Sirach,
Chapter 23, Verse 27
Thus all who dwell on the earth shall know, all who remain in the world
shall understand, that nothing is better than the fear of the Lord, nothing sweeter than obeying the commandments of
the Lord.
What happens when those who dwell on the earth no
longer know God and what should we do when it becomes abundantly clear to us
that our duty to God is threatened by the governments of men?
The Compendium of the Social
Doctrine of the Church[1]
addresses the issue of when and how St. Peter's teaching that obedience to
God comes before obedience to men as it applies in the modern Christian's life.
Presciently, or perhaps better,
prophetically, Pope Benedict XVI foresaw and foresees increasing conflict
between American Catholics and a public authority increasingly secularized and
increasingly hostile to the moral values of its Catholic citizens. The conflict
is caused by the increasing demands of the State to "to deny the right of
conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions
with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices." The
aggressive secularist State wants freedom of religion to be limited to
"mere freedom of worship," and not to "freedom of
conscience" which extends beyond the realm of the four walls of a Church
into the "public square" of social, civil, political, and economic
life." Christians may conscientiously object to civil laws if they
infringe upon one or more of three things: (1) the law violates the moral
order, that is, the natural moral law; (2) the law violates fundamental human
rights; or (3) the law violates the teachings of the Gospel, which is to say
the teachings of the Church. Laws that trespass against one or more of these
three things may not be obeyed, and obedience to them must be refused. In fact,
the Christian has both a duty and a right to refuse such a law. And though it
may be unrecognized, it is a right that he must exercise regardless of the
consequences to him.
The full text of the Compendium on
this issue merits quotation: "Citizens are not obligated in conscience to
follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to
the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the
teachings of the Gospel. Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for
morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts
they must refuse. Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic
human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize
and protect. 'Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be
protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on
the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.'" "It is a
grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices
which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God.
Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for
the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and
required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken,
and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom
2:6; 14:12)." (Compendium, No. 399)
The right of conscientious
objection is not the right of resistance, and the two should be
carefully distinguished. Moreover, resistance which can be expressed in
"many different concrete ways" should be distinguished from the last
and desperate recourse of "armed resistance." The right to
resist an oppressive law or an oppressive government is one that is found in
the natural law. It is a right which precedes a government, and so is one that
is inalienable. Resistance generally is something to be avoided, and it is
justified only if there is a "serious" infringement or
"repeated" and chronic infringements of the natural moral law, a
fundamental human right, or a Gospel precept. "Recognizing that natural
law is the basis for and places limits on positive law means admitting that it
is legitimate to resist authority should it violate in a serious or repeated
manner the essential principles of natural law. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes
that 'one is obliged to obey . . . insofar as it is required by the order of
justice.' Natural law is therefore the basis of the right to resistance."
The right of resistance is not one that necessarily has the overthrow of
government in mind. There may be many ways in which resistance may be
expressed, and there may be many ends which resistance may have in mind:
"There can be many different concrete ways this right may be exercised;
there are also many different ends that may be pursued. Resistance to authority
is meant to attest to the validity of a different way of looking at things,
whether the intent is to achieve partial change, for example, modifying certain
laws, or to fight for a radical change in the situation." (Compendium,
No. 400)
Resistance in the sense of armed resistance
is something which is a last resort. The Church has identified five conditions
all of which must be met before armed resistance is morally justified: "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." As the Church
observes, armed resistance, even if morally justified, is generally to be
avoided, and passive resistance is to be preferred. Armed resistance is often a
Pandora's Box which unleashes as much or more evil as it intended to avoid.
"Recourse to arms is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a
'manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental
personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country.'
The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it
preferable in any case that passive resistance be practiced, which is 'a way
more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for
success.'" (Compendium, No. 401)
For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and
love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor
of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the Gospel with
the strength that comes from God. (2 Tm. 1:7-8)
Comments
Post a Comment