Well, I think Aquinas said that necessity dispenses from the law. If one’s life is in danger one may exceed the speed limit, as one example, as long as one does not endanger other folks. If there is no pressing need one has ample licit means to explore one’s obligation. In the absence of dire need one ought to obey.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?
Obeying the law is not legalism. Obeying just laws are being faithful to God’s will. That is not legalistic.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.
…Part of revealed divine law is Jesus’ clear statement, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” In addition, there is Peter’s injunction to the early Christians to “maintain good conduct among the Gentiles” and to “be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him” (1 Pt 2, 12-14). Therefore, Christians are not free to use divine law as a ‘higher law’ - which it is - to exempt them from observance of civil law…
…Indeed, violating a just civil or criminal law is an immoral act. For it is observation of the civil laws which allows society to function…
Yes, exactly - jaywalking is merely an example which illustrates the bigger issue.I would say that the concept behind the thread is important. It is not only that jaywalking is wrong, but that so called man made laws are not be disregarded as inconsequential.
I would say the CCC is not a moral theology text. It cannot cover every single issue in depth.Yes, exactly - jaywalking is merely an example which illustrates the bigger issue.
If the Very Reverend* Quirk is correct, and we are bound to obey all civil laws which do not contradict moral law, then it is unfortunate that the Catechism uses more wishy-washy language to so state, with the resulting confusion we’ve had in this thread. On the other hand, the Catechism may me making a more limited claim than Quirk, and his opinion may not reflect a consensus of canon lawyers or moral theologians.
*What’s the difference between Reverend and Very Reverend?
You’re skirting in an out of Natural Law, and thus your issue. Natural Law is often referred to in 2 forms 1) Man’s destiny which can not be denied (safety -at any cost ) 2) Man’s desire to cooperate with others to achieve his objectives mutually (laws developed to promote safety).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.
Where do you get the idea one may “opt out” of a just civil law?to subvert man’s law
3) Man’s Law in absentness of God’s law ( speeding, taxes, jaywalking) you error toward Natural Law thus error toward following, but you may opt out if you do not violate “treat your neighbor as yourself” so speeding in rural Kansas I am opting out, speeding in downtown Houston is to dangerous to my neighbor