"Grave Matter" to violate any just law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter new_User1357246
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

new_User1357246

Guest
I was wondering whether or not the violation of (any) law that does not go against church teaching a “grave matter”?

If not all are, how can we tell? The size of the penalty? The social connotations of violating the law?
 
new_User1357246 said:
I was wondering whether or not the violation of (any) law that does not go against church teaching a “grave matter”?

If not all are, how can we tell? The size of the penalty? The social connotations of violating the law?
Click to expand...
Give us an example.
 
Here are a few:

Intentional speeding, for example, 75mph where 70mph is the speed limit.

Underage Alcohol Consumption, no driving, drunkeness, etc.

Intentionally parking where it is illegal to park

Sneaking into a second movie without paying (this one may be immoral for other reasons)

Jaywalking
 
This has been discussed many times before. I personally take a liberal opinion on the matter and think that nothing is sinful unless it violates God’s law. Therefore, in my opinion the first things you mentioned would not be sinful.

The opposing side will state how we are to obey authority and the law unless it is in violation of God’s law. They will cite several parts of the catechism or maybe even statements of the church fathers. They might even say it is a grave matter to willfully and intentionally disobey a just law.

However, where I disagree is on the meaning of submit to authority. The opposing side will state it means the unlawful act is a sin where as I think it is only sinful if you try and resist authority by causing a police car chase or endangering the lives of others by your unlawful act. 75 in a 70 would not be doing this but 100 in a 70 might. Basically, pull over, suck it up and pay the fine and it probably is not sinful.

Even so, please do not rely on my opinion in forming your own conscience. Opposing side makes good arguments and I respect them. I just personally do not see my opinion as endangering my soul and therefore it is not on my conscience. You need to decide this for yourself.

Finally, as you correctly stated, sneaking into a second movie is sinful for other reasons as this is stealing and therefore breaking both God’s law and man’s law.
 
Yes, I would argue that respect for authority is covered in the 10 commamdments (honor thy father and mother) and to willingly break a law is to disrespect the government’s legislative authority. Therfore I believe that we must follow our country’s laws unless they violate God’s law.

As far as grave matter goes, however, I’m really not sure.
 
new_User1357246 said:
Intentional speeding, for example, 75mph where 70mph is the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Don’t quote me on this, but that’s not actually illegal, I think. IIRC, +/-10% of the speed limit is still considered driving responsibly.
Jaywalking
Click to expand...
If this is a mortal sin, all of Boston had better jaywalk to the confessional ASAP. 😉
 
Jimmy Akin wrote an article on this. If I or anyone else finds it it would be worth linking to.

Not entirely sure if he addresses whether or not it would be grave matter though, but I say, use your common sense. Murder is grave. Sneaking in to see a second movie, I highly doubt it would be grave.
 
That is a very interesting article. Who is Jimmy Akin?

So he is saying that if the law isn’t enforced to a certain point, it is morraly permissible to violate the law up to that point? So then it would be ok for someone under the age of the legal drinking age to consume alcohol in small amounts?
 
BlaineTog said:
Don’t quote me on this, but that’s not actually illegal, I think. IIRC, +/-10% of the speed limit is still considered driving responsibly.
Click to expand...
Sinful, no.

Illegal, yes. It’s simply a matter of police discretion. I personally don’t stop anyone unless it’s 15+ over, but if the next guy down the road stops you for 9 over, that’s his choice.
 
Caesar517 said:
So he is saying that if the law isn’t enforced to a certain point, it is morraly permissible to violate the law up to that point? So then it would be ok for someone under the age of the legal drinking age to consume alcohol in small amounts?
Click to expand...
Again, you can argue whether or not that is sinful. Also, don’t forget that it is legal for underage persons to drink alcohol in certain situations in certain states.

However, irregarless of the age, drinking to drunkeness is sinful and could become grave matter.

As to whether or not one could morally ignore any law, the more I think about it, the more it should probably be discussed with someone’s confessor.
 
new_User1357246 said:
I was wondering whether or not the violation of (any) law that does not go against church teaching a “grave matter”?

If not all are, how can we tell? The size of the penalty? The social connotations of violating the law?
Click to expand...
It depends on whether the harm caused is ‘grave’ meaning serious. So, no, it isn’t grave matter to break a small law. For example, speeding a little bit (when it’s reasonable and everyone else is speeding) or not signalling a turn when no one else is around, for example.
 
new_User1357246 said:
Here are a few:

Intentional speeding, for example, 75mph where 70mph is the speed limit.
Click to expand...
Not grave, assuming good traffic and road conditions.
new_User1357246 said:
Underage Alcohol Consumption, no driving, drunkeness, etc.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly grave, because this can lead to all sorts of sin, as well as to alcoholism.
new_User1357246 said:
Intentionally parking where it is illegal to park
Click to expand...
Probably not grave, unless you’re causing someone serious inconvenience, anger, or danger (e.g. parking in a fire lane, or parking blocking someone’s driveway).
new_User1357246 said:
Sneaking into a second movie without paying (this one may be immoral for other reasons)
Click to expand...
This is stealing. Because of the dollar amount of the movie, it might not be grave, however if you make a habit of doing that, enough venial sins can add up to a mortal sin.
new_User1357246 said:
Jaywalking
Click to expand...
If you’re talking about crossing the street carefully where there is no crosswalk, and being respectful to car traffic, it’s probably venial. If you just run out into traffic and make other people slam on their brakes, causing danger, that would be mortal.

