Catholicism and Secular Laws

[morostheos]

Ok. So *cringe* to relate this to a similar topic (and please tell me if/where the comparison doesn't work)....

Say a 17 year old is told by his parents he should use his best judgement as to whether or not he should drink alcoholic beverages. Is he bound by the law or allowed to drink?

[philothea]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Dec 12 2005, 02:45 PM']Ok.  So *cringe* to relate this to a similar topic (and please tell me if/where the comparison doesn't work)....

Say a 17 year old is told by his parents he should use his best judgement as to whether or not he should drink alcoholic beverages.  Is he bound by the law or allowed to drink?
[right][snapback]822113[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If there's some necessity to drink alcohol, then the boy ought to drink. Otherwise he should obey the law.

I don't see how it's different, except that there are very few situations where someone is morally obliged to drink alcohol.

[photosynthesis]

what situations would those be, in your opinion?

[philothea]

If someone is in a social situation where they will offend their host or scandalize the other guests by refusing to drink.

Perhaps if someone is extremely depressed or anxious, and no other method of coping is available.

Ummm (I'm stretching here...) you have to finish off the booze to keep it away from some nearby vulnerable alchoholic.

Anyway, all the situations are not for self-indulgence, but to serve some higher good.

[philothea]

(More fodder... trying to lure Aloysius over here, since the other threads where I wanted to reply to him were closed.)

On "Participation in Social Life", from [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm"]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url]: Part Three, Section One, Chapter Two, Article 2, or, #1897-1927

Aloysius quoted portions of this article in a previous topc as evidence that he was not obliged to obey a particular law, because it was unjust.

[i]1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."[/i]

And...

[i]1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."[/i]

The obvious point of contention is, how do you determine when a law is so unjust that you are not obliged to obey it?

My understanding is that a law is unjust when it obliges you to do something immoral, or prevents you from doing something your are required to do. Obviously, others disagree. I would like to know what your criteria are, and how they were determined.

[Cam42]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 06:36 PM'](More fodder... trying to lure Aloysius over here, since the other threads where I wanted to reply to him were closed.)

On "Participation in Social Life", from [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm"]The Catechism of the Catholic Church[/url]: Part Three, Section One, Chapter Two, Article 2, or, #1897-1927

Aloysius quoted portions of this article in a previous topc as evidence that he was not obliged to obey a particular law, because it was unjust.

[i]1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."[/i]

And...

[i]1907 First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as "the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion."[/i]

The obvious point of contention is, how do you determine when a law is so unjust that you are not obliged to obey it?

My understanding is that a law is unjust when it obliges you to do something immoral, or prevents you from doing something your are required to do.  Obviously, others disagree.  I would like to know what your criteria are, and how they were determined.
[right][snapback]822303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good questions. Oh, I voted #3.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Doesn't church teaching say that we must obey all laws that don't contradict church teaching?

[philothea]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 12 2005, 04:54 PM']Doesn't church teaching say that we must obey all laws that don't contradict church teaching?
[right][snapback]822318[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is what most of us think...

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:42 PM']Good questions.  Oh, I voted #3.
[right][snapback]822306[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Why not #2?

[philothea]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:00 PM']Why not #2?
[right][snapback]822323[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
(Still not Cam... )

My intention in phrasing the poll questions was that #2 meant that you had to obey ONLY laws, and ONLY Church teaching. (Though, obviously, Church teaching has some info on what you are supposed to obey, so this is getting redundant and recursive.)

#3 meant that you have to obey secular laws, church teaching, and any other legitimate authority, such as parents, employer, superior, school, spouse, etc..

[Cam42]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 07:11 PM'](Still not Cam...  )

My intention in phrasing the poll questions was that #2 meant that you had to obey ONLY laws, and ONLY Church teaching.  (Though, obviously, Church teaching has some info on what you are supposed to obey, so this is getting redundant and recursive.)

#3 meant that you have to obey secular laws, church teaching, and any other legitimate authority, such as parents, employer, superior, school, spouse, etc..
[right][snapback]822330[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep. What "still not Cam" said.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

so in esscenc: following church law only is what we should do, because church requires that all secular law be followed unless it contradicts the faith. its like a paradox.

[philothea]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:42 PM']so in esscenc: following church law only is what we should do, because church requires that all secular law be followed unless it contradicts the faith. its like a paradox.
[right][snapback]822356[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah.

I would've been clearer in the poll but the single line limit stumped me.

