Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[Brendan_64]

The authority you would have would indeed have come from God. That doesn’t mean you have ceased power with God’s approval though. God does not intervene or take sides in human struggles for political power.

Read what St Paul wrote. It is not about what you think or I think, it is about what the Church teaches. Read the references I have quoted. What I think or you think is irrelevant, the truth is what tje Church teaches.

 

[freeRadical]

The authority you would have would indeed have come from God. That doesn’t mean you have ceased power with God’s approval though. God does not intervene or take sides in human struggles for political power.

Read what St Paul wrote. It is not about what you think or I think, it is about what the Church teaches. Read the references I have quoted. What I think or you think is irrelevant, the truth is what tje Church teaches.

If my authority to rule came from God then why wouldn’t God approve of the way I obtained that power? If me seizing power was against God’s will, why would he give me the authority to rule?

If God doesn’t intervene in human struggles for political power, if God doesn’t care who rules, if everybody, know matter who they are, has authority from God to rule, then why does God care whether or not I agree with the laws that said governments enact?

According to you God doesn’t care who is in power, but everyone in power has the authority to rule from God. It doesn’t matter how these governments rule, it doesn’t matter if they are evil, if they oppress their people, they have the authority to do that from God. So why would it be wrong for a group of people to revolt against their government and seize power. According to you, after they seize power, they would then have authority from God to rule.

 

[freeRadical]

From Diuturnum:

1. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to “give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,”(18) and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”(19) And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

It seems to me that what Pope Leo is saying is this: if the government goes against the will and laws of God then their authority is no longer valid, in fact, its null and void. I can think of many governments who go against the will and law of God, including the US government.

 

[Brendan_64]

If my authority to rule came from God then why wouldn’t God approve of the way I obtained that power? If me seizing power was against God’s will, why would he give me the authority to rule?

It is not God giving you authority as some sort of approval of your government. God does not intervene in who controls political power on Earth. But you have authority AND ALL AUTHORITY COMES FROM GOD.

Even Stalin’s authority came from God.

If God doesn’t intervene in human struggles for political power, if God doesn’t care who rules, if everybody, know matter who they are, has authority from God to rule, then why does God care whether or not I agree with the laws that said governments enact?.

Dear oh dear. God has given man free will, God doesn’t intervene to prevent men from exercising their free will, for good or for bad.

According to you God doesn’t care who is in power, but everyone in power has the authority to rule from God.

I never said God doesn’t care, but he allows men to exercise their free will. God doesn’t sit back and say, "I give this government authority, because I approve of them, and I don’t give that government authority because I don’t approve of them.

And it isn’t according to me that all authority comes from God. It is according to the teachings of our Church.

It doesn’t matter how these governments rule, it doesn’t matter if they are evil, if they oppress their people, they have the authority to do that from God. So why would it be wrong for a group of people to revolt against their government and seize power. According to you, after they seize power, they would then have authority from God to rule.

They have authority to rule, because of the fact that they do rule. They also have free will to use this authority for good or to use it for evil.

Romans 13:1 "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."

You seem to have issue with the teachings of our Church on this. What you think on the matter is not relevant, all that matters is what our Church teaches on this.

 

[Brendan_64]

It seems to me that what Pope Leo is saying is this: if the government goes against the will and laws of God then their authority is no longer valid, in fact, its null and void. I can think of many governments who go against the will and law of God, including the US government.

I shall refer you to CCC 2242, which you, as a Catholic are bound to obey

"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. 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.”

So if a government passes laws that go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel, then you are bound not to follow those laws, but to follow other laws that do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel. Even if a government oppresses you, you are still bound to follow their laws (so long as those particular laws do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel). Therefore even an oppressive regime has, while it is still in existence, authority.

So yes, the US government certainly does have authority (and it hardly classifies as an oppressive regime by any stretch of the imagination). You are bound, by Church teaching as a US citizen, to follow the laws of your country (just as I am bound to follow British laws). Apart from, of course, laws that go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel.

I really fail to see why you have such an issue with this. It is the teaching of our Church.
These are not my personal views, they are the teachings of the Church. Ant-authoritarianism runs contrary to Church teachings.

 

[freeRadical]

I shall refer you to CCC 2242, which you, as a Catholic are bound to obey

"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. 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.”

This contradicts with what Pope Leo says.

So if a government passes laws that go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel, then you are bound not to follow those laws, but to follow other laws that do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel. Even if a government oppresses you, you are still bound to follow their laws (so long as those particular laws do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel). Therefore even an oppressive regime has, while it is still in existence, authority.

