F
fix
Guest
OK, so what does the Church intend to mean when She says we must obey a just civil law? What are the criteria for disregarding these laws?
- Status
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Part 2
And being the good Republican I am, when she is older and needs the right lesson about an intrusive government, I’m going to tell her about how we had to break the law so she could learn the greater lessons about work, saving, personal responsibility, and personal ownership.
- As a side bar to #3, I also think about some child labor restrictions. My state (or possibly the federal government) doesn’t allow a child to work for a business (there are allowed to do independent lawn care, babysitting, etc.) until the age of 14 unless it is for the parents or close family I think (usually here on the family farm). Well, today, we don’t have as many independent small businesses as we once had. (And what is just about only the kids of shopowners learning the value of work?). I want my children to learn the value of work.
And being the good Republican I am, when she is older and needs the right lesson about an intrusive government, I’m going to tell her about how we had to break the law so she could learn the greater lessons about work, saving, personal responsibility, and personal ownership.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I will exercise my prudential judgment within my Catholic formed conscience on whether a law is just. I understand that violating a law can have civil consequences but I will not endorse my government or any government to the degree that a violation of their laws are de facto sins. I’m prepared to bear any consequences of my “rebeliousness” with God.
I take very seriously that **I am ** the primary teacher to my children on matters of morals, faith, and stewardship to the point that any law that impacts my ability to teach my children on these matters is in my mind unjust. I strongly tell my children that their first obligation is to God’s law, God’s justice, and God’s sense of charity. Frankly Fix, you are not the parent of my kids and not responsible for them. If you think it good to teach your kids that their government is to be followed to the “T”, I support you. I will teach them that they are first to look to a higher law and if in their conscience (conscience as defined by the Church and not the common vernacular usage) they are called to violate the law, they should do so but they need to be prepared to face the consequences if necessary.
I know that you feel differently and I respect your position. This being said, I will give you four examples of laws that I have no combunction breaking. If charged w/ these violations, I’m prepared to face civil consequences but I will feel no risk to my soul. In fact, I think to have done otherwise would have been sins of ommission.
- We have a law that except in the confines of my home, I am legally prohibited from providing alcohol to my children under the age of 21. I believe that laws that “juvenilize” people who should be treated like adults or budding adults is unjust. As a parent, I’m better able to determine when certain rights and privileges should be granted as they develop as opposed to “lowest common denominator arbitrary ages”.
- Gun control laws. We take away the guns of law-abiding citizens in an effort to take them away from criminals. Hello!!! If you are intent on breaking the law by committing murder or theft, violating a gun law will not affect the criminal but only the law abiding citizen capacity to defend his/her family. If I lived in a gun control community and I deemed my neighborhood unsafe, I’d be more inclined to have a gun than I do now, regardless of the law. P.S. My son learned to shoot a .22 rifle at gophers prior to the legal age of 12.
- I already mentioned the curfew issue. Besides the issue of my daughter doing good while violating the ordinance, I consider many laws that criminalize otherwise legal behaviour of the law-abiding citizen in an effort to control the criminal as both unjust and unproductive. In the case of curfew laws (general as opposed to situations of emergency), this is just one more example of the state thinking they know what is best for children. I respect parents to know better. And, until a parent is proven to be derilict, the laws should give them more respect.
F
fix
Guest
OK, as a general position I think that is reasonable. Perhaps someone can tell us what criteria we use. I mean it is obvious if the civil law contradicts the divine law or the natural law, but what about other factors?
Well, this seems to be the heart of the matter. The civil authority derives its authority from God as parents do for their children.
If the law is unjust, we have nothing to argue about as that fits my model perfectly.
Again, there is no disagreement. If the law is unjust we should not follow it.
What does the law say? Does it say a parent may never give any alcohol to their child under any circumstance? In order to reject a law we should know what it says and how the government intends it to be interpreted.
Again, if the law is unjust we have no argument. My question is does your judgment give you the authority to decide what is just and what is not? What is the standard?
Again, unjust or just? If unjust you have a case. What is the criteria? We each decide?
OK, so we have decided we each will make ourselves the authority over the law?
F
fix
Guest
How do we identify an unjust law? Apparently, it means anything we do not agree with?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
To answer your questions, No and Yes.
No: In America, I’m obligated to follow all laws. Failure to abide by any law (regardless of whether I think it is just or unjust) has civil and criminal consequences. I’m fully aware that I am accountable to the civil authorities.
Yes: Article 6 of “Life in Christ” in the Catechism (paragraphs 1776-1794) is what makes me this authority and it is ordained by God by the gifts of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, understanding, knowledge, counsel, piety, fortitude and fear of the Lord), natural law, and capacity to reason. Of course, I am open to erroneous judgment (CC#1790-1794) where it could be sin (#1791-2) or just judgment and not sin (CC#1793). usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.htm
My prudential decision as guided by my concience* to knowingly violate a law is not a de facto sin. I’ve given reasons why I think certain laws are unjust- primarily, I find them intrusive and restrictive to my ability to fulfill my obligations to God’s plan for me and my family. If God thinks my intent was sinful, I guess I sinned. If my intent was in pursuit of a higher law or higher obligation, I’m sure He will not consider it sinful. If He sees my intent and my decision as correct, He will find it meritorious.
