Is society supposed to change its interpretation of the law to conform with the people?

[Inquiringperson]

I was reading an article in Time that had the opinions of what Americans think about the Constitution. One of the questions was whether the government should interpret the law as how it is spelled out or if it should interpret based on changes in society, technology, or America’s role in the world. This lead me to thinking since I had nothing to do. Thus, the question of whether society is supposed to change its interpretation of the law to conform with the people. What is the official Catholic position?

 

[nfreak141]

The official Catholic teaching is that God and the Church’s word is final in moral and theological opinions (I believe it’s moral…)

However, I do believe that sometimes we may need to change SOME rules in order for a maturing and growing society.

For example: in the past we believed that demons caused various mental and physical ailments. Nowadays we have medicine for everything, even for addiction to medicine (I sincerely hope that I am in fact joking).

 

[Khalid]

No, we do have medicine for addiction to medicine: several of them. Acamprosate, Naltrexone, Buprenorphine, Methadone, Baclofen, and more. Most of those are used for alcohol addiction, but several are used for heroin addiction, and heroin (diacetylmorphine/diamorphine) is used as a legitimate medicine in most countries around the world, just not in America.

So, indeed, I myself take a medication, buprenorphine, for addiction to medication, as part of recovery, along with medications for epilepsy (I’m still not allowed to drive) and sundry other mental and physical ailments.

I seem to be in decent health, not great, but not bad - it must be the medicines!

 

[nfreak141]

No, we do have medicine for addiction to medicine: several of them. Acamprosate, Naltrexone, Buprenorphine, Methadone, Baclofen, and more. Most of those are used for alcohol addiction, but several are used for heroin addiction, and heroin (diacetylmorphine/diamorphine) is used as a legitimate medicine in most countries around the world, just not in America.

So, indeed, I myself take a medication, buprenorphine, for addiction to medication, as part of recovery, along with medications for epilepsy (I’m still not allowed to drive) and sundry other mental and physical ailments.

I seem to be in decent health, not great, but not bad - it must be the medicines!

Oh, I apologize for my previous statement, it was rude. What was going through my head was the apparent irony of it all.

 

[GratefulFred]

I was reading an article in Time that had the opinions of what Americans think about the Constitution. One of the questions was whether the government should interpret the law as how it is spelled out or if it should interpret based on changes in society, technology, or America’s role in the world. This lead me to thinking since I had nothing to do. Thus, the question of whether society is supposed to change its interpretation of the law to conform with the people. What is the official Catholic position?

I do not know the "official Catholic position.

1. The Constitution is the strongest way THE PEOPLE control their government from going too far in any one direction. The US Constitution has been Amended 27 times. To amend it takes a 2/3 vote in both Houses and then it must be ratified by at 75% of the States.
2. Congress, the President, and especially the US Supreme Court, are to make and enforce laws in acocordance with the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court is rarely the court of first hearing. Usually cases are tried and reviewed by lower courts before arriving at the US Supreme Court. So the pros and cons are usually well defined when it comes for final decision. The US Supreme Court does not have to hear every case. In fact it hears less than 1/2 of the cases sent to it, I think, as they see no new Constitutional concern and think the lower Court’s decision is good enough.
3. The US Supreme Courts results are mixed. Often people do see insightful interpretation that is consistent with the Constitution. Sometimes large sections of the population think the Court got it wrong. The Court is loathe to decide similar issues in a different way just because people want a different decision. But at times, the Court does acknowledge that it reversing a prior Court decision.

So which should it be: Rigid adherence to the Constitution OR forget about it, let’s go with whatever the Supreme Court Justices think themselves or in deference to what those 9 Justices think is the popular sentiment of the day is?

It turns out to be a mix of both. It is the best humans can do. There are a number of checks and balances that prevent most wild swings.

But relying on popular powerful sway of the day ONLY leads to the Nazi and Communist way of governing. So I continue to hope that the tilt meter remains strongly pointed to the US Constitution and that we continue to elect a Congress and President with solid Moral backgrounds and not just those with charisma and money and only a shell of Moral background. A total secular Ameirca is not good at all in the long run.

 

[Khalid]

Oh, I apologize for my previous statement, it was rude. What was going through my head was the apparent irony of it all.

I didn’t take it as rude: I took it as ironic, and I was confirming the irony that pervades our society with first-hand experience: you say, it seems seriously, “I hope I am joking.” I confirm that you are not. Apologise if I sounded defensive.