Breaking the Law

[Bookcat]

When Paul talked about authority in Romans 13, he specifically referred to God’s authority, and authority that had been given by God. Do you have any evidence that his use of the word “authority” was implicitly referring authority other than that which had been ordained by God?

Not only the context. But this section is actually referenced in Church Documents supporting the authority of those in civil office. Also the Navarre Bible Commentary affirms what I have said is the case.( See the Commentary on Romans)

I haven’t seen any Church teaching that would make me think that the mere status of illegality of something in a modern country would make it immoral for me to do. It could take forever if I wanted to thoroughly explain that.

Never said the mere status of illegality…for there are unjust laws and all sorts of kinds of law…i have stated over and over that not every law (for example one could argue purely penal laws) bind in conscience in the observance…

We may be morally required to pay taxes if there is a law that mandates it.

In a republic (which is a country which is rule by law, such as what the US is supposed to be), if there is no law that mandates paying taxes, than the government has no right to enforce those taxes.

Not getting into this sort of argument…the Church says one is to pay ones taxes…but there are various ways in which this can be done by the legit authority…

The fact that something comes from God is what makes it legit (under the fourth commandment), not the other way around. The other way around would be to say that every authority that is legit happens to have God’s blessing.

Yes the authority of men …legit authority…comes from God. And it comes under the 4th commandment…

An authority may be legit in other ways not related to the forth commandment. If you are working under contract or mutual agreement for someone, it is that contract or mutual agreement which would make your bosses authority (which has boundaries) legit. The authority of a boss over an employee is not the same as that of a parent over a child, since the parent’s authority is from God.

of course it is not the same…by boss does not give me a spanking if i steal…and yes there are different degrees different flavors of authority…my boss can not tell me i can not go out to the movies on my day off…but he can tell me i can not watch movies at work…

 

[Bookcat]

The forth commandment is “honor thy father and mother.” (Exodus 20:12) It may implicitly extend to other authority, but only to authority that is God-ordained IMHO.

One may argue that governments may have authority over individuals through “social contract”, and I would largely agree with this. Someone may be obligated, to certain, extents, to comply with a government that he has “consented to” and entered into a “contract” with. By gaining the benefits of having a government, he may realize the costs, and may be willing to take the risk of paying heavier costs if he breaks a law by doing something that isn’t intrinsically wrong.

again there are lots of ins and outs that one could cover…if one breaks a legit law yes it can be sinful…due to the fourth commandment. But again lots of variety here. my wife is from Europe…when she was in her homeland she was not ordinarily bound by US law…but now that she lives here…she is…

BTW, Gaudium et Spes is a pastoral document, not a defining document:

it is a document of the Second Vatican Council. Without getting into a discussion here…I would add that one can find this basic teaching all over the place…it has been constant for centuries…all the way back to the Apostles

Regarding 1 Peter 2:13, you have to consider it in context.

1 Peter was addressed to “Strangers scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1). Thus, it had a pastoral purpose and meaning for that time, as well as purpose and meaning in the Bible. In you want to consider 1 Peter 2:13 (which was primarily addressed to a previous age) as absolutely referring to the present, than it seems you be against current slaves running from their masters (see 1 Peter 2:18).

Scripture is the Word of God…and is addressed also to us by God…and is read in the Liturgy…yes some things are cultural etc…but the Church is who determines if something is merely for the initial receivers etc…and this verse certainly still applies and is applied by the Church

I don’t mean to seem argumentative, but the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church isn’t infallible and isn’t authoritative in the sense that it would be a sin for a Catholic to disagree…

… this is not just in the Compendium of SD…And yes the SD of the Church is in a unique position…and some parts have a rather temporal aspect to them (one would need to read the intro to the work to understand…) but this does not mean that that is has no authority…and it is also true to say various articles in the CSD have various weights…and yes for sure there are ways of sinful disagreement with it…

I am not going to go around and around on this…I have provided Scripture (and that section of Romans is what is even referenced in Church documents in regards to civil authority having authority)…and Church documents…that this is the Teaching of the Church …I have said that things are complex and there can be many aspects to these questions…and that for the ins and outs one …of various kinds laws and details…one must look to the various Church documents and good Orthodox Catholic Theologians…

It is not something that can be hashed out in detail (nor am I fitted to go to all that detail) on an internet forum.

It remains though the teaching of the Catholic Church that legitimate authority comes from God. (yes one must distinguish various things…as in other areas of life!)

