:ehh:
Am I the only one having difficulty keeping up with the various positions the one individual claims to hold to?
Would you support military action in the US to end abortion?
- Status
Am I the only one having difficulty keeping up with the various positions the one individual claims to hold to?
Why should I answer?
You deliberately avoid answering most of the questions posed to you in this thread.
I grow weary of answering politely and having insults hurled at me in return.
The one you posed it to is convinced you do not care to know.
Of course, I believe that the OP wanted to refer to the Mexican army instead of our own.
I am uncertain the law specified covers that.
But the laws on treason do.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I hope so because you are incredibly dense and not very bright if you think I aim to control the military and over throw the government. You do not understand the separation of powers and the role of the military. You are so far a field from my position that it boggles the mind. You turned this thing aside at post #18 and like an idiot I followed. You have the audacity to quote the laws of treason when the laws of war are not being followed and you support that deviation militantly. You honor a Court that honors it’s activist predecessors in making Roe law when they could rightfully overturn it, and the President who is not a king whose opinion is meaningless unless approved by Congress also calls Roe law, and a Congress who represents us that does nothing but let the Courts and the President do what they feel is best. They are not doing so well.
Though you don’t know it, it was a great act of charity and desire to continue to post here that I only responded by asking if abortion was legal. You have the cheek to frame me in such a way in order to support your war.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I think some rebellions are permitted by Doctrine as Just though I will have to look to provide a reference. If the Iraqis rose up and overthrew Saddam before we did…is that Just, or rebellion?
A point further, are you suggesting the foundation of America is an unjust endeavor and is illegitimate? Our Constitution is borne from its experience. I’m shocked again if that is so.
I don’t think you can compare them because The Way was never intended to be a political philosophy or political power, but an ethic of life which is embodied by the Church. One set of rules we are free to vote on in exercise our Free Will, another set that cannot to include and not limited to the Ten Commandments. These things are embodied in our Constitution as their origin in God. We just need to follow it.
I would not rebel against my government in the name of Jesus but for my human rights; and maybe rising up to end the cheapening of my humanity to end abortion by force of arms is my duty, not just my legal right if deemed necessary. Maybe we are at an impass in our society to rely on compromised legislation. I would not rebel against my government in the name of the Church’s moral code but my own which is formed by everything I am to include my faith. I would not use God as my reason to rebel against my government that refuses to secure our own borders while doing so around the world but my common sense. I would expect the Military to stay out of it because I would be defending the Constitution to which they to are sworn to protect.
But this was your thread…suggesting using the military in an illegal fashion.
And it was your suggestion to overthrow the government…specificly congress (as quoted above), to make abortion illegal.
If these are not your position, then why start all of this???
Actually, that is rhetorical. Read on below.
No, I was not surprised in the least with that.
Your position that the military is really a bunch of baby killers had been nailed.
The purpose of this thread was to slime the troops in Iraq and this had been shown, and there simply was no refuting it given that the proof were your own words.
What did surprise me is that you responded at all.
D
demol
Guest
Calling people “dense” and “not very bright”…Ok then. Guess I’ve seen enough.
E
estesbob
Guest
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If the war is in unjust then all troops involved are war criminals. In addition Catholioc troops are automatically excommunicated and condemned to hell unless they drop their arms, and reconcile themselves with the church. But I’m sure you still claim to support the troops.
E
estesbob
Guest
I’m glad to see that, like me, you now realize how silly your original proposition was.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Please do. The doctrine explicitly says only duly constituted public authorities may declare war, which eliminates any claim to moral legitimacy made by any political rebel.
Saddam would be getting what he deserved, just as the Romans would have been getting what they deserved if the Early Church had risen up and overthrown them. But it would still be rebellion. Consequently the Church felt it had no moral right to rebel, and hence did not.
Yes, I’m not only suggesting it, I’m saying it outright. It was very hard for me to come to that conclusion, but I have, and I think logic necessitates it.
The Constitution that resulted also is very damaging to society in many ways. Its moral principles depend, under law, on the interpretations of men, “the will of the people.” “The will of God” is not the dominant factor. That is very different from how historical Christian kingdoms managed things- they established laws according to moral principles declared by the Vatican, the expression of God’s will on Earth. Thus the moral principles they declared would be the bases for their laws were godly, whereas ours are human. Which is why we have Supreme Court cases like Plessy vs. Fergusson or Roe vs. Wade. Our laws are the “will of the people,” which is not necessarily “the will of God.”
