Catholicism and Secular Laws

[toledo_jesus]

look, if the law doesn't conflict with Catholic teachings then you are bound to obey it. Otherwise, you accept the penalties of your crime.

[philothea]

Edited December 14, 2005 by philothea

[philothea]

Okay, trying to analyze the whole section in the CCC:

Keeping everything together and in context...
Analysis of Part One AUTHORITY:

[i]1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will. [/i]

We need a government. We obey the governing authorities because they receive their authority from God. We should honor and respect them.

[i]1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed. [/i]

The particular form of government doesn't matter, so long as the government is legitmately the choice of the citizens.

[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]

An illegitimate government does not bind one to obedience.

[i]1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."[/i]

(Not really relevant to our discussion.) Optimally, power should not be concentrated in one individual or group, without limits.

Please (anyone) tell me if I misunderstand. Next section...

[philothea]

Analsyis of Part II: The Common Good

[i]1905 In keeping with the social nature of man, the good of each individual is necessarily related to the common good, which in turn can be defined only in reference to the human person: "Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already justified, but gather instead to seek the common good together."

1906 By common good is to be understood "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily." The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:

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]

Laws should not be passed which infringe on fundamental, inalienable rights. People should be allowed to act as their conscience dicatates, in freedom and privacy.

[i]1908 Second, the common good requires the social well-being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate, in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.[/i]

The laws should, as much as possible, accommodate every person and interest, without favor or bias.

[i]1909 Finally, the common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.

1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies.[/i]

The governing authorites ought to keep people safe and/or allow them to keep themselves safe.

[i]1911 Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world. The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good. This good calls for an organization of the community of nations able to "provide for the different needs of men; this will involve the sphere of social life to which belong questions of food, hygiene, education, . . . and certain situations arising here and there, as for example . . . alleviating the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assisting migrants and their families."[/i]

Beyond just local concerns, governments should think of the world and the well-being of people everywhere.

[i]1912 The common good is always oriented towards the progress of persons: "The order of things must be subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around." This order is founded on truth, built up in justice, and animated by love.[/i]

The point of government is to help people, not to exist for itself.

Most of this section deals with how lawmakers should act -- but as this is a democracy we should be aware of these things.

While I see a lot of guidelines for how laws should be formed, I do not see any wiggle room for what people are allowed to disobey.

[philothea]

Final section! Analysis of Part III: Responsibility and Participation...

[i]1913 "Participation" is the voluntary and generous engagement of a person in social interchange. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person.

1914 Participation is achieved first of all by taking charge of the areas for which one assumes personal responsibility: by the care taken for the education of his family, by conscientious work, and so forth, man participates in the good of others and of society.

1915 As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life. The manner of this participation may vary from one country or culture to another. "One must pay tribute to those nations whose systems permit the largest possible number of the citizens to take part in public life in a climate of genuine freedom."[/i]

Citizens are obligated to work on improving their nation and government, in whatever manner is suitable given their culture and abilities.

[i]1916 As with any ethical obligation, the participation of all in realizing the common good calls for a continually renewed conversion of the social partners. Fraud and other subterfuges, by which some people evade the constraints of the law and the prescriptions of societal obligation, must be firmly condemned because they are incompatible with the requirements of justice. Much care should be taken to promote institutions that improve the conditions of human life.[/i]

Politicians tend to be crooks, so it's important we keep an eye on them. :

[i]1917 It is incumbent on those who exercise authority to strengthen the values that inspire the confidence of the members of the group and encourage them to put themselves at the service of others. Participation begins with education and culture. "One is entitled to think that the future of humanity is in the hands of those who are capable of providing the generations to come with reasons for life and optimism."[/i]

Leaders should not only act justly, they should be nice too.

And... end of section.

What did I get wrong?

[Aloysius]

so do you still hold to the strict rule of thumb "as long as a law doesn't force us to do something immoral"... or did you get a more dynamic understanding of legitimate excercise of authority, right reason, and conscience from those quotes?

