"Force Majeure" Clauses

[Coder]

The name God is apparently not held to be unspeakable or spelled G-D by anyone except observant Jews.

Hi,

I don’t see that in my posts that I refer to the speakability of the name of God as the point. Consider a rainstorm that causes flooding. Parties to a legal document cannot claim to know the mind of God and that He decided to act and cause a flood. I see that as blasphemous. If you have snow in your driveway, you should not claim to know that God acted specifically to cause this. This is all part of the mystery of His creation and we can’t claim to say that He acted specifically to cause a flood or a snowstorm. We have no right to say such. I don’t see how this is not wrong.

For those who say “well we know what it means” then that’s a general problem also. There are many uses of God’s name that are too common and trivialize and abuse His name. St. Paul speaks of people becoming callous. 2 Tim 2-5
usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy3.htm

See how often the name of God is abused in movies.

The Catechism makes it clear that we are to praise and honor God by use of His name.

Jesus taught us the Our Father and in the first sentence He teaches us that the name of God is Hallowed. When we speak it we must mean it. His name is serious and holy and we humans have no right to trivialize and abuse it for our legal documents. I think it would be better to ask God for His blessing and guidance for whatever legal interest we are protecting (e.g. our business). I think this has to do with order versus disorder in our understanding of our relationship with God.

Perhaps such use of the name of God in legal documents is not blasphemous to a very serious degree, however, I see it as wrong and blasphemous to some degree. In order to understand I think people need to look more deeply at why the name of God is sacred.

The word “respect” means to “re-spect” i.e. to re-look or to look again i.e. think again. We tell people who support abortion to repsect life because they need to stop and think again and “re-look” at what they are supporting.

 

[thistle]

Hi,

I don’t see that in my posts that I refer to the speakability of the name of God as the point. Consider a rainstorm that causes flooding. Parties to a legal document cannot claim to know the mind of God and that He decided to act and cause a flood. I see that as blasphemous. If you have snow in your driveway, you should not claim to know that God acted specifically to cause this. This is all part of the mystery of His creation and we can’t claim to say that He acted specifically to cause a flood or a snowstorm. We have no right to say such. I don’t see how this is not wrong.

For those who say “well we know what it means” then that’s a general problem also. There are many uses of God’s name that are too common and trivialize and abuse His name. St. Paul speaks of people becoming callous. 2 Tim 2-5
usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy3.htm

See how often the name of God is abused in movies.

The Catechism makes it clear that we are to praise and honor God by use of His name.

Jesus taught us the Our Father and in the first sentence He teaches us that the name of God is Hallowed. When we speak it we must mean it. His name is serious and holy and we humans have no right to trivialize and abuse it for our legal documents. I think it would be better to ask God for His blessing and guidance for whatever legal interest we are protecting (e.g. our business). I think this has to do with order versus disorder in our understanding of our relationship with God.

Perhaps such use of the name of God in legal documents is not blasphemous to a very serious degree, however, I see it as wrong and blasphemous to some degree. In order to understand I think people need to look more deeply at why the name of God is sacred.

The word “respect” means to “re-spect” i.e. to re-look or to look again i.e. think again. We tell people who support abortion to repsect life because they need to stop and think again and “re-look” at what they are supporting.

You are wrong. How many people have to tell you that force majeure clauses are not blasphemous. Not a single person agrees with you. Doesn’t that tell you something?

 

[LRThunder]

I’m surprised the atheists haven’t gotten that removed from the legal codes yet. I don’t see how attributing the powers of nature to God is anything negative.

They probably won’t want to have that term removed since it is associated with a major disaster. Anything to make God look bad (even if they don’t believe in God) is fine in their eyes.

 

[Valke2]

A U.S. governer sought that such use of God’s name be removed from a document before he would sign it.

Does he also insist that “In God We Trust” be removed from all his money?

 

[Mirdath]

They probably won’t want to have that term removed since it is associated with a major disaster. Anything to make God look bad (even if they don’t believe in God) is fine in their eyes.

yourself. Won’t be needing car insurance if God replaces all our automobiles with teleporters!

 

[Coder]

Not a single person agrees with you.

Hi Thistle,

(I think your fact there may be a bit in error/overstated.) It is Catholic teaching that truth is not decided by a vote.

I welcome you to address the points I made in my previous post.

 

[Coder]

Does he also insist that “In God We Trust” be removed from all his money?

