L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Sometimes, the people of a nation or kingdom rise up in rebellion against the ruler(s) and overthrow them. Where does the Church stand on rebellions and revolutions?
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
St Paul tells us to obey all lawful authority. Which presupposes that there is such a thing as UNlawful authority as well, which need not be obeyed and can thus be rebelled against.
The legitimacy of a given authority depends on things like how they came to power and how they use (or abuse) that power.
Clearly the government of Burma, for example, being an unelected military junta that is brutally oppressing its people and denying them all sorts of human rights, isn’t legitimate authority at all, and Burmese citizens have the right to overthrow it.
Then again, governments that are themselves legitimate can take particular actions that are illegitimate. One example might be America’s legalisation of abortion. And rebellion can be rebellion against just one particular action by a government. For example, the Boston Tea Party was more a protest against excessive taxation than an attempt to overthrow the government of the time. This, too can be OK if the government action being protested against is illegitimate.
Naturally, since rebellions and revolutions tend to be violent affairs, there’s the issue of proper use of force in achieving the overthrow of an illegitimate authority or the repeal of an unjust law. This is governed by the same considerations as use of force in any other circumstances - proportionality (for example, if government forces are trying to kill rebels or revolutionaries, they can fight back in self-defence, and possibly even kill).
The legitimacy of a given authority depends on things like how they came to power and how they use (or abuse) that power.
Clearly the government of Burma, for example, being an unelected military junta that is brutally oppressing its people and denying them all sorts of human rights, isn’t legitimate authority at all, and Burmese citizens have the right to overthrow it.
Then again, governments that are themselves legitimate can take particular actions that are illegitimate. One example might be America’s legalisation of abortion. And rebellion can be rebellion against just one particular action by a government. For example, the Boston Tea Party was more a protest against excessive taxation than an attempt to overthrow the government of the time. This, too can be OK if the government action being protested against is illegitimate.
Naturally, since rebellions and revolutions tend to be violent affairs, there’s the issue of proper use of force in achieving the overthrow of an illegitimate authority or the repeal of an unjust law. This is governed by the same considerations as use of force in any other circumstances - proportionality (for example, if government forces are trying to kill rebels or revolutionaries, they can fight back in self-defence, and possibly even kill).
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Thank-you for explaining your view, though I’m not sure I agree with it.
Paul talked about obedience to authority while he and the Christians were enduring the horrible oppression of the Roman Emperors. Jesus also said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, even though Rome took over Judea by force.
The Early Church Fathers never rebelled against Rome, and as a consequence of their submission and willingness to be martyred for God rather than resist, the Roman Empire was converted. The Roman Empire committed great evil both in its way of taking power and in its way of abusing it. Paul said, “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” God can establish an authority either by permitting humans to make it or by inspiring them to make it. Jesus and Paul’s submission to tyrannical authorities that tried to annihilate Christianity shows a highly elevated understanding of submission. They never mention practicalities as the reason for their submission. Rather, they submitted for the sake of God’s honor, that He might be exalted throughout Israel and the whole world, through their submission to Jesus’ teachings of mercy.
The Early Church Fathers are a model of obedience and submission, both to evil authorities and to righteous ones. They are the model on which I try to build my beliefs and actions.
I also haven’t been able to find a single case in Scripture where violent rebellion is supported or advocated.
But that doesn’t mean violent rebellion is never right. The Pope has permitted violent rebellion in a handful of cases, through his authority, such as the rebellion of Catholics against the tyrannical usurper Queen Elizabeth.
I don’t know what the official Church teaching on rebellion is. What I really want is the official Church teaching. My opinion isn’t important – it’s just my opinion and I’m a fallible human being. I’m interested in learning the Church’s teaching, and whatever that is, I will be all too glad to embrace it
.
Paul talked about obedience to authority while he and the Christians were enduring the horrible oppression of the Roman Emperors. Jesus also said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, even though Rome took over Judea by force.
The Early Church Fathers never rebelled against Rome, and as a consequence of their submission and willingness to be martyred for God rather than resist, the Roman Empire was converted. The Roman Empire committed great evil both in its way of taking power and in its way of abusing it. Paul said, “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” God can establish an authority either by permitting humans to make it or by inspiring them to make it. Jesus and Paul’s submission to tyrannical authorities that tried to annihilate Christianity shows a highly elevated understanding of submission. They never mention practicalities as the reason for their submission. Rather, they submitted for the sake of God’s honor, that He might be exalted throughout Israel and the whole world, through their submission to Jesus’ teachings of mercy.
