Obedience To Authority Figures

[Slappo]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=forums&section=findpost&pid=2461749"][img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_images/phatmass/snapback.png[/img][/url]Slappo, on Yesterday, 03:20 PM, said:

So... you believe we are morally obligated to follow unjust authority when that authority figure is not commanding us to do something sinful?

If the United States Government makes it a law that listening to music is illegal, do you believe we are required to comply with that law? Why or why not?

On a religious point: If a priest tells us that men must wear t-shirts and shorts to masses where he is the celebrant as he views those clothes to best depict the proper reverence we should show at mass do you believe we are morally obligated to wear t-shirts and shorts? Why or why not? (assume that you don't view t-shirts and shorts at mass as sinful)



fides, on Today, 10:41 AM, said:
Start a new thread and I'll entertain your argument.

[Winchester]

Power =/= authority.

"Me government" does not make someone an authority. Tanks, armies, really razzle dazzle jets, drones, volumes of laws nobody has ever read, none of that makes you an authority.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1344026200' post='2462338']
Power =/= authority.

"Me government" does not make someone an authority. Tanks, armies, really razzle dazzle jets, drones, volumes of laws nobody has ever read, none of that makes you an authority.
[/quote]

I agree... I reffered to the United States Government as an unjust authority in my example (which would mean it is not a true authority at all).

This thread isn't about politics or the US Government though. It is in reference to a different thread about a preist or bishop giving a directive that is contradictory to the rights of a Catholic. I really don't want the thread to become about what authority the government does or does not have.

[filius_angelorum]

A legitimate authority, i.e., an authority which has the power to enact laws over a particular group of people, must be obeyed. Not to do so is sinful. Of course, the gravity of the law, which depends on the objective of the law and the possible scandal which could be caused by disobedience to the law, would determine how sinful violating the law actually is.

Now, in your first example, we have a problem. While the government COULD outlaw listening to certain types of music (for example, music with explicit lyrics, music with seditious intentions, music that encouraged violence, etc.), if the government outlawed listening to ALL types of music, without discrimination, it would, in fact, be trying to legislate against the Church herself and her practices. This is not within the proper scope of the secular authority. Ergo, such a law would be invalid. It would be a matter of judgment as to whether the law in its entirety were invalid (which is what I would think), or the law as applied to Christian worship and recreation were invalid.

In your second example, there is an issue of conscience. T-shirt and shorts might be o.k. in certain contexts to wear to Mass, for example a Mass said while out hiking, but T-shirt and shorts have generally not been seen as acceptable for Church by many authorities. Hence, the parish priest would be in the wrong to command such a practice, and, most likely, his parishioners would be justified by conscience in disobeying such an order, unless there were some practical consideration that overruled the normal guidelines. I can't really see an instance where that would be the case.

So, the basic principle is that legitimate authority must be obeyed, but that legitimate authority is subject to scrutiny, especially if it goes against conscience (on objective grounds) or is being exercised in an illegitimate manner.

[filius_angelorum]

deleted

Edited August 3, 2012 by filius_angelorum

[Slappo]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1344026610' post='2462347']
A legitimate authority, i.e., an authority which has the power to enact laws over a particular group of people, must be obeyed. Not to do so is sinful. Of course, the gravity of the law, which depends on the objective of the law and the possible scandal which could be caused by disobedience to the law, would determine how sinful violating the law actually is.

Now, in your first example, we have a problem. While the government COULD outlaw listening to certain types of music (for example, music with explicit lyrics, music with seditious intentions, music that encouraged violence, etc.), if the government outlawed listening to ALL types of music, without discrimination, it would, in fact, be trying to legislate against the Church herself and her practices. This is not within the proper scope of the secular authority. Ergo, such a law would be invalid. It would be a matter of judgment as to whether the law in its entirety were invalid (which is what I would think), or the law as applied to Christian worship and recreation were invalid.
[/quote]

I think coming at it from a religious freedom angle is off base. The law is not invalid due to its legislation against the Church or against freedom of religion. The law is invalid because it is unjust.

Saint Thomas Aquinas: “Human law is law only in virtue of its accordance with right reason: and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence.”

A law outlawing listening to all music is not in accordance with right reason. It does not flow from the eternal law or natural law. Because it deviates from right reason it is unjust and is actually an attack on humanity to enact and attempt to enforce such a law. Certainly we are under no moral obligation to obey such a ridiculous law.

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1344026610' post='2462347']
In your second example, there is an issue of conscience. T-shirt and shorts might be o.k. in certain contexts to wear to Mass, for example a Mass said while out hiking, but T-shirt and shorts have generally not been seen as acceptable for Church by many authorities. Hence, the parish priest would be in the wrong to command such a practice, and, most likely, his parishioners would be justified by conscience in disobeying such an order, unless there were some practical consideration that overruled the normal guidelines. I can't really see an instance where that would be the case.

