What is the Catholic teaching on rebellion?

[Wowbagger]

Jumping back in on that abortion-rebellion idea, I’ll start with two-and-a-half caveats:

(A) Lief is absolutely right that we have to be very, very careful when we throw around the idea of armed rebellion. It’s a very grave matter, and the circumstances that might occasion it are very rare, and it is very easy to lose track of that in the heat of anger about this or that injustice. We’re all in agreement about this, but I’ll probably restate it in every post anyway.

(B) Lief is also right to bring up the Church Fathers, who continued to defend the authority of the state even as that state martyred them en masse! Christianity has a profound respect for the state, and has held that respect since Christ said “Render unto Caesar…” No state is completely just, and all states, even those with very just laws, suffer from corruption and malice and sin, which means that sometimes a just law can’t protect you from an unjust emperor or police commissioner. For the most part, Christians are called to live with that, even when the injustices committed specifically against us are gross and enshrined in the law itself.

That being said (and here is the half-caveat), the Early Church weathered a persecution against herself. She did not stand by and watch other people murdered in vast numbers. Christians were called to martyrdom in the Coliseum, and went peacefully, but the Church never questioned everyone else’s right to defense. We are called to tolerate enormous injustices against ourselves, but we are not supposed to be nearly as tolerant of injustices against others.

With that in mind, let me play devil’s advocate here and suggest why I think the case for rebellion is much more plausible than Lief believes.

**(1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; **

This is met today in America, not just in the aggregate, not just in the vague sense that “ten million babies will be killed this decade,” but immediately, in the very concrete sense that “four thousand babies will be killed tomorrow”. During this long, forty-year fight, I think we sometimes start to think of it as a long-term war of attrition. In some ways, this is true. But we sometimes forget that abortion is also a profoundly urgent issue. This needs to be dealt with now, before anyone else dies!

The American Revolutionary question hinges on this point, and, frankly, I don’t think it quite measures up. I could be wrong, and there were some serious injustices going on, but, from this untrained non-student of history, I think the Revolution was very suspicious under just rebellion criteria. Taxation just isn’t all that grave, except in pretty extreme circumstances. You could make a clearer case for just cause in the case of, say, the Sioux Rebellion of 1862. (The Sioux then went on to flagrantly and brutally violate every rule of jus in bello, but I think they had a good case for starting the war, at least.)

**(2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; **

This is debatable, and I suppose a lot hangs on two points: (a) what is meant by “exhausted”, and (b) what time horizon we are considering. The problem with a word like “exhausted” is that no option is ever utterly exhausted. The option of diplomacy does not simply vanish when the German Army storms the Mareth Line. You can keep trying diplomacy right up until you’re shot before a firing squad for being the former head of government. The thing is, if you don’t start fighting militarily when the enemy attacks, you’re going to end up in front of that firing squad pretty fast. So I think the CCC is using the word “exhausted” here to mean “thoroughly, sincerely, and diligently attempted for as long as reasonably possible without concrete result,” not “attempted indefinitely, excluding all military options effectively forever.”

And I think that casts a new light on our American abortion affair. Yes, we will always have elections. Yes, we will always have that wonderful power of persuading the citizenry through good argument and much prayer. But we’ve been diligently trying these democratic options for thirty years, and what have we to show for it? A few incremental advances in legislation, barely touching the million-scalps-a-year the abortion mills are able to collect. No one can reasonably say that we haven’t done everything we legally (and, in cases like Operation Rescue, illegally) can possibly do in order to end abortion. Despite all our efforts, four thousand babies will die tomorrow.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that Christians must hold back and continue negotiations into a thirty-eighth year while the abortionists murder thousands more. If anyone in the history of warfare has fulfilled this criterion for just war, the American anti-abortion movement has done so.

**(3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; **

I find it difficult to imagine a worse disorder than the disorder perpetuated by legal abortion. Even in an all-out American Civil War II, we would not suffer a million KIA per year. And that is the worst-case scenario in terms of an armed resistance. It is far more likely that Le Resistance would be wiped out early, claim victory early, or (the most likely outcome) wage an asymmetrical campaign of warfare and vandalism against abortion-supporting infrastructure (Planned Parenthood facilities, abortion equipment in hospitals, abortionists’ bank accounts, etc.), inflicting negligible casualties (hopefully zero, certainly no civilians), with the majority of kills being inflicted on the anti-abortion side anyway.