[Aloysius]

since the alcohol discussion has been controversial, let's at least for the moment keep it out of this discussion. at least for the moment.

the Catechism quote you provided shows that it is not merely that it does not contradict the faith that makes it a just law. a law is only a legitimate exercise of authority if it seeks the common good and employs morally licit means of attaining that.

in theory, there can be a law that does not require us to contradict moral law but is an unjust law. either it does not seek the common good, or it employs immoral means to enforce it.

I think this is an important distinction, because the position that says so long as it doesn't require disobeying the moral law a law must be obeyed is a position that theoretically gives the state a nearly unlimited authority over every aspect of society and culture that does not have clear moral lines. That position includes the power for the state to, if it so desires, determine the dietary requirements of all its citizens, determine the dress code of all its citizens, determine the acceptable words, acceptable languages, and acceptable gestures of all its citizens.

This is why the Catechism does not say "a law is justly enacted only if it does not contradict moral law", it says "a law is justly enacted if it seeks the common good and employs moral means"... it's the difference between allowing the state power over everything up to the brink of immorality, and allowing the state only the authority to rule over those things which right reason determines it can rule over.

I don't think I accept any of the poll options. We are morally obligated to follow any law that seeks the common good and employs licit and moral ways of attaining that common good. There is an area, not an easily defineable and a hotly controversial area mind you, but an area nonetheless where a law can not be requiring us to break moral law, but also not be a just excercise of authority.

if it is enforced through immoral means, infringing upon privacy, it doesn't meet the catechesism's definition of a legitimate exercise of authority. if it is not seeking the common good, it does not meet the catechism's definition of legitimate authority.

if you were driving along in pennsylvania with no emmergency situation or rush, and you saw an amish buggy coming down from the other end of the road, would you pull over and dissassemble your automobile? If you don't, you've technically just broken a law. It would not be immoral for you to get out of your car and dissassemble it, it just wouldn't be reasonable obedience.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 06:45 PM']Yeah.

I would've been clearer in the poll but the single line limit stumped me.
[right][snapback]822359[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


cool

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:59 PM']since the alcohol discussion has been controversial, let's at least for the moment keep it out of this discussion.  at least for the moment.
[/quote]
Sure. I imagine we can come up with a suitable substitute.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:59 PM']the Catechism quote you provided shows that it is not merely that it does not contradict the faith that makes it a just law.  a law is only a legitimate exercise of authority if it seeks the common good and employs morally licit means of attaining that.

in theory, there can be a law that does not require us to contradict moral law but is an unjust law.  either it does not seek the common good, or it employs immoral means to enforce it.

I think this is an important distinction, because the position that says so long as it doesn't require disobeying the moral law a law must be obeyed is a position that theoretically gives the state a nearly unlimited authority over every aspect of society and culture that does not have clear moral lines.  That position includes the power for the state to, if it so desires, determine the dietary requirements of all its citizens, determine the dress code of all its citizens, determine the acceptable words, acceptable languages, and acceptable gestures of all its citizens.

This is why the Catechism does not say "a law is justly enacted only if it does not contradict moral law", it says "a law is justly enacted if it seeks the common good and employs moral means"... it's the difference between allowing the state power over everything up to the brink of immorality, and allowing the state only the authority to rule over those things which right reason determines it can rule over.
[/quote]
Okay, so a petty, useless law which in no way served the public interest could be validly disobeyed. Can you give me examples of such laws, and how you determined that they did not serve the public interest?

Also, yes, a law immorally enforced -- but that seems like an immoral law. I am not sure of the distinction.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:59 PM']I don't think I accept any of the poll options.  We are morally obligated to follow any law that seeks the common good and employs licit and moral ways of attaining that common good.  There is an area, not an easily defineable and a hotly controversial area mind you, but an area nonetheless where a law can not be requiring us to break moral law, but also not be a just excercise of authority. 

if it is enforced through immoral means, infringing upon privacy, it doesn't meet the catechesism's definition of a legitimate exercise of authority.  if it is not seeking the common good, it does not meet the catechism's definition of legitimate authority.

if you were driving along in pennsylvania with no emmergency situation or rush, and you saw an amish buggy coming down from the other end of the road, would you pull over and dissassemble your automobile?  If you don't, you've technically just broken a law.  It would not be immoral for you to get out of your car and dissassemble it, it just wouldn't be reasonable obedience.
[right][snapback]822387[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean here. Disassembling my car would require a lot more tools than I ordinarily carry with me...

