Skip to main content
Christianity

Timeline for What are the current views of the Catholic Church on the right to secession?

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

25 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 7, 2020 at 18:58 history edited Geremia CC BY-SA 4.0
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ → https://isidore.co/aquinas/
Jan 26, 2017 at 21:10 history edited Geremia CC BY-SA 3.0
added 161 characters in body
Mar 7, 2016 at 3:01 comment added Geremia *{cf. Pope Pius XI's encyclical "on the persecution of the Church in Mexico," Iniquis Afflictisque (1926): "…in narrating this We can scarcely keep back Our tears, some of these young men and boys have gladly met death, the rosary in their hands and the name of Christ King on their lips."}
Mar 7, 2016 at 3:01 comment added Geremia @gaazkam Were Christians the majority in ancient Rome? If not, it's hard to see how condition #4 of CCC 2243 could hold. In Mexico during the Cristiada, Pope Pius XI forbade an armed uprising of Catholics against their Freemasonic oppressors, which resulted in more martyrs than in all the rest of the Americas combined. Pope Pius XI deeply regretted this;* he then gave Catholics permission to resist with arms.
Mar 6, 2016 at 20:06 comment added gaazkam It seems that Diuturnum, backing itself up with these examples, says that even if an authority is exercised by unjust and oppressive means, we have no right for resistance (with the sole exception for not obeying orders that try to make us sin – but even in such cases, not obeying that particular order seems to be everything that is permitted, and no matter how oppressive and unjust an authority is, no further actions against it are permitted). CCC 2243 seems to be saying otherwise.
Mar 6, 2016 at 20:04 comment added gaazkam …with the sole exception when such law was trying to make them commit a sin. So for me it seems that CCC 1902 permits disobedience in cases when Diuturnum condemns disobedience as sinful (namely, when the law is clearly unjust and unreasonable, yet it does not order it’s addressee to sin). The second incongruence is when CCC 2243 permits armed resistance to an unjust authority, yet Diuturnum praises early Christians for not resisting Roman Emperors. (continued)
Mar 6, 2016 at 19:56 comment added gaazkam Sorry for the delay. Well, for me the key to understanding Diuturnum are the examples of the behaviour of Catholics in the Roman Empire, which Diuturnum seems to present as exemplary. CCC 1902 says that unjust or unreasonable law is a form of a violence rather than law, so we can conclude that we do not have to obey it; Diuturnum, however, doesn’t seem to provide such interpretation, instead it provides as exemplary the behaviour of early Christians who were abiding to unjust, unreasonable and obviously violence-like law… (continued)
Mar 3, 2016 at 3:38 comment added Geremia @gaazkam What exactly in Diuturnum appears to contradict CCC 1902 or 2243?
Feb 29, 2016 at 11:21 comment added gaazkam In addition, Diuturnum seems to also be contradicted by CCC 2243, which says: “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.”
Feb 29, 2016 at 11:02 comment added gaazkam So, I read Diuturnum. And it seems to me to contradict CCC 1902, which says: “A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.” Which document has greater authority in case of incongruence: an encyclical, or the CCC?
Feb 27, 2016 at 17:01 comment added Geremia @gaazkam Sorry, I glossed over that you negate "A" and "B." Yes, you might be correct. When in doubt, stick with clear teaching like that expressed in Diuturnum.
Feb 27, 2016 at 12:42 comment added gaazkam Your example with the rain proves that "if A then B" is not equivalent to "if B then A". But my transformation was a little bit different: rephrasing CCC 1901 I followed the law that "if A then B" is equivalent to "if not B then not A". So I'm sorry, but I think that my conversion was correct, while yours was, of course, not.
Feb 27, 2016 at 4:27 comment added Geremia @gaazkam Your "rephrasing" is really the converse of the original statement, and converses are not always the same as what they are the converse of. For example: "If it rains, then the sidewalk is wet." is not the same as to say: "If the sidewalk is wet, then it rains."
Feb 26, 2016 at 22:18 comment added gaazkam Many thanks for your responses so far, really. If I may, though, I'd like to dwell on the subject a little bit more :) Rephrasing 1901: If the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are not left to the free decision of the citizens, then authority does not belong to the order established by God. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that leaving the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rules to the free decisions of citizens is the definition of democracy, CCC 1901 blatantly states that any non-democratic system is ungodly. Is this interpretation correct?
Feb 26, 2016 at 4:14 comment added Geremia @gaazkam 1901 begins: "If authority belongs to the order established by God…" It is always true that God is the origin of civil power (cf. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical "On the Origin of Civil Power," Diuturnum). 1904 appears to be a statement of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (i.e., that superiors do not meddle in the affairs that their subjects can deal with themselves).
Feb 25, 2016 at 17:46 comment added gaazkam I get it, but the problem is that CCC 1901 seems to me to say that democracy is the only form of civil government that does not oppose God. Also we have CCC 1904 which states that “It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men.” and this canon seems to outright claim that absolute monarchy is sub-optimal.
Feb 25, 2016 at 0:25 comment added Geremia @gaazkam Pope Pius VI is not saying monarchy must be the form of civil government, but that it is the best.
Feb 24, 2016 at 13:13 comment added gaazkam How is Pope Pius VI's claim supposed to go with CCC 1901, which states: “If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."” – with a footnote directing to “GS 74 # 3.”?
Feb 23, 2016 at 4:22 comment added Geremia @gaazkam "the Church considers systems such as mediaval feudalism and hereditary monarchies as immoral per se?" No, quite the contrary; Pope Pius VI, for example, said monarchy is the best form of government ("praestantioris monorchici regiminis forma") in principle.
Feb 23, 2016 at 4:17 comment added Geremia @gaazkam Fr. Mariana's view is not meant to be an official teaching of the the Church, nor does it seem to oppose Church teaching.
Feb 22, 2016 at 9:56 comment added gaazkam Thank you for your answer. or prevents a meeting of a democratic parliament – does this mean that the Church considers systems such as mediaval feudalism and hereditary monarchies as immoral per se?
Feb 22, 2016 at 0:37 history edited Geremia CC BY-SA 3.0
added link to scan of Madison's copy of «The History of Spain» (vol. 2)
Feb 21, 2016 at 22:47 history edited Geremia CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Feb 21, 2016 at 22:37 history edited Geremia CC BY-SA 3.0
added 286 characters in body
Feb 21, 2016 at 22:29 history answered Geremia CC BY-SA 3.0
toggle format