In short, whether the scenario is worst-case or best-case, I think the extreme gravity of the American Holocaust meets condition three.

 

[Wowbagger]

A caveat: the absolute worst thing that could happen is that this hypothetical abortion resistance springs up, fights its war, loses quickly and decisively, and the P.R. backlash is such that the all our accomplishments since Roe are undone. However, I think the pro-life movement’s advances since Roe – although victory was hard-fought, life-saving, and worthy of praise – are, taken as a whole and compared to the enormity of abortion, negligible. The hypothetical anti-abortion army would stand to end legal abortion in this country, and all it would risk are a handful of nibbles we’ve made at the edges of that peculiar institution.

(4) there is well-founded hope of success;

Practically nobody in the pro-life movement is willing to contemplate, much less engage in, violence (which is probably a good thing, given our branding as ‘pro-life’!). For that reason, I think this is the sole criterion which is quite clearly unmet.

But it could be met by a relatively small percentage of the population, as long as they have great passion and a really good plan and (of course) massive respect for the laws of war and the need to keep casualties (both civilian and military) to an absolute minimum (zero if possible).

So, right now, criterion #4 is clearly not met – but that is not necessarily a permanent situation.

(5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution

We cannot end abortion in this country until we have a majority on the Supreme Court willing to vacate the imagined “constitutional right” to abortion dreamed up in 1973. But that is only the first condition. We also need powerful anti-abortion legislatures in nearly every state, which must make and enforce state laws against the unrestricted abortion regime we have today.

Right now, the Supreme Court is at least 5-4 in favor of Roe – and, with Roberts and Alito untested on the question (just as Sandra Day was supposed to be pro-life before she voted with the abortionists in Planned Parenthood v. Casey), we may be in even worse shape. Though we might have ended abortion with a McCain win in 2008 (clearing the way for McCain to nominate two conservatives, instead of Sotomayor and Kagan), Obama has firmed up the court’s abortionist majority and made it impossible to take control until at least July 2013, which is the earliest a pro-life president might be able to get a like-minded judge nominated and approved by Congress. And that would depend on Scalia surviving this presidential term and Ginsburg, Thomas, or Breyer kicking the bucket after the 2013 inauguration – an iffy proposition stacked upon an iffy proposition stacked upon an implausible one. In all likelihood, there will not be a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court for at least fifteen more years. It could easily be five to ten more years before an abortion case works its way up the line to the SCOTUS for ruling. (And we’d better hope we don’t lose our tenuous majority while we wait!)

Twenty million babies will be killed during that time. Best case (insanely unlikely) is that Roe is overturned by January 2014. That’s still four million dead. I’m not comfortable with that.

Then, even once the court overturns Roe, we still have to go through the states and get abortion outlawed (or nearly outlawed… if we could get back to the “life of the mother or rape or incest” exceptions held before 1973, that would eliminate 99% of abortions), one-by-one in every state. I can see no plausible scenario for that to happen on any timescale.

I cannot reasonably foresee any end to legal abortion in America except by military action. Criterion #5 is fulfilled in spades.

---

Now, let me remind everyone that I was only being a devil’s advocate up there. Obviously, I have not actually gone out and blown up any abortion clinics lately. I didn’t kill George Tiller, and I condemned the actions of his murderer. My argument should not be taken as an argument for running outside and buying up explosives. It should be taken as a stimulus to conversation and reflection on the Catholic just war tradition and considerations around justice and prudence.

[CONTINUED]

 

[Wowbagger]

I think it’s also worth noting that the above analysis is – with a few minor changes – essentially the exact same calculus that militant abolitionists had to deal with in the runup to our first Civil War. Before the middle of 1862 (a full year into the war), there was really no practical hope for an end to Southern slavery – not then, not ten years from then, not ever. Abolitionists faced the same injustices and the same frustrating combinations of judicial, legislative, and electoral majorities that pretty clearly weren’t interested in treating black people (or, today, unborn people) as human beings. They fought the same battles, won the same tiny, incremental victories… and, in the end, their long and hopeless and peaceful fight blossomed into the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.

It wasn’t John Brown and his violent resistance that ended slavery, in the end. It was the activists whose quiet, peaceful work set mighty forces in motion that they could not control and could not have imagined. In the same way, it was not the Jewish revolts that brought down the Roman Empire. It was the quiet, peaceful love of Christians, who could never have foreseen how their million small sacrifices could end in the conversion of an emperor and the spread of the Gospel to every corner of the world.

