Driving fast and scrupulosity

[wjp984]

The burden of proof is almost always on the proseuction, plaintiff, petitioner, etc. I don’t need to offer proof since I’m defending the issue of being able to speed without fear of sin. I just need to provide doubt. Using the same sources you did I came up with a different opinion. I think there is enough doubt in the issue by saying that the submit to authority means “pull over, accept the penalty (the ticket), and if you can’t fight it or convince the officer to let you off with a warning, then pay it”. Remember, traffic violations are different than misdemeanors and felonies. Drinking and driving would be sinful as would reckless speeding where you can potentially be arrested. The law doesn’t punish us for a ticket though so why should God?

I also want to argue that I think the submit to authority and actual committing of a sin or crime are two separate acts. In my opinion, even if you kill someone and then are sorry for your sin, turn yourself in, accept your punishment, which probably will be a lot of prison time, you have not sinned against the submit to authority issue. Murder is your only sin. Where as if you kill someone, and the police are looking for you, and you then take a hostage or something of the sort in an effort to escape, now you have committed three sins. You have committed murder, you have threatened the life of another as a hostage and you have refused to submit to authority.

If the issues are separate the only remaining question is whether God considers speeding to be sinful. I would argue it depends on the situation but in most cases the answer would be no. As I mentioned, if the law doesn’t think it necessary to penalize a person more than a simple fine, I don’t see how God considers it sinful.

 

[whatevergirl]

I was trying to get to my destination on time, so I drove maybe five miles or more over the speed limit on a winding road. Now I’m terribly concerned I have sinned mortally. I just went to confession that morning, it doesn’t seem like I would commit a mortal sin so soon. Am I being scrupulous?

I think it’s hard to keep our feet on the gas pedal to go the exact speed. The police allow for 5-9 miles over the limit–and that is still considered legal. I live in Florida where there is a speed limit posted…but totally ignored. I am a slower driver by nature, but it’s good to be concerned with your safety and others around you. When I see people doing 90 mph…or something like that…(it appears that way anyways) I say to myself…‘this person (I don’t care of their reasons) really doesn’t care about the safety of others on the road.’ You simply cannot drive 25 miles over the limit, and be as attentive as if you were going the limit or 5 miles over.

I don’t think you mortally sinned…but 5 miles over the limit is not illegal either. Yes, it is over the limit–but again, we are human…and we would have to keep our eyes off the road and on the speedometer the whole time to stay right at 55 or 60…or 70…5 miles is allowable because of that.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The burden of proof is almost always on the proseuction, plaintiff, petitioner, etc. I don’t need to offer proof since I’m defending the issue of being able to speed without fear of sin. I just need to provide doubt.

This isn’t a jury trial; it’s a debate in which, if one side makes an affirmative statement (“I think X is true”), one is obligated to back that up with more than synonyms for “I think X is true”. Otherwise, one is making bald assertions.

Using the same sources you did I came up with a different opinion. I think there is enough doubt in the issue by saying that the submit to authority means “pull over, accept the penalty (the ticket), and if you can’t fight it or convince the officer to let you off with a warning, then pay it”. Remember, traffic violations are different than misdemeanors and felonies. Drinking and driving would be sinful as would reckless speeding where you can potentially be arrested. The law doesn’t punish us for a ticket though so why should God?

Doubt is irrelevant, as I stated above.

There are many laws that permit immoral behavior – the fact that there is no significant legal penalty has no bearing on whether the act is mortally sinful. You are correct that DUI is more gravely immoral than speeding by 5 mph, but it’s not the law of the land that makes it so. Furthermore, the debate you’ve engaged in here is not about degrees of gravity in speeding – it’s about whether speeding is immoral.

I also want to argue that I think the submit to authority and actual committing of a sin or crime are two separate acts. In my opinion, even if you kill someone and then are sorry for your sin, turn yourself in, accept your punishment, which probably will be a lot of prison time, you have not sinned against the submit to authority issue. Murder is your only sin. Where as if you kill someone, and the police are looking for you, and you then take a hostage or something of the sort in an effort to escape, now you have committed three sins. You have committed murder, you have threatened the life of another as a hostage and you have refused to submit to authority.

