Morality of jaywalking

[Digitonomy]

My understanding of the specifics of Catholic moral teaching is a bit sketchy in some areas. I am curious whether a) trivial violations of secular law are objectively sinful in and of themselves, but mitigated by other factors, or b) such violations are only sinful in the presence of other factors.

Please throw in all the relevant vocabulary words, so I can educate myself further on the finer points.

 

[rwoehmke]

I assume by secular law you mean civil law as found in items like the US Tax or Criminal Codes, state and local statutes, etc. Some of these are ultimately based in natural law which would make them binding under pain of sin. Things like murder, theft, damage to property, drunk driving, ignoring traffic laws, etc. put others at risk. The degree of risk or damage would tend to determine the degree of culpability for the one breaking the law/rule. Jay walking on a back street with no traffic would be rather a minor offense, but jay walking across a busy street or freeway would put the life and limb of others as well as yourself at risk. Could be considered a serious sin, as is driving under the influence. Lying on a tax return for a few bucks might not be seriously sinful, but it would be at least a minor or venial sin against justice as you are screwing other citizens out of what is owed them. More bucks equals bigger sin. I was once told by a priest that trivial violations of civil laws/statutes might not be particularly sinful, but that in violating them one must be willing to take the consequences if caught. Than there are certain laws, such as those pertaining to abortion, that it would be sinful to keep and respect. Unless one has some understanding as to why we have certain civil laws/statutes, it is not a good idea to just casually blow them off.

 

[T.A.Stobie_SFO]

Under the fourth commandent (see the Cathecism for details) we are obligated to obey all moral civil laws.

There can be factor that make an action legal, such as an person dying in your car can justify under the legal law, violating the speed limit but still driving safely.

 

[JimG]

There is nothing inherently sinful about jaywalking, but in some cities it can carry its own consequences, which could be mortal.

 

[Digitonomy]

There is nothing inherently sinful about jaywalking, but in some cities it can carry its own consequences, which could be mortal.

Are the consequences really relevant? It may be that by jaywalking, you affect the flow of traffic such that someone doesn’t get git by a cement truck who otherwise would. Or vice versa.

Under the fourth commandent (see the Cathecism for details) we are obligated to obey all moral civil laws.

There can be factor that make an action legal, such as an person dying in your car can justify under the legal law, violating the speed limit but still driving safely.

This sounds more like the meat and potatoes that I suspected was the rule. However, it seems to me that in the exception you cite, the person is objectively violating the law, but would avoid conviction by a reasonable judge or jury.

The Catechism does not seem as clear cut on this issue as you are. Paragraph 2240 states

Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

The paragraph itself does not say that we must obey all laws, or all moral laws, so it appears that such an absolute requirement only applies to the three areas mentioned. Confounding this issue is the citation from the Epistle to Diognetus which follows the passage I quoted:

[Christians]… obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws

I interpret this to mean that the Epistle to Diognetus provides historical support and a general philosophy for acting on this aspect of the 4th Commandment… but the key in the Epistle and the Catechism seems to be granting respect to legitimate authorities. Trivial laws which are rarely enforced (and therefore, not cared about by authority) don’t seem to meet the standard requiring submission at all times.

But I may just be rationalizing. What if an obscure 1905 city ordinance required your shutters, or kitchen cupboards, or whatever be made of only certain materials listed in the ordinance. You feel a new material is just as good, may last longer, could even enhance the property value of your home, and therefore the neighborhood. There is nothing immoral about the law. But you believe that except for the law, there is nothing immoral about acting contrary to it, and there may be benefits to you and hopefully others. Do you get to second-guess the intent of the city council, and use your prudential judgement to decide whether that would in any way conflict with morality? Or are you bound by the letter of the law?

 

[wjp984]

my understanding of civil laws that do not violate God’s laws is this: Do so at your own risk. If you get caught, suck it up and pay the fine. If you don’t get caught, then you have not committed any sin but if you keep on breaking the law you probably will get caught eventually. I speed all the time and I am fully aware I am breaking the law. I never confess that though.

 

[LeahInancsi]

In this forum, I have read that calling in sick to work when you’re not sick is not a mortal sin. Some may have even said it’s not a venial sin. Whether or not it’s a sin, I think it’s very wrong. It’s outright theft of the employer’s money in the event that a person is being paid for sick time.

Compare jaywalking to lying to your employer. I hope you get my point.

BTW, don’t jaywalk in downtown Dallas. Don’t even stick your toe off the curb on a “Don’t Walk” sign. If you do, you’ll be lighter in the wallet.

 

[didymus]

There is nothing inherently sinful about jaywalking, but in some cities it can carry its own consequences, which could be mortal.

timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=511010

** Grim pattern seen in pedestrian death **
** Stretch of Central Avenue where crosswalks are far apart claims another victim**
By JORDAN CARLEO-EVANGELIST, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Thursday, August 24, 2006
COLONIE – Not long before she crossed Central Avenue Tuesday night, Roxanne Chaney was chatting with her neighbors at the Best Value Inn, including a man who was showing pictures of his wife, who had been struck and killed by a car."Roxanne says, ‘Man, that’s a horrible way to go,’ " neighbor Greg Johnston recalled.
Chaney, 40, then stepped out into a dark section of the road and was hit herself, becoming the ninth person killed on Central Avenue in Colonie in 10 years, the fourth on a section west of Route 155 alone, according to police.

