Illegal = Sin?

[pcg2]

This is an issue that came up in another thread that discussed the use of marijuana.

I take issue with many of my fellow Catholics here on CAF who hold that, just because a lawful authority has deemed a particular behavior as illegal, then it is sinful to carry out that behavior.

What of a person going 80 mph on a 65 mph freeway? A 10 year old trying a sip of his father’s beer? Jaywalking? Not wearing a seatbelt? Putting 3 people in your backseat instead of just 2?

Is it really such a cut and dry issue? Because it doesn’t seem like it is. It would seem like it depends on the particular situation, to the degree that someone violates the law, and the consequences of “breaking” that law.

What do you think of this?

 

[dcrowmik]

I take issue with many of my fellow Catholics here on CAF who hold that, just because a lawful authority has deemed a particular behavior as illegal, then it is sinful to carry out that behavior.

What of a person going 80 mph on a 65 mph freeway? A 10 year old trying a sip of his father’s beer? Jaywalking? Not wearing a seatbelt? Putting 3 people in your backseat instead of just 2?

Is it really such a cut and dry issue? Because it doesn’t seem like it is. It would seem like it depends on the particular situation, to the degree that someone violates the law, and the consequences of “breaking” that law.

What do you think of this?

From Romans, Chapter 13…

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due

Presuming the laws are just and not against the moral and natural law, one could be considered to be sinning by not following them, yes?

 

[pcg2]

From Romans, Chapter 13…

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due

Presuming the laws are just and not against the moral and natural law, one could be considered to be sinning by not following them, yes?

I agree that we should follow laws that “are just and not against the moral and natural law.” My point is that this is not a black and white issue. According to this line of logic, it is a sin to go 66 mph on a highway that requires us to go 65. What I am trying to understand is if the CC allows any leeway on this issue. You can’t tell me that it’s sinful to jaywalk across an empty road, or for a father to give his curious “underage” son a sip of his beer. Yet both of these things are, technically, against the law, and things that many people, including very good Catholics, do. So what gives?

 

[dcrowmik]

I agree that we should follow laws that “are just and not against the moral and natural law.” My point is that this is not a black and white issue. According to this line of logic, it is a sin to go 66 mph on a highway that requires us to go 65. What I am trying to understand is if the CC allows any leeway on this issue. You can’t tell me that it’s sinful to jaywalk across an empty road, or for a father to give his curious “underage” son a sip of his beer. Yet both of these things are, technically, against the law, and things that many people, including very good Catholics, do. So what gives?

Technically speaking, if a law is written and one breaks the law then, yes, one has gone against the precepts as written in Romans. Now I’m sure you’ll find in the CCC the Church lays it out this way as well (I believe there was a link in the reference to another post you gave in your original post).

The Church also teaches about reason, etc., but can’t teach on individual, minute examples for a given situation (going 66 vs. 65 on a straight and dry, deserted road, etc.) because oftentimes those have to be left to prudent judgment. However, the basic fact remains is that one has gone against what the proper authorities (as ordained by God) have promulgated.

Finally, one has to ask what the purpose is in one’s mind to go 66, to give in to curiosity, to take a shorter way across the street. Is it to do something that WE want to do just because WE want to save time for OURSELVES or give in to something about which we may be curious, or whatever? Then if we look at our intent then I think we can say that we have taken the idea of what is written for all simply does not apply for us at the given moment because we ourselves have decided that.

God gave the proper authorities the power to write the laws for the common purpose. If they wanted to write in all the infinitesimal “exceptions to the rule” you can think of, that would be their granted prerogative. In some cases they do, in most they do not.

Thus, it is black and white after all, isn’t it?

 

[BobObob]

From Romans, Chapter 13…

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
…
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

The authorities Paul was talking about were Roman authorities. Remember, the book of Romans was addressed to the Romans in particular. Thus, when Paul said “authority”, he was primarily referring to the Roman government (which hadn’t yet persecuted Christians).

Regardless, this wouldn’t really apply to a man-made government for the people and by the people. This would apply for a theocracy or some sort of monarchy or other government in which God gave a special blessing to.

Romans 13, as well as “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is overused and abused. Romans 13:1 says that there are no powers but for God and those powers ordained by God. However, extremely few powers are actually ordained by God. The Church has been given certain powers by God. Ancient Israel had authority from God through covenants. However, most civil governments are a creation of the elite (such as royalty) in that country, while a few (such as the US) were formed by contractual agreement of the representatives of the common people. Basically, most governments are formed by man to serve man’s interest.

In the US, the government was formed by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It is the contract which civil authority in the US is ultimately bound to. If they disobey it, they do not exercise authority legitimately. The US government disobeys the Constitution all the time, and thus, much of what the US government does isn’t fully legitimate.

