Legitimate Government

[Don John of Austria]

The first councilof lyons goes on for more than a page explaining why Frederick II is being excommunicated and ( many of those things are done in our own nation) and that portion of the council ends with the following
[quote]We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to him by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king, and decreeing that anyone who henceforth offers advice, help or favour to him as to an emperor or king, automatically incurs excommunication. Let those whose task it is to choose an emperor in the same empire, freely choose a successor to him. With regard to the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily, we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our brother cardinals, as we see to be expedient.
[/quote]

I have to go agian it's 4th period now.

[voiciblanche]

[quote] furthermore that it is good and Holy for people to try to destroy them[/quote]

Clarification, please? Destroy the corrupt government/society/etc, or destroy the people of the corrupt gov't/society/etc?

[quote]Furthermore there is the Excommunication of Henry IV which specifically stated that Vassals where not obligated to obey an excommunicated soverign and that they where free to revolt.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? What did revolting imply exactly?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 12:32 AM']
I disagree. And if you they are not effective enough it is because people do not support them enough. And if people do not support the current causes, why would more drastictic ones take effect? [/QUOTE]
I agree with Theoketos. I work full-time in the pro-life movement, for example. One of my friends from college is a Sister of Life who works at [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network[/url]. She says they are in [b]continual need[/b], not only of donations and funding, but [b]of volunteers[/b]. They [b]desperately need[/b] more people who work in medical services and counseling, people who will open their homes to become nurturing homes, people who can offer employment and educational help, and people to coordinate services on the local level.

If the pro-life movement is big enough to actually [i]succeed[/i] in a violent "just war" scenario, then it should be big enough to [b]provide these services [color=red]first[/color][/b].

[url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/USCCB%20Final%20Article%20As%20Published%20Aug%202004.pdf"]Read the USCCB "Respect Life" article [i]When Being Right Is Not Enough[/i] by Mary Cunningham Agee.[/url]

Then go to [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network (http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/)[/url] now and click "Offer to Help." [/quote]
Well I think this topic should be closed now because this person just owned it.

[img]http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/~mocon/brol/forumpics/owned.jpg[/img]

[Don John of Austria]

Thats funny I thought that was an almost useless post completly unrelated to this topic and not particularly compleling to the topic of abortion.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Clarification, please? Destroy the corrupt government/society/etc, or destroy the people of the corrupt gov't/society/etc?
[/quote]
Well in the Councils in question no distintion was made between them, I would advacate distroying the societys which where corrupt and only destroying those particular corrupt people who would not relent, however they ussually go together.



[quote]What did revolting imply exactly?[/quote]

Vilolent overthrow of the government, what does revolt alway imply, it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler, do you think emperors are in the habit of just surrendering thier throne, nop this would, and did require openwarfare and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable ( or in the case of Frederick II virtually required)

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:43 PM'] Vilolent overthrow of the government, what does revolt alway imply, it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler, do you think emperors are in the habit of just surrendering thier throne, nop this would, and did require openwarfare and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable ( or in the case of Frederick II virtually required) [/quote]
[quote]what does revolt alway imply[/quote]

It can imply a lot of things, or not. If I knew what it "always implied" I wouldn't have asked you. You've probably noticed that I ask a lot of questions; I [i]try[/i] not to debate if I don't know what I'm talking about.

[quote]it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler[/quote]

[quote]and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable [/quote]

Could? Acceptable? So the Church didn't demand it? (Except in the case you mentioned, of course, assuming that the Church did, in fact, require it.)

[Q the Ninja]

What would you say to the principle of lesser of two evils applying here?

Edited January 4, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Don John of Austria]

double effect regarding what?

[Q the Ninja]

Oops, I'm going to edit that. Not double effect, I'm way too tired to be posting.

I meant lesser of two evils, sorry for the confusion.

[Don John of Austria]

I think the move torwards chaos is bettert han a orderly evil, so better to revolt than to allow evil to riegn.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 4 2005, 09:30 AM'] I think the move torwards chaos is bettert han a orderly evil, so better to revolt than to allow evil to riegn. [/quote]
Question -- Would you consider orderly evil to require intelligence?

[Don John of Austria]

I concider order itself to require intelligence at least in it's formation.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 4 2005, 11:01 AM'] I concider order itself to require intelligence at least in it's formation. [/quote]
I figured as much.

That's why I doubt the government having the potential of being evil. There's too many people running it that lack intelligence. And the American people as a whole are generally not all that smart, either.

[Don John of Austria]

while agree with you about the american people, I think the people running our country are brilliant, as where the founders, but genius and goodness do not need to reside in the same person, and I think in the case of our government they usually do not.

[Socrates]

voiciblanche - I don't think the argument about politicians being too stupid to be evil holds water. Everyone who has reached the age of reason (e.g. has the intelligence of an average 7 year old) has moral culpibility. (And I think this would apply to the vast majority of politicians, no matter how much we may joke otherwise! )

Don John - I am not so certain violence leading to chaos is a desirable thing. Killing is a very serious thing, and should only be done if it is clearly necessary to bring about a greater good (such as save innocent lives). A state of chaos can easily lead to greater evil.

Edited January 7, 2005 by Socrates

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 7 2005, 12:57 PM'] voiciblanche - I don't think the argument about politicians being too stupid to be evil holds water. Everyone who has reached the age of reason (e.g. has the intelligence of an average 7 year old) has moral culpibility. (And I think this would apply to the vast majority of politicians, no matter how much we may joke otherwise! ) [/quote]
Being evil and doing evil deeds are different. Even being a bad person doesn't mean you're evil. I doubt there's many in the [i]world[/i] who are [i]evil[/i], and it's been argued that it isn't possible.

[Socrates]

Evil is simply the absense of good. Anything morally bad is morally evil. All sin is evil. Thus most of us are guilty of at least some evil.

Obviously there are varying degrees of evil. I think that it is obvious by looking at the world around us and at history that there are and have been many very evil people. (Take Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, to name some rather obvious examples.)

You need to define what you mean by "evil."

[Q the Ninja]

Actually evil is a lack of due order of good.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Being evil and doing evil deeds are different. Even being a bad person doesn't mean you're evil. I doubt there's many in the world who are evil, and it's been argued that it isn't possible. [/quote]

Yes it does, why are we so afraid to call a duck a duck, if you lie you are a lier, if you steal your a thief, if you commit adultery you are an adulterer. If you do evil things you are evil at least to the extent that you do evil. If you do greater Evil than you do Good then you are simply evil, that doesn't mean you can't repent, it just means that wghile you are sucha person you are an evil person.

[Q the Ninja]

You can't be evil. Evil is a [i]lack of due order of good[/i]. There is no such thing in people.