So, the basic principle is that legitimate authority must be obeyed, but that legitimate authority is subject to scrutiny, especially if it goes against conscience (on objective grounds) or is being exercised in an illegitimate manner.
[/quote]

My second example specifically stated that we are assuming that t-shirts and shorts are considered moral apparel for mass. We're talking about authority figures who are giving directions which are not contrary to morality, so the idea that obedience might result in sin shouldn't be considered. I would argue that a parish priest does not have authority to restrict us from wearing [b]appropriate apparel[/b] for mass. He could of course restrict us from wearing inappropriate apparel to mass such as lingere or a bath robe as that is in accord with right reason and morality. As his rule is not in accord with right reason it cannot be considered just and we are under no obligation to comply with it.

[Slappo]

From New Advent my emphasis:[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm[/url]

[quote]Law is first a regulation, i.e. a practical principle, which aims at ordering the actions of the members of the community. To obtain in any community a unified and systematized co-operation of all there must be an authority that has the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm"]right[/url] to issue binding rules as to the manner in which the members of the community are to act. The law is such a binding rule and draws its constraining or [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11189a.htm"]obligatory[/url] force from the will of the superior. Both because the superior wills and so far as he wills, is law binding. Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason . Law is the criterion of reasonable action and must, therefore, itself be reasonable. A law not in accordance with reason is a contradiction.[/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1344026539' post='2462345']
I reffered to the United States Government as a..just authority...

This thread is...about politics... I really...want the thread to become about what authority the government does or does not have.
[/quote]
Statist.

[Papist]

I obey the laws of govment that do not conflict with the laws of God. I obey the laws of God even if it means disobeying the laws of govment.

[Adrestia]

:off topic:

I'd rather someone show up to mass in a t-shirt that not show up.

[Amppax]

Alright, lets make this thread practical. What about the drinking age?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

There is a little verse in the holy bible (unsure where though you would have to search an online bible.) the little verse says words to this effect " sometimes we have to break the laws of the land to uphold the laws of heaven." Discern the verse for yourselves and talk about as to what it implements for us as christians. And does this verse apply when addressing such laws given by hte hierachy of the holy catholic church, like the shirt and shorts thing. If your pastor or bishop says everyone must get the name jesus tatooed on your shoulder you don't have to. Though it sounds ok and in-consequential and even universal and a way of saying that we all love jesus, you don't have to, the holy catholic church can no more force you to wear a shirt and shorts to mass as it can force you to goto mass on sundays, though it is a holy obligation to do so it can not be forced, it is your choice. Though if a priest was ordered by the bishop to wear shorts and a t-shirt to the beach instead of his black and whites he may have to because of the vowe of obediance, but even than there have been saints whom have disobeyed direct orders from bishops been ex-communicated and than let back into the fold after careful examination of the situation, and the fault being found in the bishop and not the priest. None of this is an exacta for you to go by but just food for thought. The law of the land may not only apply to not speeding in your car,which can be broken if you have a friend bleeding half to death, even if you get sent to jail for it. But this also applies made up laws in the church or mis conception as to what is and what isn't, like a common mis cinception may be that people think to partake in the holy eucharist you must be there from before the start of the holy gospels, but this is not true, if your in a state of grace you can rock up when everyone is lining up for the holy eucharist. Or perhaps if the priest decides to sing happy b'day in the middle of holy mass, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SING HAPPY B'DAY.

Perhaps some of that may help. Seperate the weeds from the wheat, seems so often that i have a bit of both.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i would like to add that the hierachy of the holy roman catholic church is not exempt from error on all it's levels, except the pope when exercising infalibility on matters of faith and morals when called to by the holy spirit, which to my understanding is not a regular occurance. Even the nihil obstat and imprimateur is a guide not an absolute as far as i'm aware, please correct me if i'm wrong.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[havok579257]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1344041710' post='2462481']
Alright, lets make this thread practical. What about the drinking age?
[/quote]

this is the most realistic example that should be used. does someone who is under 21 have to follow the law which states it is illegal to drink if you are under 21. i say yes, you have to follow the law. the law is not sinful. it is not causing you to do something. also it is with in a governments right to establish an age for certain substances such as alcohol, smoking and possibly soon marijuana.

i think realistically a catholic has no basis for not following this current law(mass and worship excluded obviously) except because they want to drink alcohol and they are trying to find an excuse to not follow the law.

[havok579257]

as it pertains to the priest thing, i think it depends. if a priest is not telling you to do something sinful then i think you should follow his directions. an example would be a priest says every adult male needs to wear a shirt and tie to mass because it brings more reverence to the mass. i think there would be no reason in this instance to not follow the priest direction.