I can’t quantify that in my analysis of the justifiability of armed rebellion against abortion today. How could I? I’d be trying to quantify the virtue of Hope. But it is that strange and wonderful virtue which, in the face of an astoundingly grim analysis and a reasonably plausible case for immediate, widespread pro-life rebellion, keeps me from explosively lashing out in despair.

So, please don’t read this and run out and commit a felony and then say a guy named Wowbagger told you to do it on the Internet. I didn’t.

Seriously, don’t do that.

But I do think this is a question worth thinking about – and the virtue of Hope is one we can always afford to pray for.

 

[mlund]

The trick has always been, throughout all the ages, finding a revolution that can succeed, resolve the issues in question, and not create greater harm.

When Jesus spoke of Caesar he spoke specifically about the Roman Empire. The Jews did indeed rebel against Rome in 70 AD. They did not succeed. They had no chance to succeed. The revolution simply provoked the Diaspora and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus gave good and prophetic counsel when he spoke.

In the middle ages very few people had a concept of viable governance beyond Monarchy and Feudalism. Revolution meant little more than replacing one hereditary despot with another after a large round of bloodshed. In the more modern era, alternatives to these systems reemerged.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find any authoritative Church teaching in the modern era condemning the American Revolution or the end of the Soviet Union. The modern Church teachings generally frown on the ideas of empire, colonization, and conquest that were the status quo of political authority in earlier eras.

• Marty Lund

 

[Flame4]

Well it depends. Any legitimate authority must be obeyed. However lets say a dictator takes over a country: a rebellion is justified. Or if a government is stealing its citizens money, a rebellion is justified.

In short Authority should be obeyed, but power-not nesscary. Authority comes from God, but power can come to anyone.

 

[Flame4]

You’ll be hard-pressed to find any authoritative Church teaching in the modern era condemning the American Revolution or the end of the Soviet Union. The modern Church teachings generally frown on the ideas of empire, colonization, and conquest that were the status quo of political authority in earlier eras.

I have to ask, since I myself am confused on this one, what has been the Church’s teachings on monarchy/empires in the past? I believe that it was not doctrine but often viewed from the Church that authority from a King cam from God, yes? And in that case, does the Church condem its former beliefs or simply feel different times need different forms of government and that the Church has supported what was best during each time period? I know, complicated question but I would appreciate any answer.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Wowbagger, your analysis is interesting. I might make more comments later, but for now, I just wanted to mention that the Early Church Fathers weren’t the only ones enduring oppression and persecution. The Roman Empire was oppressing large numbers of slaves, was treating large populations as no more than brute animals, and was very cruel. There were large scale atrocities going on of abortion, infanticide, and gladiator conflicts. So the Fathers’ decision not to revolt can’t be dismissed as purely their own decision about what to do with their lives. They were making a decision based on principle, the principle of submission to authority because that authority represents Christ, and they also had a lot of hope. Their hope was that Christ, the Prince of Peace, would be the solution, and their hope was well founded, even though it took two and a half centuries from the dawn of Christianity for Constantine to rise to power. The Fathers witnessed the salvific power of Christ take over the land. How much faith do we have in the Prince of Peace? That’s an important question.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find any authoritative Church teaching in the modern era condemning the American Revolution or the end of the Soviet Union.

From what I’ve been told, the Pontifical schools in Rome all still teach that the American rebellion was unjustified. Though I agree, the Vatican has been pretty silent on the matter, officially, in recent times. I expect that they know, still, that the rebellion is not justifiable by the Catholic just war criteria, but they don’t want to create hostilities with America, deep problems for themselves and the causes they want to promote, without any important reason. It’s kind of academic at this point – the Revolutionary War is long over.

As for the Soviet Union, the surge of protests that overthrew it were completely peaceful. Therefore this doesn’t qualify as a rebellion that can be judged by the just war criteria.

I have to ask, since I myself am confused on this one, what has been the Church’s teachings on monarchy/empires in the past? I believe that it was not doctrine but often viewed from the Church that authority from a King cam from God, yes? And in that case, does the Church condem its former beliefs or simply feel different times need different forms of government and that the Church has supported what was best during each time period?

I believe it’s the latter. The Church doesn’t condemn monarchies or its actions in the past, but it supports what will work best right now.

There’s nothing wrong with an empire, either. An empire can be fine – a small state or a big one doesn’t matter so much as whether this government acts with justice and does what is right.

