Catholic Online publishes an article giving a justification to disobey laws they disagree with

[moobu2]

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

[TlalocW]

1. Can I use their reasoning

To start kicking all priests I run into in the nutsack while shouting, "Stay away from little boys!!!"

TlalocW

[EC]

2. Then they should accept the consequences of their

dis-obediance.

[tama]

5. In countries with e.g. draft military

conscientious objection by Christian, secular etc. convictions is usual - whether lawful or not.

Statism and nationalism are not unlike hierarchic religions, and in some ways much worse.

[deacon_sephiroth]

3. let me know how that works out for them n/t

[JDPriestly]

4. Is Christianity compatible with democracy?

[ZombieHorde]

6. I think most of us DUers feel the same way, but about different laws.

How many DUers illegally smoke pot, download music, or Occupy their towns without a permit?

[Humanist_Activist]

27. True, in a way, but its more like a KKK member refusing to run their business...

in accordance to the Civil Rights Act. They want to protest laws so they can continue discriminating against others.

[LeftishBrit]

34. True but...

I think what gets me here is that these individuals (by whom I don't mean all religious people, or all Catholics, but those of this particular mindset) are not recommending disobedience to laws that send people to war, or perpetrate economic injustice. Or even for the most part, those which contradict Catholic social rules as a whole. They are not mostly, for example, recommending that Catholics refuse to co-operate in the civil remarriages of divorced people, or that they refuse to vote for politicians who support capital punishment. They are obsessed with restricting the rights of gay people, or women's reproductive rights, or both. Therefore they seem to be more preoccupied with their own rights to be harsh and authoritarian toward certain groups of people, than with preventing war or poverty, or even with promoting social conservativism in areas that could affect straight males.

Once again: there are plenty of religious people who do campaign against war, poverty, and cruelty; but most of the religious right do not. And although we're talking about Catholics here, it applies to hardliners in many faiths.

[Angry Dragon]

7. The Roman Catholic Church is Satan's playground

that is my opinion

[trotsky]

9. Jack Chick certainly agrees with you.

The rest of us think the institution is just run by corrupt old men and full of people who enable them.

[rug]

10. You have an insulated view of "us".

You should get out more.

[trotsky]

11. Why, do you think your church is Satan's playground instead? n/t

[rug]

14. Hardly. However I find it amusing when individuals speak in the plural.

It really adds nothing.

[trotsky]

18. I do too.

Like when your pope does, for instance.

[rug]

21. Yes but he's the Pope and you're an anonymous internet poster.

If anyone can claim the royal "we", he edges you out.

[trotsky]

23. So sheltering pedophiles affords one certain perks?

Nice gig he's got. I'm sure glad my time and money doesn't support that shit.

[rug]

24. I'm surprised you haven't thrown in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

You're getting stale.

[trotsky]

28. That was your pope's predecessors.

We can go there if you'd like!

Keep funding them, rug. They need your money.

[rug]

29. Don't forget the Cathars.

[mr blur]

32. Yes, but trotsky has more integrity than the Pope.

Come to think of it, who doesn't?

[rug]

33. I'll take your word for it.

[cleanhippie]

12. The RCC is NOT run by corrupt old men?

Do you really believe that?

[rug]

15. Are you one of the "us"?

[cleanhippie]

16. Is the RCC not run my corrupt old men?

[rug]

17. As a matter of fact, no.

As usual, your statemement has all the suppleness of concrete. While there are many corrupt people in the Vatican, which is to be expected in any global organization, that does not equate to your statement that the Roman Catholic Church is "run my corrupt old men". Presence does not equal control. If you hold that, you embrace once again a logical fallacy.

Now answer my question.

[cleanhippie]

19. Is the head poo-bah, aka the pope, not implicated in the protecting of child-raping priests?

Why the need to be so obtuse when it comes to this subject? Are you just trying to convince yourself?

[rug]

20. You lost me at head poo-bah.

If you want a pissing contest, find a wall.

[cleanhippie]

22. This isn't a pissing contest, rug. It's the reality of the situation, and your unwillingness

to accept it.

I can empathize with your plight, the fact that the institution that you admire, follow, and look to for guidance in tough times, has turned out to be a corrupt, misogynistic, self-serving bastion of power and intolerance. I am not your enemy, rug. I do not oppress women. I do not protect child-rapists, and promote to the top positions the ones that coordinated it. I do not blame my own institutional failings on others' refusal to blindly accept what I proclaim.

Hate me if you must, rug, it matters little to my well-being, but your refusal to accept the reality of the situation is a problem that only you can deal with.

[rug]

25. Lol.

I don't hate you. You're special.

[cleanhippie]

26. No I'm not.

Although at times, it appears that you think you are.

Have a nice day, rug.

[trotsky]

31. +1,000,000,000

So very well stated.

[Old and In the Way]

8. Sounds like they are "all in" for the Republicans.

Funny, no talk of of moral imperatives when Bush/Cheney started an illegal immoral war/occupation, based on lies. As a Jesuit educated, practicing ex-Catholic, I say they can go pound sand. Abortion? Where was that in the Bible or 10 Commandments? And how do they explain "God" being the worlds #1 abortion provider?

Sorry, good old boy, Republican network in cassocks - you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[LeftishBrit]

13. So does that mean that they'd recommend civil disobedience against war or economic or social

injustice?

As of course many priests as well as other have done in the past - but in this case all they seem concerned about is restricting women's reproductive rights.

If you don't want to co-operate in birth control or abortion, no one is FORCING you to; just stay out of occupations where this will be an inevitable requirement. There are plenty of medical fields, let alone others, where it would not be necessary. Just as a pacifist would not be well advised to join the military, or a vegan to work in a butcher's shop.

It seems that what they really object to, is civil authorities allowing other people to do things of which their church disapproves.

We don't have nearly so much of this in England - though we have some; google 'Christian Concern' for example. Much as I am pro-disestablishment, I sometimes wonder if having an Established church makes religious people more familiar the concept of religious power being subordinated to the state.

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

30. Is dogma compatible with democracy?

I'm with JDPriestley on this one...that "top-down" Catholic hierarchy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, bullying, etc. are fundamentally inconsistent with the horizontal or bottom-up premises of democracy (and of our constitutional republic). That the two have lived together for centuries is the result of the American Catholics maintaining a "live and let live" posture -- until now, anyway.

I think they are setting up a strawman argument of "freedom of religion" versus "freedom of worship", hoping that the public will forget that it was not the protection of religious institutions but more highly personalized, and far less institutional, concern for "freedom of conscience" and free agency in religion that motivated Jefferson, Madison and most of the other founders of the nation. There's probably no better example of their clear preference for free individual discernment in religion, rather than the protection and preservation of its institutions, than what was said by Madison in his "Memorial and Remonstrance..." in 1785:

"...We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him...."

The American Catholics are at a crossroads, seems to me. They can try to plug the holes in their own leaking ship and try to perpetuate their own business as usual-- of authoritarian bullying, dogmatic protectionism, etc. or they can take the vision of the nation's founders to heart. Between dogma or democracy, honestly I don't see much middle-ground for them.