A
aball1035
Guest
During the Mexican government’s anti-Catholic period, was it legal for the faithful to take up arms to fight against it? Why didn’t that happen in Rome when they were being persecuted?
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
The Church cannot be killed - legal or not…That is what the Roman’s learned. That is what eventually Mexico learned.
As to the morality of taking up arms…I really doubt it though I’m sure many will disagree with me on that.
Peace
James
As to the morality of taking up arms…I really doubt it though I’m sure many will disagree with me on that.
Peace
James
F
frteatao
Guest
Shalom
The period may have past but maybe the battle is on in other places.
Catholics are taught by Christ all over the world not to use arms to defend their faith. We don’t defend in such a way.
God bless.
The period may have past but maybe the battle is on in other places.
Catholics are taught by Christ all over the world not to use arms to defend their faith. We don’t defend in such a way.
God bless.
B
BigFellaMick
Guest
If you seek protection pick up your nearest rosary and know that Christ is with you. You can’t ask for more 
A
aball1035
Guest
W
Warrenton
Guest
If the faith is not worth fighting for, then nothing is worth fighting for.
Let’s be clear about what happens when the government outlaws the faith. The government kills the faithful. It happened in Russia, in Mexico, it happened in Spain.
There is nothing that prevents a Catholic from fighting against oppressors and tyrants who kill the faithful and spread evil. It is evil for the wicked to rule over the just.
In such times, by all means, pray the rosary. By all means, ask the Lord for a miracle. The Lord will answer the prayer by raising an army of men to resist the oppressor.
Let’s be clear about what happens when the government outlaws the faith. The government kills the faithful. It happened in Russia, in Mexico, it happened in Spain.
There is nothing that prevents a Catholic from fighting against oppressors and tyrants who kill the faithful and spread evil. It is evil for the wicked to rule over the just.
In such times, by all means, pray the rosary. By all means, ask the Lord for a miracle. The Lord will answer the prayer by raising an army of men to resist the oppressor.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
I’m pretty sure there is some teaching from the Church on just wars et cetera. I’m sure someone wiht more knowledge can confirm or deny or alter that statement.
Granted, I bet if some anti-Christian govt’s secret police barged into your house and started killing your children and raping your wife because you were a Catholic family you’re unlikely to just get out your rosary and start praying they leave politely after offering an apology.
Granted, I bet if some anti-Christian govt’s secret police barged into your house and started killing your children and raping your wife because you were a Catholic family you’re unlikely to just get out your rosary and start praying they leave politely after offering an apology.
M
markomalley
Guest
The Church’s teaching on this subject is pretty clear.
First, from the CCC:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
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.
From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
The myth of revolution
First, from the CCC:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
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.
From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
- Recognizing that natural law is the basis for and places limits on positive law means admitting that it is legitimate to resist authority should it violate in a serious or repeated manner the essential principles of natural law. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes that “one is obliged to obey … insofar as it is required by the order of justice”.[823] Natural law is therefore the basis of the right to 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]
The myth of revolution
- Situations of grave injustice require the courage to make far-reaching reforms and to suppress unjustifiable privileges. But those who discredit the path of reform and favour the myth of revolution not only foster the illusion that the abolition of an evil situation is in itself sufficient to create a more humane society; they also encourage the setting up of totalitarian regimes.(117) The fight against injustice is meaningless unless it is waged with a view to establishing a new social and political order in conformity with the demands of justice. Justice must already mark each stage of the establishment of this new order. There is a morality of means.(118)
- These principles must be especially applied in the extreme case where there is recourse to armed struggle, which the Church’s Magisterium admits as a last resort to put an end to an obvious and prolonged tyranny which is gravely damaging the fundamental rights of individuals and the common good.(119) Nevertheless, the concrete application of this means can not be contemplated until there has been a very rigorous analysis of the situation. Indeed, because of the continual development of the technology of violence and the increasingly serious dangers implied in its recourse, that which today is termed “passive resistance” shows a way more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for success. One can never approve, whether perpetrated by established power or insurgents, crimes such as reprisals against the general population, torture, or methods of terrorism and deliberate provocation aimed at causing deaths during popular demonstrations. Equally unacceptable are detestable smear campaigns capable of destroying a person psychologically or morally.
D
domandcarols
Guest
Interesting thread. Waiting for more posts.
J
JRKH
Guest
I recently saw a program on EWTN about Christianity in Japan and it appears that for some 200 years the faithful were cut off from any outside contact. No Priests, no mass - nothing…Yet when Priests were finally permitted back in they found native Japanese Catholics living there covertly. The faith had survived this 200 year “blackout” with little violence on their part. Violence was done to them if caught but they did not return violence for violence…
Something to consider…
Peace
James
Something to consider…
Peace
James
J
JimG
Guest
Of course the Faith is worth fighting for. The persecution of the Church in Mexico during this period was so severe that the Mexican bishops suspended all public worship. The Church has canonized at least 25 martyrs from this era in Mexico. Mexico is still not fully recovered from its anti-Catholicism.
In communist Vietnam the Church is also persecuted. We have in my own diocese a priest who fled the country after the communist takeover which closed the seminaries and persecuted the Church. If you read the Vietnam news you will see the situation has not improved a whole lot.
Yes, this happens periodically, and we must fight back.
In communist Vietnam the Church is also persecuted. We have in my own diocese a priest who fled the country after the communist takeover which closed the seminaries and persecuted the Church. If you read the Vietnam news you will see the situation has not improved a whole lot.
