J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Sorry, speeding is not mortal sin it is not grave matter.
- Status
M
Miserissima
Guest
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Speeding is first subject to lawful authority:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
Second, speeding exposes all on the road (including pedestrians) to mortal danger:
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Going 46 in a 45 does not expose anyone to a mortal danger that is not found at 45 mph. Same would be true for 55 in a 45.
Perhaps reckless excessive speeding is grave matter, but not the typical speeding done by everyone everyday!
I hope I’m never stuck behind you!
2266 does not indicate any difference between mortal and Venial nor grave matter when it comes to civil law
M
Miserissima
Guest
Civil law usually does distinguish between keeping up with traffic and gives a five to ten mile “butter zone.” I’m drastic to use common sense…and so does the catechism…it’s implied that going 46 in a 45 would cause a fatality (now, in a crowded residential with kids…posited 25…what prudential judgment would you use?)
JonS, I don’t know whether to giggle or hang my head, but you sure got me to smile and to take myself seriously tonight.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I just think putting speeding under 2269 is a stretch at best. If someone is speeding to the point if falling into 2269 they call it reckless driving.Civil law usually does distinguish between keeping up with traffic and gives a five to ten mile “butter zone.” I’m drastic to use common sense…and so does the catechism…it’s implied that going 46 in a 45 would cause a fatality (now, in a crowded residential with kids…posited 25…what prudential judgment would you use?)
JonS, I don’t know whether to giggle or hang my head, but you sure got me to smile and to take myself seriously tonight.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
That is an issue of much debate. I’m not sure that a lot of our drug laws are “just”.
I think all the concerns that the text you pasted show are legitimate, and I do not disagree with any of it, except to say that I don’t think that cannabis use always turns out to be “an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free [person?]”.
I also agree that when things are illegal sometimes going through a “black market” can imply dealing with some unsavory characters and unsavory business practices, which can be immoral in itself. That said, this goes for a lot of legal items, too. But I don’t see anything that says that buying an illegal item is automatically sinful, nor should it be.
I am not morally bound to the legal whims of every interest group that has managed to pass legislation through legal (and illegal) bribery and corruption.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
We agree on a lot of things, but I must disagree with this. If the law is indeed “just”- for example, the water restrictions are in place because of severe drought- then, okay, I tend to agree and I will respect the law for the sake of my community. There is a good reason for the law. It is JUST.
On the other hand, if the law is NOT just- let us say that the water restrictions are in place because a vocal minority of people believe that drinking out of garden hoses is “unsanitary” and they want to “protect me”, then I do not recognize any moral authority over me. Certainly, there is a legal authority, which at that point just means “we’re more powerful than you”, but the law has no valid moral justification and as such I am not morally bound by it. I’d argue that even the legal authority here is fuzzy, if you go into Constitutional arguments, but I’ll leave that for another thread.
4
4love2God
Guest
Miserissima, I see that you are attempting to become the Voice of Conviction for the Catholic Church.
I have never before seen somebody SO hung-up on seemingly-Silly Laws being equivalent to the 10 Commandments in their importance.
You are a Black-and-White thinker.
That is fine.
This is more like the Old Testament God … if you tick Me off, I will call up a Flood to destroy the Earth.
Rules are made to be followed … or you will be severely punished … no questions asked.
I see the World as (mostly) a place in various shades of Gray.
This means that Jesus Christ loves me, and He wants me to get Better over time.
Jesus also wants me to allow people to discover their Faith in God, and set-up their own interpretation of what a Spiritual Life is supposed to entail.
And that Jesus allows me to experiment in Life, to find out how I want to live my Life as a Catholic.
So that I can make Progress in my Spiritual Life … NOT demand instant Perfection.
People are NOT Perfect … and if someone wants us all to pretend to be Perfect, that is living a Lie.
I have never before seen somebody SO hung-up on seemingly-Silly Laws being equivalent to the 10 Commandments in their importance.
You are a Black-and-White thinker.
That is fine.
This is more like the Old Testament God … if you tick Me off, I will call up a Flood to destroy the Earth.
Rules are made to be followed … or you will be severely punished … no questions asked.
I see the World as (mostly) a place in various shades of Gray.
This means that Jesus Christ loves me, and He wants me to get Better over time.
