Legitimate Government

[Pio Nono]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 2 2005, 02:02 PM']
One cannot lose legitamacy for anyreason as silly as losing the support of the people, the masses are fickel and frankly stupid, King Louis XVI was the legitemate ruler of France even if all the people in France didn't support him. He had not violated any of the above principals of legitimate government, He was a Faithful Catholic pius in his faith and a Good king who loved his people. They however where duped by evil men, that did not make him suddenly cease to be legit, it made them poor subjects. [/quote]
JMJ
1/2 - St. Basil the Great

Here's a story to illustrate my point -

I know a priest in the St. Paul/Minneapolis archdiocese by the name of Msgr. Richard Schuler. Msgr. Schuler is the pastor of St. Agnes parish in St. Paul and a leading non-episcopal figure in the Church. One night a couple of years ago, Monsignor had Otto Hapsburg III over to dinner - the same Otto Hapsburg III who abdicated the throne of Austria and who is still active in European politics.

Msgr. Schuler said to him, "You know, Otto, one thing I hate is a quitter."

To which His Highness replied, "Well, when the horse stops running, it's time to get off."

If the ruler of a state is unable to rule his people, however legitimate he may be in ruling, he has lost his legitimacy [i]with the people[/i]. If you are trying to rule masses who will not respect your authority, you are [i]de facto[/i] no longer the ruler.

[Q the Ninja]

Don, I still want to know your sources.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='"Don John"']
We have they have been and still are only marginally effective, or not effective at all.[/quote]

I disagree. And if you they are not effective enough it is because people do not support them enough. And if people do not support the current causes, why would more drastictic ones take effect?

[cathqat]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Jan 2 2005, 11:34 PM'] [quote name='"Don John"']
We have they have been and still are only marginally effective, or not effective at all.[/quote]

I disagree. And if you they are not effective enough it is because people do not support them enough. And if people do not support the current causes, why would more drastictic ones take effect? [/quote]
I agree with Theoketos. I work full-time in the pro-life movement, for example. One of my friends from college is a Sister of Life who works at [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network[/url]. She says they are in [b]continual need[/b], not only of donations and funding, but [b]of volunteers[/b]. They [b]desperately need[/b] more people who work in medical services and counseling, people who will open their homes to become nurturing homes, people who can offer employment and educational help, and people to coordinate services on the local level.

If the pro-life movement is big enough to actually [i]succeed[/i] in a violent "just war" scenario, then it should be big enough to [b]provide these services [color=red]first[/color][/b].

[url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/USCCB%20Final%20Article%20As%20Published%20Aug%202004.pdf"]Read the USCCB "Respect Life" article [i]When Being Right Is Not Enough[/i] by Mary Cunningham Agee.[/url]

Then go to [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network (http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/)[/url] now and click "Offer to Help."

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Don, I still want to know your sources. [/quote]

Well As I said it is an amalgamation of the Church's teaching over her entire existance but for starters there is Lateran II which specificly names entire groups which make war on Christians as if they where pagans, namely that they make war on monestaries and on widows and children ( wow abortion certainly does that) and that one is not obliged to honor any oath or obligation to these people furthermore that it is good and Holy for people to try to destroy them, so much so that an indulgence is given for it( as a crusade) furthermore those attemping to destroy them have there posessiona protected under pain of Excommunication and Bishops are threated with loss of office for failure to do so. Furthermore there is the Excommunication of Henry IV which specifically stated that Vassals where not obligated to obey an excommunicated soverign and that they where free to revolt.

I will finish later I must go teach class.

[Don John of Austria]

The first councilof lyons goes on for more than a page explaining why Frederick II is being excommunicated and ( many of those things are done in our own nation) and that portion of the council ends with the following
[quote]We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to him by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king, and decreeing that anyone who henceforth offers advice, help or favour to him as to an emperor or king, automatically incurs excommunication. Let those whose task it is to choose an emperor in the same empire, freely choose a successor to him. With regard to the aforesaid kingdom of Sicily, we shall take care to provide, with the counsel of our brother cardinals, as we see to be expedient.
[/quote]

I have to go agian it's 4th period now.

[voiciblanche]

[quote] furthermore that it is good and Holy for people to try to destroy them[/quote]

Clarification, please? Destroy the corrupt government/society/etc, or destroy the people of the corrupt gov't/society/etc?

[quote]Furthermore there is the Excommunication of Henry IV which specifically stated that Vassals where not obligated to obey an excommunicated soverign and that they where free to revolt.[/quote]

Can you elaborate? What did revolting imply exactly?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 12:32 AM']
I disagree. And if you they are not effective enough it is because people do not support them enough. And if people do not support the current causes, why would more drastictic ones take effect? [/QUOTE]
I agree with Theoketos. I work full-time in the pro-life movement, for example. One of my friends from college is a Sister of Life who works at [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network[/url]. She says they are in [b]continual need[/b], not only of donations and funding, but [b]of volunteers[/b]. They [b]desperately need[/b] more people who work in medical services and counseling, people who will open their homes to become nurturing homes, people who can offer employment and educational help, and people to coordinate services on the local level.

If the pro-life movement is big enough to actually [i]succeed[/i] in a violent "just war" scenario, then it should be big enough to [b]provide these services [color=red]first[/color][/b].

[url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/USCCB%20Final%20Article%20As%20Published%20Aug%202004.pdf"]Read the USCCB "Respect Life" article [i]When Being Right Is Not Enough[/i] by Mary Cunningham Agee.[/url]

Then go to [url="http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/"]the Nurturing Network (http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/)[/url] now and click "Offer to Help." [/quote]
Well I think this topic should be closed now because this person just owned it.

[img]http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/~mocon/brol/forumpics/owned.jpg[/img]

[Don John of Austria]

Thats funny I thought that was an almost useless post completly unrelated to this topic and not particularly compleling to the topic of abortion.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Clarification, please? Destroy the corrupt government/society/etc, or destroy the people of the corrupt gov't/society/etc?
[/quote]
Well in the Councils in question no distintion was made between them, I would advacate distroying the societys which where corrupt and only destroying those particular corrupt people who would not relent, however they ussually go together.



[quote]What did revolting imply exactly?[/quote]

Vilolent overthrow of the government, what does revolt alway imply, it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler, do you think emperors are in the habit of just surrendering thier throne, nop this would, and did require openwarfare and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable ( or in the case of Frederick II virtually required)

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:43 PM'] Vilolent overthrow of the government, what does revolt alway imply, it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler, do you think emperors are in the habit of just surrendering thier throne, nop this would, and did require openwarfare and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable ( or in the case of Frederick II virtually required) [/quote]
[quote]what does revolt alway imply[/quote]

It can imply a lot of things, or not. If I knew what it "always implied" I wouldn't have asked you. You've probably noticed that I ask a lot of questions; I [i]try[/i] not to debate if I don't know what I'm talking about.

[quote]it said they no longer had to be loyal and that they could put in another ruler[/quote]

[quote]and the Church declared that such a thing was acceptable [/quote]

Could? Acceptable? So the Church didn't demand it? (Except in the case you mentioned, of course, assuming that the Church did, in fact, require it.)

[Q the Ninja]

What would you say to the principle of lesser of two evils applying here?

Edited January 4, 2005 by Q the Ninja

[Don John of Austria]

double effect regarding what?

[Q the Ninja]

Oops, I'm going to edit that. Not double effect, I'm way too tired to be posting.

I meant lesser of two evils, sorry for the confusion.

[Don John of Austria]

I think the move torwards chaos is bettert han a orderly evil, so better to revolt than to allow evil to riegn.