Civil law and sin

[fix]

I have read several threads that claim just civil laws may be broken and one would not be guilty of sin, venial or mortal. The usual issues involve smoking marijuana, traffic laws like speeding and no parking, and similar things.

It seems Aquinas said we should obey just civil laws and the CCC says:

**[

1951

](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3EpenWindow%28%27cr/1951.htm%27%29 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. 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 ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.**

I am not saying one may not be dispensed from certain laws, like speeding, if one were rushing a gunshot victim to the hospital. I am suggesting that ordinarily it is immoral to intentionally break a just civil law because we think it is of minor importance or because it seems unfair to us.

I know there are several folks here well versed in moral theology so I want to read their opinions. Thanks.

 

[TEME525]

This may not exactly answer your question but I hope it helps.

If you are able to get throught the writting style of St. Thomas, and the words he uses I think a couple of things stand out. His teachings are well thought out (that is obvious) and they are steeped in reason and are really rooted in common sense (maybe that is why so many find them hard to accept). I hope I reflect his spirit.

When discussing moral theology I thing it is important a fundlemental principle should be to remember our human nature is fallen, not totally corrupted but still we seem to choose all too often an evil over a good. Often because in our weakened state we have the ability to be deceived or more often than not to deceive ourselves in thinking thus judging that an evil is actually a good. Thomas tells us our nature tends towards the good or perceived good.

So given our fallen nature and our ability to choose an evil thinking it is either a good or atleast is morally neutral we know rom human experience that our choices and action have there consequences. Everything we do has an effect on others some way or another (we are social beings by nature are we not?)

The Church in her Wisdom understands this and She also understands that it should be obvious that some actions, because of their effects, have more serious effects than others and it to a large degree on the effects or consequences of the action that determine the goodness or evil of an act.

Human experience should teach us then that we often choose an evil over a good and there are different degrees of the effects of thses choices. Thus we have laws which is man’s (societies) attempt to regulate these bad choices and to punish behavior that is a choice of evil and negatively effect the social order. Also, that somethings are worst that others in their effect thus the punishment must be greater (the possible punishment being either a deterrance or a retribution) than others. That is why laws controling the speed limit usually carries along with it a fine but nothing else (I am refering to something like going 40mph in a 35 pmh zone) but the greater the possible or actual danger an action causes the the greater the penalty Again, reason should dictate this.

In Catholic moral theology then we have Mortal and venial sins. Action which to a greater or lesser degree cuts us off from what God’s intended our behavior to be. Action which either makes us more human (which we make choices and perform acts that enhance or human nature - when we act the way God’e intended for us to act) or less human (were we reject God’s love and plan for us and turn ourselve into our own god with our own rules). So acts have alesser negative effect on ourselves and others and we call these action venial sins. So acts are so serious in their negative consequence that we call the serious or grevious sins and by the nature of the act could lead to mortal sin (for me mortal is the complete rejection, through our thoughts, word and actions of God’s love(.

So it is the role of moral theology to look at the nature and consequence of an act and determine whether or not that act brings us into greater unity with God or is a rejection on our part of God’s Love. By this, then we make our moral judgements which has to effect our understanding of Civil Law as well.

 

[fix]

TEME525:

This may not exactly answer your question but I hope it helps.

If you are able to get throught the writting style of St. Thomas, and the words he uses I think a couple of things stand out. His teachings are well thought out (that is obvious) and they are steeped in reason and are really rooted in common sense (maybe that is why so many find them hard to accept). I hope I reflect his spirit.

When discussing moral theology I thing it is important a fundlemental principle should be to remember our human nature is fallen, not totally corrupted but still we seem to choose all too often an evil over a good. Often because in our weakened state we have the ability to be deceived or more often than not to deceive ourselves in thinking thus judging that an evil is actually a good. Thomas tells us our nature tends towards the good or perceived good.

So given our fallen nature and our ability to choose an evil thinking it is either a good or atleast is morally neutral we know rom human experience that our choices and action have there consequences. Everything we do has an effect on others some way or another (we are social beings by nature are we not?)