That is a very, very damaging change democratic government has created, and is one of the big reasons behind much of the immorality of our times.
Such damaging changes were able to come about because democracy had its origins in a largely non-Christian movement, called the Enlightenment, the same place that our supposed “right to rebel” came from. The Catholic Church was not the origin of those views. In fact, only the demise of Catholic power in the West could make them possible.
One of the reasons why you have 0 major rebellions (only some minor ones) occurring historically throughout the Early and Middle Medieval Ages was that the Catholic Church unequivocally condemned rebellion, and they were pursuing the same practice as the Early Church had.
One cannot separate our political and our religious lives. Our political beliefs are the result of our moral beliefs, which are the result of the Church’s teaching. We cannot behave politically in one way and morally in an opposed way. That would be wicked. Our morality and our political ideologies must agree. The Early Church’s refusal to go to war was both a moral decision and a political example to us.
So we are not “free to vote on” one set of rules. We are only free to vote what is moral according to God. Everything comes from our moral lives. The requirement that we not rebel, which was taught by Peter, Paul and Jesus, as well as the Early Church Fathers, was also made to us as a moral teaching, not a political option.
Everything we do should be in the Name of Jesus. Everything must be holy and done for him. We are ambassadors for Christ socially, economically, politically, on every level of existence intended to be the expression of his will in the world, doing his will and acting in his authority. Which is incredibly glorious, if you think about it
.That is how I would feel if God and his Church had not condemned rebellion on moral grounds. Rebellion is not acceptable. It first came to be seen as acceptable in the West at the end of Christendom, with the writings of John Locke and other such philosophers. From its origins it was not a Catholic idea. It’s an Enlightenment idea that has crept into many Catholic communities in modern times because of where and when we live. It must be resisted, along with all the other moral perversions of our era.
Your interpretation of the Constitution, not the Supreme Court or America’s. You are not a “duly constituted public authority.” You don’t have any legal right to enforce your interpretation. The writing of a belief of Jefferson’s does not translate into hard law. The South was pulverized in the mid-19th century for exercising its “right to seceed.”
Also, according to the Just War doctrine, you’d have no right. Peter, Paul and Jesus all spoke in the Scripture about rebellion on moral grounds, and the Church has taught the same all the way up to the present day. Only the Enlightenment brought a change in people’s thinking, and it opposed the Church in its ideologies, was a fountain of heresy and secularism, coming up with its thought independently of the Church’s wisdom. The belief in the validity of rebellion has no place in the Church. It is one more of the grievous moral confusions that have crept into society, along with sexual permissiveness, the legitimizing of murder through abortion and infanaticide, the legalizing of witchcraft and many other such evils, and they all came through the teachings of the Enlightenment, a non-Christian source of thought. It is a moral perversion and we must all resist it.
But it is extremely hard for people to look back at what the Church has practiced throughout its existence, what the Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach, and what the Church continues to teach in the modern times through the Just War Doctrine, when those values clash with some of the basic assumptions of the country we live in.
I grew up surrounded by people who believe in the validity of the Revolution. That is origin of American life. It surrounds us. We were raised with it, believing it, learning the arguments in support of it, never giving serious thought to the contrary ideas that exist, and which have been supported by the Church throughout history. Our culture and society and upbringing bombards us with the belief that armed rebellion can be valid, so that validity is an automatic assumption we all share, unless God shakes us up.
He shook me out of it, I believe, at the same time as he shook me out of Protestantism and into Catholicism. It was a monumental change of ideology for me on multiple levels, political, religious and other. God has blessed me through it.
Rebellion is truly wrong. We can also see why, if we think about it in the terms the Early Church thought about it.
They taught that the emperor was the representative of God, that God had put him in power, so they were to obey him in everything he commanded them to do, unless he ordered them to break the laws of God. At that point, they were still not to rebel, because he was God’s representative and to rebel against him would be rebelling against God, but they were to hide or allow themselves to be killed. That, to them, was a moral issue about obedience to God.
On the other hand, if everyone was allowed to rebel against the government when they felt it was unjust, anarchy and a big increase in violence would be the natural result. That is something modern times have seen, because of their breach from Christianity: an increasing trend in political rebellion (Communistic, Fascist, Democratic and most recently Islamist), as well as a steep decline in the morality of governments established through rebellion- a movement toward moral anarchy.