The submission to authority is not necessarily an isolated act – it’s more of a state of mind, it would seem. That is, a refusal to submit to authority because “I don’t feel like it” or “everyone else is doing it” or “it’s not that big a deal”, or what have you.

Is speeding inherently immoral? No. Is it immoral to refuse to submit to legitimate authority? Yes. Does this pertain to speeding? Perhaps. THAT is the question.

If the issues are separate the only remaining question is whether God considers speeding to be sinful. I would argue it depends on the situation but in most cases the answer would be no. As I mentioned, if the law doesn’t think it necessary to penalize a person more than a simple fine, I don’t see how God considers it sinful.

Throwing out the separate issues notion, I would agree with you insofar as the situation may dictate the gravity of speeding. Again, though, there are many immoral (even gravely so) actions which carry no legal repercussions (abortion, fornication, uncharitability, blasphemy, etc.), so a lack of a legal penalty should not be a benchmark for the morality of a possible course of action.

Peace,
Dante

 

[armywife]

When I see people doing 90 mph…or something like that…(it appears that way anyways) I say to myself…‘this person (I don’t care of their reasons) really doesn’t care about the safety of others on the road.’ You simply cannot drive 25 miles over the limit, and be as attentive as if you were going the limit or 5 miles over.quote]

I have been lurking on this thread and wasn’t going to post, but I have to take issue with this. We’ve been stationed for the last six years in Europe, where people drive well over 90mph every day. And I mean WELL over. Actuall 80-90mph is a good cruising speed for most people. My husband often got the car up to 120 or so and I drove our mini van at 100. There are actually fewer accidents on the Autobahn than anywhere else. They can drive faster because TRAFFIC(ie. passing, traveling/passing lanes etc.) laws are very strictly enforced so because of that the speed isn’t an issue.

Back to the original topic, I think the OP is being scrupulous. And I also don’t think speeding is a sinful thing unless one is putting anothers life in danger.

 

[wjp984]

Throwing out the separate issues notion, I would agree with you insofar as the situation may dictate the gravity of speeding. Again, though, there are many immoral (even gravely so) actions which carry no legal repercussions (abortion, fornication, uncharitability, blasphemy, etc.), so a lack of a legal penalty should not be a benchmark for the morality of a possible course of action.

Peace,
Dante

and likewise, the creation of a legal penalty should not be a course of action for something to be sinful.

 

[dbacks5439]

I once went 76 in a 55 mph zone…got off with a warning.

My proudest moment

 

[DanteAlighieri]

and likewise, the creation of a legal penalty should not be a course of action for something to be sinful.

That was never a part of my position, and thus is completely irrelevant to the debate.

Please do respond to what I did say in my previous post, however.

Peace,
Dante

 

[whatevergirl]

whatevergirl;2861044:

When I see people doing 90 mph…or something like that…(it appears that way anyways) I say to myself…‘this person (I don’t care of their reasons) really doesn’t care about the safety of others on the road.’ You simply cannot drive 25 miles over the limit, and be as attentive as if you were going the limit or 5 miles over.quote]

I have been lurking on this thread and wasn’t going to post, but I have to take issue with this. We’ve been stationed for the last six years in Europe, where people drive well over 90mph every day. And I mean WELL over. Actuall 80-90mph is a good cruising speed for most people. My husband often got the car up to 120 or so and I drove our mini van at 100. There are actually fewer accidents on the Autobahn than anywhere else. They can drive faster because TRAFFIC(ie. passing, traveling/passing lanes etc.) laws are very strictly enforced so because of that the speed isn’t an issue.

Back to the original topic, I think the OP is being scrupulous. And I also don’t think speeding is a sinful thing unless one is putting anothers life in danger.

Thanks for your post. In Florida, there a so many fatal accidents, because too many people are on the roads, driving 90 and above.