Hi Valke, I think the phrase “In God We Trust” is a respectful use of God’s name. Perhaps one of its main intentions was to remind us that we don’t trust in money but rather we trust in Our Father.

 

[Valke2]

Hi Valke, I think the phrase “In God We Trust” is a respectful use of God’s name. Perhaps one of its main intentions was to remind us that we don’t trust in money but rather we trust in Our Father.

ok. THere’s nothing disresptful in a “Act of God” clause. Yes, a sunny day is also an act of God, but a sunny day isn’t going to damage your building, so there is no need to carve out an exception for sunny days. The Act of God or Force Majeure clauses are there to cover unforseen events, including war.

I don’t see how it is disrespectful to God. It is a term of art. In any event, contracts are generally private matters that are negotiated between the parties. If you feel more comfortable taking out the words “acts of God”, you are free to do so. But the fact is that once a phrase makes its way into common usage in contracts, most people are loath to remove it. Better to keep it in rather than risk weakening the language.

 

[Coder]

Yes, a sunny day is also an act of God, but a sunny day isn’t going to damage your building, so there is no need to carve out an exception for sunny days.

Actually I think this illustrates my point. The point is that whether it be a sunny day or a rainstorm that floods the basement, we have no basis to distiguish one as an act of God any more than the other. Therefore the focus of the legal document should not be about what is an act of God but rather events that are damaging vs. events that are not. Since there is no knowledge of an exceptional act of God in a damaging event then using His holy name serves no purpose. I think the use of the holy name of God for no purpose is a form of using His name in vain. The fact that “we all know what it means” does not make it right. The name of God does not belong in a mere expresssion of speech that really does not require His name for the meaning of the expression.

I also point out that the use of the name of God in this way is similar to how one might speak if they claimed to have knowledge that damaging events in particular are acts of God. I see this as blasphemous although it may not be blasphemous to a very serious degree since it is not intended this way. Still, we must remember that just because something isn’t intended in a bad way does not mean that the name of God can be used improperly.

 

[thistle]

Hi Thistle,

(I think your fact there may be a bit in error/overstated.) It is Catholic teaching that truth is not decided by a vote.

I welcome you to address the points I made in my previous post.

It is NOT a Catholic teaching that force majeure clauses are blasphemous. That is just a blatant lie.

 

[Valke2]

Actually I think this illustrates my point. The point is that whether it be a sunny day or a rainstorm that floods the basement, we have no basis to distiguish one as an act of God any more than the other. Therefore the focus of the legal document should not be about what is an act of God but rather events that are damaging vs. events that are not. Since there is no knowledge of an exceptional act of God in a damaging event then using His holy name serves no purpose. I think the use of the holy name of God for no purpose is a form of using His name in vain. The fact that “we all know what it means” does not make it right. The name of God does not belong in a mere expresssion of speech that really does not require His name for the meaning of the expression.

I also point out that the use of the name of God in this way is similar to how one might speak if they claimed to have knowledge that damaging events in particular are acts of God. I see this as blasphemous although it may not be blasphemous to a very serious degree since it is not intended this way. Still, we must remember that just because something isn’t intended in a bad way does not mean that the name of God can be used improperly.

God is not His holy name, so that shouldn’t be an issue. “In God we Trust” is a mere expression of speech (put on our paper money in a response to Communism). Using the name God in a contract may not serve a purpose but that doesn’t make it blasephamous.

If I thank God for a beautiful day, am I implying that God only makes beautiful days and is not responsible for the other days? Or if I say God is merciful am I implying that He is only merciful?

 

[beckers]

Actually I think this illustrates my point. The point is that whether it be a sunny day or a rainstorm that floods the basement, we have no basis to distiguish one as an act of God any more than the other. Therefore the focus of the legal document should not be about what is an act of God but rather events that are damaging vs. events that are not. Since there is no knowledge of an exceptional act of God in a damaging event then using His holy name serves no purpose. I think the use of the holy name of God for no purpose is a form of using His name in vain. The fact that “we all know what it means” does not make it right. The name of God does not belong in a mere expresssion of speech that really does not require His name for the meaning of the expression.

I also point out that the use of the name of God in this way is similar to how one might speak if they claimed to have knowledge that damaging events in particular are acts of God. I see this as blasphemous although it may not be blasphemous to a very serious degree since it is not intended this way. Still, we must remember that just because something isn’t intended in a bad way does not mean that the name of God can be used improperly.