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 06:20 PM']so do you still hold to the strict rule of thumb "as long as a law doesn't force us to do something immoral"... or did you get a more dynamic understanding of legitimate excercise of authority, right reason, and conscience from those quotes?
[right][snapback]824121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Nice phrasing.

No, I haven't changed my position, and after having read the whole section repeatedly several times, I see only support for what I believe.

The only (maybe) new detail is: if the government is not legitimate, [i]then[/i] their laws are not binding.

There is nothing whatsoever that says we are allowed to disobey specific, moral laws from a legitimate government.

[Aloysius]

so if passing through pennsylvania by motor vehicle, when you saw an amish buggy come by, you'd stop your car and do your best to dissassemble your car?

of course, to be a high upstanding law abiding citizen you would carry all the tools necessary to dissassemble your car and take whatever necessary classes on how to do it so you'd be well prepared... but that's what you'd have to do to comply with the law

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 06:30 PM']so if passing through pennsylvania by motor vehicle, when you saw a buggy come by, you'd stop your car and do your best to dissassemble your car?

of course, to be a high upstanding law abiding citizen you would carry all the tools necessary to dissassemble your car and take whatever necessary classes on how to do it so you'd be well prepared... but that's what you'd have to do to comply with the law
[right][snapback]824134[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'd let myself get caught, go to court, and let the court overturn it.

Obviously, as this has not happened, the state is not actually prosecuting this "law" -- so it is not really a law anymore, just a bit of historical artifact that no one got around to deleting.

You are trying to confuse the issue. Why don't we talk about real laws that the state thinks are important?

[Aloysius]

because those are the ones that are more controversial. I'm just trying to use ones that are obvious examples of laws that do not contradict moral law that are also not morally obligatory.

so is another factor for you whether or not the state goes through the trouble of enforcing that law? it's a real law, on the books. apparently the only reason you wouldn't obey it is because it's not enforced.

well, I'm gonna go into a law of slightly more controversy to carry that idea forth-- technically in the State of Pennsylvania it is illegal for parents to serve alcohol to their minor children. since the state doesn't take the time to really enforce that unless there's some sort of troublemaking going on, are parents morally obligated to obey that law?

personally, I'd go more with the Catechism way of looking at such a law-- the reason for disobeying it is not that it's not enforced at all, but that it's not in keeping with the common good (speaking of the taking apart your car for the amish).

there could well be a law that is not strictly enforced, but you'd be morally obligated to follow it anyway. it is not about whether or not it is enforced that makes a law morally obligatory.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 06:40 PM']well, I'm gonna go into a law of slightly more controversy to carry that idea forth--  technically in the State of Pennsylvania it is illegal for parents to serve alcohol to their minor children.  since the state doesn't take the time to really enforce that unless there's some sort of troublemaking going on, are parents morally obligated to obey that law?
[right][snapback]824142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I wouldn't consider such an invasive and absurd law binding on the level of conscience. Something like the law still in effect in some state or another that states that women must ask their husband's permission before getting a haircut.
I don't consider the women who cut their hair without their husbands permission to be criminals.
The only purpose of that drinking law would be in the case of kids who were parying and getting smashed. If the neighbors reported then the law would likely be enforced, otherwise its a technicality.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 06:40 PM']because those are the ones that are more controversial.  I'm just trying to use ones that are obvious examples of laws that do not contradict moral law that are also not morally obligatory.

so is another factor for you whether or not the state goes through the trouble of enforcing that law?  it's a real law, on the books.  apparently the only reason you wouldn't obey it is because it's not enforced.

well, I'm gonna go into a law of slightly more controversy to carry that idea forth--  technically in the State of Pennsylvania it is illegal for parents to serve alcohol to their minor children.  since the state doesn't take the time to really enforce that unless there's some sort of troublemaking going on, are parents morally obligated to obey that law?

