Civil law and sin

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

Clearly this message stream has gotten way too personal for you. The personal attacks towards me are not justified.
I believe you should take some time and cool off.

LOL I’ve told you that it is obvious we disagree and I respect your position. I asked if you respected my position. You responded that you have judged my position morally wrong (I assume then you consider it sinful) rather than even potentially a matter relevant to Romans 14. But heck, I shouldn’t take that personally.

 

[vz71]

vz71:

Clearly this message stream has gotten way too personal for you. The personal attacks towards me are not justified.
I believe you should take some time and cool off.

 

[Orionthehunter]

[/quote]

More sanctimony. How would you take an admonition that you need to go pray? :tsktsk: I’ve done my best to explain my position to you. :banghead: You refuse to say you don’t believe my position to be morally wrong, consider that there might be room for two consciences to have different positions in certain circumstances and thus I’m being sinful.

Romans 14:4-5 "Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Romans 14: 10-14 "Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God). Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

More sanctimony. How would you take an admonition that you need to go pray? :tsktsk: I’ve done my best to explain my position to you. :banghead: You refuse to say you don’t believe my position to be morally wrong, consider that there might be room for two consciences to have different positions in certain circumstances and thus I’m being sinful.
.

Are you finished?
Emoticons, being what they are I guess are subject to misinterpretation, perhaps I should have actually stated “I Pray”

Based on what has been written throughout the stream, yes I believe the decision to disregard the civil law in the instances you specify to be morally wrong.
I am sorry if you feel like I should believe otherwise, but I cannot change my position based on what I know and what has been presented. Perhaps you have other information that has not been presented?

I have stated, and continue to believe, that I have not passed any judgement upon you. If anything, I did some research, and read up on the other posts that you have written. We appeared to have similar viewpoints, and I found it fascinating that two people with such a similar viewpoint could have such a divergent view on this issue. Far from being judgmental, I actually had an admiration for some of the wisdom that you had written an other places in the board.

I am saddened that the same wit found in other topics is now turned into sarcasm and mockery towards me.

I have stated before, it appears that you have misjudged me, and my intent.
You have taken to insults towards me on a personal level, and I believe that your emotions are getting the better of you.
You need to step back and cool down a bit.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From VZ: Are you finished?
Based on what has been written throughout the stream, yes I believe the decision to disregard the civil law in the instances you specify to be morally wrong.
I am sorry if you feel like I should believe otherwise, but I cannot change my position based on what I know and what has been presented. Perhaps you have other information that has not been presented?

As it tells me in Romans 14: “For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God).”

I will summarize my position.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. "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."
• is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.
• is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit.
• 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.”
• is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society.

1. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s perogatives or interfere in its life.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:
5. Conscience is a messenger of God, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.
6. 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.

1. 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.

And based on these excerpts from the Catechism, I will follow my conscience when it and civil law are in conflict. When I act (or fail to act) in error, my conscience will judge the act as in error as a witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of my erroneous choice. This verdict of judgement is a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it will call 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.

 

[Orionthehunter]

And if the following are also your position regarding the criteria and who is the authority to determine if a law is just or not, this is where we disagree as I ascribe that the conscience is the voice of the Holy Spirit and it prevails over conflicts with civil law. And if the following are not your position, please clarify. And on these (if they represent your position), we will have to agree to disagree. In post 84 I’ve tried to articulate my argument.

1. 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.
2. 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.'
3. The quotes were intended to show my distrust in the way conscience appears to be used as the ultimate authority in deciding matters of right and wrong. I believe that when a matter is clearly written out within the Cathechism, I do not need to look any further.
4. I have doubts that ‘intusive’ and ‘restrictive’ qualify as a denial of basic inalienable rights of the person. The standards have been written down. Probably to keep us from acting as the judge when we have no real authority in the matter. I often find them (society’s views on parenting) destructive, and contrary to good parenting in general. But that is also the "civil authorities and societies views about parenting."
5. 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.
6. 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?

10 (in response to the questions: 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?) Yes.

1. (in response to the questions: 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?) 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.

 

[Orionthehunter]

To VZ:

And based on these quotes of yours, is this your position regarding civil law and our obligation to follow it? If so, we pretty much agree on these.

