Posted on 01/06/2005 1:54:53 PM PST by Read2Know
Venezuelan tyrant-in-training, Hugo Chavez, has made a significant gambit to nationalize British owned property in Venezuela.
The property in question is the El Charcote ranch in western Venezuela. It is owned by Agroflora, a subsidiary of British company Vestey. If Chavez is successful in this illegal land grab, the right to own property of all Venezuelans will be compromised.
One of the fundamental requirement of any civil society is the right to own property. If citizens have no property rights, what sense is there for those citizens to work hard, save or build homes when the government can take everything away by fiat?
This Castro clone has even used a bogus Castro-like excuse to legitimize his crime. Read this excerpt from Ireland On-Line:
Chavez, a self-proclaimed “revolutionary”, claims a wealthy elite has long held illegal property titles acquired through corrupt dealings before his election in 1998. He has vowed to break up large land holdings and to impose a government-designed production plan on farmers and ranchers.
Revolutionary indeed! This poseur is nothing more than a thief and a thug. It's time the people of Venezuela wake-up and stop this tyrant in his tracks!
The Tyrannicide and the Catholic Church.
There is nothing improper about the commentaries made by the Evangelical preacher, Pat Robertson, referring to the possible tyrannicide of the Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez.
Tyrannicide has been sanctioned as morally compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church, based on the social doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas. Chavez has reaffirmed his intentions of establishing in Venezuela a genocidal regime following the Cuban model and the commands of Fidel Castro.
What are we going to wait for?, Allow Chavez to surpass Castro’s dreadful record of 20,000 shot by firing squads, and for more than half million of Venezuelans to suffer political imprisonment as the Cubans have suffered in Castro’s dungeons inside the Island prison of Cuba.
Chavez, like Hitler, was elected democratically only to become a dictator later. Castro kept well hidden his aims of establishing a Stalinist regimen in Cuba until he consolidated this power over the Cuban people. But, as Hitler exposed his diabolic plan in “Mein Kamp”, Chavez has no only openly and publicly bragged about his plans of imposing a communist regimen following the Cuban model, but he has put Venezuela under Castro’s control using his thugs and repressive apparatus to keep subjugated the people of Venezuela.
If Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez’s life had been terminated, how many lives would have been saved and how much suffering humanity would have been spared.
In fact, tyrannicide is so justified that His Holiness Pius XII gave his approval for the plot by a group from the German’s army intelligence service planning to kill Hitler.
For St. Thomas Aquinas, tyrannicide is to opt for the lesser of two evils. Pacifism is a morally correct personal option, but is an option that is morally unaceptable for the state. A person might choose not to resist an aggression to the extreme of loosing his life, but a government has the duty to defend his people.
A pacifist might loose his life without offering resistance; but he cannot impassible allow in his presence the murder of an innocent person. Those are basic principles of Catholic teachings that are being ignored in the middle of the assault of the totalitarian correct ideological movement where political correct positions prevail even though they might be morally incorrect options.
Does the Church Condone Tyrannicide?
By Fr. Williams Saunders
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 9/27/01)
With the recent terrorist attacks, some have suggested that the leaders of these terrorist organizations be assassinated for the good of all people. What would be the Church’s teaching on this? – A reader in Crystal City
The moral issue here is that of tyrannicide — the killing of a tyrant, and specifically, the killing of a tyrant by a private person for the common good. Technically, there are two classes of tyrants: a tyrant by usurpation ( tyrannus in titulo), a ruler who has illegitimately seized power; and a tyrant by oppression (tyrannus in regimine), a ruler who wields power unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily.
Tyrannicide has had support from various philosophers and theologians through the centuries, including the ancient Greeks and Romans, most notably Cicero; Catholics, most notably John of Salisbury (d. 1180) Jean Petit (d. 1411), and Suarez (d. 1617); and Protestants, most notably, Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Calvin.
