Nazis a legitimate authority?
Was the US authority over land taken from Native American tribes legitimate, and did those Natives living there acquire a moral obligation obey the US government?
Was the control exercised by European colonial powers legitimate in places like Africa, South America, Asia, etc.?
Was the Soviet control over Poland and Eastern European countries after WW2 legitimate?
And in these cases, would people be obliged to obey these authorities and consider their leaders as “representatives of God, and stewards of his gifts” as said in paragraph 2238 of the Catechism? If so, on what grounds?