All of which was predicted back in the Enlightenment days by monarchists who opposed rebellion. Dryden was an excellent example of this, predicting that Locke’s ideas would lead to a slide toward anarchy.
We grow up enveloped in modern history, though, so it is very hard for us to look at any of this and look with critical judgment toward beliefs ingrained in us from childhood.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Well reasoned response, and it has given me a lot to consider, thanks. Each reference to the Just War I find does not list that particular requirement. Can you show me where you are getting that? Here is mine from teh Catechism:
I have found a number of things that indicate a justified rebellion is possible and the closest to Doctrine I have found so far is the Catechism:
After 40 years of Roe a good question to ask Catholics would be ‘where we think we are with respect to points 2, 3 and 5’?
My words often get twisted so I would like to ask: Do you think the current war in Iraq meets the Just War criteria?
I have done a lot of reassessment in the past 7 yeras as well with respect to many things making my faith central as well which has caused me to change a number of positions previously held. It is hard but ultimately uplifting.
That is true but all civil law cannot waith until Christ returns and we are given authority to make our own laws outside of the Church’s jurisdiction. God has supreme jurisdiction of course but I reject the Moslem model where God is to detail every aspect of daily life.
I’ll try and find something on this as well, as I’m not sure it’s accurate in the sense that the Church always condemed rebellions.
I think we can and in fact must. Jesus said to give to Caesar what is his and to God what is Gods. I have always understood this as you state eleswhere we have to obey those legitimately in authority over us, but not when the ycontradict Gods law.
I think it remains our example which makes the recent wars so bad. I’d like to comment on most of what you wrote because I enjoyed reading it though I have come to different conclusions. I would like your comments thus far, however. (With a few more comments below)
I am wary of anyone, including myself who claims to be doing anything in the name of God.
It is to be sure, but there are many ‘Jim Jones’ types out there that I take issue with doing things in the name of God.We are ambassadors for Christ socially, economically, politically, on every level of existence intended to be the expression of his will in the world, doing his will and acting in his authority. Which is incredibly glorious, if you think about it
Does the Catechism referenced above alter your vie wat all?
E
estesbob
Guest
This is NOT what the Church teaches. As with War there are times when rebellion are justified:
[2243](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/2243.htm’)
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.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Then you have no valid defense because I think you are ignorant of the law. Not surprisingly I disagree with your assessment of who is guilty of what. Are you claiming every military conflict since WWII has met the Just War criteria? Of course I support the troops which is why I oppose the government sending them around the world in unjust wars.
E
estesbob
Guest
You cant have it both ways-if the war is unjust then everyone who fights in it is a war criminal.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
How about answering the question embeded in the post?
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
And according to the Church’s historical teaching and practice, only the Pope has the authority to declare that these conditions have been met. The Pope, according to historical Church practice, does have the authority to declare on behalf of God that Catholics can validly rise up against the oppressing ruler. The Pope exercised this power during the Reformation. It has only very rarely been used, though.This is NOT what the Church teaches. As with War there are times when rebellion are justified:
[2243](javascript
It certainly has never been Church teaching that normal civilians can make that decision for themselves. That would directly contradict the Just War Doctrine. Instead, “duly constituted public authorities” alone have the right to make war, unless the Pope intervenes, using his own authority on behalf of God to declare that civilians might rise up against their oppressor.
During the Reformation, the Pope used this power, calling on civilians to rise up and assassinate Queen Elizabeth, who was massacring hundreds of Catholics for their faith (something left out of most history books, but which can easily be found in more scholarly documents). I don’t know if the Pope ever used that power more times than that, during the Reformation.
As I said, the Pope has only rarely used that power, though.
E
estesbob
Guest
IIRC Pope John Paul II was was very involved in the rebellion against communist rule in Poland. I also dont recall the Church condemning the East germans, The Hungarians or any of the other Eastern European countries who rose up to throw out Communism and/or Soviet Rule
In addtion you stated “Rebellion is truly wrong” Now you seem to be backtracking and saying rebellion is truly wrong unless the Pope approves of it. That, of course ,runs contrary to the whole history of the latter part of 20th century concerning the Church and Eastern Europe.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I’d like to see your sources. I can’t find any calls from the Pope for violent rebellion in Eastern Europe, or support from the Pope for any of the revolts that took place. I have found evidence for the Vatican funding demonstrations against the Communist regimes- but that is a whole different ball game.
pbs.org:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/leadership/pope/
I can’t find anything about him supporting the violent Hungarian rebellion that ended in a disastrous mass slaughter for the Polish people.