The Early Church Fathers are a model of obedience and submission, both to evil authorities and to righteous ones. They are the model on which I try to build my beliefs and actions.
I also haven’t been able to find a single case in Scripture where violent rebellion is supported or advocated.
But that doesn’t mean violent rebellion is never right. The Pope has permitted violent rebellion in a handful of cases, through his authority, such as the rebellion of Catholics against the tyrannical usurper Queen Elizabeth.
I don’t know what the official Church teaching on rebellion is. What I really want is the official Church teaching. My opinion isn’t important – it’s just my opinion and I’m a fallible human being. I’m interested in learning the Church’s teaching, and whatever that is, I will be all too glad to embrace it
.
L
LilyM
Guest
True, sometimes turning the other cheek converts a person, or nation, from an enemy to a friend, as you point out happened with the Roman Empire. Then again, that situation caused some problems too. Popes got an awful lot of worldly political power (which is totally not what Christ was about - His kingdom is heavenly and not earthly). And for some of them it went to their heads. For example the Pope who not only declared Elizabeth I a bastard and illegitimate ruler and dispensed English Catholics of their oath of allegiance to her (which he had the power to do) but openly declared that her assassination would be no sin but a great deedThank-you for explaining your view, though I’m not sure I agree with it.
Paul talked about obedience to authority while he and the Christians were enduring the horrible oppression of the Roman Emperors. Jesus also said, “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, even though Rome took over Judea by force.
The Early Church Fathers never rebelled against Rome, and as a consequence of their submission and willingness to be martyred for God rather than resist, the Roman Empire was converted. The Roman Empire committed great evil both in its way of taking power and in its way of abusing it. Paul said, “there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” God can establish an authority either by permitting humans to make it or by inspiring them to make it. Jesus and Paul’s submission to tyrannical authorities that tried to annihilate Christianity shows a highly elevated understanding of submission. They never mention practicalities as the reason for their submission. Rather, they submitted for the sake of God’s honor, that He might be exalted throughout Israel and the whole world, through their submission to Jesus’ teachings of mercy.
The Early Church Fathers are a model of obedience and submission, both to evil authorities and to righteous ones. They are the model on which I try to build my beliefs and actions.
I also haven’t been able to find a single case in Scripture where violent rebellion is supported or advocated.
But that doesn’t mean violent rebellion is never right. The Pope has permitted violent rebellion in a handful of cases, through his authority, such as the rebellion of Catholics against the tyrannical usurper Queen Elizabeth.
I don’t know what the official Church teaching on rebellion is. What I really want is the official Church teaching. My opinion isn’t important – it’s just my opinion and I’m a fallible human being. I’m interested in learning the Church’s teaching, and whatever that is, I will be all too glad to embrace it
And on the other hand, as with all bullies, sometimes standing up to oppressive powers achieves equal good. Think of the great nation that America is, and the powerful amount of good it has done in the world by its example - sometimes using force to make its point. I doubt it would have achieved nearly as much if it had remained a British colony or been quiet in the face of German or Japanese or Communist aggression. Certainly the world would’ve ended up a very different (and probably not as good) place for many of us!
Certainly we are to resist any law which attempts to force us to sin. And the way American law is going, medical professionals and facilities may soon be forced to agree to provide abortions if requested and/or provide facilities for them to be done, so it may come to rebellion in that regard.
K
Katholish
Guest
If you want a magisterial declaration, here is one. It is taken from the encyclical Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
I would simply apply the standards of just war doctrine. Is the damage being inflicted by the government on its citizens lasting, grave and certain? Have other methods of protest or resistance been ineffective? Does a rebellion have serious prospects of success? Will a rebellion not produce a greater evil than the one posed by the current government? If the answer to all four is yes, then a rebellion could possibly be justified.
It doesn’t take much historical research to see that most rebellions have a very low prospect of success and end in failure. It also doesn’t take much historical research to see that successful rebellions are almost always nothing more than removing an old set of evils and replacing them with a new set of evils. Just as very few wars are just, so are very few rebellions.
