F
fix
Guest
Good points.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
But even in this instance, the civil authorities demand you yield to them.
One may break traffic laws getting a woman in labor to the hospital. But the police will still pull you over to find out what the rush is. Most likely they will give you an escort to the hospital. But you still end up submitting to the proper authorities.
It is pretty crappy after the fact, but why didn’t this get discovered upon hiring? Isn’t proper documentation required?
After the fact, I would approach the employee and make his citizenship part of his job. If he makes honest efforts towards it keep him, If he does not, terminate him.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I think either I said something unclear or you misinterpreted me. If a law is immoral/unjust, it is contrary to God’s will.
When you say dispensed are you saying excused or not charged? Again, I think it goes to legitimate authority. No government has authority over my conscience. Their dispensation or lack there of does not determine the rightness or wrongness of a decision to violate a law. If you are talking about God’s determination, yep. That is what I’m resting my hat on.
Buddy, if that is my situation, I am not stopping for anyone. I’ll pay my fine and serve my time if I survive. And if I’m driving my wife, I’ll make a quick decision- do I get there faster w/ escort by stopping or not. They can arrest me later.
LOL. In a perfect world. But in the real world, forgeries are really good and unless an employer is confident it is a forgery, they can’t otherwise discriminate/investigate or face employment law violation exposure that includes big fines.
That is my point. You are now taking the law into your own hands to do what you deem to be the moral thing. The law is clear- Such an employer should immediately report the illegal and terminate them.
And likely get shot.
The civil authorities do not play around.
You are risking your life, the life of your wife, and the life of the as yet unborn child. The laws were put in place for the preservation of civil order, and for your own safety.
Really!
I thought your point had to do with your daughter, underage drinking and the ‘intrusive’ civil laws against your giving her a beer.
Nothing so noble as considering the life or death of a child…
Do you see what is happening here?
The case cannot be won for breaking a civil law not being sinful if the law is a just one, so the circumstances are being pushed further and further out until the justness of the law (or the enforcement thereof) is questionable.
One would think you are beginning to see the point.
There are very rare examples of unjust law.
Otherwise, you are obligated to obey the civil authorities.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Vz: I’m so confused by your last point. You admit that you’d break the law in the case of the employer because your conscience guided you even under the law that isn’t a choice given to you. And your choice in this situation, doesn’t imply that the law is unjust but just your moral compass finds its application unjust in this situation. My point is that the Church calls us to follow our conscience always regardless of the cost, even if it has civil consequences.
And I will never ever give the government such a raving endorsement.
And furthermore, I will never, ever look to the government to define whether an act is moral. I will definitely consider the law but it will not be given greater weight than my conscience.
.
And I will never ever give the government such a raving endorsement.
A law can be just and its application unjust in a particular circumstance. You willingness to violate the law in teh case of the employer is one such case for you.
If given the choice of doing a good thing in violation of the law or doing an bad thing in confromance of the law, I pray I’ll do the moral thing. At the same time, I’ll respect my civil authorities and the laws they enact.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
This might help you at least understand where I’m coming from. You may continue to disagree and I’m comfortable with that.
I urge you to read the CCC on conscience. My pastor told me once that it is more serious to ignore your conscience than to follow another (including a Priest) in violation of your conscience.
The reason is that our conscience is how the Holy Spirit speaks to us. We will come to learn the error from following our imperfect conscience but we will never come to learn the error from blindly following another. Granted we will make erroneous judgments (we are imperfect sinners). Sometimes these judgments are sinful and sometimes by invincible ignorance not sinful.
But as was said by John Henry Newmann: “[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.” To deny our conscience can be as serious as blasphemy.
See CCC 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.
I urge you to read the CCC on conscience. My pastor told me once that it is more serious to ignore your conscience than to follow another (including a Priest) in violation of your conscience.
The reason is that our conscience is how the Holy Spirit speaks to us. We will come to learn the error from following our imperfect conscience but we will never come to learn the error from blindly following another. Granted we will make erroneous judgments (we are imperfect sinners). Sometimes these judgments are sinful and sometimes by invincible ignorance not sinful.
But as was said by John Henry Newmann: “[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.” To deny our conscience can be as serious as blasphemy.