1. 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.
2. Should a law not be unjust, it would have to be because one of two conditions exist:
   a) God’s law agrees - and you are obligated to obey both laws.
   b) God’s law is silent - in which case you are still obligated to obey since the civil law is the authority.
3. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that civil law still should be obeyed. Unless there is an instance of unjust law. Unless a law is contrary to God’s law, it is a sin to break it.
4. Sure I can break civil laws without a problem. But what kind of witness do I make for it? I have a ‘Jesus Saves’ sticker on the back of my car; if I violate traffic law, will the person behind me see a christian or a hypocrite? Every action I take has an effect on me and those around me. If I violate a law, no matter how trivial, it makes it easier next time to break the same law and to break a more serious law.
5. There are very rare examples of unjust law. Otherwise, you are obligated to obey the civil authorities.
6. (In response to a scenario where following the law and terminating an illegal alien from employment would result in the death of a child) 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.
7. Civil authority must be obeyed, but (as is written within the CCC) civil authority must recognize the family, and the basic inalienable rights of the individual. If the civil authorities fail that, are they exercising any authority at all?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Quixotic.

That word just “popped” into my head.

When the law (or a specific law) is quixotic… then what?

Not an immoral law. But “strange”…

 

[vz71]

I have serious problems with the use of the word conscience within the message stream.

IF the conscience is to be the ultimate authority of right and wrong, then there is no need for the Church. The conscience does not work in a vacuum. It will tell you right from wrong, but it must be well informed of the circumstances and must be well informed of Church teaching and tradition.

Now if a law is unjust, there seems to be plenty of agreement that it should be broken. But there seems to be disparity defining ‘unjust’
Is unjust a law that denies the inalienable rights of the individual?
Is unjust a law that interferes with the family and parental authority?
Is unjust a law that merely inconveniences parental authority?

What is an unjust law?
I have problems believing it a matter of opinion. But if examples given are defended simply with Romans 14 (My God will judge me) then the position has not been defended; but an accusing finger has been pointed at anyone that holds a differing view.

Some of the examples provided within this message stream I can agree with. Others I cannot. But I have a real problem with an unjust law being defined as “my conscience is my guide.”

As far as Quixotic laws go, perhaps someone should ask the civil authorities if the law is still enforced. It may well be that the law is simply there because no one has gone to the trouble of removing it. But, I doubt quixotic laws would fall into the catagory of unjust.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Part 2:

From VZ: Some of the examples provided within this message stream I can agree with. Others I cannot. But I have a real problem with an unjust law being defined as “my conscience is my guide.”

My concience is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If I hear that voice, I’m called to follow it. If I err, my conscience will judge it as error as that too is the voice of the Holy Spirit. That is the teaching of the Church.

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.”

From VZ: As far as Quixotic laws go, perhaps someone should ask the civil authorities if the law is still enforced. It may well be that the law is simply there because no one has gone to the trouble of removing it. But, I doubt quixotic laws would fall into the catagory of unjust.

Quixotic means “foolishly idealistic”. Hmmm. IMHO, to assert we are to submit to even that which is foolish as moral does imply the civil authorities have achieved at least demi-god status.
Who is to decide that it is foolishly idealistic? Additionally, we are to ask the local sheriff if HE enforces a particular law? First, he is probably sworn to answer he enforces them all. Second, if the goal is to determine if a law is unjust, it is a self-contradictary to ask the civil authorities who passed the law or are bound by oath to enforce it if they believe the law is just. Third, Al, I appreciate you bringing up the word quixotic. I take us back to the “First Things” article as quixotic is the essence of what the author calls the motive behind efforts that result in the juvenilization of budding and young adults.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From VZ: I have serious problems with the use of the word conscience within the message stream.

IF the conscience is to be the ultimate authority of right and wrong, then there is no need for the Church. The conscience does not work in a vacuum. It will tell you right from wrong, but it must be well informed of the circumstances and must be well informed of Church teaching and tradition.

If you have a problem w/ what the Church teaches in Article 6 of the Life in Christ of the CCC, your problem is not with me. I have only used the concept of conscience as defined in the CCC. I’ve pointed it out many times. Most recently in post #63:

From Orion: Our Concsience as used in the Catechism and taught by the Church is perfect as it is from God. It is becuase of failure to listen to our conscience (as defined by the Church) that we make erroneous judgments.

