Article VI. On the Obligations of Rulers and Subjects

Preliminary note. Here we speak only of civil rulers and superiors and civil subjects, for in canon law the obligations of ecclesiastical superiors are customarily treated. The obligations of the faithful toward ecclesiastical superiors are love, reverence, and obedience in spiritual matters. Furthermore, the faithful must provide assistance for the suitable support of the ministers of the Church, as was said above, n. 499, concerning tithes and offerings.

Civil rulers are here called not only emperors, kings, dukes, etc., but all those upon whom the government of the commonwealth is incumbent. Therefore in this sense even a Chamber of Deputies is a civil ruler.

599. a) Obligations of civil governors. All who are placed over some civil community are bound under grave sin to procure the temporal common good, yet in such a manner that the spiritual good is not thereby endangered. This is evident of itself. Hence they are bound according to their ability to avert all temporal evils, such as wars, seditions, famines, contagious diseases of both men and animals, etc. Furthermore, they must foster the true religion, and not only not impede the true Church in her actions, but rather protect her against all invasions of enemies. Besides, they must vigorously exercise both distributive and vindicative justice: distributive justice, namely, insofar as they distribute offices and burdens equitably; and vindicative justice with respect to evildoers, insofar as they inflict just punishments for crimes committed, without any respect of persons.

Leo XIII treated excellently of the obligations of rulers in the Encyclical Immortale Dei of November 1, 1885, saying: "In every form of commonwealth rulers altogether ought to look to the supreme Governor of the world and propose Him to themselves as the exemplar and law in administering the state.... Authority, therefore, must be just, and not that of a master, but in a manner paternal, because the power of God over men is most just and is joined with paternal goodness; but it must be exercised for the advantage of the citizens, because those who preside over others preside for this sole reason, that they may safeguard the advantage of the state.... But if those who preside fall into unjust domination, if they sin by importunity or pride, if they consult badly for the people, let them know that they must someday render an account to God, and this the more severely, the more sacred the office in which they have been engaged or the higher the degree of dignity they have obtained. The mighty shall be mightily tormented."

What has been said concerning the obligations of rulers also holds concerning the obligations of deputies, since according to the constitution of almost all kingdoms legislative power has been entrusted to deputies. Hence it is evident of itself how gravely deputies sin who do not, according to their ability, oppose iniquitous laws; who through negligence do not attend assemblies and thus inflict harm upon the commonwealth. To them the words of Sacred Scripture can be applied: "[The Most High] will examine your works, and search out your thoughts: because being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly.... Horribly and speedily will he appear to you: for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule.... For God will not except any man's person; neither will he stand in awe of any man's greatness: for he made the little and the great, and he hath equally care of all. But a greater punishment is ready for the more mighty."¹⁰⁴³

Above, n. 105, in the tract on justice, it was said how deputies are bound to restitution or are held by excommunication on account of unjust laws enacted against ecclesiastical goods. In practice the matter is often very intricate and scarcely soluble. For it can be proved only with difficulty how much the vote of one deputy influenced the enactment of an iniquitous law. Hence for greater security it is expedient that a confessor, on behalf of such a penitent deputy, have recourse to the Sacred Penitentiary or to the bishop, who is accustomed to have special faculties concerning the absolution of cases of this kind. Cf. the diverse Instructions given for the bishops of France and Italy.¹⁰⁴⁴

¹⁰⁴³ Wis. 6:4-9; cf. also Leo XIII, Encyclical Diuturnum of June 29, 1881.

¹⁰⁴⁴ Cf. Sacred Penitentiary, August 5, 1907.

600. b) Obligations of subjects. Subjects are bound to show civil rulers: 1. reverence, obedience, and fidelity; 2. to elect good deputies; 3. to pay just taxes; 4. sometimes to perform military service. Enough was already said above in the tract on civil laws concerning the payment of taxes and the performance of military service, I, n. 291ff.

As regards 1. Reverence must be shown to rulers because their power of governing was conferred not by the people but by God. Therefore it is already said in the Old Testament: "By me kings reign, ... and by me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice."¹⁰⁴⁵ And St. Paul says: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God."¹⁰⁴⁶ Subjects sin against the reverence owed to rulers who inflict an insult upon the person or image of the ruler;¹⁰⁴⁷ who mock the ruler by writings, words, or pictures;¹⁰⁴⁸ who deny him the due signs of reverence shown by all, etc.