The Church in her Wisdom understands this and She also understands that it should be obvious that some actions, because of their effects, have more serious effects than others and it to a large degree on the effects or consequences of the action that determine the goodness or evil of an act.

Human experience should teach us then that we often choose an evil over a good and there are different degrees of the effects of thses choices. Thus we have laws which is man’s (societies) attempt to regulate these bad choices and to punish behavior that is a choice of evil and negatively effect the social order. Also, that somethings are worst that others in their effect thus the punishment must be greater (the possible punishment being either a deterrance or a retribution) than others. That is why laws controling the speed limit usually carries along with it a fine but nothing else (I am refering to something like going 40mph in a 35 pmh zone) but the greater the possible or actual danger an action causes the the greater the penalty Again, reason should dictate this.

In Catholic moral theology then we have Mortal and venial sins. Action which to a greater or lesser degree cuts us off from what God’s intended our behavior to be. Action which either makes us more human (which we make choices and perform acts that enhance or human nature - when we act the way God’e intended for us to act) or less human (were we reject God’s love and plan for us and turn ourselve into our own god with our own rules). So acts have alesser negative effect on ourselves and others and we call these action venial sins. So acts are so serious in their negative consequence that we call the serious or grevious sins and by the nature of the act could lead to mortal sin (for me mortal is the complete rejection, through our thoughts, word and actions of God’s love(.

So it is the role of moral theology to look at the nature and consequence of an act and determine whether or not that act brings us into greater unity with God or is a rejection on our part of God’s Love. By this, then we make our moral judgements which has to effect our understanding of Civil Law as well.

I think I agree with all you have written here. I guess my question involves the idea that we each are free to not observe certain civil laws because we think they are “man made” and are of little impact on others. That is why I chose speeding as one example. I understand the division between venial and mortal sin, what I am getting at is the view correct that we may break any civil law and not be culpable for committing a sin, venial or mortal?

Let us use a specifc example. One aprroaches a stop sign on a road with little traffic. One sees no cars and does not bother to stop? Is that right. What about doing 75 mph in a 55 zone because many others are? I am referring to actions where we are fully aware of what we are doing and consciously deciding we have the authority to disregard the civil law.

 

[vz71]

fix:

I am referring to actions where we are fully aware of what we are doing and consciously deciding we have the authority to disregard the civil law.

Just one opinion here, but…
I do not consider myself ‘free’ to break civil laws. I consider it a sin in many instances.
But I also recognize that civil laws are made by man, and there is a higher law to answer to.

In the instance in which the two (God’s law and civil law) come into conflict, I find no problem breaking civil law.

In essence, I guess it is not deciding I have ‘authority’ as much as it is a recognition that there is a higher authority then that within the civil law.

 

[fix]

vz71:

Just one opinion here, but…
I do not consider myself ‘free’ to break civil laws. I consider it a sin in many instances.
But I also recognize that civil laws are made by man, and there is a higher law to answer to.

In the instance in which the two (God’s law and civil law) come into conflict, I find no problem breaking civil law.

In essence, I guess it is not deciding I have ‘authority’ as much as it is a recognition that there is a higher authority then that within the civil law.

I agree, but I am thinking of just laws only, not unjust laws.

 

[vz71]

Should a law not be unjust, it would have to be because one of two conditions exist.

1. God’s law agrees - and you are obligated to obey both laws.
   or 2) God’s law is silent - in which case you are still obligated to obey since the civil law is the authority.

 

[Pug]

fix:

Let us use a specifc example. One aprroaches a stop sign on a road with little traffic. One sees no cars and does not bother to stop? Is that right.

No. Obey the law. There is absolutely no question on the point of law here. The law is just, reasonable, in the service of the public good, and they posted a sign. Obey it. Habitual non-obedience of such signs could have a negative effect on your or your passenger’s willingness to obey other laws. Moreover, you could get negligent and run someone over for not looking both ways. This is less likely to happen if you come to a stop and don’t blow through the sign.

 

[fix]

I agree. In another thread I was told I was scrupulous because I gave Church teaching that we are required to observe just civil laws in part because it is a sin not to.