It doesn’t take much historical research to see that most rebellions have a very low prospect of success and end in failure. It also doesn’t take much historical research to see that successful rebellions are almost always nothing more than removing an old set of evils and replacing them with a new set of evils. Just as very few wars are just, so are very few rebellions.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Sayeth the Catechism:
And, yes, it would seem to justify at least the contemplation of armed resistance to the abortion regime in this country, assuming a sufficient force could be gathered to give good hope of accomplishing the aim of ending legal abortion by force, and assuming that all the usual rules of jus in bello (no deliberately killing non-combatants) are followed. An interesting secondary question: would abortionists be considered non-combatants in such a military conflict?
Note that I am not arguing on behalf of going out and starting a war (that would be a little scary to see on an internet forum, wouldn’t it?); I’m just saying that the Catholic Church’s teaching on armed revolt is in some ways applicable to the American regime. I am posing abstract questions, not organizing my secret army.
Hopefully that disclaimer will keep this post from going viral on left-of-center websites.
Oddly, very few Catholics seem to be aware of this passage. So, yeah, right on Alindawyl: it is very similar to the standards for a just war.
And, yes, it would seem to justify at least the contemplation of armed resistance to the abortion regime in this country, assuming a sufficient force could be gathered to give good hope of accomplishing the aim of ending legal abortion by force, and assuming that all the usual rules of jus in bello (no deliberately killing non-combatants) are followed. An interesting secondary question: would abortionists be considered non-combatants in such a military conflict?
Note that I am not arguing on behalf of going out and starting a war (that would be a little scary to see on an internet forum, wouldn’t it?); I’m just saying that the Catholic Church’s teaching on armed revolt is in some ways applicable to the American regime. I am posing abstract questions, not organizing my secret army.
Hopefully that disclaimer will keep this post from going viral on left-of-center websites.
A
Alindawyl
Guest
Armed rebellion hardly qualifies as legit in the United States as long as we have a representative form of government. Elections would have to be suspended for rebellion to become even remotely acceptable, because as long as we have elections we have an option other than armed rebellion.
If enough of us wanted it done away with, our president would never appoint a justice who favors abortion and our Senate wouldn’t confirm any justice who favors abortion. The fact that they do as they please and aren’t brought to task for it is clear enough indication to me that, sadly, not enough people care strongly about ending abortion. If there isn’t enough support for it to be done legally, we can’t expect there to be more support for doing it via rebellion.
If enough of us wanted it done away with, our president would never appoint a justice who favors abortion and our Senate wouldn’t confirm any justice who favors abortion. The fact that they do as they please and aren’t brought to task for it is clear enough indication to me that, sadly, not enough people care strongly about ending abortion. If there isn’t enough support for it to be done legally, we can’t expect there to be more support for doing it via rebellion.
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Recalling the history of our American armed rebellion against the English during the American Revolution, a great many folks were not in favor of fighting in this armed insurrection and did virtually nothing at all to support it. They did, however reap all the benefits of the outcome. Assuming that the unjust abortion mandates set forth by our own govt will eventually lead to forced participation by those in the medical field, rebellion would be justified to prevent murdering of the unborn by those would never willingly participate. To say that we need a majority to rise up and vote against it is not supported by our history. Majority opinion does not carry more weight than moral justice no matter how few are willing to rebel.
N
Ned_Netterville
Guest
Ever since the Catholic church became allied with the Roman empire, it has supported the almighty state–the state that murdered Jesus–and its illicit taxing authority because the state provided the church’s ranking prelates with emoluments from its tax revenues, which it extracts from the less favored–by force when necessary. Paul might approve, but Jesus certainly would not and did not. Why? Because taxation is indistinguishable–except for the immunity extended by the almighty state to its tax-collecting agents–from the crime of extortion, which is forbidden by Jesus’ Father with His command, Thou shall not steal! See, jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Please check your history, dear one! You are way off track and way off base and way off topic.
Z
zdon011
Guest
Has any mentioned the Angelic Doctor yet?
