Was George Washington's Revolution Sinful?

[Resurrexi]

George Washington was a very evil man, in fact, he was almost as wicked as Hitler. Why do I say this? I do because he did a great moral evil. He revolted against a legitimate prince. Revolution was [b]condemned and anathamatised[/b] in the Syllabus of Errors of His Holiness Pope Blessed Pius IX:

[quote]63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

1. George Washington was not a Catholic. He didn't necessarily have knowledge of these things. To state that he was mortally sinful in such an action is to judge beyond your competency.

2. George Washington predates the Syllabus of Errors. Don't expect him to have known of it.

[Matty_boy]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1111937' date='Nov 5 2006, 02:28 PM']
1. George Washington was not a Catholic. He didn't necessarily have knowledge of these things. To state that he was mortally sinful in such an action is to judge beyond your competency.

2. George Washington predates the Syllabus of Errors. Don't expect him to have known of it.
[/quote]

3. George Washington led an army against a government that was trying to stop the creation of a separate country/government in another land.

If the government is a tyranny that restricts religious freedom, and you leave to try and start another country in another land, is it wrong to keep the previous government from controlling the new country?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Yes, and furthermore, people aren't evil. Actions are evil. People are fallen.

[Kosh]

When a government misuses authority it ceases to become legitimate and can be overthrown. Nearly everything in the Declaration of Independence is true. Britain was being a very very evil authority at this time.

[suuran]

Here's a few paragraphs from the CCC:

[quote]1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility"

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."[/quote]

Here, the distinction is made between a legitimate and an illegitimate authority, and an authority can become illegitime if it makes unreasonable or despotic laws. Your citation only says "legitimate" prince.

I'm taking an American History course in college this year, so I've just been studying the revolution. The whole issue at stake was whether England had any right to impose garrisons, taxes, tarriffs, etc. on the colonies. The colonies had been allowed to govern themselves via colonial assemblies and legislatures for some time, and many of them even had proto-Constitutions, like the Mayflower Compact and others. Britain only started to grip them harder after the French and Indian War, when Parliament realized that the English colonies in North America could be a useful resource for the British Empire. They started passing taxes, abrogating the power of legislatures, and taking other measures which the colonists believed they had no right to take. They even appealed to the king several times for a redress of grievances.

Specific acts including the Stamp Act, which pretty much placed a tax on the printed word--something the colonists found tyrannical--and the Quartering Act, which requiring colonists to allow British soldiers into their own homes--and it should be obvious that one's daughters, property, etc. weren't exactly secure with a bunch of redcoats bunked in your livingroom.

Even if you were to make the case that the American Revolution was immoral, Washington wasn't the man who started the war. He was a veteran of the French and Indian War who the Continental Congress asked to lead the Continenal Army once hostilities had already started. Try Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, or one of those guys.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I wonder what you would think of [u]The Shadow of His Wings[/u] by Fr. Gereon Goldmann.

[Matty_boy]

"1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."

A monarchy is not a government chosen by the free decision of the citizens. They left the country. It's like leaving America for Antarctica and the American government imposing their rule on you living in antarctica.

[suuran]

Well...not quite. The colonies were established with charters from the King of England, and most colonists at the time considered themselves Englishmen. It was really a disagreement over how much authority Parliament had over the colonies + some particularly tyrannical acts of parliament.

[catholicinsd]

Gen. Washington was not alone either.

[MilesChristi]

[quote]George Washington was a very evil man, in fact, he was almost as wicked as Hitler.[/quote]

How can you ever hope to be taken seriously when you make statements like this?

[Groo the Wanderer]

Amen! GW was a very religious man in fact. Not tyrannical nor evil at all.

Quit trying to be a whacked out left wing liberal revisionist...makes ye look silly.

[Resurrexi]

[quote]Quit trying to be a whacked out left wing liberal revisionist...makes ye look silly.[/quote]

Are you asking me that? Excuse me, I'm supposed to be the crazy Rad-Trad...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1112203' date='Nov 5 2006, 08:55 PM']
Are you asking me that? Excuse me, I'm supposed to be the crazy Rad-Trad...
[/quote]
Nobody's "supposed to be the crazy Rad-Trad," everyone's supposed to be orthodox and loyal to the magisterium.

[Resurrexi]

crazy rad-trads can by loyal to the Mageterium...