Some friends have been challenging my reasoning. (I know, I know, it’s hard to imagine anyone challenging my reasoning, but who can account for the recklessness of one’s friends?)
On Thursday I wrote about Fr. Raymond Schroth’s proposed one-state solution to the Israel/Palestinian conflict .
I concluded by citing the passage from the Catechism that provides very stringent criteria for justified rebellion.
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. (2243)
By these standards, I observed, Fr. Schroth’s proposal must be judged irresponsible.
OK, it’s a big leap from the criteria for justified armed rebellion to an assessment of a passing piece of political commentary. So I suppose my friends aren’t altogether wrong to challenge me.
Here’s what I was thinking. Armed rebellion represents an immediate, forceful, violent, and precipitous effort to change the status quo. The decision to rebel is a grave one, because human lives are at risk, not only in the act of rebellion itself, but also in the danger that a regime toppled will lead to social chaos, not a new and more just regime. (Or that extremists will gain the upper hand, leading to an even worse tyranny—the sad outcome of many revolutions.)
It’s important to see that the Church does not prohibit the intrinsically dangerous decision to rebel, but she does urge caution. It is imperative, however, that we act responsibly, especially when we attack the existing structures of authority that prevail in society.
This imperative of responsibility is very important, because in the modern era we are tempted toward utopian fantasies. If we will but destroy private property, the bourgeois class, and so forth, then we’ll break the cycle of oppression. Or we’re captive to an egoistic moralism. Perhaps rightly offended by the injustices that surround us, we commit ourselves to radical action. We insulate ourselves from impurity: “At least I’m no longer acting in complicity with injustice.”
It seems to me that the spirit of the Catechism’s teaching on justified rebellion should force us to examine our political dreams. Are we being sober about the real costs? Or are we complimenting ourselves with an idealism that, if acted upon, might do a great deal of damage.
By this standard, I think Fr. Schroth’s proposal is irresponsible. His vision of a post-ethnic society extremely unlikely. Moreover, conjuring it up as an ideal has the practical effect of encouraging a Palestinian extremism that refused to accept anything less than the Arab dominance over the entire Holy Land.
Needless to say, writing editorials is not the same as taking up arms—it’s not nearly so consequential and fraught with immediate moral peril. But I think the imperative of responsible and prudent citizenship, however relaxed to allow for new and fresh insights to emerge, obtains in the domain of punditry.
Too often, we think good intentions and noble dreams are self-evidently good. They may be impracticable, but we think that we’re better off for being reminded of the better angels of our nature. I’m not so sure. The modern era has seen a great deal of brutality, the occasions (and sometimes the motives) for which were born in the dream world of political fantasy. Hence my conclusion about Fr. Schroth’s intervention into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I’d like him to offer views about practicable steps forward to peace rather than his potentially quite destructive dream.
