Again what Paul says does apply…
…
And Paul affirms that authority comes from God…not only that in the Church but civil authority and that in the Family for example.
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?
The Catechism is an authoritative document. Yes various articles have various degrees of authority . And the individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. Something that was not already infallible does not become infallible by it being in the Catechism. But then again …many things are infallible or are of a high degree of authority or of simple Divine Revelation and thus the Word of God. And of course one does not just pick and choose among the teachings of the Church as to what to follow…(not saying you are saying this)
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.
By the way (without getting into an argument about US Law and taxes) the Church teaches we are to pay taxes…so there is a moral obligation to do so…(though there can be cases where perhaps it does not apply).
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.
In general…the authority of any legit authority comes from God. The fourth commandment includes this…so one can simply say one is to follow the laws of the land…unless they go against God or there are other reasons where they become invalid or due to their nature one may simply accept the penalty if it is applied etc…
It is certainly the case that authentic authority comes from God and citizens are bound in conscience to obey when it is exorcised rightly
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.
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.
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.
BTW, Gaudium et Spes (
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html ) is a pastoral document, not a defining document:
“I do not think the Fathers of the Council were malicious in approving this phrase, for though they approved the document by vote and signature, the method of approbation left few of them with any time to read and study the text with due consideration. They proceeded in just this manner, because as Pope Paul VI said (quoted above) they did not intend to impose a definition or infallible teaching upon the Church; just issue a statement, in this case, on the friendly relationship the Church seeks with the world of the present. But that is another matter all together. Certainly, the Pope, being responsible more than the Bishops, cannot, however be excused if he allows this error to remain un-refuted.”
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/ges-n24b.html
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).
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…