Ms. Chaney was a former client of the shelter where I work. She was not in ideal condition to walk the extra distance to a legal crossing.

This stretch of road connects Albany and Schenectady running thru Colonie and Niskayuna. The “blocks” (distance between lights) averages a half mile or more apart & the speed limit is 45. The whole thing is designed for maximum traffic flow with no thought of pedestrians.

Perhaps this doesn’t justify jaywalking but urban planners should recognise that there are such things as pedestrians.

 

[I_Leatherman]

I think we should be allowed to drive over jaywalkers - its illegal not to drive over creatures smaller than a badger - so its a sin not to drive over badgers why not jaywalkers they are a greater danger to motorists. Its probably a mortal sin to avoid them.

 

[didymus]

I think we should be allowed to drive over jaywalkers - its illegal not to drive over creatures smaller than a badger - so its a sin not to drive over badgers why not jaywalkers they are a greater danger to motorists. Its probably a mortal sin to avoid them.

You know i an sick of this attitude that pedestrians have no rights that drivers are bound to respect. i can’t count the numberof times i’ve had the green l;ight and thwe WALK signal and still been forced back to the kerb by some driver who just can’t wait make his turn or runs the red light. i wish i knew a magic sdpell to make their gas tank explode.
the vast majority of drivers are rude inconsiderate not excluding present company.

i can’t wait for the day when gas is $50 a gallon

 

[I_Leatherman]

Pedestrians have the right to cross at pedestrian crossings, or to think about it the other way around think of the fuss if drivers started driving across the pavements without warning…

 

[estesbob]

You know i an sick of this attitude that pedestrians have no rights that drivers are bound to respect. i can’t count the numberof times i’ve had the green l;ight and thwe WALK signal and still been forced back to the kerb by some driver who just can’t wait make his turn or runs the red light. i wish i knew a magic sd[pell to make their gas tank explode.
the vast majority of drivers are rude inconsiderate not excluding present company.

i can’t wait for the day when gas is $50 a gallon

I have no problems with pedestrians. its bicyclists-not kids on bikes mind you-but the adults on $1,000 bicycles with garish outifts who ride in the middle of a twob lane montain road never for a minute thinking they should let you by…
[/quote]

 

[wjp984]

I think we should be allowed to drive over jaywalkers - its illegal not to drive over creatures smaller than a badger - so its a sin not to drive over badgers why not jaywalkers they are a greater danger to motorists. Its probably a mortal sin to avoid them.

that is really sad if that is the case. I will break for squirrels since it just seems wrong to run them over if you can avoid them.

 

[jimmy]

I think we are obliged to follow secular law as long as it does not contradict the law of God. I have been thinking about this in regards to speeding when driving. I generally speeed a little and lately I have been feeling like I am doing something wrong. Paul speaks about this in Romans.

 

[wjp984]

we are obliged to submit not to follow. I as well as a few others had a very interesting and long debate over the passages and what the church doctors said. In my opinion it means, feel free to break man’s law as long as it does not go against God’s law. However, do so at your own risk. If you are caught, then submit to and accept the punishment given to you by the state. (pay the fine or do the community service etc.) Do not try to flee and cause a police chase. Do not lie or do deceitful things to get out of the punishment ( I have sinned in that matter before) That is my interpretation. My conscious tells me this is the correct interpretation to have. If your conscious tells you that you should not break man’s law and that speeding is a sin, then do what you have to do. Just please, for the sake of me and anyone else, get out of our way on the road.

 

[Digitonomy]

its illegal not to drive over creatures smaller than a badger

Cite?

 

[Digitonomy]

I have no problems with pedestrians. its bicyclists-not kids on bikes mind you-but the adults on $1,000 bicycles with garish outifts who ride in the middle of a twob lane montain road never for a minute thinking they should let you by…

If there is a shoulder they can ride on which is safe and wide enough, then they surely should be over on it. If the road is too narrow for this, you should treat them like any other vehicle - pass when you get the opportunity, and lobby your government to provide better roads.

 

[Digitonomy]

I think we are obliged to follow secular law as long as it does not contradict the law of God… Paul speaks about this in Romans.

Can you comment on the hypothetical I posed at the end of post #5?

 

[fix]

… What if an obscure 1905 city ordinance required your shutters, or kitchen cupboards, or whatever be made of only certain materials listed in the ordinance. You feel a new material is just as good, may last longer, could even enhance the property value of your home, and therefore the neighborhood. There is nothing immoral about the law. But you believe that except for the law, there is nothing immoral about acting contrary to it, and there may be benefits to you and hopefully others. Do you get to second-guess the intent of the city council, and use your prudential judgement to decide whether that would in any way conflict with morality? Or are you bound by the letter of the law?

The law allows for clarification in matters like these. One could hire an attorney or seek the advice of officials in charge of such matters.

In all these threads I have never seen any citation that shows Catholics are allowed to intentionally disobey just civil laws because one finds them unimportant or trivial.

 

[Digitonomy]

The law allows for clarification in matters like these. One could hire an attorney or seek the advice of officials in charge of such matters.

Yeah, fine, but that’s really dodging the issue - is there ever a case where you can use your own prudential judgement to decide that a (morally OK) law may be ignored? There seem to be conflicting views on this in this thread, and after reading the passage I mentioned in the CCC, I’m starting to lean toward accepting prudential judgement over inflexible legalism. But I worry that I may just be rationalizing.