What is the Church teaching on authority of governments?

[Willing_Spirit]

There is a bible passage along the lines of “nobody rules unless God has given them the power to rule”. How does the Church interpret this? New powers can emerge from revolutions, so wouldn’t they have been given power to rule by God, even though they opposed a power given to rule by God? How is this contradiction resolved?

 

[Crocus]

A previous discussion on this topic.

Obedience to government authority Sacred Scripture

In Romans 13:1-2, Paul talks about how we, as believers also have to be subjected to governing authorities, and whoever resists being obedient to them will have God’s punishment. But what about certain governments such as communist governments? Do we still have to be obedient to them? And would it be sinful if one participates in strikes against the communist government eg to restore Catholic Churches?

 

[Weave]

Even Christ recognized Pilot’s God given authority to sentence Him to death.

The Church has always taught that governments can be legitimate authorities that should be obeyed. That’s not to say every government is a legitimate authority

 

[Genesis315]

St. Robert Bellarmine’s book, De Laicis, is all about the civil power and chapter 6 is probably what you’re looking for.
De Laicis — Saint Robert Bellarmine's Treatise on Civil Government - Page 6 of 22 - Catholicism.org

In general “this power in specific instances comes indeed from God, but through the medium of human wisdom and choice.”

Here is a paragraph on point:

Add, moreover, that even if at the beginning those who founded kingdoms were usurpers for the most part, yet, by the passing of time, either they or their successors became lawful rulers of these kingdoms, since the people gradually gave their consent. In this way the kingdom of France is now lawful, in the opinion of all, though in the beginning the Franks unjustly occupied Gaul. And the same may be said of the kingdom of Spain, which began with the invasion of the Goths; of the kingdom of England, which began with the unjust occupation of the Anglo-Saxons; and of this very Roman Empire, which was founded by Julius Caesar, the oppressor of his country; which, nevertheless, afterward became lawful to such a degree that Our Lord said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, etc.”

 

[Willing_Spirit]

I’ve just read most of the chapter. The language is a little beyond me, but from what I can gather from it, it is always sinful for a people to overthrow their authority? The new power that rises is still considered of God’s authority though in that it is a good brought from a wicked act kind of like a child brought from an adulterous act? The only just way an authority can fall is to another external authority (nation)?

 

[Servant31]

I’ve wondered about this before. I’m unfamiliar with the arguments though. If all authority is God given, then how does unjust authority change? Many authorities are in authority through use of force or unjust means. They aren’t about to give up that authority. So they can’t be removed or resisted because it’s going against Gods law?

 

[Willing_Spirit]

It seems to be that an unjust ruler should almost always be seen as punishment. We can see many unjust rulers take Israel in the Old Testament when they have turned to false gods. They don’t overthrow the unjust ruler, but rather when they turn back to God a just ruler comes into power and lets them go like Artaxerxes. There is also the Exodus to consider. Rather than overthrow Pharaoh, Moses led Israel out of Egypt. So, it seems the only righteous options under unjust rule are to flee or endure injustice from authority as the first Christians did when they were persecuted.

This is all just my understanding of what I read in that chapter that was linked here. I am not certain. It seems the only way an unjust ruler can be removed without sin is the ruler is replaced/succeeded naturally by authority or another authority on earth opposes them.

This is all interesting because it means the way the United States was founded was immoral, even though God has brought good out of the sinful actions and allowed a new authority. It also means dictators like Hitler and Saddam Hussein were given power by God and it was His will for a time. It may be impossible to know why, but in the end the other authorities on earth removed them which must have been God’s will.

I’m probably getting this all wrong, because isn’t the Cristero rebellion applauded?

 

[Genesis315]

Not necessarily. Sometimes it is internal. The French revolution was originally condemned as a usurpation, but the ensuing regime was later accepted. The same is true of the switch to a Protestant monarchy in England. Likewise, internal rebellion against a tyrant can be justified–in those cases, it is the tyrant who is guilty of sedition. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses it here:

A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3042.htm#article2

While the Church does not consider any form of government superior to another in principle, provided they serve the common good, one of the positives of democracy is the greater ability to peacefully replace those who govern when appropriate:

Centissium Annus

46.The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.93

93 Cf. Gaudium et Spes., 29; Pius XII, Christmas Radio Message on December 24, 1944: AAS 37 (1945), 10-20.

http://www.vatican.va/content/john-..._jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html#$2L

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Ah, that kinda make sense, but then why did the first Christians have to endure persecution rather than fight? Surley their persecution was not for the common good. Why did Jesus want them to respect Caesar’s authority rather than fight like the Cristeros did?

 

[Willing_Spirit]

Actually, thinking about it more could it just be said that the martyrdom of the early Christians was a choice and not an obligation? Because even if they could not declare war on Rome for the unjust persecution, everyone still has the right to defend their lives don’t they?