Introduction
While Thomas Aquinas firmly believed that citizens should obey those in authority, he justifies civil disobedience under two circumstances; civilians can disobey during the reign of a tyrant or when the government enforces unjust laws. ... The overarching theme for both arguments’ centres around the common good of the state.
The common good, in general terms, is a decision that is beneficial to all members of a particular group.
I answer that, Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21; xxii, 6). (Source)
I answer that, Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good---and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver---and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.
On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above---either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory---or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him---or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Mt. 5:40,41: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two."
Principles In Action
At the point on the use of vaccines, I can hear the screams of outrage from various conservative and traditional Catholic webmasters and personalities. I've already dealt with an examination of the case presented by Rome in this series of articles.
The truth is that COVID-19 presents a danger to the population at large and constitutes a threat to the common-good.
My advice to those who disagree, get over it, you are only discrediting yourselves by trotting out various people who support your position.
Now, there are certain obligations that comes with using morally tainted vaccines - as shown in the map below. The full series of articles can be found here (link).
In Canada, the Novavax vaccine is not produced using morally tainted methods, although the literature does show that the HEK-293 cell line was used to produce virus particles to test the vaccine (see this list). If the vaccine is tainted, it is even more remote than the other vaccines that make direct use of aborted baby cell-lines for production.
Conclusion
There is a need to seriously consider our obligation of obedience to civil authorities. Catholics are supposed to be the upholders of law and order in a civil society. So before Catholics cry foul, they need to do their homework - especially since many we turn to for advice are obviously not doing theirs!
P^3
References
- Christian Classics Ethereal Library - Summa Theologica
- The Thomistic Institute - Summa Theologica
- New Advent - Summa Theologica
Law Teacher - St. Thomas Aquinas and Justifying Civil Disobedience
All Answers ltd, 'Aquinas on Justifying Civil Disobedience' (Lawteacher.net, February 2021)
“ Concerning the prohibition on public worship, ...” I have two points on this:
ReplyDelete1) It is obviously within the civil authority’s power to control a pandemic and restricting the size of gatherings in one option open to them. Why should this not apply to religious gatherings? Or to put it another, what if the civil authority allowed religious gatherings but required attendees to quarantine for ten days afterwards, would this not have the same result?
2) Here’s an extreme example to demonstrate a point:
During the Second World War, because of the enemy night bombing raids, the British government enacted black-out legislation which imposed on everyone the responsibility of preventing the escape of any glimmer of light that might aid enemy aircraft. This had a consequence for the Catholic Church since it meant that every year, for the duration of the war, there could be no Christmas Midnight Mass. But if we accept the proposition of no civil authority interference for one moment then the pastor of some church would have been at liberty to ignore the civil authority (say, a belief that an attack on the town was far remote or after requests from faithful unable to assist at one of the other Christmas Masses). The implications of this are obvious: the risk of illuminating the town or at least providing a beacon to any lurking enemy aircraft and the consequences that would have followed for the town’s sleeping inhabitants – both Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
So, what of the civil authority if they had learnt such a Mass was to take place. Would they have been powerless to stop it? No, just like the power of the State is not without limits, so too “the power of the Church is limited, and in such a way as to prevent her using it to the injury of the State.”[1][2] Neither is there any defence in the assertion, as in this example, that there is no intent to injure the State; it is a principle of moral theology that you may not directly run the risk of that which you may not directly do. So if you cannot cause injury to the State you cannot risk injury to the State (moreover, one could introduce a radio intercept into the example to confirm the town as the intended target).
Where does that leave us? There is the principle (above) that if the actions of the Church do adversely affect the State she can intervene. If we apply this to the current pandemic, then, in the beginning - if we assume good faith on both the part of the Government and the scientists - the lockdown may well have been justified, but now, with more data, we could say it unreasonable. However it’s far from being a black and white issue.
[1] See "The power of the Church has limits", Hergenröther (1876)
https://www.google.com/book...
[2] ibid. neither can “[t]he Church ... abolish free-will; she can devise no plan for forcing all men to obey her; she cannot compel us to internal conviction or to external submission.”
I am not drawing a comparison here, just trying to establish a principle. The question then becomes how near or far the current situation is to this...
An interesting question and I see that you posted a similar response here:
Deletehttps://catholictruthblog.com/2021/01/16/church-closures-are-catholics-obliged-to-obey-govt-ban-on-worship-of-god/
I do not know this author and would have to look in to the texts that were post-world war 2 to plumb the depths of Church thought on this matter.
One element of interest is the hierarchy in laws and the obligations assigned to each sphere of authority.
P^3