 

[CarrieH]

You drove above the speed limit for a reason, not because you had a rebellious spirit about it. As long as you did not endanger anyone’s safety (conditions were OK for the speed you were driving, there wasn’t a school bus full of kids right there, etc.), it is venially sinful at worst.

 

[wjp984]

I once went 76 in a 55 mph zone…got off with a warning.

My proudest moment

I think I have that beat. I once was going well over the speed limit in a 65 zone, had the lights flashed on me so I exited the freeway. I then proceeded to go the wrong way on a one way street before having the officer’s loudspeaker say “what are you doing? Pull into that gas station.” I did and said how I really just don’t care what you want to do with me since my life can’t get any worse. (I was in a really bad mood for various reasons at the time) The officer felt bad and let me off with a warning.

Then another time I was doing maybe 80 at most downhill in a 65 zone with a much better excuse. The officer couldn’t care less and still gave me a ticket. My one and only ticket. I wasn’t even trying to speed that time and was just daydreaming looking at the scenery. I was so upset.

 

[wjp984]

That was never a part of my position, and thus is completely irrelevant to the debate.

Please do respond to what I did say in my previous post, however.

Peace,
Dante

I never said it was. You said, "Throwing out the separate issues notion, I would agree with you insofar as the situation may dictate the gravity of speeding. Again, though, there are many immoral (even gravely so) actions which carry no legal repercussions (abortion, fornication, uncharitability, blasphemy, etc.), so a lack of a legal penalty should not be a benchmark for the morality of a possible course of action."

I responded with “and likewise, the creation of a legal penalty should not be a course of action for something to be sinful”

Or if you want me to use your direct words.

And likewise, the creation of a legal penalty should not be the benchmark for the morality of a possible course of action.

 

[wjp984]

This isn’t a jury trial; it’s a debate in which, if one side makes an affirmative statement (“I think X is true”), one is obligated to back that up with more than synonyms for “I think X is true”. Otherwise, one is making bald assertions.

Doubt is irrelevant, as I stated above.

There are many laws that permit immoral behavior – the fact that there is no significant legal penalty has no bearing on whether the act is mortally sinful. You are correct that DUI is more gravely immoral than speeding by 5 mph, but it’s not the law of the land that makes it so. Furthermore, the debate you’ve engaged in here is not about degrees of gravity in speeding – it’s about whether speeding is immoral.

The submission to authority is not necessarily an isolated act – it’s more of a state of mind, it would seem. That is, a refusal to submit to authority because “I don’t feel like it” or “everyone else is doing it” or “it’s not that big a deal”, or what have you.

Is speeding inherently immoral? No. Is it immoral to refuse to submit to legitimate authority? Yes. Does this pertain to speeding? Perhaps. THAT is the question.

Throwing out the separate issues notion, I would agree with you insofar as the situation may dictate the gravity of speeding. Again, though, there are many immoral (even gravely so) actions which carry no legal repercussions (abortion, fornication, uncharitability, blasphemy, etc.), so a lack of a legal penalty should not be a benchmark for the morality of a possible course of action.

Peace,
Dante

In regards to the rest of your post I would argue that while this may be a debate, the rules are more similar to a trial with reasonable doubt. You argue I am guilty of a sin by intentionally and willfully speeding knowing exactly what I am doing because the law states that I may receive a penalty, which is a simple fine, if I am caught. I argue that there is no sin and that I am therefore innocent before God and don’t have to worry about this action staining my soul at my final judgment. You have not simply challenged one of my beliefs but imply that I have sinned, so I think I therefore have a little more leeway and can apply the rules of a trial and reasonable doubt to this debate. I am not challenging your belief. I am not saying that you are wrong for not speeding. In fact, I would say you are spirtually as well as phyiscally better off for not speeding since it is safer and you don’t have to worry about watching for cops and worrying about paying a fine and stuff. I am simply saying that it is not required of me or anyone else who chooses to speed. I am defending our right to speed without fear of sin. I am not suggesting it as a good thing. I think everyone should drive safely, but if you are in the middle of nowhere, and want to go faster, safely, then go ahead without fear of sin. Just make sure you are willing to accept the fact that you may have to pay a fine and submit to the authority who imposes it.