Jesus also wants me to allow people to discover their Faith in God, and set-up their own interpretation of what a Spiritual Life is supposed to entail.
And that Jesus allows me to experiment in Life, to find out how I want to live my Life as a Catholic.
So that I can make Progress in my Spiritual Life … NOT demand instant Perfection.
People are NOT Perfect … and if someone wants us all to pretend to be Perfect, that is living a Lie.
M
Miserissima
Guest
Is this private revelation? If so, it is not allowed on CAF. Is this also what you taught as a catechist, that people need to find their “own interpretation” without researching what the Church actually says? So much for “instruct in ignorant.”
Your “own interpretation” is not a Catholic precept. Perhaps reading “Why do we need the Church’s rules when our conscience tells us what is right and wrong?” ( catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-we-need-the-churchs-rules-when-our-conscience-tells-us-what-is-right-and-wrong) may help clarify the guidance of the Church in correctly forming one’s conscience. As Karl Keating states, " Although you have a duty to follow your conscience, you have a prior duty to form your conscience well. You do this through following the moral teaching of the Church, through prayer, and through close attention to Scripture."
The Church has many resources with which to properly form one’s conscience. This is the part of the system which Jesus set up for us as members of His Church. To deny this is to deny the authority and care of the Church over our spiritual well being.
My earlier use of the word “may” indicates that I did not see recreational, non medical drug use (or possession) as a black and white issue, although I explained that we were subject to just law.
Two things happened: first, the “justness” of anti recreational drug use laws was questioned. Second, I did not rely on my own understanding but that of the Catechism, two councils, two popes, and a saint to conclude that my own conscience was not well formed. The Church expressly forbids recreational drug use. Here’s how:
Yes, overindulgence is subjective to personal tolerance.
For example, Mary can stop at a few drinks or a few puffs. Her reasoning is dulled a bit. Jane, however, lacks the ability (either by will or genetic predisposition) to stop and consistently over indulges until her reasoning is non existent. Is Mary committing a venial sin and Jane committing a mortal one? Let’s look at the Catechism.
2291 " Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus…" Literally, drugs taken to stupify (not as medicine) are not in any shades of gray, “…drug] use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense” This IS black and white. This is how I must form my conscience as a Catholic. I may cherry pick my civil laws to follow based on how they fit with my moral Catholic precepts (and risk consequences) but this is cut, dry, and binding.
Yes, alcohol can come under this umbrella. So, Mary and Jane, if meeting the three elements of mortal sin, have both committed mortal sin.
The two counsels I cited earlier note (and the Catechism addresses this under citizenship) that in being subject to just substance control laws, that the risk to Jane outweighs the benefit to Mary (N.B.: not in a medical use context). There was no special interest lobby to the councils, but the councils and the Catechism have backed civil law.
As Pope Francis said, “A reduction in the spread and influence of drug addiction will not be achieved by a liberalization of drug use…” While I acknowledge that the words of the pope are not binding, the words of the Catechism are.
As to the notion whether or not possession or use of a controlled substance is always a just law, the “just” part is hotly contested. And yet, the Catechism ( 1897-1927, 2238-2243 ) has stated that Catholics are subject to the five Thomistic elements of civil law, namely:
A. It has to be an ordinance,
B. it has to be in accord with reason,
C. it has to be oriented toward the common good,
D. it has to be made by someone with the right authority, and
E. It has to be promulgated so that the public knows what it is to do or not do.
We can debate B, C, and D until the cows cows come home, but special interest backers of a law aren’t mentioned in the for a law to be just. Overriding civil law, the moral law expressed in the Catechism is explicit in its direction.
The church had examined the “phenomenon” of drug use and agrees these laws are just and explained how they are ordered toward the common good.
Announce, “I don’t recognize your authority,” in court, and you’re still subject to the penalty the state will impose. (The irony is: If you bring a lawsuit against a jurisdiction later, aren’t you also acting with a special interest?)
Finally, not agreeing that a law is ordered toward a common good means that we are still subject to the consequences of illegal behavior as defined by the state. Pope John Paul II wrote strongly on supporting the local ordinances. Since the Catechism backs the civil law, (which has been called “Silly [sic],”) and the Catechism is binding, it is my duty as a Catholic to form my conscience accordingly, not to form my “own interpretation.”