Well then, the Church has contradicted its own teaching in the past.

 

[Brendan_64]

This contradicts with what Pope Leo says.

Well then, the Church has contradicted its own teaching in the past.

So you are now saying that CCC 2242 is not valid. Even if your interpretation of the statement in Pope Leo’s encyclical is correct (which I doubt) we are bound by the teachings of the Catechism absolutely, in a way that we are not bound by encyclicals.

As a Catholic, you are bound by CCC 2242.

Are you seriously suggesting that what is written in the Catechism is not binding?

It would seem to me that you have an issue with being bound to follow authority. Sadly this trait is so evident amongst many people (particularly since the 1960s).

 

[freeRadical]

So you are now saying that CCC 2242 is not valid. We are bound by the teachings of the Catechism absolutely, in a way that we are not bound by encyclicals.

As a Catholic, you are bound by CCC 2242.

Are you seriously suggesting that what is written in the Catechism is not binding?

It would seem to me that you have an issue with being bound to follow authority. Sadly this trait is so evident amongst many people (particularly since the 1960s).

No, I said that the Church contradicted its own teaching in the past. If a Pope contradicts the Catechism who is right? The Pope or the Catechism?

 

[freeRadical]

I don’t have a problem being bound to authority, I have a problem with the Church saying that it is not only wrong, but it’s against God’s will, for people who are being unjustly oppressed by their government to rise up against it. That they should just sit there and take it, no matter how oppressive and unjust the government is.

It is not only the right, but the duty and obligation, of people to rise up and overthrow oppressive and unjust governments.

 

[freeRadical]

I’m guessing then, that it was wrong for the Allies to fight Germany in WW2 and we should have just let him continue conquering other sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of Jews? After all, Hitler derived his authority to rule from God and who are we to interfere with his God-given authority?

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t have a problem being bound to authority, I have a problem with the Church saying that it is not only wrong, but it’s against God’s will, for people who are being unjustly oppressed by their government to rise up against it. That they should just sit there and take it, no matter how oppressive and unjust the government is.

It is not only the right, but the duty and obligation, of people to rise up and overthrow oppressive and unjust governments.

When did I ever state that the Church says that people are never justified in overthrowing oppressive regimes? It is however only permitted in very limited circumstances.

CCC 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.”

This does not mean that while that regime is in power that you are not bound by its laws (so long as those laws do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel). And you are certainly bound by the laws of governments such as the USA.

As a Catholic you are bound by all of the Catechism, not just the bits you agree with. If you disagree with any teachings of the Church, then you are required to regard your own view as being wrong and work to conform your view to the teaching of the Church which cannot be anything other than right. Dissent from Church teaching is not permitted.

 

[freeRadical]

When did I ever state that the Church says that people are never justified in overthrowing oppressive regimes? It is however only permitted in very limited circumstances.

CCC 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.”

This does not mean that while that regime is in power that you are not bound by its laws (so long as those laws do not go against natural law and the Law of the Gospel). And you are certainly bound by the laws of governments such as the USA.

As a Catholic you are bound by all of the Catechism, not just the bits you agree with. If you disagree with any teachings of the Church, then you are required to regard your own view as being wrong and work to conform your view to the teaching of the Church which cannot be anything other than right. Dissent from Church teaching is not permitted.

So that means that Popes are also bound by all of the Catechism too right? So if a Pope contradicts the Catechism is the Pope right or the Catechism right?

I’m sorry. I just can’t agree that if a government is evil and oppressive then it still has authority to rule by God. Why would God give authority to rule to a government that is oppressive, unjust, and evil and then condemn anyone who didn’t completely obey this governments laws?

And I like I said, the Church has contradicted its own teaching on this in the past.

 

[freeRadical]

If a government breaks its own laws then are we still required to obediently obey its laws.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m guessing then, that it was wrong for the Allies to fight Germany in WW2 and we should have just let him continue conquering other sovereign nations and killing hundreds of thousands of Jews? After all, Hitler derived his authority to rule from God and who are we to interfere with his God-given authority?

Dear dear, you’re missing the point. Yes Hitler’s authority did come from God. Possessing authority does not mean that man cannot abuse that authority.Open up your Bible and read Romans 13:1. Are you seriously trying to argue that what is written there is wrong?

But on WWII, it is not clear cut at all that it fulfills the Church’s definition of a Just War (possibly it may have) but certainly the deliberate targetting of civilian areas of population are condemned by the Church (air bombardments of Dresden, Berlin etc. and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

CCC 2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.“A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.”