The word ‘grave’ is a bit subjective and for cases where it’s hard to say if the harm to others is minor or serious, it would be best to consult your priest in confession.

Just my layman’s opinion 🙂 The book “The Faith Explained” by Fr. Leo J. Trese gives lots of examples of different sins and knowing which are grave or venial, and I recommend the book to you if you want to get a better understanding. 🙂

These examples have been easy because most of them fall under moral rules, not just legal. If you’re talking about laws which have no moral implications, then you would have to look at the punishments given out for breaking the laws, and decide whether they are serious punishments like jail, huge fines, criminal records , being taken to the police station (grave) or minor punishments (warnings, traffic tickets, misdemeanors).
 
The old principal I learned in moral theology was that as long as the action or omission was not against God’s law, the Natural Law, it was not a sin to disobey a civil law. One must however be willing to accept the consequences, jail time, fines, etc. if imposed for flouting the civil law.

Thus things like murder, assault, stealing, major cheating on income tax, very excessive speed when driving, being drunk would very much be sinful. While five miles over the limit, a single underage alcoholic drink, hunting out of season and the like would not.
 
Caesar517 said:
That is a very interesting article. Who is Jimmy Akin?

So he is saying that if the law isn’t enforced to a certain point, it is morraly permissible to violate the law up to that point? So then it would be ok for someone under the age of the legal drinking age to consume alcohol in small amounts?
Click to expand...
He’s an apologist emplyed by Catholic Answers (though his blog is his own personal work not CA work). Your summary is pretty short but yeah I think one thing he’s saying is that an “unenforced law” counts as a legamoron therefore we’re not morally obliged to follow it. With the underage drinking issue, in Australia a pub could get fined even for serving an overage drinker who just forgot their ID… but if you mean drinking in a private place rather than in a pub, then it’s probably a legamoron. Note also that even if something is a legamoron thus you get off the “civil law” case, it can still be sinful for other reasons (eg, stealing copyright in small amounts is unlikely to get enforced, but it’s still breaking the 7th commandment afaik)
 
Flopfoot said:
He’s an apologist emplyed by Catholic Answers (though his blog is his own personal work not CA work). Your summary is pretty short but yeah I think one thing he’s saying is that an “unenforced law” counts as a legamoron therefore we’re not morally obliged to follow it. With the underage drinking issue, in Australia a pub could get fined even for serving an overage drinker who just forgot their ID… but if you mean drinking in a private place rather than in a pub, then it’s probably a legamoron. Note also that even if something is a legamoron thus you get off the “civil law” case, it can still be sinful for other reasons (eg, stealing copyright in small amounts is unlikely to get enforced, but it’s still breaking the 7th commandment afaik)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer. I’ve been thinking about it, I think I understand it now. I had to be sure it wasn’t just a rationalization.
 
I just thought of a new argument on why breaking laws such as speeding and maybe even underage drinking is not sinful.

Speeding is a strict liability offense. This means that regardless of your intent, you are guilty per se. Now the cop may be nice and let you off or the judge may reduce your fine, but you are still guilty if you in fact broke the law by your actions.

Correct me if I am wrong but there is no such thing as a strict liability offense in God’s law. One must aways possess the intent and desire to bring about the negative consequences that the sin will cause.

Therefore, because there is no such thing as a strict liability offense according to God then how could we possibily be sinning for breaking a law which imposes strict liabilty?
 
God knows whether we are speeding in the middle of nowhere and in no danger to anyone and therefore not sinning. Or God knows when we are weaving in and out of lanes and tailgating and therefore potentially causing harm to an individual. Basically, my conclusion is breaking a strict liability offense can not be said to be sinful unless we really did have the intent to sin and were breaking God’s law.

When I go 95 in the middle of the desert with no one on the road I have no intent to sin and if speeding were not a strict liability offense I probably would be able to argue why I should not be penalized civily should I ever get a ticket in the desert. The one ticket I recently got was going down a hill. I saw the cop, looked at my spedometer and was like, darn I’m caught. However, I had no intent to sin even though I had to pay the fine.
 
AHapka said:
Sinful, no.

Illegal, yes. It’s simply a matter of police discretion. I personally don’t stop anyone unless it’s 15+ over, but if the next guy down the road stops you for 9 over, that’s his choice.
Click to expand...
Ah, thank you!
 
So is the general consensus here that breaking these laws is not sinful at all? I had always learned that the Church taught that it was a sin not to obey civil authority (the whole “give unto Caesar” thing). Or is the general conclusion simply that it is a venial sin to violate the law? (Considering only things that, if legal, would not be sinful at all).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top