 

[Ned_Netterville]

And S. Paul, an Apostle and author of most of the New Testament…

zdon, ole buddy, That proud Roman citizen, St. Paul, authored perhaps one third of the New Testament. To say he was the “author of most of the New Testament” is an exaggeration, which is dishonest. If you read the essay mentioned in my first post to this thread, you will see just how thoroughly devoted to the Truth and impeccably honest Jesus of Nazareth was. I cannot say the same about Saul/ Paul, who, if Catholic-church translations of the New Testament reflect The Acts of the Apostles accurately, repeatedly referred to himself as an “Apostle” of Jesus. Disciple, yes, Apostle, no, at least not in the sense that word generally conveys as being one of the twelve original companions/disciples of Jesus, who he personally appointed to convey the Good News. (see, for example, newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Wowbagger . . . The Early Church Fathers . . . were making a decision based on principle, the principle of submission to authority because that authority represents Christ, and they also had a lot of hope. Their hope was that Christ, the Prince of Peace, would be the solution, and their hope was well founded, even though it took two and a half centuries from the dawn of Christianity for Constantine to rise to power. The Fathers witnessed the salvific power of Christ take over the land. How much faith do we have in the Prince of Peace? That’s an important question.

As for me, my plan of action is to dedicate my life to spreading the Catholic faith to as many souls as I possibly can. I depend utterly on the salvific power of Jesus Christ, poured out through the Virgin Mary, to make this effort succeed.

The order I’m seriously considering joining is the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Their branch in the US is firmly loyal to the Magesterium and is dedicated to evangelizing the entirety of North America. If I don’t join them, I’ll join some other order with a similar focus.

In this way, I will fight the same battle against evil you are talking about, but with the Lord’s weapons, and the devil will suffer real casualties – souls that abandon his side to join the Righteous One, through the prayers, suffering and evangelism of God’s servants. The more souls we convert to Catholicism, the more the tide might turn in the US against abortion, homosexual “marriage,” feminism and secularism. Rather than killing abortionists, I may convert them, and “bomb” abortion facilities with prayers and sacrifices. These will have real results.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The only reason why we are not having greater impact here in the US is we don’t have as many people fervently praying, sacrificing and working toward the overthrow of the abortion movement and the other evils racking our country. The Early Christians experienced the truth of this, for through the power of God, through the Christians’ prayers, penances, martyrdoms and ineffable love, the Roman Empire was converted.

Pope Pius XI said, “If I had an army reciting the Rosary, I would convert the whole world.” The power of the Rosary is incredible. We simply don’t have a sufficient army of penitents and prayer warriors here. The number of vocations has dwindled, the number of religious is small, and even of those that are in religious orders, and even of those religious that are orthodox, how many are really willing to suffer in a substantial way for God’s service? So few . . . That is why we are seeing such a terrible loss in the world, and so many holocausts. The devil is attacking the priests and religious, and ever since their numbers dwindled, and since great infidelity swept through many of the large orders, immorality has crashed through our world unimpeded. God told St. Faustina how badly He needs virgin souls, for through their virginity, they protect the world. The world depends on the virgins and celibate.

We need to seek to suffer for love, to ask God to enable us to suffer on His Cross out of a genuine love for God and souls, and never for self-glorification either in our own eyes or the eyes of others. religious-vocation.com/redemptive_suffering.html

We have too few religious, too few priests, and too few faithful ones, and among those that are faithful, there is often too little fervor. If we can focus on that spiritual crisis and resolve that, the rest will fall into place, and without the bloodshed of a war. If we can get our own house in order, we will be strong to change the world, and if our own house is in order, we can evangelize many.

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate focus on supporting the clergy and on evangelism. Through our evangelistic, prayerful and penitential works, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Christ can transform our world.

We shouldn’t turn to bloodshed to resolve this. Instead we should look to our own sins of laxity, timidity, and faithlessness, and pray for forgiveness for the many sins we and our fellow Catholics have fallen into here in the West. Then we also should encourage religious vocations wherever we can and pray for them, and for the new orders Christ is raising up, which are faithful to the Magesterium, devout, prayerful and sacrificial, and which God is using to change the landscape of Catholicism even now, for the better. We should pray for them and for ourselves and help everyone we possibly can to grow in their union with the Catholic Church.

