Joseph Cardinal Höffner CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ... - Ordo Socialis

quences. Man can come into situations in which there lies no comfortable middle way between
heroism on the one hand and crime on the other. Passive resistance can, however, count
on political success only when such a great portion of the population stands apart in boycott
that the government has to give in. In the case of modern totalitarian systems of tyranny with
their clever methods of propaganda and the close-meshed net of state-police surveillance,
there exists the danger that passive resistance would begin in a timorous and sporadic manner
and remain ineffectual.
b) Thus, the question is posed whether, in the face of a tyrannical system of government, active
resistance is not also possible. Two forms of active resistance can be distinguished:
First, there is public protest against criminal measures by the government. Cardinal Galen of
Münster made heroic use of this means. One should further remember the joint pastoral letter
of the German Bishops of October, l943, which reproached the ruling powers of that time
with their infringements: „No earthly power may wantonly injure or destroy the life of an innocent
person. Whoever attacks such a life attacks God himself. The killing (of innocents) is
evil in itself, even if it is allegedly committed in the interest of the common good. This holds
for the killing of innocent and defenseless persons who are feeble-minded or mentally ill, of
the terminally ill and mortally wounded, of the congenitally diseased and unviable newborns,
of innocent hostages and disarmed prisoners of war and convicts, and of people of foreign
races and origins.“
Second, the true problem lies in the other form of active resistance, the overthrow of the
criminal government. In l899, Friedrich Paulsen thought that the „absolutist conception of the
state was right“ in principle, since „the governmental authority could not be conceived as limited
by the rights of individuals, nor the end of the state as limited to mere right.“ For this reason,
the violent change of the state constitution could never „be construed as a right.“ The
right to resistance and revolution has „the sovereignty of the individual and thus the negation
of the state as its presupposition.“ Revolution is „unjust under any circumstance.“ This, however,
does not mean that a revolution „could not perhaps be historically necessary and morally
justified.“ A „bold act“ that would do away with a criminal prince could „without a doubt be
morally possible and creditable.“
Such is then the case „when the preservation of the nation and the implementation of its vital
interests is not possible in any other way.“ 68
Christian social teaching does indeed recognize a distinction, but not an opposition, between
morality and law. The common good as the supreme norm for state and government is a moral
as well as a legal category. Along these lines, Thomas Aquinas declares that the violent liberation
from a régime destroying the common good is not a rebellion; the tyrant himself is
rather a rebel against the common good (II-II, 42, 2).
In particular, the following principles are advanced by Catholic political ethics concerning the
active resistance of a nation in overthrowing a criminal government: It must be certain that the
government has in fact degenerated into a criminal tyranny, that the appeal to a higher authority
such as the United Nations is impossible or hopeless, and that the new conditions aimed at
by the overthrow correspond to the common good. The possibility must therefore be excluded
that political adventurers will create a completely uncertain state of affairs and perhaps establish
a tyranny that would be worse than the one cast off.
Only so much violence may be employed as is necessary for the overthrow of the tyranny; all
constitutional options must be exhausted. And everything must be done to save the very complicated
institutions that are vitally necessary especially in modern society. Public order and
safety must also be preserved insofar as possible. Otherwise, it could happen that, as Thomas
Aquinas writes, a nation suffers more harm through the revolution than through the tyranny
(II-II, 42, 2). In itself, therefore, gradual evolution is to be preferred to revolution, particularly
68 F. Paulsen, System der Ethik, 11th and 12th eds. (Berlin, 1921), II:585.
150