M
Miserissima
Guest
Is this private revelation? If so, it is not allowed on CAF. Is this also what you taught as a catechist, that people need to find their “own interpretation” without researching what the Church actually says? So much for “instruct in ignorant.”
Your “own interpretation” is not a Catholic precept. Perhaps reading “Why do we need the Church’s rules when our conscience tells us what is right and wrong?” ( catholic.com/quickquestions/why-do-we-need-the-churchs-rules-when-our-conscience-tells-us-what-is-right-and-wrong) may help clarify the guidance of the Church in correctly forming one’s conscience. As Karl Keating states, " Although you have a duty to follow your conscience, you have a prior duty to form your conscience well. You do this ** through following the moral teaching of the Church, ** through prayer, and through close attention to Scripture."
The Church has many resources with which to properly form one’s conscience. This is the part of the system which Jesus set up for us as members of His Church. To deny this is to deny the authority and care of the Church over our spiritual well being.
My earlier use of the word “may” indicates that I did not see recreational, non medical drug use (or possession) as a black and white issue, although I explained that we were subject to just law.
Two things happened: first, the “justness” of anti recreational drug use laws was questioned. Second, I did not rely on my own understanding but that of the Catechism, two councils, two popes, and a saint to conclude that my own conscience was not well formed. The Church expressly forbids recreational drug use. Here’s how:
Yes, overindulgence is subjective to personal tolerance.
For example, Mary can stop at a few drinks or a few puffs. Her reasoning is dulled a bit. Jane, however, lacks the ability (either by will or genetic predisposition) to stop and consistently over indulges until her reasoning is non existent. Is Mary committing a venial sin and Jane committing a mortal one? Let’s look at the Catechism.
2291 " Stupefactivorum medicamentorum usus…" Literally, drugs taken to stupify (not as medicine) are not in any shades of gray, “…drug] use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense” This IS black and white. This is how I must form my conscience as a Catholic. I may cherry pick my civil laws to follow based on how they fit with my moral Catholic precepts (and risk consequences) but this is cut, dry, and binding.
Yes, alcohol can come under this umbrella. So, Mary and Jane, if meeting the three elements of mortal sin, have both committed mortal sin.
The two counsels I cited earlier note (and the Catechism addresses this under citizenship) that in being subject to just substance control laws, that the risk to Jane outweighs the benefit to Mary (N.B.: not in a medical use context). There was no special interest lobby to the councils, but the councils and the Catechism have backed civil law.
As Pope Francis said, “A reduction in the spread and influence of drug addiction will not be achieved by a liberalization of drug use…” While I acknowledge that the words of the pope are not binding, the words of the Catechism are.
As to the notion whether or not possession or use of a controlled substance is always a just law, the “just” part is hotly contested. And yet, the Catechism ( 1897-1927, 2238-2243 ) has stated that Catholics are subject to the five Thomistic elements of civil law, namely:
A. It has to be an ordinance,
B. it has to be in accord with reason,
C. it has to be oriented toward the common good,
D. it has to be made by someone with the right authority, and
E. It has to be promulgated so that the public knows what it is to do or not do.
We can debate B, C, and D until the cows cows come home, but special interest backers of a law aren’t mentioned in the for a law to be just. Overriding civil law, the moral law expressed in the Catechism is explicit in its direction.
The church had examined the “phenomenon” of drug use and agrees these laws are just and explained how they are ordered toward the common good.
Announce, “I don’t recognize your authority,” in court, and you’re still subject to the penalty the state will impose. (The irony is: If you bring a lawsuit against a jurisdiction later, aren’t you also acting with a special interest?)
Finally, not agreeing that a law is ordered toward a common good means that we are still subject to the consequences of illegal behavior as defined by the state. Pope John Paul II wrote strongly on supporting the local ordinances. Since the Catechism backs the civil law, (which has been called “seemingly-Silly [sic],”) and the Catechism is binding, it is my duty as a Catholic to form my conscience accordingly, not to form my “own interpretation.”
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
“Enlightening” conversation. I never could understand how one “knows” where to draw the line with responsible while being irresponsible.
I have one foot in the bucket, but I’m smart enough not to put the other one in.
- Status