See CCC 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.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
If a Catholic has a properly formed conscience, he will not have to violate it in order to obey a just law. His conscience will tell him that a just law must be obeyed. That’s where your argumentation breaks down. You do lip service to proper formation, while asserting that a properly formed conscience will tell a man to act contrary to the teaching of the Church in the matter.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Andreas Hofer:
But if we are obligated to disobey unjust laws, who defines which laws are unjust? The civil authorities who passed the law or are bound to enforce it? Are we to follow all laws until the Bishop declares it unjust? Are we called to call the Bishop when faced with a dilemma between the law and our conscience? And if time or circumstances doesn’t allow us to call the Bishop, we are to blindly follow that what our conscience says is unjust? Does our blind following of a law we knew to be unjust excuse us or make it less sinful?
In the example of Vietnam conscientious objectors, the Church supported those who chose not to serve because it violated their conscience. Does that mean that those who followed the law and didn’t object were sinning? Of course not. The Church equally supported those who chose to serve. It was a matter of their conscience between the individual and God.
Absolutely correct. If the law is just and its application will be just, it is a just law. A properly formed conscience will recognize that the law is just and will follow the law.
But if we are obligated to disobey unjust laws, who defines which laws are unjust? The civil authorities who passed the law or are bound to enforce it? Are we to follow all laws until the Bishop declares it unjust? Are we called to call the Bishop when faced with a dilemma between the law and our conscience? And if time or circumstances doesn’t allow us to call the Bishop, we are to blindly follow that what our conscience says is unjust? Does our blind following of a law we knew to be unjust excuse us or make it less sinful?
In the example of Vietnam conscientious objectors, the Church supported those who chose not to serve because it violated their conscience. Does that mean that those who followed the law and didn’t object were sinning? Of course not. The Church equally supported those who chose to serve. It was a matter of their conscience between the individual and God.
Actually, it is just an acknowledgement that an enforcement of law in that instance would be unjust since it would result in the loss of life. After all, what is an unjust law? It is a law that denies basic inalienable rights of the person. Since the enforcement thereof would deny these rights to the son that dies, enforcement would be unjust.
No one has asked you to use your conscience here; but to use the definitions already given. They are very specific.
Your conscience is a guide, but I would think only in matters in which the solution were not already written.
The definition of unjust law is there, the rule of civil law is there. Why look any further? Unless you are unhappy with the answer.
I am really baffled by this. At what point have I endorsed any goverment?
Let’s all keep in mind the extreme nature of the example given.
I would hate to think that the example is commonplace.
Perhaps by ‘good thing in violation of the law’ you actually mean that the law is unjust? Now if we could find how the underage drinking laws are unjust…
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
This is one of my points. The law itself could be just- regulating borders and employment law regarding illegal aliens- but its enforcement is unjust in this situation. Our conscience determines the right decision in this situation from a moral perspective. But, it doesn’t relieve us of any civil consequences. We might still have to serve time.
From your statement that “There are very rare examples of unjust law”. I respect our civil authorities and our laws. But that does not mean that I’ll presume that their laws are de facto just until I’ve considered a particular law.
I am not an anarchist. I acknowledge the good of government and their power to inflict punishment on violators. I do not believe that one should violate the law out of convenience or personal self-interest.
This is not my interpretation of the CC. We are called to always work to rightly form our conscience to God’s. And even in our erroneous judgment, our conscience will rightly judge the wrong leading to a better formed conscience.
VZ, the situation of my daughter. I’m totally comfortable w/ my decision and I’ll make it again next fall when she is 19. I only quit discussing it as I knew some would disagree and we’d argue that instance rather than the principle of civil laws vs. conscience. A disagreement of conscience doesn’t make one right and another wrong (ala vietnam objectors).
And regarding your comment that the CCC determines what laws are just. No. The CCC doesn’t have a list of unjust laws. It helps us form our individual conscience so we’ll make right decisions. And it will guide us to determining which laws are unjust always and when its application might be unjust. But even in the law you agreed you’d violate, your violation didn’t make the law suddenly unjust. Just its application in that particular situation.
Rather than thinking of a particular situation (where individuals might rightly disagree), please answer these questions and not trying to apply it to my daughter where your disagree.
Who is to determine a law or its application is unjust?