Yes those in authority can go beyond their authority or attempt to pass or enforce a law contrary to God or an unjust law etc (in which case it does not have any authority…though at times it may be needed to follow even an unjust law)…and yes those with authentic authority arrive there by various ways…elections etc…but in the end any legit authority only exists due to God…not that it is “Gods word” or anything…but one is as the Church teaches bound in conscience to follow such (unless it ceases to be just etc…again lots of distinguishing can happen here) …but again how a particular law is binding…can take various forms…even to the point of being perhaps a pure penal law (not have have accepted such) where one is bound in conscience only to the penalty due to the nature of the law…

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. There is not authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…(Paul to the Romans (RSV))

 

[BobObob]

Rather than go through each individual Church teaching on this matter, I’d like to try to talk about the types of teaching of the Church (regarding their authoritativeness) and how it is relevant to this discussion.

I found a good article (lists.oakland.edu/pipermail/stjohnfisher/2007-January/000038.html ) by a professor of Catholic studies that I used for another thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259&page=8 ). It is good because it categorizes CC teaching in order of authoritativeness, and provides what I think are reasonable conditions for disagreeing with non-infallible, yet authoritative, CC teachings. This is a relevant article for this thread because all of the CC teachings on this topic fall either under the category “authoritative doctrine” or “prudential admonitions and Church discipline.”

For “authoritative doctrine”, which refers to authoritative, yet non-infallible CC teachings, a Catholic “must make a genuine effort to incorporate the given teaching into one’s personal religious convictions,” although it is possible for a Catholic to disagree with them. He offers conditions for disagreeing. The Category “prudential admonitions and Church discipline” are not formal doctrine, and Catholics may freely disagree with it.

Most of the CC teachings you mentioned fall are “authoritative doctrine”, while the rest are “prudential admonitions and Church discipline.” It is possible for a Catholic to disagree with things in either category, although one must be extremely careful when disagreeing with things in the first. As a theology major at a Catholic college that prides itself in orthodoxy, I rarely disagree with authoritative teachings of the CC, but this is an exception.

Much of the CC teaching in this regard seems to be influenced by monarchs having been recognized by popes as having the “divine right to rule” when the pope gave them their blessing. This is perhaps a little beyond the scope of this thread…

Not only the context. But this section is actually referenced in Church Documents supporting the authority of those in civil office. Also the Navarre Bible Commentary affirms what I have said is the case.( See the Commentary on Romans)

I don’t see anything in the context of Romans 13 that indicates that Paul is referring to more than in Romans 13:1.

Also, I disagree with the CCC in its interpretation and use on Romans 13, as well as the Navarre Bible Commentary.

Yes the authority of men …legit authority…comes from God. And it comes under the 4th commandment…

An authority may be legit in other ways not related to the forth commandment. If you are working under contract or mutual agreement for someone, it is that contract or mutual agreement which would make your bosses authority (which has boundaries) legit. The authority of a boss over an employee is not the same as that of a parent over a child, since the parent’s authority is from God.

of course it is not the same…by boss does not give me a spanking if i steal…and yes there are different degrees different flavors of authority…my boss can not tell me i can not go out to the movies on my day off…but he can tell me i can not watch movies at work…

It is possible for there to be legit authority from other men, as opposed to from God. This is why I brought up the difference between the authority of a boss verses the authority of a parent. The authority of a boss over an employee is given by the employee by the contract, or agreement, he entered upon working there, while the authority of a parent is from God.

A boss would not have authority over the employee if the employee never decided to work for that boss, or for the business that hired that boss. The authority of the parent, because it is given by God, is present at the beginning, and changes gradually as the child grows into a self-sufficient adult, until/unless extenuating circumstances extinguish this authority (like when the parent is incapable of caring for the child).

Scripture is the Word of God…and is addressed also to us by God…and is read in the Liturgy…yes some things are cultural etc…but the Church is who determines if something is merely for the initial receivers etc…and this verse certainly still applies and is applied by the Church

Most of the time the Church offers an interpretation of a specific portion of the Bible, it falls under “prudential admonitions and Church discipline.” It very rare that a particular interpretation of a particular passage to fall under papal infallibility. The CC’s interpretation of 1 Peter 2:13 doesn’t fall under papal infallibility.

but in the end any legit authority only exists due to God…not that it is “Gods word” or anything…but one is as the Church teaches bound in conscience to follow such

I’ve used the article about to show that this is NOT, strictly speaking, binding in conscience.

I’m guessing that by now it probably seems to you (and others who read my posts) that I’m a “cafeteria Catholic” who is trying to justify defying authority. Nothing is further from the truth. The funny thing is that some people on a few particular threads on CAF have called me “liberal”, while if I go on other websites, I could be called “right-wing extremist”!