Crusader_4 Posted August 22, 2004 Author Share Posted August 22, 2004 Aloyousious i do not disagree with you at all in regards to the liberal attitueds in Canada which i do not support for a second however at the same time please stay on topic to the main gist of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Wait wait wait, the US seperated from Canada? I never heard of this... Plus, I thought the US was older than Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Jeff, refer to the Catechism to see the criteria for a revolution. Ironmonk posted it once, i don't feel like lookin for that... it's late and i havta get up early to go to Latin Mass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Any war against the british is a just war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 (edited) Aloyisius, I am very familiar with the catechism in this regards. If one actually searches the Catechism for a teaching on "revolution" it cannot be found. I believe what you are referring to is the following, as it is the most closely related to the issue at hand: [quote]2243 Armed [i]resistance[/i] 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.[/quote] Please note, the emphasis on resistance is [u]not[/u] added by myself, but is actually found in the Catechism. I would advise all people participating in this discussion to read not only the above quote, but the entire entry on "The duty of citizens" in the catechism, which spans from section 2238 to section 2243. Understanding the whole context of the Church's teaching on the matter, one can see that all people are called to humbly submit to the authority of their government, respecting that, ultimately, all authority is God's and that governments and sovereigns are merely allowed to exercise that authority via God's Permissive, not His Active, Will. As section 2242 highlights, refusing obedience to civil authorities is mandatory in instances in which the authority is asking the citizen to break the Moral Law. It is unacceptable, however, in any other case. Finally, section 2243 explains that armed [i]resistance[/i] is permissible in rare cases. Let us now consider this issue. It is clear that the catechism italicises the word "resistance" to let us know that no bending or warping of the meaning is acceptable. "Revolution," that is, the deposing of a government, is a completely different thing than resisting the government. One can resist, even with recourse to arms, a government that is trying to force the breaking of the moral law without actually deposing that same government. Perhaps the following outline on the duty of citizens will help: 1.) "Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God" (CCC, section 2238) 2.) Citizens are to submit to authority, and are co-responsible with that authority to uphold the common good (see CCC, sections 2239 & 2240) 3.) Refusing obedience to Civil Authorities is only acceptable when said authorities are asking one to break the moral law. Temporal inconveniences and governmental inefficiency do not fulfill the above. Thus it is said in CCC, section 2242: [quote]When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel. [/quote] 4.) Armed [i]Resistance[/i] is only permissible if the above stated 5 conditions are met. It is clear that usurping a government is not resistance, but revolution, and in no way can one be considered to be "regarding those in authority as representatives of God" when that person is casting those same persons in authority down. Thus, I maintain, as supported by the Catechism, that Revolution is not a just or moral course of action, and that Catholics should submit to the established authority in all issues in which they can possibly sumbit. When said authorities attempt to make a catholic break the Moral Law, the catholic should humbly explain that they will not oblige. If the government attempts to force the issue, and the 5 requirements are met, it is permissible for a catholic to resort to arms in their resistance. This use of arms is strictly for resisting to the specific instances in which the government is attempting to coerce a breaking of the Moral Law, and for nothing else. Thus, revolution is absolutely immoral. I hope this helps, - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Edited August 22, 2004 by JeffCR07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 (edited) [quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 22 2004, 08:43 AM'] Any war against the british is a just war [/quote] Nazi Germany thanks you. Edited August 23, 2004 by RandomProddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 [quote name='Paladin D' date='Aug 22 2004, 12:05 AM'] Wait wait wait, the US seperated from Canada? I never heard of this... Plus, I thought the US was older than Canada. [/quote] Hey Paladin...as a country the Americans are older however as colonies or rather settlements Canada goes much futher then the United States. One for example can trace Viking Settlements in Canada in Newfoundland as well as John Cabot and especially Jacques Cartier. However to say they seperated from "Canada" would be for the most part true as Canada remained Loyal to Britain while the 13 colonies did not thus seperating themselves from Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary's Knight, La Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 couple of things to clear up, as far as US V/S Canada, britain eventually made colonies in Canada, and in an uprecedented act, let them keep french law, etc. but once britain obtained canada it was as a seperate colony unconnected from the US now did the US have a right to secede from Britain: Legally: NO, the DoI was a technically useless document. I could declare my independence from the state of La and the USA and write it down, but i dont have the legal power to enact that. though the law is all words so its a tricky issue as to what contains legal power with regards to seccession morally: i have to say according to my studies, general ed college classes. the US was originally *resisting* british authority to make them take notice and reform and then the colonies would be happy british citizens. however when it became clear the current level of resistance would not work, they had to pursue a more drastic option. it was clearly a case of elevating responsible civil disobedience till there was no choice but to escalate to armed resistance and when event that didnt work secession. In my mind there is no doubt that each step wasn't necessary and to a degree planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 [quote name='RandomProddy' date='Aug 23 2004, 03:44 PM'] Nazi Germany thanks you. [/quote] Their Welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Mary's Knight, please read my above post on the morality of revolution in the eyes of the Church. Also, if [i]anyone[/i] could respond, I am up for open dialogue on the subject. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 24 2004, 09:13 AM'] Also, if [i]anyone[/i] could respond, I am up for open dialogue on the subject. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] although its probably not the response you're looking for, Jeff, I'm in complete agreement with you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now