St. Thomas Aquinas gave the most substantial argument for tyrannicide. He based his position on his arguments for just war and capital punishment. St. Thomas concluded, "He who kills a tyrant (i.e. an usurper) to free his country is praised and rewarded" ( In 2 Sentences, 44.2.2).
A tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore, is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. According to St. Thomas, the legitimate authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law. However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed "informally" to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does in war.
The key conditions for a justifiable act of tyrannicide in this case include that the killing be necessary to end the usurpation and restore legitimate authority; that there is no higher authority available that is able and willing to depose the usurper; and that there is no probability that the tyrannicide will result in even greater evil than allowing the usurper to remain in power.
A tyrant by oppression is one who has come to power legitimately, but rules unjustly, oppressively, and arbitrarily. Here the community must confront the tyrant, and if necessary, depose him, formally or informally, according to the course of law available. In most circumstances, a private citizen morally cannot kill a tyrant by oppression, because the tyrant came to power through a legitimate means and thereby the community must depose him. If the community does depose the tyrant, according to St. Thomas, he becomes now a tyrant by usurpation and thereby may be eliminated by an act of justifiable tyrannicide in accord with the above norms.
However, if the tyrant by oppression attacks the citizen, jeopardizes the welfare of the community with the intent leading it to destruction or killing the citizens, or commits other evils, then a private citizen can morally commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Moreover, if because of the tyrant’s rule, a nation cannot defend itself, is on the course of destruction, and has no lawful means to depose or to condemn the tyrant, then a citizen may commit an act of justifiable tyrannicide. Interestingly, many modern political philosophers would posit that a leader who abuses power and has become tyrannical ipso facto loses legitimacy and becomes an usurper.
Please note that the Church has not definitively taught on this subject. The Church not only recognizes the authority of legitimate rulers and their duty to uphold the common good of the community, but also the duty of citizens to support a legitimate government. However, the Church also has set standards of just war and even capital punishment which would be applied to a conflict between a community against an unjust tyrannical leader. Keep in mind that an act of justifiable tyrannicide would have to be an act of last resort, when no other reasonable course of action is available to protect the community.
Perhaps a particular example would help. In the Summer of 1944, many officers in the German military realized that their country would soon lose the war. The Allies had successfully landed in France with the D-Day Invasion and were pushing toward Germany; the Soviets were advancing from the East; the major cities of Germany were bombed heavily and frequently. To save Germany from devastating defeat and form a new government, Lieutenant Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg, described as "a serious Catholic," formed a plot to assassinate Hitler on July 20. He and other members, including Field Marshal Rommel, Field Marshal von Witzleben, and General Beck, knew that Hitler had to be removed from power, and recognized that no regular means of government existed to do so. The only course of action seemed to be justifiable tyrannicide. Von Stauffenberg reportedly met with Cardinal Count Preysing of Berlin to discuss this matter, and his eminence honored the motives and offered no theological objection to restrain him. In so doing, Cardinal Preysing placed his own life in jeopardy with the Gestapo, but was never implicated in the plot.
On the evening of July 19, von Stauffenberg stopped by a Church to pray and then retired to bed. The next day, July 20, he planted the bomb at the Wolf’s Lair at Rastenburg in East Prussia. It exploded, but failed to kill Hitler. Von Stauffenberg and three others were arrested and executed that very night; others would endure the same fate later. However, they committed, or at least tried to commit, an act of justifiable tyrannicide. (See Fitzgibbon, 20 July, p. 150, Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 1042ff, Royal, The Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century, p. 154.)
Again, the Church has not definitively taught on this moral issue. However, terrorism is a real evil that must be confronted and stopped. Terrorists must be identified, isolated, and brought to justice. However, if there are no means of bringing them to justice or there are communities who support, protect, and promote them, thereby thwarting the pursuit of justice, then the leaders of nations may consider an act of justifiable tyrannicide as a last resort.
Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls.
Copyright ©2001 Arlington Catholic Herald. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.