¹⁰⁴⁵ Prov. 8:15.

¹⁰⁴⁶ Rom. 13:1.

¹⁰⁴⁷ Commonly Majestätsbeleidigung [insulting majesty].

¹⁰⁴⁸ Commonly Karikaturen [caricatures].

601. Obedience must be rendered to civil rulers in all lawful things legitimately commanded. Hence St. Peter says: "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: for so is the will of God."¹⁰⁴⁹ To establish a true direct obligation in conscience it is required that the ruler truly and justly command. For civil laws are sometimes merely penal or invalidating laws which produce no direct obligation in conscience; at other times civil laws are manifestly unjust and contrary to divine and natural law. Then God certainly must be obeyed more than men. "Nor is there any reason why those who conduct themselves thus should be accused of having cast off obedience; for if the will of rulers conflicts with the will and laws of God, they exceed the measure of their power and pervert justice; nor then can their authority have force, which is nothing where there is no justice."¹⁰⁵⁰

Nevertheless, although iniquitous laws must not be obeyed, it is never lawful to rebel against a legitimate ruler. Hence Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus proposition 63: "It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers, and even to rebel."¹⁰⁵¹ The reason is that such open and offensive rebellion would redound against God Himself, through whom kings reign. Hence we see that in the first centuries, during the dire persecutions of the Church, the Theban Legion, although it could easily have resisted the impious emperor by force, nevertheless preferred to die for religion rather than to oppose public authority through sedition and disturbances. Therefore so-called passive resistance must be opposed to a tyrannical ruler, just as to iniquitous laws; it consists in this, that obedience is constantly denied and the divine precepts are violated in no way. But if the tyrant then urges the observance of laws injuring the right of God and of religion under grave penalties, martyrdom must be endured rather than the law of God violated. But if it is a question of laws which are indeed unjust but can be observed without sin, then it is lawful, and sometimes even necessary, to comply in order to avoid greater evils. It is evident of itself that subjects can defend themselves by lawful means against iniquitous laws, for example, by showing the iniquity of the laws in public newspapers, electing good deputies, organizing public meetings, etc.

¹⁰⁴⁹ 1 Pet. 2:13ff.

¹⁰⁵⁰ The cited Encyclical Diuturnum; cf. also the Encyclical Immortale Dei of the same Leo XIII, November 1, 1885.

¹⁰⁵¹ Denzinger, n. 1763.

602. The fidelity owed to rulers requires that subjects do nothing unjust to withdraw themselves from the jurisdiction of superiors, nor attempt anything to cast the ruler down from his legitimate throne. Today kings and rulers are accustomed at the beginning of their government to take an oath upon the constitution, that is, that they will faithfully observe those things which are established in the constitution of the kingdom. But if a ruler has gravely violated this sworn constitution and broken the faith given, subjects are no longer bound to observe fidelity, according to Rule 75 of Law: "In vain does anyone demand that faith be kept with him by one with whom he refuses to keep the faith pledged by himself." Nevertheless, even in this case neither rebellion nor so-called tyrannicide is lawful.¹⁰⁵² Moreover, this case will be exceedingly rare in civilized regions.

As regards 2.

¹⁰⁵² Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Quod apostolici, December 28, 1879. Concerning the celebrated question whether it is lawful to kill a tyrant by private authority, the following points should be noted briefly. A twofold tyrant is customarily distinguished: one is a tyrant of government, who abuses a legitimately obtained government by oppressing the people; the other is a tyrant of usurpation, who has illegitimately usurped the government. A tyrant of government cannot lawfully be killed by private authority; the contrary doctrine was condemned at the Council of Constance (Denzinger, n. 690). But a tyrant of usurpation can lawfully be killed by private authority by the right both of defense and of vindication, provided the following conditions are present: 1. that the sounder part of the commonwealth consent; 2. that the tyranny itself cannot be removed by recourse to a higher superior. Cf. Billuart, De iust. diss. 10, a. 2; Cathrein, Moralphil. 5, II, 692ff.