When I allowed my daughter to share in the post-hunt beer in full knowledge it was in violation to the the law, I had no intent to sin and was following my conscience about teaching my daughter a greater lesson by showing I considered her capable of making this adult decision. I’m convicted in my decision. Without intent to sin, despite breaking the law, there is no sin.
In the scheme of things, there is a big picture for me. Just because it is legal, it isn’t necessarily moral. And just becuase it is illegal, it isn’t necessarily immoral. I’m much more concerned that I lived a moral life than a legal life. If confronted EVER w/ a decision about moral vs. legal, I pray I always choose moral.
- Conscience as discussed in the link above (CC#1776-1779). I feel a need to keep qualifying it. As soon as one uses this word, people immediately infer it to be the common vernacular usage and that is not the context I’m using it. To deny our OBLIGATION to follow our conscience denigrates our prudential gift from God seared on our heart by the Holy Spirit from the moment of our conception.
M
Margaret_G
Guest
Orionthehunter said:
Amen!! :clapping: :dancing: :bowdown2: :bowdown:
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81
Emphasis mine. But I believe this would be a good start.
Basically, it is the determination of an unjust law.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
***We have absolute authority to be the judge!!!/*U] We are not to ever, ever delegate what we think moral to our government. I will first listen for the Word of God before I defer to the word of my government.
Referencing 1779: The easy decision is to just follow man’s law. The real call is to be listening for God’s will. If we blindly just follow man’s law, we cover our ears to God whispering to us.
Referencing 1781, if I am always examining the right or wrong of an act (regardless of the law), I become more accountable for my rights and my wrongs. Even in my wrongs, I can come to have a closer understanding of God’s will for the future. To never examine an act “because it is illegal” shirks accountability.
And finally, referencing 1782, if I find that following man’s law would require me to act contrary to my conscience, I’m called to follow my conscience.
I expect to have alot to answer for when I meet my Lord. But I will tell you I won’t have to say well I did it because it was legal or I didn’t do it because it was illegal.
From the Catechism:
1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”**
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I couldn’t agree more.
And the CCC is very clear that one must always follow his conscience as it is God speaking to him.
Contradiction? Nope. God can’t contradict Himself and His teaching can’t be a contradiction.
So, I guess we are charged w/ listening to God to help us determine that a law is unjust.
The simplistic and easy thing to do is to never examine the morality of what you do but to just make sure you don’t violate a man-made law.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
And it is our conscience that will tell us if it is unjust.
F
fix
Guest
Well, my original post was to seek understanding in this matter. You position has helped me, but I still am not clear on a few things.
We all agree we must follow our conscience and we all agree with have a serious obligation to form them correctly. Is not part of correct formation understanding that we should obey just civil laws unless they contradict the natural law or divine law?
F
fix
Guest
A correctly formed conscience.
F
fix
Guest
I have referenced this before on another thread:
F
fix
Guest
This is a good point. I am no expert and welcome any and all correction. It seems to me that there is a primacy of truth, not a primacy of conscience. The civil authority is a real authority that needs to be obeyed, unless unjust, as that is God’s will.
How is it our conscience may* correctly* reject any civil law that is not contrary to God’s law? The determiniation of whether a law is contary to God’s law is determined by forming our conscience as the Church teaches.
I am guessing that people often have a problem with this because many civil laws seem trivial and a violation of them is relatively inconsequential.
I had a Protestant friend convince me of the correctness in following civil law.
His basic line of reasoning ran along the lines of:
I had a Protestant friend convince me of the correctness in following civil law.
His basic line of reasoning ran along the lines of:
And he also had an answer for laws other then traffic laws:
And it does the same for those around me."
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I would answer yes to the last question if it was worded as follows: “Is not part of correct formation understanding that we **Respect (and delete “obey just”) civil laws unless they contradict the natural law or divine law?”
For me the issue is that a law can be “just” (or at least justified) in 99% of the instances and thus most would consider it just. However, if a properly formed Catholic has a situation that following this law would violate their conscience, they have an obligation to disobey. The distinction is that the law doesn’t contradict natural and divine law but its application in this situation is immoral or unjust.
Let me give you an example. I’m an American and I think that our right to protect our borders is just. I think that it is proper to send illegals back or to punish them for violating a just law. I’m an employer. I discover that I have an illegal in my employ. And I discover that this job is allowing this person’s spouse to provide proper hospice care for a dying child. Deportation would result in either the immediate death of the child or at least loss of the loving hospice care for the child’s remaining days. Although hypothetical, until one is actually in the situation we don’t always know what is the moral act to commit or not commit. And a decision to follow the law or disobey the law is not necessarily a statement on whether or not the law is just or unjust.
Secondly, I think our calling is to respect rather than submit. I submit to my God and nobody else. I’m called to honor/respect my parents and civil authorities. As soon as we give our civil laws and government a status that it is presumed they are just until otherwise proven and the standard of proof is high, we have made them into a demi-god.
PS. I think that vz’s post subsequent to mine is correct. It implies respect for the laws and breaking laws is not a trivial matter or to be done as a matter of individual convenience.**
- Status