Illegal=Immoral

[BullnaChinaShop]

Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:35 PM'] Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists. [/quote]
Yeah, what he said.

[homeschoolmom]

yeah, what she said...

[Don John of Austria]

risking peoples lives for no morally compelling reason is wrong.

[Guest Aluigi]

oh well i was contending with underage drinking more i guess. the speed limit thing can have reasons. however, when those reasons don't apply you must follow the speed limit. if you're on the highway and keeping up with traffic so as not to risk lives, good. if you're just on a random road that has 25mph as the speed limit and you're going 40 (and there's no morally compelling reason such as a health emergency or conditions that would make following 25 unsafe) then you are sinning. "speeding" isn't the sin: the sin is disobedience. underage drinking- i can see no situation that NOT drinking underage is wrong. i don't agree with the law, but I follow it to teach myself humility and obedience, as should all underage Catholics.

[InHisHands381]

It seems to me that we should follow the law as long as we are not endangering our lives or anyone elses lives (or even just harming others for that matter). The laws are there for a reason (although sometimes not the best reason) and should be followed accordingly. However, if, for instance, the government passed a law saying that you must do something that impedes upon morality and/or endangers lives, THEN you can break the law. I like the example Winchester used of standing in front of abortion clinics. Yes, it is against the law, but the law is allowing thousands and thousands of people to be murdered. Is it wrong to try to help prevent those murders?

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

[Don John of Austria]

As I said before the Civil authority only has justiction over certian things, Somethings are within the Juristiction of the Church and others are the Juristiction of your Parents. I believe drinking when you are underage falls into the latter catagory when you are not on public property and in the first when you are on Public property. Your Parants can give you general permission to drink and the State doe not have the Authority to forbid it when you are within a private resedence, more than that is the State overstepping its Authority and edging into Tyranny. That alone is unjust and makes any such law an Unjust Law. That does not in anyway restrict the government from making laws that govern your state while in a public place or restricting commerce ( such as purchasing alcohol).

[Guest JeffCR07]

Don John, it seems to me that you are correct with regards to the heirarchy within the Order of Authority, however, I have not come to quite the same conclusions that you have.

With the Order of Authority, the Church is top, immediately followed by parents and family, and then civil authorities. Thus, if the Church commands you to do something that is contrary to the orders of your parents, family, or civil law, you must do it (provided it is, of course, a just order).

However it seems to me that one need not make the stark territorial seperation of authority that you did in your above post in order to uphold the Order of Authority. In fact, it seems to me that your system has some inherent flaws. To illustrate one such flaw, allow me to use an example:

A man has entered your house and killed your wife and children while you sleep. You wake up to find you loved ones already murdered, but the murderer is still in the house. He has left his gun in another room and you take it. So it is you with the murder's gun and the murder at your mercy. Seeing he is without a weapon, he makes no attack on you and pleads for you to spare his life.

It could easily be argued that the death penalty may very well be justly inflicted by you upon the murderer. However, civil law prevents this, and you are morally obligated to call the police and have the man arrested. You do.


The reason I use this example is not to get into a debate of specifics about the case, but simply to provide an example (admittedly flawed) of a situation in which the Civil Authority's right to legislate does not end at one's doorstep.


Now, having shown what I feel could be a legitimate critique on your argument, I will provide a similar, albeit slightly different, system that we will see (hopefully) adequately addresses the issue of legislative jurisdiction with regards to the moral order of authority:

As we have previously said, within the Order of Authority, the Church foremost, but also parents and, more broadly, family, supercede civil law. Thus, if any one directly contradicts another (assuming both of the contradicting orders are just), then an individual is morally obligated to follow the order or decree from the source in a higher position of authority. Thus, one is obligated to follow a just decree of the Church above all else, a just decree of one's parents above all but the Church, etc.

However, I maintain that one must "choose" only when dealing with [i]positive decrees[/i]. By this, I mean that if one's parents directly order (positively decree) him/her to have a glass of wine on thanksgiving dinner or a glass of champagne on New Year's Eve, deeming it as being innappropriate if you did not, and this positive decree of one's parents directly conflicts with a positive decree of the civil authority, such as directly saying that persons under the age of 21 cannot drink alcoholic beverages, then one must obey his or her parents.

However, if one is not dealing with positive decrees, then it seems that there need be no conflict, for all parties can be satisfied. Thus, if one's parents maintain that they will allow their child to drink under age within their household, but do not demand it, then the child is in a position in which he/she can still choose to obey the civil authority and thus shows proper respect to the heirarchy of the Order of Authority as a whole.

This, it seems to me, is a fitting thing for us as catholics, for it shows the proper respect for all in authority above us, and, though at times it may be inconvenient, such inconvenience provides us with an opportunity to offer our struggles up to be united with the sufferings of Christ, and for us to grow in patience and Christian Humility.


*Side Note* The above idea is assuming that all orders and decrees in question are just and do not oppose the moral law, cause one or others to sin, or enganger the lives of oneself or others. In any of these cases, one would be morally obligated not to follow such an order.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:35 PM'] Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists. [/quote]
If your argument is true, there are many things I can do. If they don't enforce it, that does not make it right. They don't always enforce the drinking-age law. Believe me, it's unjust for someone under that to follow it.