S. Thomas Aquinas wrote a substantial chunk on the rightness (or wrongness) of rebellion. Don’t quote me on this, but I think he said that the ruler, though he has sovereign authority, should not make his subjects act unreasonably against their own consciences. The Church, acting as God’s spokesman on morality, has a right of rebellion against a tyrant who offends gravely against those morals, when there is no scope for conscientious obedience to that tyrant.
S. Thomas Aquinas wrote a substantial chunk on the rightness (or wrongness) of rebellion. Don’t quote me on this, but I think he said that the ruler, though he has sovereign authority, should not make his subjects act unreasonably against their own consciences. The Church, acting as God’s spokesman on morality, has a right of rebellion against a tyrant who offends gravely against those morals, when there is no scope for conscientious obedience to that tyrant.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Well, now I’m aware of the Catechism reference
. Thanks for providing me with an official source! Under these guidelines, one can see how armed rebellion would almost never be justifiable.And thank you, Katholish, for the Encyclical reference.
The Early Church Fathers will certainly remain my standard for submission to both temporal and spiritual authority.
Sherry G:
If I were you, I would be very, very careful about using the American Founding Fathers’ choice to revolt from England as a justification for other rebellions. The Founding Fathers were not Catholics well steeped in Catholic doctrine about submission to temporal authority. The Founding Fathers revolted against England over a combination of financial interests and fear of encroachment on colonial rights. The Early Church Fathers, on the other hand, submitted to Roman authority in the face of a fury of violent persecution. Which is a more grave crime, keeping one from making the financial deals one wants and keeping one from having full representation in Parliament, or mass murdering and torturing your people for their faith? The Early Church Fathers’ example is very sharply contradictory to the rebellious spirit the Founding Fathers passed on to Americans.
The Early Fathers are the example for all time of what we should yearn to be. They, along with Christ Crucified, are the ultimate example of peaceful submission to temporal and spiritual authority, even to the point of death.
Sherry G:
The Catechism (2243) says the following conditions must all be met before rebellion can be justified:
- there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;
- 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.
And none of these three conditions has been fulfilled by the abortion crisis.
Also, the Early Church saw all of the first four conditions for armed rebellion fulfilled during the centuries of persecution committed by the Roman Emperors. However, trusting in Christ’s Providence and living in the true spirit of His charity, they saw condition #5, that it is impossible to reasonably foresee a better solution, as standing in their way. Through faith in Christ and in the power of His Word (Eph. 6:10, 17, Heb. 4:12), they foresaw a better solution, which was the salvation of the entire country! Enemies surrounded them on all sides, but they persevered in the face of slaughter, not rebelling, for they wanted to show the world the face of Christ.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Are you speaking of all rebellions or just armed rebellions? Not all rebellions and revolutions are fought on battlefields. You have cultural revolutions regarding fashion and music, intellectual rebellions against previous schools of thought… basically any breaking from what is established can be seen as a form of rebellion.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I’m quite sure he’s talking about violent, armed rebellions, and these are the rebellions that CCC 2243 and MIrari Vos talk about.Are you speaking of all rebellions or just armed rebellions? Not all rebellions and revolutions are fought on battlefields. You have cultural revolutions regarding fashion and music, intellectual rebellions against previous schools of thought… basically any breaking from what is established can be seen as a form of rebellion.
S
Sherry_G
Guest
Let’s look further in the CCC, then. Check out 2265 which states:" Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm". We are all the “one who is responsible” for the lives of the unborn.
Use the CCC as a tool, but be sure that isolated passages are not used as a justification to stand by and do nothing to protect the innocent. Of course, I appreciate the warnings to " be careful" in my analysis and interpretations and thank you for your brotherly advice. CCC 2265 speaks to civil authority, however in our system of govt, we ARE the authority right alongside our elected officials in my opinion. We cannot wash our hands free of the blood of the holy innocents by picking out a few paragraphs from our CCC without regard to the totality of our Church teachings, can we?
Use the CCC as a tool, but be sure that isolated passages are not used as a justification to stand by and do nothing to protect the innocent. Of course, I appreciate the warnings to " be careful" in my analysis and interpretations and thank you for your brotherly advice. CCC 2265 speaks to civil authority, however in our system of govt, we ARE the authority right alongside our elected officials in my opinion. We cannot wash our hands free of the blood of the holy innocents by picking out a few paragraphs from our CCC without regard to the totality of our Church teachings, can we?