You are confusing common vernacular use of conscience as something made by the the invidual and the use by the Church in that it is the very voice of God. It is impossible for there to be conflict in our Conscience and the Truth. Please read very closely this discussion in the CC. There is a distinction between what we normally use in non-theological circles and what the Church means by Conscience.

From VZ: Now if a law is unjust, there seems to be plenty of agreement that it should be broken. But there seems to be disparity defining ‘unjust’
Is unjust a law that denies the inalienable rights of the individual?
Is unjust a law that interferes with the family and parental authority?
Is unjust a law that merely inconveniences parental authority?

To answer your questions above, in my opinion: Yes, Yes (but I clarify this question by using a higher subjective standard of “restrict and intrudes” as opposed to “interfere”), No (inconvenience would imply that one can be as a matter of trivial convenience which is clearly not the Church’s teaching).

From VZ: What is an unjust law?

I have problems believing it a matter of opinion. But if examples given are defended simply with Romans 14 (My God will judge me) then the position has not been defended; but an accusing finger has been pointed at anyone that holds a differing view.

You are missing the point of Romans 14. There is no accusing view unless you feel it is within your purview to judge the conscience of another. It is a lesson calling us to respect the conscience of another as it is they who are accountable for their acts/non-acts while you are accountable for yours. I’ve said many times that I respect the voice you hear in your conscience with regard to submission to civil authority. All I’ve asked is that you respect the voice I hear. We are to be a servant to our conscience. That is the lesson of Romans 14.

Romans 14:4-5 "Who are you to pass judgment on someone else’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Romans 14: 10-14 "Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God). Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean.

See Part 2 below

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fix:

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?

As I understand it, Catholics are bound by Divine, ecclesiastical, and civil law. In fact, we are to obey our superiors in all things within the superior’s scope of authority, unless it would be contrary to higher authority. Thus, if civil authorities demand of me something unlawful according to Church’s interpretation of natural and Divine law, I am not obliged to obey. Yet, if civil authority demands of me something lawful, and within their scope of authority, I am obliged to obey, even if I disagree with the law.

St. Paul asserted, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Rom 13:1); “obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” (Eph 6:1); “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters” (Col 3:22); “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess 3:14); “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17); " train the young women to…[be] submissive to their husbands" (Titus 2:4-5); “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient” (Titus 3:1)

St. Peter asserted, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29); “wives, be submissive to your husbands” (1 Pet 3:1); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (1 Pet 5:5)“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.” (2 Pet 2:18)

Deliberate violation of lawful authority is a sin. We’re talking not just written law on the books, but lawful authority whether oral or written. If your pastor demands something of you within his scope of authority, you are obliged to obey. If your boss at work, the cop on the street, or any other lawful superior demands your submission and you refuse it, you commit a sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas decribes this as a “necessity of justice.” (IIb, 104, 5*Summa Theologica, *). St. Thomas states, “there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power…Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him.…in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.” (ibid.)

 

[Orionthehunter]

itsjustdave1988:

As I understand it, Catholics are bound by Divine, ecclesiastical, and civil law. In fact, we are to obey our superiors in all things within the superior’s scope of authority, unless it would be contrary to higher authority. Thus, if civil authorities demand of me something unlawful according to Church’s interpretation of natural and Divine law, I am not obliged to obey. Yet, if civil authority demands of me something lawful, and within their scope of authority, I am obliged to obey, even if I disagree with the law.

St. Paul asserted, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (Rom 13:1); “obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.” (Eph 6:1); “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters” (Col 3:22); “If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” (2 Thess 3:14); “Obey your leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17); " train the young women to…[be] submissive to their husbands" (Titus 2:4-5); “Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient” (Titus 3:1)

St. Peter asserted, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Act 5:29); “wives, be submissive to your husbands” (1 Pet 3:1); “you that are younger be subject to the elders” (1 Pet 5:5)“Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.” (2 Pet 2:18)

Deliberate violation of lawful authority is a sin. We’re talking not just written law on the books, but lawful authority whether oral or written. If your pastor demands something of you within his scope of authority, you are obliged to obey. If your boss at work, the cop on the street, or any other lawful superior demands your submission and you refuse it, you commit a sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas decribes this as a “necessity of justice.” (*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 104, 5). St. Thomas states, “there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power…Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him.…in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.” (ibid.)