The civil authorities who passed the law or are bound to enforce it? Are we to follow all laws until the Bishop declares it unjust? Are we called to call the Bishop when faced with a dilemma between the law and our conscience? And if time or circumstances doesn’t allow us to call the Bishop, we are to blindly follow that what our conscience says is unjust? Does our blind following of a law we knew to be unjust excuse us or make it less sinful?
No, my conscience did not. I determined it based on the facts given. The facts given stated that a child would die should the law be enforced. It does not take much to see justice there.
What a coincidence! Neither do I.
The statement that there are rare examples of unjust law is hardly an endorsement. The fact that there are any unjust laws speaks volumes of where this country is headed.
Great!, but why do you feel the need to say that?
Unless perhaps the law is ‘intrusive’ or ‘restrictive’
As evidence in a much earlier post…
Am I mistaken?
So your saying that we must use conscience to determine if a law is unjust? What about using the simple criteria that are already spelled out for you in the catechism?
No one said it did. But it does give very specific criteria for determining just and unjust laws. Do we need to explain the criteria again?
Yes.
I can see many points that you are making. But in earlier examples you show, the civil law clearly does not fit the criteria for unjust. Once that is shown, you make a point of pushing the examples to the extreme.
Yes, the are ways to make many laws unjust. But in normal, everyday life, you will not encounter one very often.
Traffic laws are just. Can they be made unjust? Yes. But the circumstances that would do that are extremely unusual. Further, the criteria for just and unjust laws would be very clearly broken in circumstance that extreme.
Actually, that brings to light an interesting point…in a circumstance unusual enough to make an otherwise just law unjust, would anyone have a problem discerning that the criteria for an unjust law is met?
The criteria seem very clear to me. It would likewise follow that anything fitting within the criteria would be equally clear.
Perhaps the real problem is a question of degrees…
I am arguing that should a law (or enforcement thereof) be unjust, the circumstance will be unusual enough as to be plainly obvious within the criteria handed down within the CCC.
There would really be no question for conscience to resolve.
Your argument that the waters are much murkier???
Let me know…
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Read the CC on Concience. It is your conscience that tells you what is right and wrong. Your conscience is how the Holy Spirit talks to us.
To which VZ responds: Unless perhaps the law is ‘intrusive’ or ‘restrictive’
As evidence in a much earlier post…
If my conscience leads me to determine that a law restricts my ability to fulfill my obligation to God’s plan for me and my family, I will violate it. There is way too much delegation of parental decision-making and standards to the government. I will not ever hesitate to reject the state’s view on parenting if I feel it contrary to my role as the first church to my children. I just don’t think Jesus will say “Wow, your kids sure were screwed up. Because you followed the directives from the state and ignored me, don’t worry about.”
Yes. And Scripture, the Catechism, the Teachings of the Church all assist me to understand the law inscribed in my heart by God.
CC 1776 “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.”
The Catechism is not an instrument for discernment but catechesis (education in the faith). Discernment comes via the whispering of the Holy Spirit.
If everything was in the CCC, what would be the purpose of praying to the Holy Spirit for the gift of wisdom, knowledge, understanding and counsel?
From the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum at the beginning of the Catechism.
“Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.”
It is. But in the example you provided, there was no need for Holy Spirit (name removed by moderator)ut. It was a simple matter of consulting what has already been written.
And you will be wrong. Unless the law is an unjust one.
So we have made our way from traffic laws, to alcohol consumption laws, to immigration issues, to Vietnam.
I’m getting tired.
Forget the examples themselves, the fact that there is such a variety here seems to support my point. You need to stretch hard to find an unjust law. How many of these examples are actual examples that you personnaly were involved in?
Of those, how many are clearly a case of unjust law?
Absolutely, God has inscribed his law upon the hearts of men.
But that does not mean ignore what your church is saying in favor of your ‘conscience.’
Well, the question presupposes that I believe everything to be in the CCC. I do not.
There is no ‘list’ of unjust laws contained in the CCC. But there is a list of criteria that is very clear.
I do have to ask, since it is your opinion that the CCC is simply an instrument for learning, then to what end, if not to also be used as a reference for discernment?
If I read you correctly, it sounds as though you have a serious problem with using the CCC as reference material.
Why is that?
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
So… what is it about Moral Theology that seems to make it impossible to render a simple “yes” or “no”??
What is it about Moral Theology that seems to make it impossible to render a simple verdict: “sin” or “no sin”??