A
Alindawyl
Guest
I was referring rebellion in the context of the original question, rising up in rebellion against the civil authority in order to overthrow it.Are you speaking of all rebellions or just armed rebellions? Not all rebellions and revolutions are fought on battlefields. You have cultural revolutions regarding fashion and music, intellectual rebellions against previous schools of thought… basically any breaking from what is established can be seen as a form of rebellion.
We can’t set one paragraph in the CCC against another any more than we can set one verse of Scripture against another as if they were mutually exclusive. They must both be true.
Paragraph 2243 doesn’t say we can’t rebel under any circumstances or that the lives of the innocent are of no importance. It simply lays out conditions which must be met for armed resistance to the government to be justified. And it’s rather explicit that all five of those conditions must be met.
We’re not saying that we should stand by and do nothing to protect the innocent. Protests and prayer certainly amount to doing something. But we need to be patient and not resort to more extreme means unless all other options are exhausted. If the early Christians didn’t think armed rebellion was called for against a dictatorial government that not only permitted abortion but also infanticide, slavery, and execution of Christians, should we really consider rebellion against the representative government we have today?
Z
zdon011
Guest
So, Jesus died to save us from taxes? And S. Paul, an Apostle and author of most of the New Testament, is wrong
Frankly, that is both unbiblical and historically inaccurate.
Sounds a bit like some of the ‘Fundamentalist anarchists’ who generate (often anti-semitic) conspiracy theories against the US government, e.g. ‘the State Department/IRD is unconstitutional and a front for the activities of Antichrist’.
Our Lord said, referring specifically to financial taxes, ‘Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’.
S. Paul also commands due obedience and tribute/taxes to be given to the legitimate (human) government of his time.
N
Ned_Netterville
Guest
Sherry, sweetie, allow me to refresh your memory of American history and correct your distortion of it. Many loyalists did not “reap all the benefits of the outcome,” as you assert. Indeed, they didn’t reap any benefits whatsoever. Rather, they had their property stolen and in many instances were tarred and feathered, beaten and imprisoned by those nasty rebels. See: u-s-history.com/pages/h568.html You are right, however, in your comment regarding majority opinion and moral justice, although I would suggest rephrasing your position to make it stronger. Try this: Neither majority opinion nor majority rule (viz., democracy) has any weight or bearing whatsoever on moral justice.
N
Ned_Netterville
Guest
Hey zdon, my friend, you obviously didn’t take the time to read the essay to which I referred (jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html), which addresses both of the points you raise.
Without going into the extensive evidence and exegesis presented in that essay in support of my position, just let me say here that Jesus’ statement, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, but render unto God that which is God’s,” to include the important proviso that you omitted, by no logical means can be said to have been an endorsement by Jesus of paying taxes to the empire that was about to murder him. (Do you think Jesus was a fool?) The statement in its entirety requires that you know what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God. Do you know? Jesus did, for he knew the Scriptures, where in is is said many times, as in Psalms 24:1 “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” That, of course, leaves nothing whatsoever for poor old Caesar, and that is what Jesus, nobody’s fool, obviously meant, to wit: Don’t give that murdering Caesar anything! (Do you support murderers with your taxes? I doubt that Jesus would approve.)
As for Paul, let me first state that I am a disciple of Jesus. I am not a disciple of Paul’s. Paul was a Roman citizen enjoying the benefits of the empire that murdered Jesus. If you will take the time to read The Acts of the Apostles carefully, you will see that Paul was rather proud of his Roman citizenship, which saved him from grief if not death on at least two occasions. Furthermore, just as Jesus statement requires you to know what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, Paul’s statement in Roman’s 13, only seems to endorse paying taxes, for it is also qualified and requires knowing what, when and how taxes become “due.” Sounding rather like Jesus, Paul said, “Render to all what is d.ue them: tax to whom tax is due…” (New American Standard Bible) As a disciple of Jesus, I owe nothing to people or regimes who murder.
zdon, your comments sound like those of a fundamentalist statist, and practitioner of Statolatry, kinda like those devoted German dupes who either supported Hitler’s regime, or look the other way as the Gestapo rounded up their Jewish neighbors Nevertheless, keep the faith, whatever yours may be.
- Status