Yes, this happens periodically, and we must fight back.
A
aball1035
Guest
So why didn’t the early Romans use violence?
M
markomalley
Guest
Take a look at criteria 3, 4, and 5 from the CCC quote above:
- 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.
J
JRKH
Guest
To me an even more troublesome criteria is number 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. Reasonably impossible by who’s opinion/criteria?
This is a matter that is highly subjective and difficult to control, especially when we are talking about a “non-governmental” agency or group.
If we know anything - especially in this country - it should be that a government cannot legislate how people think, only how they act. Our spiritual ancestors survived persecution in many governments and in many forms beginning with the Romans and the Jews themselves.
Legal or illegal, above ground or underground, no matter the persecution, the faith will survive. In fact it might be said that persecutions can actually strengthen the faith. Just look at our most reverenced icon…Christ on the Cross. The very symbol of terror and state control has become a symbol of triumph.
Peace
James
M
markomalley
Guest
It falls into the “prudential judgment” category. It will vary from situation to situation and from person to person.
Yes, it is subjective. But that’s what it needs to be…based upon the well-formed consciences of the people in the situation.
J
JRKH
Guest
I absolutely agree with you…yet I also fear that some could and would misuse the clause in a similar way that the verse “An eye for an eye…” has been misused in the past.
Some group(s) could say that they cannot “reasonably” see a better alternative and go forward with violence regardless of what others might believe.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Without dismissing the other fine quotations included in the above post from which the above is taken, I wanted to highlight the bolded section above.
The most difficult and yet the most effective resistance is often “passive resistance”, or perhaps more accurately, “non-violent resistance”. To me, it is also the most Christian.
I remember a quote from the movie Gandhi, “There are things for which I am willing to die, but there is no thing for which I am willing to kill”.
The methods of Gandhi influenced Martin Luther King and in many ways also influence the Church’s response to things like legalized abortion.
Christ taught that we need to Love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.
There is nothing so undermining to a tyrant than Love. The more our love stands out the more “black” is the tyranny seen. Violence strengthens violence and hardens the heart of the enemy. Love and non-violent resistance weakens tyranny by undercutting it’s support.
If my study of history as well as spirituality has taught me anything it is this. One cannot defeat evil with the tools of evil. At best one can keep evil temporarily at bay. At worst, one becomes infected by the very evil one wished to destroy and, by being infected, one is destroyed from within.
Sorry to ramble on about this…but it is something that is dear to my heart.
Peace
James
T
tafan
Guest
Well, it may be that Ghandi saw no alternative, there was little hope of a violent uprising being successful. He is often presented as the ultimate pacifist, but that is simply not true, it is a Western Myth. You should read about Zulu war in South Africa; where he actively encouraged Indians to join the Bristish War Effort. He did the same in WWI. His motivations were very clear at that time, it was for the simple reason that he thought Indian participation in British wars would help Indians achieve greater civil rights. He was perfectly content to back a war effort when it suited his goals.
But he was wise, probably had a natural understanding of the principal of double effect and its application in the just war theory. There was little hope of an armed rebellion working, so it was a bad strategy. And lilely an immoral one, since the good achieved by the revolt (which would have failed, and the British were certainly not the level of evil that existed in Spain, Mexico, or during some of the Roman persecutions; all of which have been mentioned on this thread) would not have been greater than the evil results of an armed conflict.
I think the same likely held true in Roman times, so the Christians were wise and moral to adopt a pacifist stategy.
In Mexico, during the Cristeros Revolt, such was not the case. The evil be perpretrated against the Church was huge. And the government had a long history of instability in the absence of a strong single leader (and Calles certainly had not proven himself that). Also, there was a huge, grass-roots, contigent of faithful Catholics. And it was not completely a failure. Certainly the revolution stood and the anti-Catholic constitution stood; but enforcement of the worse provisions were dropped to a great extent. Calles was greatly weakened.
In Spain, those who chose to fight on the Nationalist side against the Republicans had a very similar situation, and they were successful.
One can defeat evil with the tools of evil; I don’t really like that way of writing it, but it is sufficiently close to the Church’s teaching on Just War/ Principal of Double Effect that I will accept the wording. And history clearly shows examples of where just violent uprisings have worked.
Sorry to ramble about this, but my studies of history (especially in the last 200 years), makes this a subject that is dear to my heart.
T
tafan
Guest
Besides, the Cristeros War in Mexico indirectly led to the conservative political movement in the US 
(A true fact, but I am just kidding about that being a justification).
(A true fact, but I am just kidding about that being a justification).
J
JRKH
Guest
I’m no great authority on these matters and I don’t hold Gandhi up as a pinnacle of virtue. Also I try to be careful in how I apply various decisions taken at different times and in different circumstances…something that you too seem to make note of.
Something that Gandhi might have supported at one point in his life he might not have supported at another…I think that we can all make this claim. Experience being the great teacher.
I know little to nothing about these things so will happily bow to your explanations.
We may be thinking in somewhat different terms of “defeat”. Where you might see uprisings as having worked and “defeated” evil, I see it as less a defeat and more of a set back for evil…What I referred to as “keeping it at bay”.
I’m not seeking a debate on the matter as I think that we can both make good cases for our views in both practical and philosophical ways. I also think that we both see properly what the Church is trying to teach - just with slightly different lenses maybe…
No problem. I’ve always been a history buff myself. Mainly the period around WW II, but certainly not restricted to it…
Peace
James
- Status