What is it about Moral Theology that led Fr. Grisez to write 900 pages of small print to explain 200 case studies??? Why not a simple, one word response? What makes responses so complex?
What is it about Moral Theology that seems to make it impossible to render a simple verdict: “sin” or “no sin”??
What is it about Moral Theology that led Fr. Grisez to write 900 pages of small print to explain 200 case studies??? Why not a simple, one word response? What makes responses so complex?
Al Masetti:
Here is the best response I can muster…
There are many that see the world in varying shades of grey.
There are many that see the world in black and white.
We fight.
Those that try to see the world in black and white are viewed as too rigid. Those that see grey are viewed as too permissive.
And then there is the infighting within the greys for those that see an issue in higher contrast then others.
Through all of this, with God’s help, with a great deal of God’s help. We may reach a better understanding of God, the scriptures, and how to apply them in everyday life.
These questions could start a thread that would destroy the SQL servers this board runs on.
Here is the best response I can muster…
There are many that see the world in varying shades of grey.
There are many that see the world in black and white.
We fight.
Those that try to see the world in black and white are viewed as too rigid. Those that see grey are viewed as too permissive.
And then there is the infighting within the greys for those that see an issue in higher contrast then others.
Through all of this, with God’s help, with a great deal of God’s help. We may reach a better understanding of God, the scriptures, and how to apply them in everyday life.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Part 2
You have consistently referenced my daughter’s and the post-hunt beer. I could spend alot of time explaining the impact of alcohol in my family (father and father-in-law were both alcoholics). But the crux of the issue is my wife (worked for an alcohol counseling center as a family counselor dealing w/ the non-abusing family members) and I have made a decision that we believe it best that our children (because we don’t know if our parents problem was a genetic disposition vs. a physcologicial disposition to abuse) that they need to learn about alcohol by observing responsible drinking and sometimes even partaking under our supervision. We feel strongly that if college and being away from our care is the first place they encounter alcohol w/o a good base of experience and understanding, we have skirked our obligation as parents.
We also believe that the current juvenilization in law of budding adults and young adults contributes to a lack of maturity today. I refer once again to the First Things article on Against Eternal Youth ( firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/opinion/green.html ) as a decent introduction to this thought.
I’m sure that my “situation” or views above won’t sway you and that we should accept the civil authorities and societies views about parenting. And frankly, that isn’t important to me. My wife and I within the holy confines of our home are committed to always doing what we can to make our children first and foremost people that will please God. We pray about everything (together and separate). We both have spiritual directors in addition to our Pastor. We know we aren’t perfect but we look to the Holy Spirit to aid us make as many decisions as possible. And we feel that society and even the civil authorities are not only bad examples but bad influences. We will not delegate our parental obligations to God to them and we will not defer to their judgment.
When I was confirmed, I assumed the responsibility to live my life according to God’s will. When I got married, my Pastor said I assumed the responsibility to do all I can to get my wife to Heaven. When I was blessed w/ my four children, I assumed the responsibility to do what I can to make them holy. Nobody or no government are surrogates. These are what I’ll have to answer for when I go before my Lord.
But, since you seem to want CCC reference (I hate doing this as it can be like a sola scriptura protestant taking things out of context) I’ll give you some. These sections give the family clear preeminence over the civil authorities, especially stated in CC2209 (principle of subsidiarity) and CC2210 (their grave duty). I had to delete some sections for brevity. Read the entire section if you think I took something out of context but that is not my intent.
2204: “The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church.” It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament
2205: The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. . . .
2206: . . . .The family is a privileged community called to achieve a “sharing of thought and common deliberation by the spouses as well as their eager cooperation as parents in the children’s upbringing.”
2207: The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society . . . .
2209 . . . . Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s perogatives or interfere in its life.
2210 The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."
You have consistently referenced my daughter’s and the post-hunt beer. I could spend alot of time explaining the impact of alcohol in my family (father and father-in-law were both alcoholics). But the crux of the issue is my wife (worked for an alcohol counseling center as a family counselor dealing w/ the non-abusing family members) and I have made a decision that we believe it best that our children (because we don’t know if our parents problem was a genetic disposition vs. a physcologicial disposition to abuse) that they need to learn about alcohol by observing responsible drinking and sometimes even partaking under our supervision. We feel strongly that if college and being away from our care is the first place they encounter alcohol w/o a good base of experience and understanding, we have skirked our obligation as parents.
