[quote="gnjsdad, post:23, topic:201962"]
No. It's just not relevant to this discussion.
Did I say that? Are those really the only two alternatives? Supine obedience to government edicts or armed insurrection? I think there are plenty of alternatives to the two extremes you posit.
This passage refers to withholding obedience under certain extreme conditions. Withholding obedience is not the same as armed insurrection.
In terms of this ad, the grievances cited, in my opinion, come nowhere near the conditions under which obedience may be legitimately withheld.
Armed insurrection is not within the limits of the natural law or the law of the Gospel.
It's worth remembering that there were insurrectionists who chafed under Roman rule during Jesus' life. It's one of the reasons the Jews rejected Him. They were looking for a Messiah who would militarily crush the Romans.
Rich did a very good job with these. I'll just add that with regard to "success" in point #4, we need to ask ...what is "success" according to the ad? Success ought to mean a more just social order according to Gospel teaching. I doubt that's what the ad's promoters have in mind.
I don't disagree with anything you've cited from the Catechism.
I'll post the whole passage again just so we can look at as is.
From the Catechism
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good;** but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law **and the Law of the Gospel.50
2243 Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.
I agree with you on the first part. It let's us know when we should give obedience to the government and when we should not give obedience to the government.
On the second part, notice it says that citizens have the right to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens? I noticed you completely went around that part when you where bolding the passage. Basically what it amounts to is where the government is right, in following God's law you give obedience, where the government is wrong, in not following God's law, you don't. Really simple, the devil is in the details as they say.
In regard to the third part, did you miss that little word UNLESS? No where does that passage state the citizens can not form an armed resistance. What the passage does do is give guidelines for what qualifies as being legitimate armed resistance.
Like I said above we're not there yet. Well we get there? I don't know, I for one certainly hope not but we do appear to be heading down the same road. At least for the moment it looks that way. Hopefully we can change that.