Look at it this way. My parents tell me not to do something. If I don't listen, but they don't care, that doesn't mean I'm not sinning. It just adds evil to their actions, not mine.

Now, if a law is commonly held as unjust or treated as non-existent by [b][i]ALL[/i][/b], then it is okay for you to break it. Chances are, this is never the case.

[Winchester]

I'm aware the argument can be used to promote things with which I might not agree. My point stands; save the elementary lessons.


I shall repeat, since humans are imperfect, we may reason the intent behind a law.

The intent behind most traffic laws is safety. We stop at stop at stop signs not because it's objectively dangerous to slow down, but becasu it's better if people stop completely. It's not immoral to roll and go a clear intersection, for instance. It is illegal and if you get busted, you deserve it.

The problem with speeding is line of sight and merging vehicles--including the guys who aren't looking the quarter mile it takes to see you if you're blowing by them at 20mph above their speed. Speeding takes a degree of skill and frankly, most people don't have it, even within reasonable levels. Tailgating and changing lanes without looking are far more dangerous than simple speeding.

Underage drinking is probably a little influenced by our culture, but it's not some human absolute. I plan on teaching my daughter how todrink properly. If tomorrow the government came out and said no one under eighteen, even with parental permission, could drink, i would break the law at some point in the future, I assure you.

[qfnol31]

To each act there are more than just intent and the interior act, the external is present as well.

[Don John of Austria]

JeffCR07- I think you misunderstand the nature of my arguement It is not because of the door step that the Civil Authority ends at the doorstep with regards to drinking. Civil Authority is only there to promote Civil order and there for through insuring civil order, promoting the Public Good. The life of a citizen being taken is under the Authority of the State even in Private Homes because the continuation of Public order and therefore public welfare is always affected by the taking of a human life, the POublic Order and therefore welfare is not in any way affected by a 17 year old having a beer at his buddies house and not being in public while drinking it, nor while influanced by it. If it does not effect the publics welfare it does not come under the purveiw of the State at all, it is not within their Authority. If something does not in anyway affect the welfare of the public the State does not have authority over it and cannot justly pass laws regarding it, such an act is tyranny.


What I find amusing about your exaample is that in Texas ( my home) you could simply blow the guys head off and it would be very unlikely you would be breaking any laws at all( if it was at night you certianly would not be) where as if a 17 year old has a beer at his friends house even with his parents permission that is a crime unless his parents are there. the takeing of a Huuman life is directly relevant to the social order, the drinking of a beer in a private place is not, therefore one comes under the Authority of the State and the other does not.

[qfnol31]

While neither of them are intrinsically evil acts (well, one actually is...), only one of them can you judge the object of the external act of the will, or what he's doing. If you "blow a guy's" head off, it could very easily be in self defense, in which case killing is justified. Murder's the intrinsically evil act.

The drinking is the intentional disobedience towards the just law of a just government. This is an intrinsically evil act, meaning it's wrong no matter what. There is no circumstance that it is right to break a just law, or at least none that come to my mind.

According to Aquinas, killing is not intrinsically evil, because it is sometimes necessary (well, this argument is based on his arguments). For it to be intrinsically evil, a part of the act must be always evil. Though it's a grave matter for killing to be done, sometimes it is justified. First off, the person must realize that he's killing. If he thinks he's shooting a bear, it's probably not a murder, for he was doing another act. If he is doing it in self defense, the due circumstance that the other guy is guilty changes the type of act, etc. There are many things that must be considered, because the object of the external act of the will (the actual killing) is not evil in itself, it is not a loss of due order of goods (that is, it is not necessarily an evil act by the killer). [Further example, look at war...]

When breaking a just law, the person's external act is evil. The act is breaking a just law, intentionally (if he's not intending to do it, say he's pushed off a cliff and that's illegal in a state [not to mention it's an unjust law, but we'll forget that], then because he's not intending to do the act, he's not committing an evil act). Breaking an unjust law is a different kind of act. This parallels murder, intentionally killing an innocent person. This is something we looked at above.

This is why I disagree with your analogy about Texas laws.

Edited December 11, 2004 by qfnol31

[Don John of Austria]

I made no analogy about the Law just a comment that in Texas the laws were some what out of Wack. In the senerio mentioned above killing the guy , who is "at your mercy. [and] Seeing he is without a weapon, he makes no attack on you and pleads for you to spare his life", is infact murder. the combatant has been take out of him and so the moral law would pervent one from killing him without it being murder. However in Texas in this senerio it would likely not be construed as breaking the Law and at night certianly would not be breaking the law-- in Texas the use of deadly for is regulated by your ability to see; at night you are allowed ot use deadly for with much greater latitude as it is assumed you could not tell if the other man was armed or accompained or otherwise presenting a threat to you. Whereas, the act of drinking inside a private residence, is not agianst the moral Law in and of itself and as it in no way threatens the well being of the community, nor does not drinking in anyway help, by virtue of not drinking, the community. Therefore the State has no Juristiction over the matter and CANNOT pass a just law regarding it.

[quote]disobedience towards the just law of a just government[/quote]

You don't really this our government is Just do you? I think there are bout 40 million dead babies who would disagree with you.

Edited December 11, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[qfnol31]

I'm not saying their every action is just. I'm saying that they have just authority over us. My parents aren't perfect. They aren't always just. Yet, they still have just authority over me.