Refusing obedience to civil authorities or resistance to oppression - which is it?

And who decides? An invitation to better discussion.

I have read many posts here and on other media platforms relying upon the tenets of the Christian faith to justify the anti-government protests against those involved in the enforcement of immigration law. Most analysis relies upon the basic law of love toward neighbor and charity and justice toward the wayfarer in our midst. Some cite various scriptural bits or this provision from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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.” (2242)

But I have not seen any analysis or argument in support of the violence and provocative actions against state and federal employees and ordinary citizens that frequently accompanies these protests, especially in light of the following provision from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “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)

Perhaps one of the readers of this post can articulate the ethical analysis that carries us from “refusing obedience to civil authorities” to violent assault upon those charged with enforcing the laws of the nation. How does one check the five “blocks” in 2243? Who decides when they are satisfied and resistance becomes legitimate? And if you deny that 2243 applies to the riots and protests in Minneapolis because it is not “armed resistance,” what about the use of other means of deadly force like bricks, clubs, and cars? And why now, when massive deportation efforts took place under previous administrations without any similar protests?

I am completely in support of the church and individual believers extending charity and assistance to those who are not fellow citizens. I also support the right of the people, Christian and otherwise, to engage in free speech, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. And I affirm that Christians may refuse to obey the demands of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). But I am not persuaded that anything that is taking place justifies violent resistance by Christians or the unqualified support of church leaders. Any bishop speaking out about the issues surrounding the current effort to enforce immigration laws should also discourage Christians from acting violently toward those entrusted with enforcement of the law, unless someone in authority can describe why the provisions of 2243 have been satisfied.