Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Catholic Online publishes an article giving a justification to disobey laws they disagree with [View all]
with a little threat of armed resistance thrown in for good measure. He says they are backed into a corner because of the "HHS mandate" and radical secularism something.
"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."
go to the link and read the entire article.
"It behooves us, therefore, to dust off the covers of the Compendium and re-visit the issue of when Christians must oppose themselves to civil authority, either by conscientious objection or, in an extreme situation and under carefully guarded circumstances, rebellion.
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."
http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=45255&page=1
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Catholic Online publishes an article giving a justification to disobey laws they disagree with [View all]
moobu2
Mar 2012
OP
True, in a way, but its more like a KKK member refusing to run their business...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2012
#27
Is the head poo-bah, aka the pope, not implicated in the protecting of child-raping priests?
cleanhippie
Mar 2012
#19
This isn't a pissing contest, rug. It's the reality of the situation, and your unwillingness
cleanhippie
Mar 2012
#22
So does that mean that they'd recommend civil disobedience against war or economic or social
LeftishBrit
Mar 2012
#13