For me, converting souls is the ultimate answer to this dilemma. Rather than shooting with bullets soldiers who are trying to protect abortionists, I would rather convert the abortionists and leave our soldiers to protect us against Al’Qaeda and other such threats. We can fight a real and vigorous war against abortion and homosexuality without using physical weapons. The reason it looks like we’re losing is because we don’t have the troops right now to make a big enough difference. Holiness, love, sacrifice, evangelism, in addition to political activism, are weapons we must use.

Also, consider this. How could we expect God to give the Catholic Church in the West victory in a physical war if almost all of us won’t abandon ourselves fully to the spiritual war already being waged?

Let us seek holiness together; I think that is the key.

 

[zdon011]

Ned,

I seem to recall that in the Gospel account Pontius Pilate tried to gvie Christ a fair hearing. It was the local society that forced his hand (with Ol’ Nick lurking in the background throughout). But the execution of Christ was still an unjust act on the part of the Roman power.

Nevertheless, Ned, you mentioned your own situation. I’d imagine that your government (I live in New Zealand), unlike the Roman Empire in Christ’s case, is not trying to murder you. I assume you are a permanent resident/citizen where you live. Let me ask you, have/do you benefit from facilities/utilities/resources that the state ensures? Do you refuse to seek the emergency services/police when you have such need? Aren’t you happy to use the roads and infrastructure that the state maintains? Is not your country’s physical security guaranteed by her armed forces? If so, then by refusing to pay taxes, aren’t you just being a bludger and a rebel?

Yours in the mire of Statolatry,

Michael

 

[Wowbagger]

Leif, I don’t disagree with you on any particular point. Far from it; I know you’re right about the power of prayer and the fact that – ultimately – nothing will solve the world’s problems except conversion and – ultimately – nothing else matters except perfect conversion to the Lord.

Your argument, however, does not apply only to this particular case (violent rebellion against the abortion regime). Your argument against resort to violence appears to apply to ALL violence, everywhere in history. You’ve made a strong case for complete Catholic pacifism. If we adopt your position – that an abortion war would be immoral – for the reasons you’ve given, I can’t see any way in which any other war in history could be considered moral. There is no reason we couldn’t have waged a similar prayer war against the Nazis – and no reason to believe that “holiness, love, sacrifice, [and] evangelism” would not have won the day in the end.

Now, I am not unsympathetic to the Catholic pacifist tradition, and I’m willing to entertain the idea that all wars are fundamentally unfaithful and untrusting of God’s providence. But that would definitely change the whole context of this discussion, which has so far been premised on Catechetical teaching and the Just War tradition. Moreover, I don’t think that you’re a pacifist, either, since you say:

Rather than shooting with bullets soldiers who are trying to protect abortionists, I would rather convert the abortionists and leave our soldiers to protect us against Al’Qaeda and other such threats.

To which I think the appropriate response is that abortion is a much greater threat to life, liberty, and civilization than Al-Qaeda has ever been. Why not replace the entire War on Terror with a stance of prayer and fasting and self-sacrifice? That’s a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I see a big difference between rebellion against legitimate authority and defending one’s country from invaders.

Don’t have time to say more now, though . . .

 

[Ned_Netterville]

Ned,

I seem to recall that in the Gospel account Pontius Pilate tried to gvie Christ a fair hearing. It was the local society that forced his hand (with Ol’ Nick lurking in the background throughout). But the execution of Christ was still an unjust act on the part of the Roman power.

Nevertheless, Ned, you mentioned your own situation. I’d imagine that your government (I live in New Zealand), unlike the Roman Empire in Christ’s case, is not trying to murder you. I assume you are a permanent resident/citizen where you live. Let me ask you, have/do you benefit from facilities/utilities/resources that the state ensures? Do you refuse to seek the emergency services/police when you have such need? Aren’t you happy to use the roads and infrastructure that the state maintains? Is not your country’s physical security guaranteed by her armed forces? If so, then by refusing to pay taxes, aren’t you just being a bludger and a rebel? Yours in the mire of Statolatry,

Michael

Michael, Thanks for responding and adding to my vocabulary. The word bludger was new to me and I’m glad to have it because I’m sure I’ll use it in the future, although a bit more appropriately than you have used it here. I like the definition I found in the Urban Dictionary, to wit:

“Australian: Someone who receives unemployment benefits (the dole) from the government but are too lazy to look for work.”

