Is breaking the law a sin?

[BrandonR]

Hi, I’m wondering if it’s a sin to break laws (not God’s laws, people’s laws). I know that the more serious offenses such as murder and stealing are obviously sins, but what about other laws that vary by region of the world? For example, the drinking age in many countries is sixteen or even less than that, but in the USA its 21, how can it be okay for some people to drink when sixteen but for others it’s a sin simply because of where they live, drinking in moderation of course.

Thanks

 

[flyingfish]

Hi, I’m wondering if it’s a sin to break laws (not God’s laws, people’s laws). I know that the more serious offenses such as murder and stealing are obviously sins, but what about other laws that vary by region of the world? For example, the drinking age in many countries is sixteen or even less than that, but in the USA its 21, how can it be okay for some people to drink when sixteen but for others it’s a sin simply because of where they live, drinking in moderation of course.

Thanks

As far as I know you have to obey the just laws of where you live.

I wonder why though, apart from immigration, people don’t consent to be citizens of a particular country. They’re born into it and the laws are imposed on them. Some coincide with sins, but not all.

 

[Trishie]

V. THE AUTHORITIES IN CIVIL SOCIETY

2234 God’s fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it.

Etc…

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a4.htm

catholicity.com/catechism/authorities_in_civil_society.html

See Mark 12 verses 13-17 where Jesus shows that respect is due to temporal leaders:

"They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to him to ensnare him in his speech.
They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?”
Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.”
They brought one to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.”
So Jesus said to them, "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him.

 

[aball1035]

What about small things like not wearing your seatbelt or not wearing a helmet while biking? (as long as it’s safe)

 

[alitaptap]

“Let everyone obey the authorities that are over him, for there is no authority except from God, and all authority that exists is established by God” (Rm 13:3)

We must obey all “valid” civil laws

 

[Tietjen]

Hi, I’m wondering if it’s a sin to break laws (not God’s laws, people’s laws). I know that the more serious offenses such as murder and stealing are obviously sins, but what about other laws that vary by region of the world? For example, the drinking age in many countries is sixteen or even less than that, but in the USA its 21, how can it be okay for some people to drink when sixteen but for others it’s a sin simply because of where they live, drinking in moderation of course.

Thanks

Romans chapter 13 addresses this subject. The jest of the matter is that God has placed civil leaders in their positions to lead and laws which are not contray to God’s law are to be obeyed.

 

[Petergray]

Hi there,

First of all that question is very popular and misunderstood but here is my view:

Jesus set some commanments and gave them to Moses in the Old Testament called the Ten Commandments, these are a set of rules which he wants us to live by and then, living by those rules, we will go to heaven (even breaking them and repenting allows us to go to heaven) If you think about it breaking the law always breaks one of the Commanments, Love, think about it now , robbing someone, smoking in public places, murder etc are all against loveing people, love is one of the commandments and therefore, yes it is a sin.

 

[Langdell]

What about small things like not wearing your seatbelt or not wearing a helmet while biking? (as long as it’s safe)

Yes, it’s a sin to break those laws, if the other conditions for sin are present. The only time it wouldn’t be a sin is if the laws require you to do, or refrain from doing, something that is contrary to the natural law (i.e., a properly formed conscience).

The reason why it’s a sin has been explained well in other posts above.



.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If a particular act is illegal under human law, but also illicit under the moral law, then it is a sin to commit that act. If the human law changes, so that the act becomes legal, the act remains illicit under the moral law, and so it remains a sin.

If a particular act is illegal under human law, but is licit (moral) under the moral law, then it is not necessarily a sin to commit that act. If breaking the human law can be reasonably anticipated to have bad consequences which outweigh the good consequences of the act, then breaking that law would be a sin under the moral law (due to the circumstances of the act).

Sometimes breaking human law is moral, sometimes it is even required, under the moral law of God. For example, if a law compels doctors and administrators at hospitals to commit the sin of abortion, or to formally cooperate with the sin of abortion, the persons at that hospital are morally obligated not to break that law. Nor can the hospital respond by shutting down, so as to avoid breaking that law. The grave harm done by shutting down a hospital would outweigh the good consequences of avoiding breaking an unjust law.

An unjust law is not a law, but rather a type of violence.

 

[curlycool89]

Romans chapter 13 addresses this subject. The jest of the matter is that God has placed civil leaders in their positions to lead and laws which are not contray to God’s law are to be obeyed.

Call me cynical, but I don’t think our civil leaders are automatically deserving of blind obedience just because they are in some position of power. A significant number of them are in politics and leadership positions for themselves and their friends.

Like you’d actually say that biking without a helmet is a sin?