The CCC disagrees with my position. However, the CCC is NOT infallible (although a few of the teachings in the CCC were infallible before the CCC existed). The CCC is, to a certain degree, authoritative, meaning that it is to be held as the official position of the Church (even though it could theoretically be wrong). It is possible for a Catholic to quietly disagree with particular teachings in the CCC and still be a Catholic in good standing. For more about this, see this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259

The CCC basically says that a civil law would make something sinful, unless a condition was met that negated it (an unjust law, CCC 2242). However, the CCC takes the position that all civil authority should be viewed as having a divine right to rule (CCC 2238). I strongly believe this teaching, which does not meet the conditions of papal infallibility, is flat out wrong.

If you’re driving on a 65mph road, but it happens to be safe to drive 75mph, and the risk of the civil consequences are such that you may morally take, than it wouldn’t be a sin for you to drive 75mph. However, if you are a single parent who needs to be around for your child, you may not morally do something that could put you in jail for an extended period of time, regardless of whether the thing is evil in itself, because you have a moral obligation toward the child (unless the principle of double effect comes into play).

 

[pcg2]

The authorities Paul was talking about were Roman authorities. Remember, the book of Romans was addressed to the Romans in particular. Thus, when Paul said “authority”, he was primarily referring to the Roman government (which hadn’t yet persecuted Christians).

Regardless, this wouldn’t really apply to a man-made government for the people and by the people. This would apply for a theocracy or some sort of monarchy or other government in which God gave a special blessing to.

Romans 13, as well as “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” is overused and abused. Romans 13:1 says that there are no powers but for God and those powers ordained by God. However, extremely few powers are actually ordained by God. The Church has been given certain powers by God. Ancient Israel had authority from God through covenants. However, most civil governments are a creation of the elite (such as royalty) in that country, while a few (such as the US) were formed by contractual agreement of the representatives of the common people. Basically, most governments are formed by man to serve man’s interest.

In the US, the government was formed by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It is the contract which civil authority in the US is ultimately bound to. If they disobey it, they do not exercise authority legitimately. The US government disobeys the Constitution all the time, and thus, much of what the US government does isn’t fully legitimate.

The CCC disagrees with my position. However, the CCC is NOT infallible (although a few of the teachings in the CCC were infallible before the CCC existed). The CCC is, to a certain degree, authoritative, meaning that it is to be held as the official position of the Church (even though it could theoretically be wrong). It is possible for a Catholic to quietly disagree with particular teachings in the CCC and still be a Catholic in good standing. For more about this, see this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458259

The CCC basically says that a civil law would make something sinful, unless a condition was met that negated it (an unjust law, CCC 2242). However, the CCC takes the position that all civil authority should be viewed as having a divine right to rule (CCC 2238). I strongly believe this teaching, which does not meet the conditions of papal infallibility, is flat out wrong.

If you’re driving on a 65mph road, but it happens to be safe to drive 75mph, and the risk of the civil consequences are such that you may morally take, than it wouldn’t be a sin for you to drive 75mph. However, if you are a single parent who needs to be around for your child, you may not morally do something that could put you in jail for an extended period of time, regardless of whether the thing is evil in itself, because you have a moral obligation toward the child (unless the principle of double effect comes into play).

interesting… that thread you linked was very entertaining

 

[dcrowmik]

The CCC basically says that a civil law would make something sinful, unless a condition was met that negated it (an unjust law, CCC 2242). However, the CCC takes the position that all civil authority should be viewed as having a divine right to rule (CCC 2238). I strongly believe this teaching, which does not meet the conditions of papal infallibility, is flat out wrong.

Therefore, you have affirmatively answered the original question that breaking a law is theoretically sinful.

Now, on this particular point only that is being discussed, with what do you base your viewpoint about the Church being wrong on this particular point? Isn’t there ample teaching over the centuries, not only by ancient Church Fathers but by others as well (off the top of my head I can think of St. John Chrysostom), that make your views contradictory to longstanding Church teaching? From which references/teachings do you ascribe your views?

 

[Edmundus1581]

The keyword here is always. Of course it’s not always, in every possible situation, a sin to break a just law. If I was bleeding to death, and trying to get to a hospital, I’d drive through a red light (if there was no traffic). If I was delayed in traffic, and the delay could cause serious harm to someone, and there was no way out of the traffic, then I’d call, briefly and carefully, on my cell phone (illegal in Australia)

If I had to post a letter, urgently, and didn’t have sufficient postage, then I’d send it without the right stamps.

To those who answer “yes” to this question, I wonder, what would you say if you were in desparate need of something in the post from home, and it was delayed by a 3 days because dad wouldn’t post it on Thursday without the right stamps?

Which raises another question - can it actually be a sin to cause harm, or avoid a significant good, by refusing to break a just law?