Under this context, since I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but only that I am not guilty of sin, I only need to provide doubt. The burden would be on you to prove to me that my actions are sinful. I only need to respond to your accusations with why I think the reasoning is flawed and that may or may not include additional facts or reasoning.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

In regards to the rest of your post I would argue that while this may be a debate, the rules are more similar to a trial with reasonable doubt. You argue I am guilty of a sin by intentionally and willfully speeding knowing exactly what I am doing because the law states that I may receive a penalty, which is a simple fine, if I am caught. I argue that there is no sin and that I am therefore innocent before God and don’t have to worry about this action staining my soul at my final judgment. You have not simply challenged one of my beliefs but imply that I have sinned, so I think I therefore have a little more leeway and can apply the rules of a trial and reasonable doubt to this debate. I am not challenging your belief. I am not saying that you are wrong for not speeding. In fact, I would say you are spirtually as well as phyiscally better off for not speeding since it is safer and you don’t have to worry about watching for cops and worrying about paying a fine and stuff. I am simply saying that it is not required of me or anyone else who chooses to speed. I am defending our right to speed without fear of sin. I am not suggesting it as a good thing. I think everyone should drive safely, but if you are in the middle of nowhere, and want to go faster, safely, then go ahead without fear of sin. Just make sure you are willing to accept the fact that you may have to pay a fine and submit to the authority who imposes it.

Under this context, since I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong, but only that I am not guilty of sin, I only need to provide doubt. The burden would be on you to prove to me that my actions are sinful. I only need to respond to your accusations with why I think the reasoning is flawed and that may or may not include additional facts or reasoning.

Point taken - but I wasn’t trying to established that you have sinned. I’m not accusing you; I’m merely debating the objective sinfulness of speeding, of which I am as guilty as the next guy. Therefore, trying to establish doubt does not support your position, which you framed as (to paraphrase) “There is no sin in speeding”.

If you are going to assert this, then please provide support for it. The OP is asking whether he has sinned mortally, and all you’ve said is the equivalent of “I don’t think so”.

Why not?

Peace,
Dante

 

[wjp984]

Since speeding is not inherently immoral. I think I did legitimately answer the question. I said how I think speeding and being caught is like a penalty in a football game. I then went on to say how one can interpret the submit to authority clause differently. What part of the question did I not answer?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Since speeding is not inherently immoral. I think I did legitimately answer the question. I said how I think speeding and being caught is like a penalty in a football game. I then went on to say how one can interpret the submit to authority clause differently. What part of the question did I not answer?

The football penalty analogy does not address the morality of breaking the law by speeding. We agree that speeding, in and of itself, is not inherently immoral (given that one is not also reckless). But that does not cover the morality issue raised by the fact that one is breaking the law when one speeds. Your analogy fails to address, let alone answer, that point.

Peace,
Dante

 

[wjp984]

The football penalty analogy does not address the morality of breaking the law by speeding. We agree that speeding, in and of itself, is not inherently immoral (given that one is not also reckless). But that does not cover the morality issue raised by the fact that one is breaking the law when one speeds. Your analogy fails to address, let alone answer, that point.

Peace,
Dante

Oh but it does. One is breaking the laws of the football game when they receive a penalty. The ref is your authority and you must submnit to him.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Oh but it does. One is breaking the laws of the football game when they receive a penalty. The ref is your authority and you must submnit to him.

This is not the way your presentation of the analogy reads. Rather, it comes off as suggesting that the morality of speeding is on the same level as that of committing a foul in football and incurring a penalty.

If something is immoral, even if it’s not very grave, the offense is overwhelmingly greater than jumping offsides or holding a blitzing linebacker, because the immoral act is a sin against God, whereas the foul in football is merely a transgression of the agreed-upon rules of a game.

