photosynthesis Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 LOL!!! there aren't a whole lot of claires out there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 yeah, it's definitely gotta be st. clare.... she rocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 what situations would those be, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 (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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 [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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Doesn't church teaching say that we must obey all laws that don't contradict church teaching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 [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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 [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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted December 13, 2005 Author Share Posted December 13, 2005 [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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now