I am guessing–not assuming–that the word means the same in NZ as this Aussie definition. Is that right? I’m also guessing that I’m older than you are, Michael, for I have learned through experience that ASSuming and imagining things about another person one hardly knows is virtually certain to be wrong and doing so usually makes an *** of the person doing the assuming.

I can hardly begin to count the number of erroneous conclusions you arrived at about me because you made the mistake of assuming without basis and imagining without insight or knowledge. If the bludger definition I found is correct, I certainly am not one. Although I have been unemployed from time to time during my life, I was never tempted nor induced to take the dole the US and one’s state and one’s employer provide. One reason: as a disciple of Jesus I have renounced the use of force in the conduct of my affairs with other people, and I am unequivocally committed to nonviolence. So I could not accept any dole because someone–in the case of the unemployment dole it is the employer–is forced by the governments–state and national–to contribute. For the same reason, although I paid social-security taxes for many years and could legally be collecting benefits–probably $1000-$1500 a month or so, I never bothered to inquire–for the past 11 years, I don’t do that either. Just because the government stole my money doesn’t entitle me to steal. If, by any chance, you ever want to get yourself at least partway out of the mire of Statolatry, you too would be able to say of yourself, “I’m Spartacus.” (to see what that means, see thornwalker.com/ditch/spartacus.htm

Michael, your ASSumption that I am a “permanent resident citizen” is also quite wrong, and of course all of the assumptions following that error are equally wrong.

I am a native American, that is to say I was born in America. Although the United States government tries to make me think that I am a citizen with a clause in its silly constitution that purports to make “all person’s born in the United States” to be citizens, I give no credence whatsoever to its silly constitution. Are you a citizen of NZ because some dead people wrote something you believe? I don’t know about NZ, but I can tell you that the US government with its unimaginable plethora of silly laws places many demands upon citizens with which no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth could comply. You may recall that Jesus said, “No man can serve two masters,” and the US government is the master of those who are US citizens.

Micheal, I really think your knowledge of the character of Jesus would be greatly improved if you read the essay I mentioned in my first post, even if you don’t accept its conclusions:jesus-on-taxes.com/Page_7.html. And before you make more unfounded assumptions about me, why not just ask me. I am happy to answer your questions and particularly so if you are forthcoming about yourself to me.

Yours for the Truth that Jesus said would make us free.

Ned.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Your argument, however, does not apply only to this particular case (violent rebellion against the abortion regime). Your argument against resort to violence appears to apply to ALL violence, everywhere in history.

Governments have the responsibility and duty of defending their citizens from attack and violence. When an enemy attacks, the government has a responsibility to gather its military forces in defense of its people.

So if Al’Qaeda or some other group or nation attacks America, we should support our government in its defensive measures.

The Church sees a serious difference between the submission of citizens to the oppression of their own government and the choice of rulers to ignore attacks from foreign powers.

"All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. Despite this admonition of the Church, it sometimes becomes necessary to use force to obtain the end of justice. This is the right, and the duty, of those who have responsibilities for others, such as civil leaders and police forces. While individuals may renounce all violence those who must preserve justice may not do so, though it should be the last resort, “once all peace efforts have failed.” [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 79, 4]

On the other hand, the Catechism encourages submission to the oppression of one’s own government, though one should make use of peaceful means to try to create good solutions.

The Catechism’s statement on rebellion begins with the words, “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate . . .” Submission to oppressive governments is indicated as the norm through these words. Why? In part, because these governments represent Christ, and we too are called to represent the Prince of Peace in our own lives.

The rest of the Catechism’s statement offers the exception. The choice of words for each condition shows that the Church is trying to make this very difficult, to steer people away from this option. Very strong words are chosen. “Certain,” “grave,” “prolonged,” “fundamental,” “all other means,” “exhausted,” “will not,” and “impossible.”

Mirari Vos is more direct than the Catechism on the Church’s general enmity toward armed rebellion. Post 5 in this thread, by Katholish, includes the quotation.