 

[Pug]

I would ignore the information that you were called scrupulous, unless there is more to the story. That is unlikely to be a helpful designation in a random conversation over the internet about civil law. If your confessor tells you that one day, and suggests ways to overcome it, fine. Otherwise, forget it.

If you have access, I suggest Germain Grisez, Living a Christian Life (the way of the lord Jesus volume 2), pages 874-883. He is conservative and helpful (this is a seminary text I am suggesting). It is about laws, not scrupulosity! Unfortunately, it is not available on the internet.

 

[fix]

Pug:

I would ignore the information that you were called scrupulous, unless there is more to the story. That is unlikely to be a helpful designation in a random conversation over the internet about civil law. If your confessor tells you that one day, and suggests ways to overcome it, fine. Otherwise, forget it.

If you have access, I suggest Germain Grisez, Living a Christian Life (the way of the lord Jesus volume 2), pages 874-883. He is conservative and helpful (this is a seminary text I am suggesting). It is about laws, not scrupulosity! Unfortunately, it is not available on the internet.

I am trying to show there is a general principle in Catholic moral theology that says we have an obligation to obey just civil laws and to intentionally break them is at least a venial sin, and perhaps a mortal sin depending on certain factors.

On several threads we can read that some folks say smoking marijuana is not a sin because it is legal in some countries. They take this to mean a so called man made law may be disregarded. Or, the speeding example is used to show that exceeding it is routinely done and therefore it is licit to do so.

I have no individual moral quandry I am simply interested in an academic question regarding the duties we have as Catholics and why such duties exist.

 

[Pug]

fix:

On several threads we can read that some folks say smoking marijuana is not a sin because it is legal in some countries. They take this to mean a so called man made law may be disregarded. Or, the speeding example is used to show that exceeding it is routinely done and therefore it is licit to do so.

I disagree with the arguments provided. Laws are for the protection of the common good and the issue of fairness is involved. This leads to serious matter in many cases, though not all. The entire society benefits from laws, habits of cooperation, obedience, order, etc.

It is like the laws about dogs, rabies, leashes, etc. They seem insignificant, but perhaps are not. If a man’s son gets bit by a loose, rabid, unvaccinated dog, he is not going to be very sympathetic towards the owner. Fairness matters.

About the speeding, one needs to know more about the law. It is impossible to hold a vehicle consistently at one speed over varied terrain. They only way to comply is to go below the limit at all times. The lawmakers know this. So, how did they intend the law to go? Traffic that moves too slow will cause trouble as well as traffic that moves too quickly. If the intent is that the vehicles go approximately that speed, then one is not sinning at 32mph in a 30mph zone. If the place is slick with ice and dim with fog, one could be going too fast at 25mph in a 30 mph zone. I am considering if the intent does *not *match the letter. Just some thoughts.

 

[TOME]

Fix,
First, I was pleased to read that you think you may have agreed with what I wrote because it gives me hope that someone will be able to explain it to me.

One concern I have we getting involved in discussion like this is I may come accross as an advocate of “Situation Ethics” or some variant of it. I am not such an advocate however I do understand that when discussing moral questions like this there must be the consideration of the Objective and Subjective.

I think in our discussion on the moral consequence of a law is to look not so much at the particulars of the law itself but what is the intent of that law. What is the fundlemental principle of the particular law. And from this should come the consideration of how does my actions violate the intent of the law.

For example, why do we have speed limites? Or why are there in some areas the ability to make right turns on red but not in others? Questions like these I think are important in deciding the actual morality (the rightness or wrongness) of and act. For me, if what I do which may be a violation of the particulars of a law without violating the laws intent, then at worse I think my action while illegal is morally neutral and in some cases may even be more in keeping with the intent of the law. For example, for anyone who has traveled on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) most likely have experienced the reality that if you try to keep to the speed limit (55mph in some areas other ares 65mph) you can actually become a traffic hazzard because the flow of traffic normally exceeds the speed limit, even if you remain in the right lane. Should you decide to adhere strickly to the speed limit most likely you will cause others, who are “going with the flow” to change lanes which increases the possibility of an accident. Therefore the strict adherence of the speed limit could arguably become a violation of the laws intent - to regulate a safe flow of traffic.

