Replies

You wrote: "...if any authority proposes a law that explicitly commands you to break one of God's laws, then we as Christians must disobey and take the consequences. However, there are other laws that are not compulsive such as Roe v. Wade which ought to be addressed by legislative and political means, no? We don't advocate bombing clinics, do we?"

If a law commands what God forbids, or forbids what God commands, our duty is to obey God rather than man.

It gets more complicated when a law permits what God forbids, and I think different cases yield different judgments.

I was just reading a short bio of St. Francis de Sales (early 17th century.) He is called the "Gentleman Saint" because, as Catholic Bishop of Geneva (Switzerland) with a Diocese composed of 60,000 Calvinists (!), he embarked on a vigorous but respectful campaign of teaching and pamphleteering against the errors of the Protestant Reformation. He was convinced that heresy is as grave a sin as murder or treason --- maybe even moreso --- but he did not think that in the case of Geneva it should be resisted by force. However, he did not rule that out in theory, in other circumstances; he just thought that in his circumstances, in his Diocese, persuasion must be used, however long it might take.

It is said that, thorugh his preaching and publishing, but even more through his limitless willingness to suffer for his people, he converted 40,000 of them back to Catholicism.

My point is that he thought the promulgation of heresy was as seriously wrong as the fomenting of mutiny and sedition, or the poisoning of wells, and he did not in theory rule out the use of force, or even the coercive power of the state, in suppressing heresy; but he himself did't choose that path.

It gives me a great deal to think about.

Here's an intresting hypothetical: How about if the law permitted (but did not require) the killing of the unemployed. This hypothetical law is (like Roe vs Wade) merely permissive.

Can the State legitimately authorize the killing of the unemployed? (No.)

Can the State legitimately discriminate against the unemployed by withdrawing from them the protection which is given to all other human beings? (No.)

Are Catholics in government obliged to try to use the power of the State to protect the the lives of the unemployed? (Yes.)

Are Catholics obliged to try to protect the lives of unemployed, by force if necessary? (You answer that.)

Are Catholics obliged to try to protect the lives of unemployed, by force if necessary? (You answer that.)

Your point is well made. I'm not sure that force is necessarily the proper answer. Christ did not come as Caesar as expected or as a revolutionary as liberation theologians would have us believe. God is after all, a God of order, not of chaos. Joseph, (son of Jacob) submitted to injustice as did Daniel and Christ and Maximillian Kolbe. I grant you, there are no easy answers. I will point out that while Christ laid down his own life, He did not lay down another's.

Interesting hypothetical questions, but let's take them one step further. I think your questions are a retake on the question that was actually posed in Europe during the 1930's and 1940's. But instead of the unemployed, simply substitute "Jews."

I think that puts a much more interesting spin on it, because we all know what happened when those questions were posed in reality. And we also know that far too many of our bretheren did not account for themselves very well.

I'm reluctant to answer hypothetical moral questions. Because personal experience has shown that more often than not, the most honest answer is: "I don't know" or "it depends" or in this case: "Lord, please don't ever put me in a situation where I'll have to actually answer that question."

However I will note that my choosing a site name containing the acronym "RKBA" might offer some small insight into my philosophical starting point.