I generally agree w/ this post w/ slight clarification:

1. While bound by divine, ecclesiastical and civil law, we are not bound equally. Divine law trumps all others. Ecclesiastical law turmps civil law. I believe you said it but I want to reinforce it as the later Scripture quotes would be out of context if that wasn’t kept in mind.
2. Submission is qualified w/ the concept of “lawful” as we are not bound to submit to that which is unlawful. Again, I believe you said it but sometimes in the quotes used there was no qualifier even though implied.
3. So long as determining lawful acknowledges the role of the voice of God via our conscience. If lawful is determined by something other than the voice of God (Conscience), I disagree. Keep in mind that it is impossible for the Church and our Conscience to be in conflict as they are both the voice of God.

I like Thomas’ use of “internal movement of the will” as another way to acknowledge conscience.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

fix:

…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.

St. Thomas addresses this as well…

%between%Hilary says (De Trin. iv): “The meaning of what is said is according to the motive for saying it: because things are not subject to speech, but speech to things.” Therefore we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his very words… every law is directed to the common weal of men… Now it happens often that the observance of some point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general welfare, it should not be observed. (*Summa Theologica, *IIa, 96, 6)

Yet, St. Thomas admits that not every person is equally qualified to know the intent of the law-giver in particular applications of the law. Thus, dispensation is to be sought from lawful authorities except in cases where delay would produce sudden peril.

St. Thomas continues…

Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws. If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority, the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law. (ibid)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Orionthehunter:

…I like Thomas’ use of “internal movement of the will” as another way to acknowledge conscience.

I think St. Thomas’ use of “internal movement of the will” refers to a distinction between the slave’s obligatory obedience in body when there may still be a legitimate lack of assent in soul. A slave, for example, may conscientiously object to the work demanded of by the master, but they are still bound to obey unless: a) higher authority demands otherwise, or b) the demand is outside the master’s scope of authority.

I don’t think it is sufficient to simply invoke conscientious objection to law as legitimate reason for disobedience to the law. Men conscientiously object to many things which are congruent with higher authority (e.g., Divine and ecclesiastical authority) simply because obedience to the law is a hardship.

Nonetheless, I agree that the aboriginal vicar of Christ is one’s conscience, and that we are bound to obey it in all circumstances. Yet, poorly formed consciences have led many men to grave sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Al Masetti:

…
It is worth reading Fr. Grisez’s book “Difficult Moral Questions” to get an expert’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

Us laypersons can discuss a topic but we may not get it absolutely right in all its various manifestations…

Isn’t Germain Grisez is a lay theologian? I didn’t know he was a priest?

 

[fix]

itsjustdave1988:

I don’t think it is sufficient to simply invoke conscientious objection to law as legitimate reason for disobedience to the law. Men conscientiously object to many things which are congruent with higher authority (e.g., Divine and ecclesiastical authority) simply because obedience to the law is a hardship.

To me, this is the heart of the matter. We each could come up with many reasons to disregard many civil laws, but are those reasons based upon a well formed conscience or are we using conscience as an excuse.

In addition to the good information you have provided I also found this I posted above:

You are correct that Aquinas and Catholic teaching and tradition requires us to observe revealed divine law (the Ten Commandments) and natural law before (in a hierarchical sense) human positive law (civil law). Part of revealed divine law is Jesus’ clear statement, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” In addition, there is Peter’s injunction to the early Christians to “maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” and to “be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him” (1 Pt 2, 12-14). Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law.
dwc.org/questions/Civil_Vs_Divine_Law.shtml

Nonetheless, I agree that the aboriginal vicar of Christ is one’s conscience, and that we are bound to obey it in all circumstances. Yet, poorly formed consciences have led many men to grave sin.

How we each apply this concept will vary, correct? That is why I am trying to see if a general rule exists. It seems from what you have provided we must obey the civil law, unless there is grave necessity. If we disagree with a law we should seek clarification before breaking it and claiming it violates our conscience?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Fix,

I think what St. Thomas described is about as close to a general rule as we are going to get. Keep in mind that law is for the common good. Sometimes a particular person’s hardship in obedience to the law is still best for the common good. We have crosses to carry, and often we don’t see our obedience as the cross God has placed before us. Individuals tend to disregard the common good in favor of their own particular good. That’s a poor reason to disregard lawful authorities.