Furthermore, this most recent interpretation of the football analogy doesn’t hold water, either, because the duty to submit to authority to which I have been referring is that which applies to rightful civil and legal authorities:

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.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…

Peace,
Dante

 

[wjp984]

Ya and the rules of the road say you can’t speed. Just like the rules of a football game say you can’t bring a guy down by his face mask. I am dumbing down the issue. I am not directly comparing speeding to a football game penalty. I just think the football game is the best way to dumb down the issue so others can understand my point of view. I am saying that there is a difference between rules and sins. Here is my point in analogy:

It is not sinful to speed
It is not sinful to commit an illegal block in a football game

It is sinful to not sumbit to authority, (pull over when the cops asks, and accept your penalty or go through a legal process of fighting it) It would be sinful to go off on a police chase

It is sinful to tell the ref you think he is full of it and then sock him saying you didn’t committ any illegal block.

You are not sinning by obeying authority. In fact, I would even go this far as to say it goes both ways. If you are accused of murder, and you really didn’t do it, it would be sinful for you to endanger the lives of others by refusing to submit to authority. You can use legal means to turn yourself in and defend yourself. It would be sinful to take a hostage or something in order to escape even if you are innocent of the crime you are acused of. Likewise, if you murder someone and turn yourself in and are sent to prison, you may have committed the sin of murder, but you did not sin against authority. They are separate issues.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Ya and the rules of the road say you can’t speed. Just like the rules of a football game say you can’t bring a guy down by his face mask. I am dumbing down the issue. I am not directly comparing speeding to a football game penalty. I just think the football game is the best way to dumb down the issue so others can understand my point of view. I am saying that there is a difference between rules and sins. Here is my point in analogy:

It is not sinful to speed
It is not sinful to commit an illegal block in a football game

It is sinful to not sumbit to authority, (pull over when the cops asks, and accept your penalty or go through a legal process of fighting it) It would be sinful to go off on a police chase

It is sinful to tell the ref you think he is full of it and then sock him saying you didn’t committ any illegal block.

You are not sinning by obeying authority. In fact, I would even go this far as to say it goes both ways. If you are accused of murder, and you really didn’t do it, it would be sinful for you to endanger the lives of others by refusing to submit to authority. You can use legal means to turn yourself in and defend yourself. It would be sinful to take a hostage or something in order to escape even if you are innocent of the crime you are acused of. Likewise, if you murder someone and turn yourself in and are sent to prison, you may have committed the sin of murder, but you did not sin against authority. They are separate issues.

You’re getting dangerously close to saying “It’s not a sin unless you get caught”!

Let’s look at another example that the Church does not specifically forbid: illegally downloading music or software. The law in the US provides stiff fines and even prison time for people who pirate music and software, but the Church does not rule on the issue. Is it then not immoral to download music (a morally neutral act) if it entails breaking the law (an immoral act)?

Peace,
Dante

 

[wjp984]

You’re getting dangerously close to saying “It’s not a sin unless you get caught”!

Let’s look at another example that the Church does not specifically forbid: illegally downloading music or software. The law in the US provides stiff fines and even prison time for people who pirate music and software, but the Church does not rule on the issue. Is it then not immoral to download music (a morally neutral act) if it entails breaking the law (an immoral act)?

Peace,
Dante

The church does specifically forbid stealing though and downloading music illegally is stealing so I disagree with you saying that illegally downloading music is a morally neutral act. And the its not a sin unless you get caught would never work since you can’t hide anything from God. I just don’t believe speeding to be sinful. Now I have heard the phrase its not illegal unless you get caught jokingly by my dad when he teases me about being afraid of making an illegal u-turn. My dad does them all the time. I just tell my dad that if he wants to pay the ticket then I’ll make the illegal u-turn. I have a fear of making illegal u-trns since they take a long time and it is too hard to spot cops in the area since there are too many seconds of vulnerability when you are in the illegal act. My only excuse is the I’m from out of town and am lost which actually has worked for me before so occasionally I will break traffic laws in areas unknown to me. My dad speeds and does illegal u-turns and stuff all the time since he says the opportunity costs of getting a ticket once and a while are worth less than the time he saves. My dad is an executive so he makes enough money for this to be true.