Catholicism and Secular Laws

[philothea]

No, primarily I think the car disassembly law is utterly unsafe, and would leave me stranded by the roadside alone for DAYS. I would be massively negligent to obey it, and my husband would never let me leave the house again. Good enough?

I [i]also[/i] doubt its existence and validity, because of it's obvious impracticality.

As I said, if it was valid, and enforced, I'd either avoid PA altogether, or flagrantly disobey it [i]because it is immoral[/i] and get caught so as to protest it and get it off the books.

This is such a dumb diversion. I already told you I'd obey the pant-leg law, and the no-skirt law, etc, etc, or ANY STUPID YET MORAL LAW. This one happens to be dangerous.

[Aloysius]

obeying the pant leg law or any of those other examples, according to the principles you yourself quoted from the Catechism, is not morally obligatory. it would not be enacted for the common good, and as such would not be a legitimate use of authority. I don't see how you can't see that, that's what the Catechsim says the way I read it.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:05 PM']obeying the pant leg law or any of those other examples, according to the principles you yourself quoted from the Catechism, is not morally obligatory.  it would not be enacted for the common good, and as such would not be a legitimate use of authority.  I don't see how you can't see that, that's what the Catechsim says the way I read it.
[right][snapback]824211[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Catechism says that [i]governments[/i] which are not established for the common good do not need to be obeyed. It says nothing about individual laws.

[Aloysius]

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 see, you are arguing that this is referring to whether or not a whole government is legitimate. I do not believe that is what it intends. There can be a legitimate government that acts illegitimately in some ways, by not seeking the common good.

I.E. The authority of the State of Pennsylvania is a legitimate authority. However, if in any individual law it is to not seek the common good, then in that case that individual law would not be morally obligatory.

The key is that this is talking about when authority is exercised legitimately. One government may exercise legitimate authority in one area, and in another area exercise illegitimate authority.

[philothea]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:10 PM']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 see, you are arguing that this is referring to whether or not a whole government is legitimate.  I do not believe that is what it intends.  There can be a legitimate government that acts illegitimately in some ways, by not seeking the common good.

I.E. The authority of the State of Pennsylvania is a legitimate authority.  However, if in any individual law it is to not seek the common good, then in that case that individual law would not be morally obligatory.

The key is that this is talking about when authority is exercised legitimately.  One government may exercise legitimate authority in one area, and in another area exercise illegitimate authority.
[right][snapback]824216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Earlier in the same section, Authority is defined:

[i]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.[/i]

If the government [i]"seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it"[/i] then it has legitimate authority.

Speaking of individual laws: [i]If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.[/i]

[Paphnutius]

[quote]1951 [b]Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good.[/b] The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an [b]ordinance of reason [/b]is what one calls law." 2


Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him. 3[/quote]

There we go...that paragraph should be helpful. Is the law enacted by a competent authority? If not, then it cannot be a law. Does it seek the common good? If it does not, then it is not a law. Is it an ordinace of reason (meaning is it within reason)? If not, then it is not a law.

Also let us look at Romans 13:1[quote]1 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.[/quote]

Okay as you were....

[philothea]

Thanks Paphnutius!

Sounds good to me. (Even easier!)

But it still binds someone to obey underage drinking laws.

[Aloysius]

thank you, Paphnutius, that goes far to illustrate my point. if it does not seek the common good, it is not a morally obligatory law.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 13 2005, 09:24 PM']Thanks Paphnutius!

Sounds good to me.  (Even easier!)

But it still binds someone to obey underage drinking laws.
[right][snapback]824229[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
haha, that's because it's the Catechism's cliff-notes section :

again, we're not discussing that at the moment, I am taking issue with the idea "as long as it doesn't require you to do something immoral, it is a morally obligatory law". I think that is a dangerous philosophy that gives the state way too much power (like L_D says, a mildly marxist idealogy

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:26 PM'] "as long as it doesn't require you to do something immoral, it is a morally obligatory law".  [/quote]
I remember someone saying earlier (perhaps a different thread) that penal laws are not morally obligatory. They do not seek to bind on conscience, but do seek to enact a penalty if they are broken. Where as a perceptive law is binding on conscience.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:26 PM']haha, that's because it's the Catechism's cliff-notes section :
[/quote]
Really? I just looked up law in the index of CCC.

[Aloysius]

after every section they have a re-cap.

that's basically the summary of all the quotes we've been arguing over.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:32 PM']that's basically the summary of all the quotes we've been arguing over.
[/quote]
Well if that is all you are arguing about then I think you need to take the intention of the government into consideration.

A penal law would be likened to an overdue library book. They do not mean it to be binding on conscience, but one is to pay a fine if they break it. It is not a sin to transgress this purley penal law as long as one is willing to pay the fine.

That being said, I think that moral theolgians actually vary on how much they consider purely penal or preceptive. Some will say most if not all civil law is only penal, while others will say it is preceptive unless stated otherwise. I wish I could offer more, but that I all that I have right now.

Keep in mind though, that a civil law that is in opposition to a higher law (natural, divine, or ecclesial) is not binding on conscience because it is not really a law. For all law finds its fullness in the divine or eternal law, so if it is in opposition to it, it is not a law.

[Aloysius]

yep.

I'm arguing against the notion that any law that doesn't require you to do something immoral is morally obligatory, i.e. it would be a sin to break it.

So I agree with you.

[philothea]

Sorry, I get interrupted a lot. (Though I got some work done, so that was okay... )

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 13 2005, 08:47 PM']I'm arguing against the notion that any law that doesn't require you to do something immoral is morally obligatory, i.e. it would be a sin to break it.
[right][snapback]824244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I wouldn't go quite that far. I think a law enacted merely for the common good is still morally obligatory, even if it isn't otherwise a moral issue.

Say there is a parade planned in your city, and you're not supposed to park your car on the street that day. Well, parking your car is not a moral issue, but moving it would further the common good. Would we not be morally bound to obey the proper authority in this matter?

I'll accept that unreasonable laws are not binding, but I'm thinking unreasonable doesn't mean "annoying" or "inconvenient" but rather "not possible to practically obey."

(Apologies if I misunderstood your statement.)