The only reason to disobey lawful authorities, according to the rule described by St. Thomas Aquinas, is that 1) obedience to the superior’s will would be contrary to the demands of higher authority, and 2) the superior demands of you something outside his scope of authority. We are not dispensed from the obligation of obedience to our superiors’ will unless our superiors provide us that dispensation or it involves “necessity” or “sudden risk needing instant remedy.” Why? Because “it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state.” That’s it.

We have to discern the above by our own intellect and act in accord with our own will, as fallible as these faculties can be. Our deliberate reason should govern our will. We may deliberately reason and therefore will to do some absurd things, because of obedience to another’s will. We may not even understand the things we choose to will. Obedience to imprudent yet lawful authority is a cross that every Catholic is called to carry by God, and we should carry it out of charity.

St. Thomas taught,

…obedience deserves praise because it proceeds from charity: for Gregory says (Moral. xxxv) that “obedience should be practiced, not out of servile fear, but from a sense of charity, not through fear of punishment, but through love of justice.”
… Gregory says (Moral. xxxv) that “obedience is rightly preferred to sacrifices, because by sacrifices another’s body is slain whereas by obedience we slay our own will.” (*Summa Theologica, *IIb, 104, 3)

I think too often those that find themselves among the governed tend to reject the authority of their governors simply because they think they know better. That seems to be nothing more than a lack of virtue, even if by chance they happen to really know better.

Instead, I agree with Thomas a’ Kempis, a 15th cent. monk who wrote in his book The Imitation of Christ, about the virtue of obedience:

***It is a very great thing to live in obedience, to be under a superior, and not to be free to do as we please. ***

It is much safer to obey than to govern.

Many live under obedience more from necessity than from love, and such are discontented and easily complain. They cannot attain freedom of mind unless they willingly and heartily put themselves under obedience for the love of God.

Go wherever you will, but you will still find no rest except in humble subjection under the government of a superior.

 

[fix]

Dave,

Thank you. You have explained things clearly and I appreciate your efforts here.

I would like you to explain this one paragraph more fully if you would?:

We have to discern the above by our own intellect and act in accord with our own will, as fallible as these faculties can be. Our deliberate reason should govern our will. We may deliberately reason and therefore will to do some absurd things, because of obedience to another’s will. We may not even understand the things we choose to will.

I am not understanding what you are saying?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I have a law and order mentality. My brother is in law enforcement. At the same time, I can not in good conscience sanction and submit to the societal attitude that they define right teaching, morals, and conduct for our young people. I feel called to push back via both being active politically and in civil disobedience.

Reflect on these words and instead of Communists, Jews, etc. substitute the idea: First the government took away this parental right but I didn’t care about that one, it took away this parental right but it conforms to my beliefs, it took away this parental right but I could live with it or the next until I had no parental rights left and they took my child.

“First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.” by Rev. Martin Niemoller (a German Lutheran minister),1945

The above haunts me to the core of my being. I have no choice to act on it as I feel it is the voice of the Holy Spirit (talking to me while acknowledging that His message to another could be to set a different example). If I’m in error, my conscience will judge it in error. God will know in my heart if my true motive was hubris. But, for me, if I deny this whispering, when will I listen to the Holy Spirit.

Finally, a little food for thought. Great political reforms don’t start because of new-found wisdom by political authorities but because of broadening civil disobedience. A couple that come to mind are slavery (the Civil War started because the South became frustrated that Northerners both as individuals and as civil authorities failed to enforce federal laws requiring runaway slaves to be returned to the South. It was after the start of hostilities that slavery was ended), Magna Carta (the king agreed to limit the monarchy so the local “princes” would quit withholding taxes to the king), and even political rights for Catholics (Charles Carrol of Maryland who signed both the Constitution and Declaration of Indepence made not so veiled threats that Maryland (bordering DC) would be a hot bed of insurrection if Catholics weren’t granted full political rights both by law and by practice). Is not to stand up for the preeminent authority of the family unit equally worthy of civil disobedience? Your conscience might move you to do so differently. Mine is unambigous.

Finally, I don’t deny that civil disobedience has consequences and I’m prepared to face those consequences as it attests to conviction of heart. I refer you back to post #62. I’ve spent a night in jail over the issue.