L
_L
Guest
(Romans 13:1-7 ESV)
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
We as Catholic Christians acknowledge our obligation to obey our civil laws, but this is a subject that is extremely confusing, and something I think the Church, at least to my knowledge has been quite vague on. Now the basis for this obligation comes from Romans 13 quoted above, but there are so many intricacies to this issue, and so many developments in the institutions of government since the time of St. Paul that so many new questions and moral quandaries are raised when speaking about this issue.
Now how is it that we are to understand God’s relation to the state? St. Paul seems to say God institutes the state, but how can this be the case? For if God institutes one state, and one faction or the people rise up in revolution and create a new state, does that new state all of the sudden become legitimate and instituted by God? But the paradox is that, if this is the case their revolution or rebellion was against a state supposedly instituted by God. See the confusion here? What are we to make of this?
I know that we have all sorts of exceptions to the rule about obeying government authority, such as we are allowed to disobey laws that prevent us from staying in accordance with God’s law, but even this is something I find very vague, because it all depends on emphasis.
For example if a law was passed that said it was illegal to attend mass; obviously this is an unjust law and we are allowed and obliged to disobey it.
But let’s say in another scenario, there is a draft for war and let’s say there is a tremendous amount of confusion in the Church about what position to take on the conflict. And an individual Catholic believes the war is unjust, is drafted, and refuses to obey and serve in the war effort. But at the same time many in the Church including some Church leaders are championing the cause, saying it is just.
How should the Catholic respond here? Is this person justified in disobeying the state in refusing to go to war?
It seems to me the problem with taking Romans 13 from a heavy handed perspective that gives the benefit of the doubt to the state is that St. Paul seems to have no conception of the intricate governments we have today and the concept of individual rights which we also have on a much grander scale than those in Roman times.
Are we allowed to disobey laws that threaten our individual human rights? For example, the state passes a law saying that it is mandatory for parents to have their children vaccinated with the HPV vaccine and all sorts of other things. Do the rights of the parents overrule the rights of the state in such an instance if they do not want their kids vaccinated?
And expanding on this sort of thing, St. Paul seems ot make no distinction between being governed by law and being governed by the will of one man. What if the law says one thing, and the person in power says the opposite? Who is to be obeyed then?
If someone could provide insightful answers or links to other information that would be helpful
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
We as Catholic Christians acknowledge our obligation to obey our civil laws, but this is a subject that is extremely confusing, and something I think the Church, at least to my knowledge has been quite vague on. Now the basis for this obligation comes from Romans 13 quoted above, but there are so many intricacies to this issue, and so many developments in the institutions of government since the time of St. Paul that so many new questions and moral quandaries are raised when speaking about this issue.
Now how is it that we are to understand God’s relation to the state? St. Paul seems to say God institutes the state, but how can this be the case? For if God institutes one state, and one faction or the people rise up in revolution and create a new state, does that new state all of the sudden become legitimate and instituted by God? But the paradox is that, if this is the case their revolution or rebellion was against a state supposedly instituted by God. See the confusion here? What are we to make of this?
I know that we have all sorts of exceptions to the rule about obeying government authority, such as we are allowed to disobey laws that prevent us from staying in accordance with God’s law, but even this is something I find very vague, because it all depends on emphasis.
For example if a law was passed that said it was illegal to attend mass; obviously this is an unjust law and we are allowed and obliged to disobey it.
But let’s say in another scenario, there is a draft for war and let’s say there is a tremendous amount of confusion in the Church about what position to take on the conflict. And an individual Catholic believes the war is unjust, is drafted, and refuses to obey and serve in the war effort. But at the same time many in the Church including some Church leaders are championing the cause, saying it is just.
How should the Catholic respond here? Is this person justified in disobeying the state in refusing to go to war?
It seems to me the problem with taking Romans 13 from a heavy handed perspective that gives the benefit of the doubt to the state is that St. Paul seems to have no conception of the intricate governments we have today and the concept of individual rights which we also have on a much grander scale than those in Roman times.
Are we allowed to disobey laws that threaten our individual human rights? For example, the state passes a law saying that it is mandatory for parents to have their children vaccinated with the HPV vaccine and all sorts of other things. Do the rights of the parents overrule the rights of the state in such an instance if they do not want their kids vaccinated?
And expanding on this sort of thing, St. Paul seems ot make no distinction between being governed by law and being governed by the will of one man. What if the law says one thing, and the person in power says the opposite? Who is to be obeyed then?
If someone could provide insightful answers or links to other information that would be helpful