personally, I'd go more with the Catechism way of looking at such a law-- the reason for disobeying it is not that it's not enforced at all, but that it's not in keeping with the common good (speaking of the taking apart your car for the amish).

there could well be a law that is not strictly enforced, but you'd be morally obligated to follow it anyway.  it is not about whether or not it is enforced that makes a law morally obligatory.
[right][snapback]824142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As far as the car disassembly law, I have no trouble coming up with reasons why it is immoral, from personal safety to damage of valuable property. But neverminding that, I have only your word on an internet forum that it's a law at all. Until I see it being promulgated, discussed, and prosecuted, I have no idea if it's real. I'm obliged to obey laws, not to go searching for remnant historical absurditites with which to burden myself.

Parents in PA? How should I know what they're obliged to do? That's up to them. They know their children, they know themselves, they know their family history. If they think they are obligated to serve their children alcohol, despite what the law says, then that's what they should do. Otherwise they should obey the law. I am not looking to tell people what to do. That's up to them and their consciences.

All I'm trying to do is uphold the Church teaching that we should submit -- when morally possible -- to rightful authority.

[Aloysius]

oh come on, that's a cop-out. if it was a law and you knew about it, what would make it different from any other law? you could do it very safely and very morally.

and did you just give defference of conscience and right reason to the parents of pennsylvania over whether they should follow a law enacted by the state of pennsylvania?

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 07:27 PM']oh come on, that's a cop-out.  if it was a law and you knew about it, what would make it different from any other law?  you could do it very safely and very morally.
[/quote]
You're talking about the car disassembly law? Are you kidding me?? Have you ever disassembled a car? I have disassembled engines, and this requires, oh, an engine crane, an air compressor, impact wrench, replacement gaskets, replacement oil, spring compressors...etc. To do a whole car probably requires a full lift. And how disassembled? Do I need a welder too?

I don't know it's a law, and if it WAS a law that affected anyone, I'd get it off the books. Period.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 07:27 PM']and did you just give defference of conscience and right reason to the parents of pennsylvania over whether they should follow a law enacted by the state of pennsylvania?
[right][snapback]824166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I said, if they feel MORALLY OBLIGED TO GIVE THEIR CHILDREN ALCOHOL then they are are obliged to disobey that law. [b]Just like everything else I've said.[/b]

If it'd be easier to shut the 16 year-old-brat up and give him a beer...not good enough. If they really want their 19 year old daughter to have teh kewlest graduation party evah, too bad.

If they feel that by obeying a law they would be neglecting their God-given duties as parents, then obviously they cannot obey that law.

Now, where are you going with this?

[Aloysius]

I really think you've just copped out there... the reasons you gave for not obeying such a law:
* don't know if the law really exists- cop out, assume it does for the sake of argument
* it's not enforced- is that a standard by which you judge whether we are morally obliged to obey a law?
* it'd be too difficult- is that a standard by which you judge whether we are morally obliged to obey a law?
* I'd get it off the books-- until you did, would you obey it?

it's very clear to me that you have an intuition that this law is not morally obligatory, but you refuse to say why-- it's not enacted for the common good. it's unjust even though it doesn't require you to do something immoral. that's the reason from the Catechism you should give as to why you wouldn't obey such a law if it were in place.

like I said, bear with me on stupid examples-- because it's about what principles should be applied to judging whether a law is morally obligatory. I am using stupid examples to cut through the complex controversies surrounding real examples and get to the heart-- it is not merely that a law not force us to disobey the moral law that makes it just and morally obligatory. a law can be unjust and not morally obligatory even if it doesn't cause us to do something immoral.

btw, I don't care if you have or have not changed your position from the start. if you feel you can agree with anything I've said and that that doesn't change what you've said, I'm not going to challenge you because I'm not concerned with winning any debate, merely pinpointing the principles we should use to judge if a law is morally obligatory.