Jesus had the resources to defend Himself from unjust oppression. As He pointed out, He could have called upon twelve legions of angels to defend Him. However, He preferred death to rebellion. I know, He also had a mission to execute, yet a general antagonism toward rebellion was clearly marked in His cry toward Peter, when Peter tried to defend Him, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!” (Matt. 26:52)

Our own governments represent Christ for us, and we should submit to them as to Christ Himself, no matter how they abuse their authority. That is the example the Early Church offered us. The Roman government created certain, grave and prolonged violations of fundamental rights. They were supporting abortion, infanticide, a barbaric form of slavery, gladiatorial contests, oppression of the masses, idolatry of the emperor, and repeated violent suppression of their most innocent citizens. They committed and often intensified these atrocities for centuries. No one in history has ever had a more clear cause to rebel than the Early Church did. If the Early Church had rebelled against its oppressors, its rebellion would have been a just war. However, the Early Church, seeing with the light of faith, had a clearer gaze than we have. They saw Jesus Christ Crucified in all, and they gave themselves to Him. In doing so, they won His Heart not only for themselves but for the entire Empire. The Eastern and Western worlds were transformed.

I understand, in keeping with CC 2243, that rebellion can be legitimate. That doesn’t mean it is the best choice. It wasn’t Christ or the Early Church’s choice. It can be a legitimate and just choice, though, even if it isn’t the best one.

Anyway . . . I’m just throwing this out as my present view on the matter. I’m certainly not a theologian or an expert on this subject. I was the one who created this thread! There may be people who know better than I and who disagree with me.

I do strongly believe in submission to authority, and in seeing Christ in all ruling authorities. I believe in the duty of rulers to defend their people but in the duty of people to submit to their rulers, just as I believe in the duty of children to obey their parents and wives to obey their husbands, but of husbands to defend their children and wives, and of parents to defend their children. I also believe in the vital duty of all souls to submit to the authority of the Pope and ecclesiastical authorities, and of the deadly grave responsibility of these authorities to defend their children’s souls. All these practices of submission to authority are tied together. They are ways in which we should submit to Christ and unite ourselves with Him.

I believe that all righteous principles of submission apply in a particularly exacting way to Christians, because we represent the Prince of Peace for our times and societies.

I know I could be wrong in my understanding. I’m not all that knowledgeable. Whatever the Church teaches is true. Like you, I’m just trying to unite with her to the best of my ability.

God bless you.

 

[Ned_Netterville]

Anyway . . . I’m just throwing this out as my present view on the matter. I’m certainly not a theologian or an expert on this subject. I was the one who created this thread! There may be people who know better than I and who disagree with me… I do strongly believe in submission to authority, and in seeing Christ in all ruling authorities…I know I could be wrong in my understanding. I’m not all that knowledgeable.

Lief, with honesty not arrogance, I submit that I disagree with virtually everything you have said on this thread about rebellion, war, government, authority and related matters and I believe I know better than you, perhaps because I am, I suspect, late in my 73rd year, considerably older and more experienced than you are. I do think that our profound differences may also result from the different teachers we have chosen. You seem to take your lead on these matters from the “church fathers,” whereas I take mine from Jesus. Perhaps the best example of how these divergent teachers leads us to greatly divergent views can be seen in the concept you mentioned of a “just war.” I am aware that Augustine and other church fathers borrowed and enlarged upon a theory Cicero concocted that there can be a just war, but there is nothing in the teaching or the way in which Jesus led his life that suggests he would condone violence under any circumstances whatsoever.

Lief, your enthusiasm for prayer and obedience to Christ are admirable, but if you are to be obedient to Christ you must understand his teachings and the impeccably character of Jesus. As but one example how our respective teachers have led us to greatly divergent views, I quote you from an early post on this thread:

“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.”

Jesus did say give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but by no logical means can it be assumed that in saying this Jesus was encouraging the payment of taxes to Caesar. In order for you to understand these words of Jesus, you obviously must know–as Jesus clearly did know–what belongs to Caesar, and, more importantly, what belongs to God, for in the very same sentence Jesus added this proviso: “but give God what is God’s.” So, what belongs to Caesar’s, and what is God’s? As I pointed out to Micheal in an earlier post, Scripture asserts in several places that everything on earth belongs to God, which leaves nothing whatsoever for poor old Caesar. Rather than encouraging the payment of taxes to Rome, Jesus’ words, “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s but give God what is God’s,” should be seen as a resounding rebuke of Caesar and his taxes, and a ringing endorsement of Jesus’ Father’s commandment, “Thou shall not steal!” Taxes are stealing. Taxation is identical to extortion, except that the tax collector is granted immunity by illicit laws of the state for whom the tax collector extorts, otherwise tax collectors would go to jail for their wanton behavior. Caesar was not exempt from God’s command, and Jesus was not fooled by sophistry that declares the state owns everything and is merely claiming its own when it taxes. Jesus was nobody’s fool, and he most certainly wouldn’t endorse the taxes of the empire that was about to murder him. God bless you.