I can’t find anything about the papacy supporting violent rebellions in the 20th century. They may have failed to denounce them, but they failed to support them too, so the lack of denunciation is meaningless.
Unless you can show that they supported violent revolutions in Eastern Europe, you don’t have a case. Supporting non-violent protests or workers’ strikes is bloodless and is a different matter. Jesus and the Early Church were strongly involved in protests against the injustice perpetrated by authorities. But they rejected bloody rebellion, even when they had the most cause to perpetrate it.
And about your earlier comment that I appear to be backtracking by saying the Pope can authorize rebellion, I’ll respond that I didn’t mention the papacy’s authority to remove a national leader on God’s behalf because it’s been so rarely done and is not a very relevant exception to this debate. It was not pertinent to the issue of the American Revolution that we were discussing. It’s also not very relevant to the topic we were debating, the morality of us civilians rebelling against the government. The morality of the Pope authorizing a rebellion didn’t relate. Also, the Just War Doctrine says that “duly constituted public authorities” are the only ones that can declare war. The Pope is such an authority. So in more than one way, he wasn’t a logical part of our debate.
Public authorities, according to the teaching of the Early Church, are God’s representatives. Therefore we should obey them as we would obey God, up to the point where they command us to do something that God forbids. After that point, we should no longer obey, but should allow ourselves to suffer the consequences. That was their teaching.
The reason the Pope is an exception is that he is the Vicar of Christ, Christ’s representative on Earth, so if he declares that a public authority is no longer a representative of Christ, then why should we any longer obey the person? It is no longer necessary. The person no longer fulfills the function of being a type of Christ.
But only Christ’s own highest representative on Earth has the authority to make that call. That’s why the Just War Doctrine condemns rebellion, and that’s why you find statements condemning rebellion by Peter, Paul and Jesus in the Scripture, and a triumphant refusal to rebel in the Early Church in spite of incredible persecution, a hundred thousand times worse than anything the Americans endured at British hands before the Revolutionary War, and worse than the troubles experienced by any of the rebelling oppressed of the 20th century. They refused to rebel. And God gave them a spiritual victory over the entire Roman Empire for their faith.
Rebellion is not part of the Catholic Church’s heritage, Tradition or Scripture- it is part of the Enlightenment and Reformation’s heritage and teachings, it and all its justifications.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I’ll elaborate a bit more on my point about the Eastern European Revolution. That Revolution was accomplished through peaceful demonstrations and fair elections. Not through violence. The Early Christians, while refusing to violently rebel against the Roman Empire, certainly protested their treatment and worked to convert rulers, which to some extent parallels the fair election of reformers during the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s a legal, Christian way to bring about change.
The fall of Communism doesn’t count as a violent rebellion. It’s not even really a rebellion- they weren’t breaking the laws. It’s more an ideological, spiritual rebellion, which is similar to the rebellion waged by Christians of the Early Church, a spiritual rejection of evil, not a physical one. Demonstrations and the appointment of reform-minded leaders to positions of power were a result.
I wouldn’t consider that to be rebellion.
I think that it’s ENTIRELY legitimate for Americans in the US to wage the same kind of “rebellion” as that against abortion- and many of us do. There are protesters outside abortion clinics, and there have been some very big marches on the Supreme Court. They just don’t have the strength to create radical peaceful change like the political and social forces did when they broke the Soviet Union.
We can’t call peaceful demonstration tantamount to violent rebellion. They are radically different forms of behavior.
The fall of Communism doesn’t count as a violent rebellion. It’s not even really a rebellion- they weren’t breaking the laws. It’s more an ideological, spiritual rebellion, which is similar to the rebellion waged by Christians of the Early Church, a spiritual rejection of evil, not a physical one. Demonstrations and the appointment of reform-minded leaders to positions of power were a result.
I wouldn’t consider that to be rebellion.
I think that it’s ENTIRELY legitimate for Americans in the US to wage the same kind of “rebellion” as that against abortion- and many of us do. There are protesters outside abortion clinics, and there have been some very big marches on the Supreme Court. They just don’t have the strength to create radical peaceful change like the political and social forces did when they broke the Soviet Union.
We can’t call peaceful demonstration tantamount to violent rebellion. They are radically different forms of behavior.
- Status