 

[davidv]

Call me cynical, but I don’t think our civil leaders are automatically deserving of blind obedience just because they are in some position of power. A significant number of them are in politics and leadership positions for themselves and their friends.

Like you’d actually say that biking without a helmet is a sin?

Who said anything about blind obedience. The Church is quite clear that one is to obey the laws of legitimate authority under penalty of sin unless the public law is contrary to moral law.

 

[jmcrae]

Like you’d actually say that biking without a helmet is a sin?

Ask any mother whose child is in a permanent coma in hospital, or any mother who is caring for her brain-damaged adult child at home for the rest of his or her natural life, whether her decision to let her child go biking without a helmet was a good decision, or not.

It’s the same with seat belts.

The difference between wearing or not wearing a helmet or seat belt is the difference between having an exciting tale to tell your friends afterwards about the accident, or drooling over your porridge for the rest of your life, unable to remember what happened, or anything about yourself.

 

[curlycool89]

Who said anything about blind obedience. The Church is quite clear that one is to obey the laws of legitimate authority under penalty of sin unless the public law is contrary to moral law.

Can you point out for me where exactly it says “under penalty of sin”. I see in the Catechism it says paying taxes, voting, and defending one’s country is “obligatory”, there’s some commentary on living well in society, but nothing that gets close to “if you break any law you’ve sinned” (obviously, if a law coincides with a natural or moral law, then it’s also a sin by virtue of being part of the natural/moral law).

Ask any mother whose child is in a permanent coma in hospital, or any mother who is caring for her brain-damaged adult child at home for the rest of his or her natural life, whether her decision to let her child go biking without a helmet was a good decision, or not.

It’s the same with seat belts.

The difference between wearing or not wearing a helmet or seat belt is the difference between having an exciting tale to tell your friends afterwards about the accident, or drooling over your porridge for the rest of your life, unable to remember what happened, or anything about yourself.

I never said it wasn’t stupid or could possibly lead to harm. I’m just questioning how it’s under sinful.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you point out for me where exactly it says “under penalty of sin”. I see in the Catechism it says paying taxes, voting, and defending one’s country is “obligatory”, there’s some commentary on living well in society, but nothing that gets close to “if you break any law you’ve sinned” (obviously, if a law coincides with a natural or moral law, then it’s also a sin by virtue of being part of the natural/moral law).

If something is “obligatory” then it would be a sin to not do it.

I never said it wasn’t stupid or could possibly lead to harm. I’m just questioning how it’s under sinful.

The commandment “thou shalt not kill” also includes the idea of not putting yourself or others into harm’s way.

 

[curlycool89]

If something is “obligatory” then it would be a sin to not do it.

Like I said, the word obligatory only occurs in the sentence talking about paying taxes, voting and defending your country.

 

[presidentjlh]

It depends on the law. Heck, some laws we are called to oppose, as they might require or encourage things contrary to the Natural Law.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Church is quite clear that one is to obey the laws of legitimate authority under penalty of sin unless the public law is contrary to moral law.

Can you cite a source in a magisterial document that supports this claim?

Some laws of legitimate authority are both not contrary to the moral law, and not a sin to break. For example, if there is a law requiring you to only water your lawn on a particular day. If you had a just reason, you might break that law without sin. In a more serious example, if you have a grave reason, such as severe poverty in your own nation, you might break the laws against illegal immigration into another nation without any sin.

If a law requires you to fill out certain forms, provide certain information, fulfill certain requirements, it may well not be a sin to break such a law. If you are severely ill, and you have a grave reason to use medical marijuana, you might possibly use that drug illegally, without sin. Similarly, you might obtain needed medication by illegal importation of the medicine, without sin. I am not suggesting that persons should break the law in those situations, but I give these hypothetical examples to show that breaking the law is not always a sin, even in cases where the law is generally reasonable.

 

[Langdell]

Like I said, the word obligatory only occurs in the sentence talking about paying taxes, voting and defending your country.

Well, consider paragraph 2242:

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.

IMO, this carries a pretty strong implication that we are obliged in conscience to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are not contrary to the demands of the moral order.

.

 

[Joseph629]

So cast the first stone anyone here who has never driven 1 mile an hour above the speed limit. Anyone? Which means that I must be sinning ***every ***single time I get behind the wheel of a vehicle.

 

[curlycool89]

IMO, this carries a pretty strong implication that we are obliged in conscience to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are not contrary to the demands of the moral order.

If you interpret it that way. It says we are not morally obligated to follow unjust laws. It doesn’t say we’re morally required to follow other ones. The only thing that is listed as being morally obligatory is voting, taxes, and defending your country. Those are pretty specific. As for everything else, it doesn’t say anything. Why would it list those if they were implicitly required otherwise?