So I guess to sum it up my answer is, what is the intent of the law and how do my actions violate the intent of the law.

One note of caution. There is always the real possibility that in trying to justify our actions by judging them in the light of the intent of the law, we could easily begin to fool ourselves and start making what in reality are a progression of bad and more serious moral decisions with out realizing the slippery slop we are sliding down. This is why frequent reception of the Sacrament of Reconcilation and a frequent examine of conscience is so essential to our living a good moral life.

 

[fix]

Pug:

It is like the laws about dogs, rabies, leashes, etc. They seem insignificant, but perhaps are not. If a man’s son gets bit by a loose, rabid, unvaccinated dog, he is not going to be very sympathetic towards the owner. Fairness matters.

I agree.

About the speeding, one needs to know more about the law. It is impossible to hold a vehicle consistently at one speed over varied terrain. They only way to comply is to go below the limit at all times. The lawmakers know this. So, how did they intend the law to go? Traffic that moves too slow will cause trouble as well as traffic that moves too quickly. If the intent is that the vehicles go approximately that speed, then one is not sinning at 32mph in a 30mph zone. If the place is slick with ice and dim with fog, one could be going too fast at 25mph in a 30 mph zone. I am considering if the intent does *not *match the letter. Just some thoughts.

I agree again. Is not the point we are to obey the law? That intends we know what the law intends us to do. We obey it in part because the legitimate authority has deemed it important and in part because it contributes to a well run society. I am sure there are other reasons as well.

The discussion gets complicated, as you point out, when we have to make decisions that seem to conflict with the letter of the law.

 

[fix]

TOME:

I think in our discussion on the moral consequence of a law is to look not so much at the particulars of the law itself but what is the intent of that law. What is the fundlemental principle of the particular law. And from this should come the consideration of how does my actions violate the intent of the law.

That seems reasonable.

For example, why do we have speed limites? Or why are there in some areas the ability to make right turns on red but not in others? Questions like these I think are important in deciding the actual morality (the rightness or wrongness) of and act.

Sure, that is important, but is absence of such knowledge reason enough to act contrary to any law?

For me, if what I do which may be a violation of the particulars of a law without violating the laws intent, then at worse I think my action while illegal is morally neutral and in some cases may even be more in keeping with the intent of the law.

Well, we cannot know the intent of every law passed. That would seem to me we ought to try and obey each law unless it is manifestly unjust.

For example, for anyone who has traveled on the New Jersey Turnpike (I-95) most likely have experienced the reality that if you try to keep to the speed limit (55mph in some areas other ares 65mph) you can actually become a traffic hazzard because the flow of traffic normally exceeds the speed limit, even if you remain in the right lane. Should you decide to adhere strickly to the speed limit most likely you will cause others, who are “going with the flow” to change lanes which increases the possibility of an accident.

OK, that is the frequent argument I get. Now, let me ask you this. Is obeying the limit the reason an accident may potentionally occur or is it the actions of the drivers who exceed the limit?

If you are teaching a young person to drive, what advice do you give? If standing before a judge for a speeding ticket is that defense reasonable?

Therefore the strict adherence of the speed limit could arguably become a violation of the laws intent - to regulate a safe flow of traffic.

Well, we would have to know what the intent of the law maker was. If that were the intent it would be a good defense in court and it certainly would not be a sin.

One note of caution. There is always the real possibility that in trying to justify our actions by judging them in the light of the intent of the law, we could easily begin to fool ourselves and start making what in reality are a progression of bad and more serious moral decisions with out realizing the slippery slop we are sliding down. This is why frequent reception of the Sacrament of Reconcilation and a frequent examine of conscience is so essential to our living a good moral life.

I agree again

 

[vz71]

In all instances of traffic laws, you run the risk of a ticket should you be stopped by the police.

A I can testify to personally, the judge will tell you that it is not your place to decide what the ‘real intent’ is. It is your place to follow the law.

