I do not think anyone here will argue against the ideal, nor that we are under an obligation to do what we can to realize it, but that vast majority of history involves nations that were very far from realizing, or even knowing, that ideal.  Some prospered, at least to whatever degree they could -- full of imperfections as they were.  Or, would you argue that there has been no real prosperity, even from a purely natural point of view, in any non-Catholic nation?  Was the prosperity of Rome, for example, an illusion?  Certainly, it was far from perfect, even in its better days, but does that mean the leadership of Rome did not even possess the "right or ability to govern justly"?  St. Augustine posits the idea that the government of the world was given to the Romans as a reward for their truly notable virtue, limited to the natural sphere though it was.

I see this discussion as analogous, in some ways, to the discussion of the relationship between nature and grace.  While grace is infinitely superior to nature, nature, even fallen nature, is not completely worthless, etc.

My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external.  Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.

Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying  governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?

I do not think anyone here will argue against the ideal, nor that we are under an obligation to do what we can to realize it, but that vast majority of history involves nations that were very far from realizing, or even knowing, that ideal.  Some prospered, at least to whatever degree they could -- full of imperfections as they were.  Or, would you argue that there has been no real prosperity, even from a purely natural point of view, in any non-Catholic nation?  Was the prosperity of Rome, for example, an illusion?  Certainly, it was far from perfect, even in its better days, but does that mean the leadership of Rome did not even possess the "right or ability to govern justly"?  St. Augustine posits the idea that the government of the world was given to the Romans as a reward for their truly notable virtue, limited to the natural sphere though it was.

I see this discussion as analogous, in some ways, to the discussion of the relationship between nature and grace.  While grace is infinitely superior to nature, nature, even fallen nature, is not completely worthless, etc.

An apt analogy! The nature of man is worthy only in those things that it does, or can do, to foster and uphold supernatural grace.  Man suffers concupiscence because of the pride of our First Father which forever wounded our nature.  Despite this, man's nature as a creature of flesh and spirit is to seek out his Creator, which is just.  However it is nothing in man's nature, but the mercy of prevenient grace from Our Father that directs us to seek out and submit to his Church, if we are so unfortunate as to be born and raised outside of it.  In this sense, yes, fallen nature can assist in the justification of man yet merit itself nothing.

I view those government, especially those pagan governments before the Nativity of Our Lord as being that wounded and meritless part of ourselves that served a greater good until the greatest good could be established.  Rome, for example, subjugated the known world of the time and at the same time created a society where the dissemination of knowledge and social philosophy was possible.  I personally believe it no mere coincidence that Peter should set up his Seat in Rome; from there, once the Kingdom there took root, it could be spread to the whole world.  Did they have some virtuous ideals?  Arguably, but the greater truth, at least in my estimation, is that it had no merit of itself; it was merely the omniscience of God that permitted that its structure and character should cooperate with the establishment of Holy Church.  The potential merit of such cooperation ended the day the Cross was hoisted on Golgotha; no government or society has the ability to blame their evil and lawlessness on ignorance.

Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: JohnGrey

My contention, one borne out by history, is that only a society and government that is united, materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ, has the right or ability to govern justly and to address threats to peace and order, whether internal or external.  Those that adhere to false religions, while having to their merit the desire to see the peace secured and wrongs righted, do not have any moral authority from which to seek either.

Rights and duties are correlative. Are you saying  governments that are NOT united "materially and spiritually with the Church of Christ" have no duty to govern justly and seek peace?

Of course not.  A government, by at least ostensible definition, desires to do just that.  I'm saying that by virtue of their rebellion against the Church of Christ, her spiritual governance and her immutable teaching on moral virtues, that they are each one doomed to fail in attaining those goals with any success.  The purpose of a brain in principle is to direct the body; a brain malformed or lacking essential necessities may try to fulfill that role but cannot do so regardless of its own effort; disorder and death is the inevitable result.

Well then, they have the right and the duty.

I disagree.  They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly.  Without that they lack, as an institution informed by the Church and her morals, the right to exercise moral authority.  That is not to say that they are powerless to do so; the U.S. government is capable of enforcing its will domestically while maintaining the heresy of a separation between Church and state.  It does not do so by right, merely by social inculcation and the acceptance of the people that it governs.  The right to correct evil must come from moral authority, which in turn must be derived from knowing and accepting universal moral truth.  Physically a heretic is indistinguishable from a priest.  Only the later, however, is capable of acting in a role of spiritual authority, because he accepts that first that the Church is the purveyor and interpreter of salvific truth (and by extension what is an objective good), and agrees to operate as an agent of that authority.

They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly.

Would you agree that...

If they do not have a RIGHT to rule, I do NOT have a duty to obey?  

If I DO have a duty to obey, whence is it derived, considering the "authority" I am bound to obey has no right to rule?

Quote from: JohnGrey

They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; from this, and only this, does a government have the right (not the ability) to rule and do so justly.

Would you agree that...

If they do not have a RIGHT to rule, I do NOT have a duty to obey?

That would depend on what you're obeying.  At least in the abstract, I would argue that the faithful would not be bound to obey that government.  In practice, that would depend of the situation.  I would argue that it would be licit to follow those laws that are just, or that are in agreement with Catholic morality (prohibition against murder), and to disobey those laws that would be harmful to faith or that make us a party to sin (such as paying taxes to a statist government that use it to provide euthanasia, and chemical or surgical abortion).  Moreover, Thomas Aquinas asserted that it is sometimes necessary to tolerate particular evils to prevent chaos, as it is for faithful Catholics who must live and operate in secular societies that grow more hostile toward the faith with each passing year.  Acceptance of an unjust power's temporal authority for the sake of order, to suffer this while speaking against it peaceably is sometimes necessary; such is an example of the virtue of fortitude.

To put it simply, if obeying an unjust or unlawful secular power does not require one to sin, or to be a party to sin, and to do so will maintain or improve the common good, then it can be considered just to do so.  If rebellion against that power can be had with reasonable assurance of both success and that the common good would not be made worse by it, then I would argue that rebellion is just.  If reasonable success of revolt is impossible, then to refuse to sin by following its precepts, suffering what punishment such refusal would engender, and to preach the truth of Christ against that unlawful power seems the most wise and just course.

That would depend on what you're obeying.

I disagree.  The ruling body is either legit or it is not.  The nuances of which you speak only come in AFTER it has been proved that the body has a RIGHT to rule.  If that is not first established, there is no DUTY at all.

At least in the abstract, I would argue that the faithful would not be bound to obey that government.  In practice, that would depend of the situation.

I mean no disrespect, but this sounds like so much nonsense.  Either I have a duty to obey or I do not.  If I do not, that is the end of it.  If I DO, that is when any discussion of just versus unjust laws can begin -- and not one moment sooner.

I disagree.  They have an obligation to operate according to the precepts of the Church; ...

They have a duty to operate according to the natural law first, something of which they are cannot be ignorant.