Catholicism and Secular Laws

[philothea]

Let's have fun.

[Didacus]

Ssecond option seems the only viable option to me.

All laws that do not contradict church teachings.

In my opinion, there should be no reason to seperate church and state... in my opinon the church SHOULD BE the state (ie; if Canada was to propose a law making the Pope the supreme authority in canada.. I would support this law). but that's just me.

[tojo]

I picked the second option, as it is closest to what I think we should do, but it's not exactly my view, I need to think more about it, I'll get back to you.

[philothea]

I voted #3 (and I include Church teaching as a higher duty, darn single line polls). Actually, I suppose 2 and 3 are pretty much the same.

My goal is to discern and submit to God's will in all things. From my understanding of biblical passages and Church teaching, obedience to rightful authority is obedience to God.

That said (perhaps because of this) I am libertarian bordering on anarchist, politically. I think people should be given as much freedom as possible, even if that means they screw up and do bad things. I am involved in politics, and I try to further my beliefs whenever possible.

[morostheos]

I picked the third option, but I'm kinda undecided between the second and the third...

To maybe start this off with a bit of a different spin than the other threads, I have a question...

Let's say a vowed religious was driving a car full of religious, and they were running late to an important function. The superior of the driver told them they should speed so that they could get there on time. Is the driver bound to obedience to their superior first or to the law of the land?

[philothea]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Dec 12 2005, 11:33 AM']I picked the third option, but I'm kinda undecided between the second and the third...

To maybe start this off with a bit of a different spin than the other threads, I have a question...

Let's say a vowed religious was driving a car full of religious, and they were running late to an important function.  The superior of the driver told them they should speed so that they could get there on time.  Is the driver bound to obedience to their superior first or to the law of the land?
[right][snapback]821667[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'd say you're bound to obey your superior in that case, unless speeding would endanger yourself, your passengers, or other drivers.

[Guest JeffCR07]

My position is #3

Claire, I agree with philothea, a religious is more bound to his or her order than to the state, just as a child is more bound to his or her family than to the state. Thus, if a directive from either a family member, or the superior of an order, or from a member of the hierarchy of the Church demands that you break a law, and the breaking of the law is not itself immoral, then you should obey those to whom we have a greater obligation.

Remember, though we respect the authority that the state has, the State is not God, nor is it the only thing that holds authority from God. [i]All[/i] authority is God's authority, whether it be in the hands of the Church, parents, a superior, a priest/bishop, or the State. The only difference is that we are more closely bound to the former 3 (or 4) than to the latter, and thus must respect that authority first.

[philothea]

I'm going to be out most of the day. I hope we don't get shut down.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 02:26 PM']I'm going to be out most of the day.  I hope we don't get shut down.
[right][snapback]821777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
(You should make 5 more posts so you can change your own title.)

[photosynthesis]

i voted # 3
[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 12 2005, 01:49 PM']Claire, I agree with philothea, a religious is more bound to his or her order than to the state, just as a child is more bound to his or her family than to the state.
[right][snapback]821707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
there's another Claire on this board? What?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 12 2005, 02:42 PM']i voted # 3

there's another Claire on this board?  What?
[right][snapback]821826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Morostheos.

[eddieloudog]

I think that #2 works for me too. We are supposed to be good citizens, but we are also supposed to be good Christians. Since i think that the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of Judaism, when there is a question, we have to default to the higher power.

[photosynthesis]

but... i thought [i]i[/i] was the only Claire in the universe...

[Guest JeffCR07]

awww

[tojo]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 12 2005, 03:09 PM']but...  i thought [i]i[/i] was the only Claire in the universe...
[right][snapback]821891[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

*her world shattered, Claire goes over the deep end*

[photosynthesis]

LOL!!! there aren't a whole lot of claires out there

[morostheos]

don't go over the deep end Claire! Us Claires gotta stick together!

Besides, more than one of the coolest people I've ever met have been Claires...there's just something about the name that exudes awesomeness...I think it must be the legacy of St. Clare.

[photosynthesis]

yeah, it's definitely gotta be st. clare.... she rocks

[morostheos]

anyway, to get this thread back on track...I have another question:

Say the same religious is driving to the event, and they're still late, but this time the superior isn't in the car. As they were leaving, the superior told the religious to use their best judgement as to whether or not they should speed to get there on time. Is the religious bound by the law or allowed to speed?

[Guest JeffCR07]

I would say that in that case, it is up to the individual person. Is the event important enough to merit speeding? How late will they be if they don't speed? etc.

The point here is that the directive of the superior (i.e. you must do whatever you think is prudent), since it does not contradict the moral law, overrides the law of the state.