I am confused. Did God not design the way that weather and nature works? Yes bad things happen from nature but also good things. Would you be happier with “Acts that come from God’s Master Design”?

As someone who has to write that phrase everyday in my job, i have never seen it as something evil. It simple implies that the Sucbontractor is not going to be liable for issues that are out of their hands. When your working on multi-million dollar projects a Contractor can hit you with huge fines if the project is delayed. You have to make sure that everyone knows that as a subcontractor you can’t dictate the weather nor unforeseen accidents inovling other parties that have an effect on the project, therfore Subcontractor is not paying any of the fines for the delay. It’s puts responibility on the party who caused the delay. If it is an “Act of God” then the delay is no ones’ fault and no one gets fined.

 

[Coder]

It is NOT a Catholic teaching that force majeure clauses are blasphemous.

Hi Thistle, I did not make that statement. I do think that using the name of God in the way that it is used in force Majeure clauses is not right for the reasons I have stated. Perhaps some Catholics including clergy share my thoughts about this, but I am not aware of any official Church teaching regarding this. One of the Ten Commandments and the Catechism do teach us that the name of God is to be used respectfully and properly.

 

[Coder]

“In God we Trust” is a mere expression of speech…

Not in the way that “acts of God” is. “Acts of God” is a misrepresentation that needs to be understood by its use as an expression. In God we Trust has a direct meaning and I have no knowledge that it was not intended seriously.

If I thank God for a beautiful day, am I implying that God only makes beautiful days and is not responsible for the other days?

If you said we can only go to the beach on days that are “acts of God” then yes you would be implying that only sunny days are acts of God. This is the manner of speaking that is used by the legal clause.

 

[Coder]

If it is an “Act of God” then the delay is no ones’ fault and no one gets fined.

Hi Beckers, the contracts could simply read (for example) that we cannot be held liable for events that we do not control such as rainy weather.

Both inclement and good weather are all part of the natural world created by God so to refer to only weather that is not suitable for certain work as an “act of God” is a misstatement and I think not a respectful use of the name of God.

 

[beckers]

Hi Beckers, the contracts could simply read (for example) that we cannot be held liable for events that we do not control such as rainy weather.

Both inclement and good weather are all part of the natural world created by God so to refer to only weather that is not suitable for certain work as an “act of God” is a misstatement and I think not a respectful use of the name of God.

Well “Acts of God” is more than just the weather. What about an earthquake or a freeway being damaged or an terriost threat or a fire somewhere else that causes issues to the project? There are tons of things that fall underneath “acts of God”. Acts of God is a simple way to acknowledge that there might be unforeseenable issue that no one can control that might delay the project and that no one should be held accountable for those delays.

Its not disrespectful for people and business to acknowldge that they can’t control everything and therfore acknowldge that God is in control…

 

[Coder]

Hi Beckers and Happy Easter!

These legal documents basically categorize events that interfere with business as acts of God. I see that as disrespectful. The universe and the earth was created by God. You may refer to my previous posts.

 

[Coder]

Consider an ordinary rainstorm. Is a rainstorm an act of God?

It the subjection of humans to danger from adverse weather and earthly events due to original sin? Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think that there was any such danger to Adam and Eve before original sin.

 

[otjm]

The name of God is commonly used in legal documents when referring to events such as a storm. For example, many Terms or Service or similar agreements of web hosters and domain name providers use the name of God in this way. I think such clauses should use terminology such as “events beyond our control”.

God is the author of all nature so I don’t see how it is acceptable to refer to God as though He causes major natural events in particular. Also I think to use the name of God in such a way in a legal document is disordered since God is above human activity. How are we to think about signing such documents? Can we agree to/sign such documents without at the same time saying that we accept this way of referring to God?

Disordered? That is a bit over the top. God is not above human activity (which, by the way is not the subject of your posts - natural events is the subject; human activity results in a human event, not a natural event) because we believe in the power of God to intervene - we call them miracles. Nor it it out of the realm of theology to believe that God could influence natural events; a short perusal of the Old Testmanet should be enough to deal with that issue (unless you are a deconstructionist who insists that such things as miracles are only events which humans are incapable of understanding causation, and therefore “blame” it on God).

You don’t know what to do when signing?

Press hard; the third copy is yours.

 

[Coder]

Hi, you and others might find this thread interesting as a pursuit of a related philosophical question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=335814