~ Edmundus

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;6962820:

The CCC basically says that a civil law would make something sinful, unless a condition was met that negated it (an unjust law, CCC 2242). However, the CCC takes the position that all civil authority should be viewed as having a divine right to rule (CCC 2238). I strongly believe this teaching, which does not meet the conditions of papal infallibility, is flat out wrong.

Therefore, you have affirmatively answered the original question that breaking a law is theoretically sinful.

I said that the CCC says that disobeying the law is a sin by default (sinful barring the law contradicting any moral value).

I said that I disagree with CCC 2238. I hold that breaking a law is sinful if the illegal action is something sinful in itself (fornication for example) or one cannot morally risk the potential legal consequences (for example, a mother of 3 young children cannot drink coffee if drinking coffee could send her to jail for 3 years, because that would unnecessarily risk the welfare of her children).

Now, on this particular point only that is being discussed, with what do you base your viewpoint about the Church being wrong on this particular point? Isn’t there ample teaching over the centuries, not only by ancient Church Fathers but by others as well (off the top of my head I can think of St. John Chrysostom), that make your views contradictory to longstanding Church teaching? From which references/teachings do you ascribe your views?

I’m not really saying the Church is wrong, since there are no formal teachings of the Catholic Church infallibly defined by the help of the Holy Spirit.

Here’s a point to consider. Do you have any evidence that hopping on one foot, walking backwards, or doing jumping jacks isn’t sinful? If you don’t, does that mean that it’s a sin?

Regarding the Church Fathers, they are fallible men. The fact that a certain number of fallible men hold a position does not mean it is true and does not make it an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

To show how it’s reasonable to hold that the law does not automatically make something sinful, consider this. Let’s say a particular populated area has no government. It has chaos. It’s a dangerous part of the world where people assault, murder, and rob people. As a response to this, many people in this area somehow manage to form a public security force as well as a body of representatives who make the rules to regulate this security force. These representatives give this force power to do certain things, such as arrest people, when a rule of this legislative body has not been followed.

In that scenario, a form of government was created. It was not created by God, but rather created by man to better the society. There is nothing about that scenario for a random person to not adhere to a rule set by the legislative body. However, one may have to put up with the consequences for breaking a rule regardless. Now apply that scenario to the American government and other governments. For the governments in which this scenario doesn’t fit, consider carefully where it’s power previously came from and currently comes from.

BTW, if breaking a particular law would hurt society, than breaking that law would be evil for that reason.

 

[GratefulFred]

I think it important to consider the word “just”

There are laws and then there are just laws.

The Nazi’s had laws. King George had laws that caused JA and TJ and the boys to write the Declaration of Independence. America had laws that caused Martin Luther King Jr to become a national hero through civil disobience. Same for Ghandi.

Our Declaration of Independence states that it is better to suffer the wrongs of government as much as we can, but there comes a time when we have to stand up and change government.

So the word “JUST” is important.

 

[Walter_Maxey]

Wow. How many of us recite speeding and jaywalking when we go to confession.

If I set my cruise-control at 4 mph (or 4 kph) over the speed limit because I know the authorities will never pull me over for that, am I a habitual sinner? And must I make a firm effort to never do that again when I go to confession?

(When will I learn not to ask questions I don’t want to know the answers to?)

 

[catholictiger]

i think it depends on the situation for example some countries may say its illegal to practice Catholicism but to break the law and practice catholicism wouldn’t be a sin.

but if its illegal to drink beer or something i think it will be a venal sin not mortal.

im not sure what to say on this issue but i would say you have to look it on a case by case basis

I think many situations where the base act may not be sinful how you may got to that act may have been sinful. Like if beer where illegal and you stole it from some storage house where they keep it or something. The drinking of the beer wouldn’t be sinful but the sinning to get the beer would be.

if you break the law i think in most cases it would be venal sin, it can only be mortal if you breaking that law is also against gods law meaning it would be mortal (you would have to meet the requirements of course)

 

[GratefulFred]

First to WALTER MAXEY: Welcome to the Forum. Hope you find it useful and that your thoughts will help others.

As to minor infractions of the the law - minor infractions would be a venial sin at most. While we can confess them and receive more grace, we are not required to confess the most minor of sins. I think I am correct in saying that they are forgiven by receiving Holy Communion worthily. If I am incorrect, I hope someone would speak up.

But there are venial sins that are more than minor and even if cleared by Communion, I feel the need to confess them. Thus, frequent confession even though I have no mortal sin to confess. My goal is to constantly improve my behavior - actions and thoughts.

There are laws that allow for sinful behavior. I feel no obligation to act according to the law when I think that that law is sinful. Nor should I be required to comply with a sinful law. Hence, the emphasis on “JUST.”

Paying taxes is not sinful. Approving abortion because it is lawful is sinful. Driving over the speed limit and with the general speed of current traffic is a minor infraction at best and probably the safer act in most cases.