[Aloysius]

well, if you don't want to obey a law that is still technically on the books in Pennsylvania, you'd better carry those tools if you ever drive through Pennsylvania. It is a law, a frivilous law, a law that does not morally obligate us.

there is a distinction between an immorally enforced law and an immoral law. If the law required you to do something that didn't break the moral law, but they enforced it in some way that infringed upon your privacy, it would not be morally obligatory. Say they made it illegal to sleep with your head at the foot of the bed. Okay, all good, it's not contrary to moral law to sleep with your head at the head of the bed (though I don't think you'd be morally obliged to follow this law on the grounds that it is not a legitimate exercise of authority). Well, then they enforce that with an obligatory secuirity camera you must get installed in your bedroom by which they monitor your sleep. That's a morally illicit way of enforcing such a law.

Bear with me through stupid examples, please. I just want to get us agreeing to certain principles by which to judge the justness of laws first, principles that do not give the state authority to whatever it wants so long as it does not require the breaking of the moral law. And real law examples are always going to be more controversial because there is no clear-cut litmus test, there's many other issues surrounding them. If we can talk about a law where it is obvious it would not be supporting the common good even if it would not explicitly contradict the moral law, then we finally are agreeing on the principle on which we judge laws.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 06:26 PM']well, if you don't want to obey a law that is still technically on the books in Pennsylvania, you'd better carry those tools if you ever drive through Pennsylvania.  It is a law, a frivilous law, a law that does not morally obligate us.
[/quote]
Pretty weird. Fortunately I only drive on the interstate through PA.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 06:26 PM']there is a distinction between an immorally enforced law and an immoral law.  If the law required you to do something that didn't break the moral law, but they enforced it in some way that infringed upon your privacy, it would not be morally obligatory.  Say they made it illegal to sleep with your head at the foot of the bed.  Okay, all good, it's not contrary to moral law to sleep with your head at the head of the bed (though I don't think you'd be morally obliged to follow this law on the grounds that it is not a legitimate exercise of authority).  Well, then they enforce that with an obligatory secuirity camera you must get installed in your bedroom by which they monitor your sleep.  That's a morally illicit way of enforcing such a law.
[/quote]
I fear I'm diverging, sorry -- feel free to ignore this. But, if there were no cameras we'd be obliged to sleep as legislated? I think that example is falling under the "not seeking the common good" issue. Anyway.

The only law I can think of that might qualify was the 2000 census questionnaire, which my husband decided not to fill out. Even though it was technically breaking the law, he thought it was too much of an invasion of privacy (we were given the extended version).

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 06:26 PM']Bear with me through stupid examples, please.  I just want to get us agreeing to certain principles by which to judge the justness of laws first, principles that do not give the state authority to whatever it wants so long as it does not require the breaking of the moral law.  And real law examples are always going to be more controversial because there is no clear-cut litmus test, there's many other issues surrounding them.  If we can talk about a law where it is obvious it would not be supporting the common good even if it would not explicitly contradict the moral law, then we finally are agreeing on the principle on which we judge laws.
[right][snapback]822419[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
At times speed limits do fit in this category, I believe. If you drive at the "speed limit" on 94 through Chicago in the morning, you will be an extremely dangerous traffic hazard. But, the IL rules of the road do say that you should drive "at the speed of traffic" so maybe that is not the best example.



My criteria, BTW, is [i]What is your motivation for disobeying this law?[/i] Is it to serve God more perfectly? Then good. If not... why?

[Aloysius]

again, in this thread I was hoping to avoid the controversial and/or personal parts, at least for now, to pinpoint the principles by which we should judge which laws are morally obligatory. however, I'll say this: if we were talking about a situation in which I had decided not to follow a particular law, it would be forthe same reason that you, if you were to be driving through pennsylvania and saw an Amish buggy, probably would not stop and attempt to disassemble your car. Are you not dissassembling your car to serve God more perfectly?

You're right about the sleeping example, I even admitted that as I gave the example, it wouldn't be obligatory anyway. I suppose those two traits of a law go hand in hand, because I cannot think of one that would be a law for the common good but not obligatory because it is enforced immorally.

Your speed limit example is still trying to reconcile the principle to the notion of a law merely not having to go against moral law to be just. I mean, it would be immoral for you to cause yourself to be a dangerous traffic hazard, so that's why you're disobeying the law. I want us to admit to a pricniple that allows for a law not being morally obligatory that does not necessarily require us to do something immoral.

[philothea]

Sorry, I got into a RL discussion about actual law-making. I now have a bad headache.

More later, maybe.