 

[freeRadical]

Dear dear, you’re missing the point. Yes Hitler’s authority did come from God. Possessing authority does not mean that man cannot abuse that authority.Open up your Bible and read Romans 13:1. Are you seriously trying to argue that what is written there is wrong?

But if it Hitler had authority rule from God doesn’t that me that we interfered with the authority that God had given Hitler by going to war with him?

But on WWII, it is not clear cut at all that it fulfills the Church’s definition of a Just War (possibly it may have) but certainly the deliberate targetting of civilian areas of population are condemned by the Church (air bombardments of Dresden, Berlin etc. and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
  These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
  The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

CCC 2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.“A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.”

If the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that 1) WW2 was a just war and 2) that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan to prevent the massive loss of life that would have happened if we had invaded Japan, not to mention the probable extinction of the Japanese, then they are truly lost.

 

[Brendan_64]

If the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that 1) WW2 was a just war and 2) that the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan to prevent the massive loss of life that would have happened if we had invaded Japan, not to mention the probable extinction of the Japanese, then they are truly lost.

The Catholic Church is clearly opposed to the dropping of the atomic bombs, that is crystal clear.

So, as a Catholic, you are now saying that the Church is lost, because it is opposed to the deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? The Church also teaches that evil can **never **be done in order to achieve good. Certainly the deliberate bombing of civilians is evil, our Church is very clear on that.

So to top off your refusal to accept the authority of the Church regarding its teaching that all authority comes from God, you are now saying that the Church is lost because it condemns the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perhaps it is you who are lost, not the Church?

 

[freeRadical]

The Catholic Church is clearly opposed to the dropping of the atomic bombs, that is crystal clear.

So, as a Catholic, you are now saying that the Church is lost, because it is opposed to the deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?

So to top off your refusal to accept the authority of the Church regarding its teaching that all authority comes from God, you are now saying that the Church is lost because it condemns the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perhaps it is you who are lot?

We dropped the bombs because it was predicted that a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives, including Japanese civilians, and the possible complete extinction of the Japanese. What is better: a couple hundred thousand of lives lost to the atomic bombs or millions of lives lost and the possible extinction of the Japanese due to a land invasion? We didn’t start that war, they bombed us first remember?

If the dropping of the atomic bombs was so horrible and terrifying then why did we have to drop two on Japan? Why didn’t they immediately surrender after we dropped the first one?

 

[Brendan_64]

We dropped the bombs because it was predicted that a land invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives, including Japanese civilians, and the possible complete extinction of the Japanese. What is better: a couple hundred thousand of lives lost to the atomic bombs or millions of lives lost and the possible extinction of the Japanese due to a land invasion? We didn’t start that war, they bombed us first remember?

If the dropping of the atomic bombs was so horrible and terrifying then why did we have to drop two on Japan? Why didn’t they immediately surrender after we dropped the first one?

I’m not going to argue with you on this. The Church has clearly stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians is wrong. The Church has also specifically condemned the bombing of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki as acts of evil. This was condemned in Vatican II, and John Paul II later reiterated this. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what our Church teaches.

The Church clearly states that it is NEVER acceptable to carry out an act of evil (such as deliberate bombing of civilians) in order to achieve a good end, NEVER..

You clearly disagree with this. You therefore clearly disagree with Church teaching.

It would seem to me that you hold your own views to be of higher authority on this than the teaching of Christ’s Church on Earth.

 

[freeRadical]

I’m not going to argue with you on this. The Church has clearly stated that the deliberate bombing of civilians is wrong. The Church has also specifically condemned the bombing of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki as acts of evil. This was condemned in Vatican II, and John Paul II later reiterated this. Whether you agree with it or not, that is what our Church teaches.

The Church clearly states that it is NEVER acceptable to carry out an act of evil (such as deliberate bombing of civilians) in order to achieve a good end, NEVER..

You clearly disagree with this. You therefore clearly disagree with Church teaching.

It would seem to me that you hold your own views to be of higher authority on this than the teaching of Christ’s Church on Earth.

I guess the Church thinks it would have been better for millions of Japanese civilians to die, millions of Americans to die, and thousands of British, with a possible complete annihilation of the Japanese, then for a couple of hundred thousand Japanese to die. If that’s what the Church thinks then of course I disagree with them.

Btw, here’s what Winston Churchill said about the dropping of the atomic bombs:

"There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. …] I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives."

—Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945

 

[freeRadical]

Why should I care what the Church thinks when it contradicts itself on its own teachings?