Now, we are in violation of the law, and we pay a price. Have we sinned? Well, didn’t God tell us to follow the authority of those above us?

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that civil law still should be obeyed. Unless there is an instance of unjust law.

 

[fix]

vz71:

In all instances of traffic laws, you run the risk of a ticket should you be stopped by the police.

A I can testify to personally, the judge will tell you that it is not your place to decide what the ‘real intent’ is. It is your place to follow the law.

Now, we are in violation of the law, and we pay a price. Have we sinned? Well, didn’t God tell us to follow the authority of those above us?

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that civil law still should be obeyed. Unless there is an instance of unjust law.

That is my original position. I am sticking with it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Just as we have gravity of sin, the government has gravity of laws, regulations and ordinances. If one commits a felony, while not intrinsically evil by Church standard (i.e. selling boot leg whiskey), it may be mortal sin. If one violates an ordinance (i.e. teen curfew is 10 p.m.) but the teen has parental permission to babysit neighbors kids while neighbor’s are cleaning the church to get ready for the Easter Vigil, even though there was a violation of this city ordinance, IMHO no sin was committed even if there may be civil consequences if she is caught out after curfew.

Another example, there is an ordinance that dogs can’t run w/o a leash w/i the city limits except on your own land or in the designated dog parks that have fences. However, near my house is 160 acres (half mile by half mile) of undeveloped land planted w/ alfalfa (like grass). Well, the people in my neighborhood use it as a dog park. One of whom is the Supt. of the Highway Patrol for this region of hte state. No sin even though we are violating the ordinance.

My point: You can sin w/o violating a civil law and you can violate a civil law (even “just”) without sinning.

 

[vz71]

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community. 2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

And

2255 It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.

I’m convinced.:yup:
Unless a law is contrary to God’s law, it is a sin to break it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts:43 "Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community. 2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

And

2255 It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.

I’m convinced.:yup:
Unless a law is contrary to God’s law, it is a sin to break it.

I always find it. . . . well let’s just say it isn’t right to selectively cut and paste prove a point. It is just so sola scriptura.

**2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

I’m just not that confident that public officiels are always exercising due competance. Sometimes a little oppression demands a little push back and alot of oppression demands a lot of push back. If there are civil consequences to a violation, I’m prepared to take the consequences as the price of living in a organized society but I don’t quite see a civil violation as being a sin (even reading what vz posted).

If I think it better to teach my daughter to babysit for free the neighbors kids while they perform a corporal work of charity even if it will cause her to violate the curfew ordinance, I won’t think twice.

I guess I’m a rebel.**

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

Just as we have gravity of sin, the government has gravity of laws, regulations and ordinances. If one commits a felony, while not intrinsically evil by Church standard (i.e. selling boot leg whiskey), it may be mortal sin. If one violates an ordinance (i.e. teen curfew is 10 p.m.) but the teen has parental permission to babysit neighbors kids while neighbor’s are cleaning the church to get ready for the Easter Vigil, even though there was a violation of this city ordinance, IMHO no sin was committed even if there may be civil consequences if she is caught out after curfew.

I disagree. If the law is legitimate it needs to be obeyed, unless the law intended some exclusion. I see no reason for parents to teach their children it is ok to break any law for a “good” reason. It may only be venial, but it is still a sin.

Another example, there is an ordinance that dogs can’t run w/o a leash w/i the city limits except on your own land or in the designated dog parks that have fences. However, near my house is 160 acres (half mile by half mile) of undeveloped land planted w/ alfalfa (like grass). Well, the people in my neighborhood use it as a dog park. One of whom is the Supt. of the Highway Patrol for this region of hte state. No sin even though we are violating the ordinance.

Why no sin? Is the law only to be observed if one thinks it is necessary? May I run a stop sign if it is 3:00 am on a country road?

My point: You can sin w/o violating a civil law and you can violate a civil law (even “just”) without sinning.

I disagree. If the law is just it is a sin to break it. Now, there may be mitigating factors that dispense from the law, but convenience does not seem to be such a factor.