We also believe that the current juvenilization in law of budding adults and young adults contributes to a lack of maturity today. I refer once again to the First Things article on Against Eternal Youth ( firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0508/opinion/green.html ) as a decent introduction to this thought.
I’m sure that my “situation” or views above won’t sway you and that we should accept the civil authorities and societies views about parenting. And frankly, that isn’t important to me. My wife and I within the holy confines of our home are committed to always doing what we can to make our children first and foremost people that will please God. We pray about everything (together and separate). We both have spiritual directors in addition to our Pastor. We know we aren’t perfect but we look to the Holy Spirit to aid us make as many decisions as possible. And we feel that society and even the civil authorities are not only bad examples but bad influences. We will not delegate our parental obligations to God to them and we will not defer to their judgment.
When I was confirmed, I assumed the responsibility to live my life according to God’s will. When I got married, my Pastor said I assumed the responsibility to do all I can to get my wife to Heaven. When I was blessed w/ my four children, I assumed the responsibility to do what I can to make them holy. Nobody or no government are surrogates. These are what I’ll have to answer for when I go before my Lord.
But, since you seem to want CCC reference (I hate doing this as it can be like a sola scriptura protestant taking things out of context) I’ll give you some. These sections give the family clear preeminence over the civil authorities, especially stated in CC2209 (principle of subsidiarity) and CC2210 (their grave duty). I had to delete some sections for brevity. Read the entire section if you think I took something out of context but that is not my intent.
2204: “The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can and should be called a domestic church.” It is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament
2205: The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit. . . .
2206: . . . .The family is a privileged community called to achieve a “sharing of thought and common deliberation by the spouses as well as their eager cooperation as parents in the children’s upbringing.”
2207: The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society . . . .
2209 . . . . Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s perogatives or interfere in its life.
2210 The importance of the family for the life and well-being of society entails a particular responsibility for society to support and strengthen marriage and the family. Civil authority should consider it a grave duty "to acknowledge the true nature of marriage and the family, to protect and foster them, to safeguard public morality, and promote domestic prosperity."
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I turn first to the Holy Spirit. That is why God gave me a conscience.
Your judgment notwithstanding that I will be wrong, I trust the Holy Spirit will aid me in my discernment on whether I’ll be right or wrong. Your judgment is not my guide, especially since you believe you can reach right decisions w/o your conscience.
Fix started a very good philosophical and theological thread about how much weight the civil law should be given when defining morality or right action/inaction. He started the discussion naming what I would call matters not governed by morality (traffic laws, smoking marijuana, etc). I found because of those examples one could be left w/ the impression that our civil authorities and their laws had so much weight that they could become a demi-god defining what is moral or immoral. The Church is very clear that our first guide to what is moral is inscribed on our heart in our conscience and we are called to follow it always. I wanted to introduce other examples to show that we need to look to a higher authority first rather than just giving de facto sanction to the justness of a law. And never hesitate to stand up when moved to by our conscience (the voice of the Holy Spirit).
My question is who decides when it isn’t clear or the application opens moral issues not contemplated by the civil authorities. When making laws, it is hard to have them perfect in all situations. A law can be just but its application in this situation unjust (ie the employer situation).
LOL Your quote around conscience says alot about your view of conscience. Conscience is a very concrete and fundamental part of our divine nature. It is how God talks to us. In my daily reflection, my time at adoration, how I interact with people and how I conduct my business affairs, I try to engage my conscience always. Just as the Church teaches that there can be no contradiction within the Word or the Teachings of the Church or its Traditions as they are all part of the same Truth, there can be no contradiction between our conscience and what the Church teaches as they too are part of the same Truth.
Granted there can be times that we in our sinful nature make erroneous judgments. But that is not a failing of our conscience but a failing to listen to our conscience. Our conscience is our preeminent guide.
CCC 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."
I have not once questioned your faith or your practice of it. Returning the charity would be appreciated.
I use the Catechism exactly as intended (catechesis). Catechesis is a critical element of forming my conscience to God’s. So is prayer, living a good life, receiving the sacraments, reading Scripture.
End of Part 1
- Status