Article IV. On the Obedience and Reverence of Citizens toward Temporal Authority

From natural law and positive divine law we are held by the title of piety to render reverence and obedience to our civil superiors. For they bear the place of God himself in the temporal order toward us. Thus indeed the Apostle to the Romans xiii, 1 and following: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power except from God, and those which are, have been ordained by God. Therefore he who resists the power, resists the ordinance of God. But those who resist acquire damnation for themselves. For he (the Prince) is the minister of God, an avenger unto wrath to him who does evil. Therefore be subject of necessity, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience."

For this reason the Catechism of the Council of Trent compares and joins this obligation with that by which we are bound toward paternal and ecclesiastical authority. For in part III, on the fourth commandment, § 15, after it has taught that parents and ecclesiastical superiors are to be honored, it adds: "Likewise concerning Kings, Princes, Magistrates, and the rest to whose power we are subject. For if we attribute any honor to them, it is referred to God; for an excellent degree of dignity has the veneration of men, because it is like divine power: in which also we venerate the providence of God, who attributed to them the administration of public office, and uses them as ministers of his power." - I Pet. ii, 15. - St. Justin, Apol. I, 17. - St. Augustine, on Ps. 124, n. 7; de Civitate Dei, lib. V, 10, 11, 14, 15.

"But now a society can neither exist nor be understood in which someone does not moderate the wills of individuals, so that one thing may be made, as it were, out of many, and impel them rightly and in order toward the common good; therefore God willed that in civil society there should be those who would command the multitude. And that also has great force, that those by whose authority the republic is administered ought to be able to compel citizens to obey in such a way that it is plainly a sin for them not to obey. But no man has in himself or from himself that by which he can constrain the free will of others with bonds of this kind of command. That power belongs only to God, creator and legislator of all things: those who exercise it must necessarily exercise it as communicated to them by God. ... From which it will be necessary for citizens to be subject and obedient to princes as to God, not so much from fear of punishments as from reverence for majesty, nor for the sake of flattery, but from conscience of duty." - Leo XIII, Diuturnum illud.

Hence the response is also clear to the question: Can there ever be for citizens a cause for not obeying? "That one cause exists for men not to obey, if something is demanded by them which openly conflicts with natural or divine right: for in all things in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated, it is equally wicked to command and to do. Therefore if it should happen to someone that he is compelled to choose one of the two, namely either to neglect the commands of God or those of princes, Jesus Christ must be obeyed, who commands rendering the things that are Caesar's to Caesar, and the things that are God's to God." - Nor are citizens therefore to be accused of having cast off authority: "for if the will of princes fights with the will of God and his laws, they exceed the measure of their power, and pervert justice, nor then can their authority have force, since, where justice is not present, it is null." Diuturnum illud.

Legislation is the work of men who are clothed with power and who in fact govern the state. Whence it follows in practice that the character of laws depends on the character of these men more than on the virtue of that power. Laws, namely, will be either good or evil according as the legislators themselves are imbued with good or evil principles, and allow themselves to be led by prudence or passion. Therefore one must resist by any legal and honorable means the abuse of legislation: laws hostile to God and religion are in no way to be approved; indeed they are to be disapproved by all prudent men.

Generally citizens enjoying the right of suffrage are held to use that right duly. The reason is that each one according to his strength is held to impede evils and to promote good things. The Sacred Penitentiary, December 1, 1866, responded that nothing stands in the way of Bishops and Ordinaries, on the occasion of elections, whenever they shall have been required for this, recalling to the mind of the people that each one of the faithful according to his strength is held to impede evils and to promote good things. "Is it not the duty of each Catholic to use the political arms which are in his hand for defending [the Church], for containing political systems within their own dominion and compelling them, after they have rendered to the Church what is owed to her, for the rest to leave her quiet?" - Pius X, Encycl. Letter Notre Charge Apostolique - cf. Scavini. The precept of electing upright deputies, whether municipal or political, presses upon all electors in every legitimate government and, other circumstances being excluded, not only do those sin who give suffrage to bad men, but also those who by not taking part are the cause that bad men are elected by others: each one is held to avert evil from the republic, if there is hope.

But how great evils and how great good things come to the state when laws are made by enemies of the Church, or by her friends, history testifies. Besides, the present condition of things, to be lamented in many regions, is derived from the fact that Catholics remained idle in political action. Now this obligation of using one's right in many cases can be grave, namely if on one side the danger of grave harm is imminent and on the other side suffrage seems likely to be efficacious. It must be noted that political leaders greatly fear votes; and they desire that these be given for themselves. And although it is not of itself a grave sin not to vote, if the bad party undoubtedly has the greater number, certainly one must not therefore abstain from voting: for the action and voting of good men gradually takes away the security of bad men, and instills anxiety in them; and thus they will not always perpetrate the same graver evils by making iniquitous laws. Yet if it is certain that the evil to come from the influence of this candidate is grave, and it is doubtful whether even my action and voting can decide the matter, it seems that in such a case it must be said that I sin gravely by omitting suffrage. Namely individual good men in this hypothesis are held to bring help and procure the election of good men. "An obligation," says Palmieri, "is present: but unless it affects individuals, in reality there will be none." - Op. Th. Mor., tract. IX, n. 640, v. 4, ed. III.

Therefore, whenever citizens give their votes in public assemblies: "favor is to be given to men of proved virtue, who will merit well of the Christian name." - Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae.

But if someone gives votes to an unworthy man about to act against the Church or good morals, precisely for this end, that an iniquitous law may be made, he sins gravely. In general, when my cooperation directly and certainly has influence upon such evils so that without it these things would not occur, my cooperation is formal. Yet this case will be rare, but must not be called impossible.

But if an election is to be made between a notable enemy of the Church and another who is at least less unworthy, suffrage must be given to this one, since he is going to do less evil, and so by your action you avoid the greater evil; indeed you can also act publicly to obtain his election.

It must especially be taken care that the leaders themselves of the district, of the city, as they are called, are ruled by true principles. For these exercise the greatest influence and not rarely by their work decide the election. Therefore just as these can much more easily sin gravely than ordinary electors, so also they can more easily promote the good.

The law concerning not buying or selling votes seems to be penal, for there is no proportion between penalty and fault. This notwithstanding, he who sells his vote not rarely incurs a sufficiently great danger of infamy, which renders him and his own people wretched. Voluntarily to undergo such a danger appears to us to be a grave fault. But if one political party simply and obstinately buys votes, certainly those introducing this abuse sin gravely; nor is it remarkable if the other party, as if compelled, does the same, otherwise one and the same worse party will always occupy the highest magistracies. It matters much that the electorate be pure, and all things are to be done for obtaining this end; nevertheless it is wicked to say that justice is gravely violated by the fact that here and there an elector holds his vote for sale. Therefore he would not be compelled to restore the price.