Catholicism and Secular Laws

[qfnol31]

All laws contained in the Natural Law.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 12 2005, 09:32 PM']scenario: law does not force us to act contrary to morality, but law is not seeking the common good, or is illicitly enforced.  law is not morally obligatory.

do you agree that that scenario can exist?
[right][snapback]822643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I agree that there could theoretically be laws which do not legislate moral matters, or seek the common good, or might be illicitly enforced.

However, only the second two conditions would, in my understanding, prevent a law from being binding on a person's conscience.

Requoting, for reference: [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.[/i]

[philothea]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 13 2005, 12:10 AM']All laws contained in the Natural Law.
[right][snapback]822967[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yer a



:

[Laudate_Dominum]

Oh wow! cool thread!

I voted "other" because I like to be difficult.

j/k, I'll post the real reasons why later.

God bless

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 12 2005, 05:11 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]
that wasnt very clear to me when i voted.....

[qfnol31]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 13 2005, 12:22 AM']Yer a
:
[right][snapback]822979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have no idea.

[Aloysius]

so if a scenario could exist in which a law didn't require you to do something immoral but was nevertheless not seeking the common good, it would be not morally obligatory correct?

that's why I argue against the idea that it is merely that a law not make us do somethng immoral that makes it obligatory.

[qfnol31]

The law is seeking the common good.

[Aloysius]

that's arguable about individual laws.

to stay away from the more controversial laws for now, I offer obvious examples:

how about the law that says if you are driving in pennsylvania and an amish buggy comes passing by, you must get out of the car and dissassemble it?

[Aloysius]

if the law is always seeking the common good, why does the Catechsim say that a law is only a legitimate exercise of authority IF it is seeking the common good?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 03:27 PM']if the law is always seeking the common good, why does the Catechsim say that a law is only a legitimate exercise of authority IF it is seeking the common good?
[right][snapback]823947[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The drinking law is.

[Aloysius]

that's not what this thread is about.

[qfnol31]

LoL, part of it is. :

I agree laws must be seeking the common good. Though I think there is more than that of course...

[Aloysius]

I'm just trying to establish here that there can be a law that doesn't force us to act immorally but would still not be morally obligatory.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 03:55 PM']I'm just trying to establish here that there can be a law that doesn't force us to act immorally but would still not be morally obligatory.
[right][snapback]823994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As far as I can tell, you are misreading the directions for how rulers should act as permission for people to disobey, which I do not find.

(argh, interrupted, more later)