There is nothing wrong in any of these methods and as far as I know they are all being done today. So I would not characterize any of them as ‘The Day will Come When We Have to use Such Means of Resistance’ (Not accepting government money can hardly be called resistance).Actually, I can think of an almost infinite number of ways to resist that don’t involve AK-47s or mixing fertilizer with diesel fuel.
First, is to actually preach the gospel. All of it (not just the “they’ll know us by our love” part of it)
Second is to enforce canon law. Particularly Canon 915.
Third is to utterly separate out the Church’s charitable mission from the State’s social welfare mission. That is, don’t accept a dime more of government money. And then don’t be afraid to speak of Christ as you are feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless.
Fourth is to not be afraid to name names when calling out pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians. They already are more than happy to do so when a politician doesn’t line up to big government social spending. They should have the same level of courage when a politician advocates for the destruction of societal morals.
Fifth is to call the Faithful to not compromise in their faith when dealing in the Polis. To include accepting either the White Martyrdom or Red Martyrdom that may accompany taking such a stance.
I could go on…but even taking those five steps would shake society.
If any are being done today, I’d like to know where.There is nothing wrong in any of these methods and as far as I know they are all being done today. So I would not characterize any of them as ‘The Day will Come When We Have to use Such Means of Resistance’
I do understand you have to stand for your rights. But you should be very clear how far you are willing to go.Only someone with little knowledge of US history would have the false belief that the government is willing or able to protect rights. Slavery, eugenics, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, forced sterilizations, secret govt experiments, and on and on and on.
If you won’t stand up for your rights, the government certainly won’t.
Why would that trouble you? Read thru much of what took place in the founding of this nation, there was alot of violence involved, if there had not been, the patriots back then would not have been successful.Regardless whether Christians in America are being persecuted or not (and I don’t believe they are), I find the original article including some of the responses in this thread quite disturbing.
When the priest says ‘The Day May Come When We Have to Resist’, he is clearly saying that this resistance is to be done in some way that has not been tried before. There have already been a spate of law suits, many peaceful and some loud demonstrations (cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/March/Religious-Freedom-Focus-of-Nationwide-Rallies-Friday-/) .
So all legal means of resistance have already taken place, so is he now advocating some illegal means of resistance? Perhaps some violent means? Is he talking about taking up arms like AK47s and marching up Capitol Hill? I certainly hope he is not talking about the Oklahoma City way! Whatever he means, I find it very troubling.
And some responses on this thread seem to indicate that the posters have no faith in the US Constitution or the ability of the courts (and a very conservative SCOTUS at that) to protect their rights.
Legal isn’t a good indicator of whether something is right. In fact, the law can be wrong. When the law is wrong, we are expected to not follow it. Actions can be peaceful and illegal at the same time. Anyone who takes his words as a signal to hurt innocent people or be destructive isn’t following Catholic teaching. Resisting unjust laws is not a license to do evil.I do understand you have to stand for your rights. But you should be very clear how far you are willing to go.
When someone says ‘the Day will come When you have to Resist’, he should make it clear, he means it in a non-violent, legal way. Otherwise you can never be sure who is reading and what action they will take, especially if the headline says it is coming from a ‘U.S. Church Official’.
Speaking of politics Democrat Bob Casey, Catholic and supposedly pro-life voted to gut the Religious freedom act and force businesses to pay for abortificants. We need to keep this in mind when we vote.Actually, I can think of an almost infinite number of ways to resist that don’t involve AK-47s or mixing fertilizer with diesel fuel.
First, is to actually preach the gospel. All of it (not just the “they’ll know us by our love” part of it)
Second is to enforce canon law. Particularly Canon 915.
Third is to utterly separate out the Church’s charitable mission from the State’s social welfare mission. That is, don’t accept a dime more of government money. And then don’t be afraid to speak of Christ as you are feeding the poor, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless.
Fourth is to not be afraid to name names when calling out pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians. They already are more than happy to do so when a politician doesn’t line up to big government social spending. They should have the same level of courage when a politician advocates for the destruction of societal morals.
Fifth is to call the Faithful to not compromise in their faith when dealing in the Polis. To include accepting either the White Martyrdom or Red Martyrdom that may accompany taking such a stance.
I could go on…but even taking those five steps would shake society.
Since it came from a Catholic Official it goes without saying he is talking about non violent means. Of course when resisting immoral laws one has to take illegal actions to do so.I do understand you have to stand for your rights. But you should be very clear how far you are willing to go.
When someone says ‘the Day will come When you have to Resist’, he should make it clear, he means it in a non-violent, legal way. Otherwise you can never be sure who is reading and what action they will take, especially if the headline says it is coming from a ‘U.S. Church Official’.
Of course, we should keep in mind the [Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The right to resist):Since it came from a Catholic Official it goes without saying he is talking about non violent means. Of course when resisting immoral laws one has to take illegal actions to do so.
When it comes to abortion, Im not so sure…the police standing there to protect these offices would think nothing of using firearms if they needed to, why should the opposition be any different? In other words, lets pretend the patriots in the US decided they would not pick up arms or resort to violence in the fight to be free from England…how far do you think they would have made it? Sometimes when the situation is extreme enough, anything should be utilized to overcome it, I mean, with abortion, they have literally killed more people than Hitler did…yet it is still being practiced…amazing!Of course, we should keep in mind the [Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...e_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#The right to resist):
This is not trying to imply that we should take up arms here in the USA yet. But the Church’s teachings does not exclude armed resistance.
- The Church’s social doctrine indicates the criteria for exercising the right to resistance: “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”.[824] Recourse to arms is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a “manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country”.[825] The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it preferable in any case that passive resistance be practised, which is “a way more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for success”.[826]