Follow the law!

[retniw18]

I’m so sick of Catholics thinking that they don’t have to follow the law. The Bible and Catechism clearly tell us that we should follow laws, no matter how inconvient, unless they tell us to do something in opposition to God’s law.

We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I know it isn’t easy, but as Catholics we should do things such as drive the speed limit, not drink underage, and even things as trivial as not jaywalking.

I feel like so many people don’t understand this idea and think that as long as we aren’t doing anything morally wrong then we can break the law. It is morally wrong to break the law, except of course under certain circumstances, under the 4th commandment!

Sorry for the rant but I’m frustrated reading threads of people telling others that is okay to break the law.

 

[retniw18]

i find this interesting image interesting and applicable.

• St Thomas on what laws need in order to be just:
– the right end—they have to be for the common good
– the right author—they have to be within power of the law-giver
– the right form—they have to put burdens fairly on all

 

[ChildOfTheLight]

Which laws are you refering to?

I agree that we are called to follow laws and be as lawful as we can, but certainly you are not saying someone who, say, drives 2 miles per hour over the speed limit (technically breaking the law) has to confess it? Point is, just like there are times when anger doesn’t break the fifth commandment to the point of mortal sin, or times when inappropriate scenes in books or movies don’t break the sixth/ninth commandment to the point of mortal sin, there are certain times when breaking the law is not as sinful. Depends on the law, the circumstances, and the degree of illegality.

Remember, the catechism says to follow the law because our commandment is to respect our parents and authorities. the commandment is not to obey all man made laws, it is to obey the people who enforce them. If the laws don’t reflect what they enforce and allow…well it gets tricky.

There are also areas of the law (music online, etc.) that the technical laws in place may no longer reflect the legal society, and what authorities will count as illegal. Laws themselves are tricky.

That being said, I’m with you. I feel I should follow laws as a devout catholic. The very devout catholics I see who break the law …

 

[retniw18]

I would argue that driving 2 mph over the speed limit (unless of course you are doing so in order to remain at a safe speed with traffic around you) on purpose is a sin. Of course there are different degrees as to how bad a sin is, but if you ask any cop they will tell you it’s against the law to drive 2 over. They often cannot ticket you for this because of accuracy of radars and other technicalities, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. Of course in this case the sin would be very small, but it is still purposely not obeying authority.

 

[ChildOfTheLight]

Sorry. I realize my first post may haveegged me as very negociable about law breaking.

I DO follow the laws, and feel all catholics should, if that wasn’t clear. Going over speed limitsis wrong, but you also admit it’s a minor offence. I have spoken to priests who agree with the poster before my original post. They say the common good can sometimes make a law irrelevant, or even make it sinful to follow.

My point was, we have a duty to the authority, not their law. Sometimes it isn’t all black and white. Without knowing which laws you are refering to it is hard to comment. If they are trying to argue that we have no obligation at all to follow the laws, you only have to point them to the catechism.

Sorry if you felt my previous post was harsh.

 

[Redratfish]

I would argue that driving 2 mph over the speed limit (unless of course you are doing so in order to remain at a safe speed with traffic around you) on purpose is a sin. Of course there are different degrees as to how bad a sin is, but if you ask any cop they will tell you it’s against the law to drive 2 over. They often cannot ticket you for this because of accuracy of radars and other technicalities, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. Of course in this case the sin would be very small, but it is still purposely not obeying authority.

Using your model you gave, you can get into an argument about whether speed limits are just or not, based on the common good justification. Where there are no speed limits, crashes actually decrease. Believe it or not, people don’t want to get in wrecks, so they do there best to avoid them, even without limits.

Also, so what if you are going 2 mphs over? Using your chart again, if I am correct, it falls under the liberty category. If going 60 won’t cause a problem, going 62 won’t either. Now 20 mphs over the limit? Yes I believe that is a problem, and purposefully doing THAT is puttting others lifes at risk, which is a sin.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

i find this interesting image interesting and applicable.

• St Thomas on what laws need in order to be just:
– the right end—they have to be for the common good
– the right author—they have to be within power of the law-giver
– the right form—they have to put burdens fairly on all

I want a t-shirt with that diagram.

 

[retniw18]

Using your model you gave, you can get into an argument about whether speed limits are just or not, based on the common good justification. Where there are no speed limits, crashes actually decrease. Believe it or not, people don’t want to get in wrecks, so they do there best to avoid them, even without limits.

I’m not sure if I believe that there are less crashes where there are no speed limits. I have seen studies that showed that decreasing speed limits caused more accidents, but that’s because some people follow the lower speed limit and others do not.

It seems unlikely to me that having no speed limits decreses accidents, but if you can show me study where that’s the case I’m interested in seeing it! If this were the case I don’t think we’d bother having speed limits.

Also, so what if you are going 2 mphs over? Using your chart again, if I am correct, it falls under the liberty category. If going 60 won’t cause a problem, going 62 won’t either. Now 20 mphs over the limit? Yes I believe that is a problem, and purposefully doing THAT is puttting others lifes at risk, which is a sin.

Life and death in a car wreck is often dependent on only a few milliseconds or inches. Going even 2 mph over the speed limit could be the difference between life and death so you really can’t use the “so what” argument. We have the liberty to elect leaders that can change traffic laws, but with our liberties we have chosen the ones we have and so we have the right to follow the rules. Experts decide on the speed limits by what they consider to be safe on certain roads. The only reason these speeds are sometimes not safe is because others choose not to obey the limit.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Scripture says that ALL sin is LAWLESSNESS.
Scripture ALSO says that there is NO ONE who does NOT sin.
Therefore, ALL people without exception, are Lawbreakers.
Maybe they aren’t HABITUAL Lawbreakers, but they ARE Lawbreakers.

Many people today have repented of serious sins such as Adultery, wife-swapping,
frequent drunkenness, drug abuse, etc., and strive to walk with the LORD. Good for them. But do they know that in many locations, sins like Adultery are still, legally,
considered Crimes and are STILL on the books? The fact that these “felonies” are no longer prosecuted doesn’t change the facts. It is amazing that so many Christians are so candid about the abortions they have had in the past and repented-of. That’s good. But would they be so candid if abortion were still prosecuted for what it IS, namely, Murder? One has to doubt it.
So yes, let us obey the Law. But let’s not castigate too severely the repentant sinners.
If adultery laws were still being enforced, tens of millions of Americans would be in jail, even IF they had repented and come to Christ for forgiveness. I don’t think many Christians would be willing to submit to that kind of thing once they have gone to the Sacrament of Reconciliation. We want OTHER lawbreakers to pay for THEIR lawbreaking. We, however, want forgiveness, understanding and restoration.

 

[Nec5]

I’m not sure if I believe that there are less crashes where there are no speed limits. I have seen studies that showed that decreasing speed limits caused more accidents, but that’s because some people follow the lower speed limit and others do not.

It seems unlikely to me that having no speed limits decreses accidents, but if you can show me study where that’s the case I’m interested in seeing it! If this were the case I don’t think we’d bother having speed limits.

Really? You think the police and counties will simply give up that money and control? Just like at the TSA and their fondling of innocents.

Divine law must be followed. The other laws must be tolerated or disobeyed depending on the particular law in relation to divine law.