 

[Alindawyl]

You seem to take your lead on these matters from the “church fathers,” whereas I take mine from Jesus.

No one has taken their lead directly from Jesus since the time of the apostles except for the rare cases in which Jesus chooses to appear before someone personally. Unless you’re actually making the claim that Jesus personally teaches you, what’s really happening is you take your lead from some authority’s interpretation of the spoken and/or written words of Jesus.

For Catholics, our authority is the Catholic Church. Not because we think the Church is something special in and of itself but because we believe that it was established by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. You are welcome to claim that the Church is not really established by Jesus Christ, is not really guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore lacks the authority to teach on this or any other question of morals. But for us to seriously consider your objections, I say also with honesty and not arrogance that you will need to tell us what your authority is, and more importantly why that authority is more trustworthy than the Church.

Simply claiming that you follow Jesus, without any further explanation, makes it appear that you personally consider yourself to be that authority…

 

[Ned_Netterville]

No one has taken their lead directly from Jesus since the time of the apostles except for the rare cases in which Jesus chooses to appear before someone personally. Unless you’re actually making the claim that Jesus personally teaches you, what’s really happening is you take your lead from some authority’s interpretation of the spoken and/or written words of Jesus.

For Catholics, our authority is the Catholic Church. Not because we think the Church is something special in and of itself but because we believe that it was established by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. You are welcome to claim that the Church is not really established by Jesus Christ, is not really guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore lacks the authority to teach on this or any other question of morals. But for us to seriously consider your objections, I say also with honesty and not arrogance that you will need to tell us what your authority is, and more importantly why that authority is more trustworthy than the Church.

Simply claiming that you follow Jesus, without any further explanation, makes it appear that you personally consider yourself to be that authority…

Alindawyl, my friend, there are documents reporting or purporting to report the words and deeds of Jesus, and it is from these and through prayer that I take my cue as to what Jesus said and did. There are the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Thomas and others. My knowledge of Jesus comes from an assessment of these reports about him employing the wisdom God has granted me and through prayer and meditation. I belong to the church personally established by Jesus when he said, speaking to me (and you) through the Gospel of Matthew, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” In this way Jesus makes himself known to me–and you too desire–and to any and all Catholics who care to know him themselves.

keep the faith, Ned

 

[Ned_Netterville]

For Catholics, our authority is the Catholic Church. Not because we think the Church is something special in and of itself but because we believe that it was established by Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. You are welcome to claim that the Church is not really established by Jesus Christ, is not really guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore lacks the authority to teach on this or any other question of morals. But for us to seriously consider your objections, I say also with honesty and not arrogance that you will need to tell us what your authority is, and more importantly why that authority is more trustworthy than the Church.

Simply claiming that you follow Jesus, without any further explanation, makes it appear that you personally consider yourself to be that authority…

Alindawyl, upon what evidence do you base your belief that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ ? And what makes you believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit?

Mind you, I am not denying or challenging the Catholic Church’s authority to teach its members on matters of morals. However, when those teachings appear to conflict with the teaching and example set by Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the several Gospels, particularly in those gospels that are considered to be canonical by the Church itself, I give the Church’s teaching no credence whatsoever, and seriously wonder why anyone would. After all, the gospels are available to anyone who desires to peruse them for themselves. And while I see many areas of conflict between what the Catholic Church teaches versus what Jesus taught as reported in the gospels, it is on the issues of violence and war that I am most moved to point out the Church’s glaring inconsistencies. And, may I add, I find it egregiously hypocritical for anyone who supports the initiation of force and violence in the conduct of human affairs, as the Catholic Church does when it endorses or condones taxation, to profess peace, to which the initiation of force is so inimical.

In the love that Jesus prescribed, I am sincerely,

Ned

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl, upon what evidence do you base your belief that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ ? And what makes you believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit?

The Catholic Church has Apostolic Tradition (here)
The Catholic Church has Apostolic Succession (here)
The Catholic Church has documented history in her favor (here, here, and here)
The Catholic Church has authority in faith and morals (here)

Jesus Christ is the object of my faith. Jesus Christ as taught by the Catholic Church, not Jesus Christ based on my own subjective opinion. Personal subjective opinion doesn’t have Apostolic Tradition, Apostolic Succession and historical documentation to back it up. It’s not even remotely authoritative.