603. Today in almost all civilized regions deputies are elected by the people, who by their decisive, and not merely consultative, votes take part in conducting public affairs, whether in the kingdom, the province, or the municipality. Hence the good of the whole commonwealth depends in great part upon the votes of the deputies. Therefore it is clearer than light how important it is that good deputies be elected, who are endowed with fortitude of soul, a Christian spirit, skill in conducting affairs, knowledge of political matters, and sufficient eloquence. Accordingly, it is also clearly evident how gravely they fail in their duty and in legal justice who do not rightly use the right of electing deputies and thus permit bad deputies to be elected.

Light causes, for example, some loss of time or the mockery of others, by no means excuse from this obligation of electing good deputies; nor does the probable uselessness of one's vote excuse. For although a good candidate will not be elected because of the multitude of contrary votes, nevertheless it is very expedient at least by the fact of voting to show what the will of good citizens is. Would that all good citizens had always fulfilled the duty of electing good deputies! Certainly there would not now be as many iniquitous laws as there actually are today. Hence, unless truly grave harm arises for the elector, for example, in goods of fortune because of an imminent danger of losing his office, etc., there exists no sufficient cause excusing from casting a vote. In practice it can be determined only with difficulty whether someone has sinned gravely from neglecting the obligation of electing good deputies, since the gravity of the sin thus committed depends upon the gravity of the harm certainly committed or certainly not avoided. The gravity of this harm is often not certainly established.

So that upright citizens may take part more effectively and diligently in the elections of good deputies, priests should exhort them prudently and at the same time urgently; permanent associations should be formed for this end; learned laymen endowed with eloquence and zeal, but not priests, since grave inconveniences could arise therefrom, should deliver addresses to the people in which they instruct electors concerning the manner and duty of electing and discuss the qualities of the candidates. At the time of the election, all good citizens should be invited to vote, and the more sluggish should even be morally compelled.

604. On the election of an unworthy deputy. Although it is much more advisable always to elect the worthier deputy, because in this manner greater provision is made for the common good, nevertheless of itself it suffices to elect one who is worthy and suitable, leaving aside the worthier. The reason is that nowhere is it prescribed that the worthier be elected, but it is required only that one who is worthy be elected. Of itself it is a grave sin to elect a deputy certainly unworthy, since such an election is unlawful cooperation in a grave evil of society. For electors mediately participate in all the evils which are caused by bad deputies. Nevertheless, since such participation is not formal but material, it is sometimes lawful to elect an unworthy deputy.

That this participation is of itself material and not formal is evident from the fact that the election of a deputy is of itself an indifferent action and that the elected deputy by his own fault abuses the right committed to him through election. But for it to be lawful in practice to elect an unworthy deputy, not only an honorable end but also a most grave cause is required. First, indeed, an honorable end is required; therefore one sins gravely who gives his vote to a bad deputy with the end that he may afterward be able to cooperate in bad laws against religion. Next, a grave, indeed a most grave, cause is required; such causes are grave inconveniences to be averted either from the elector himself, from others, or from the commonwealth. Thus, for example, a worker could elect a bad deputy if otherwise he would lose his employment and would be unable to find another employment;¹⁰⁵³ it is lawful to elect a bad candidate in order to prevent the election of a worse one. This can occur not rarely in so-called second elections.¹⁰⁵⁴ For then there is no choice except between two candidates. Usually in this case it is necessary to declare publicly, in order to avoid scandal, that this election is made only to exclude the more unworthy candidate. Sometimes it is also lawful to elect a few bad deputies who have been placed on a list containing many good deputies, if otherwise the whole list will not be elected, with great detriment to religion or the commonwealth.¹⁰⁵⁵

¹⁰⁵³ Thus also Noldin, De praeceptis, n. 325. Almost all modern theologians concede that the election of a bad deputy is not something intrinsically evil and consequently can sometimes be lawful accidentally in order to avert greater evils.

¹⁰⁵⁴ Commonly Stichwahl, ballottage, second ballot.

¹⁰⁵⁵ Vermeersch treats this matter more fully, Quaest. de iust. q. 3, c. 1, De iure suffragii. Cf. also Staatslexikon, s.v. "Wahlrecht."