Speeding a sin?

[smichhertz]

One idea that can perhaps enter here is the idea that some laws are “purely penal laws” that is laws that bind in conscience in the sense that if one gets penalized for acting contrary to the law then one is bound to pay the fine…but if not …one is not sinning per se to not observe it.

That makes sense. I had never heard of purely penal laws before. For those (like me) who are ignorant of that here is a quote from the CE:

Laws purely penal (leges mere poenales) are those which do not make an action absolutely obligatory, but simply impose penalty in case one is convicted of transgression. Thus they leave it, in a certain sense, to the choice of the subject whether he will abstain from the penal action, or whether, if the violation is proved against him, he will submit to the penalty. The objection cannot be raised that purely penal laws are not actual laws because they create no bounden duty, for they oblige the violator of the law to bear the punishment if the authorities apprehend and convict him. Whether a law is a purely penal law or not is not so easy to decide in an individual case. The decision depends on the will of the lawgiver and also upon the general opinion and custom of a community.

newadvent.org/cathen/09053a.htm (Under “Classification of Laws”)

So this is exactly what you were trying to say. I understand now. The will of the lawgiver and the custom of the community show that a posted speed limit is a purely penal law. This means that if I choose to drive above the speed limit (to a reasonable extend as understood by the lawgiver and community) as long as I am willing to pay the ticket if given one, then it is not a sin.

Thank you! That clears it up!

 

[Bookcat]

That makes sense. I had never heard of purely penal laws before. For those (like me) who are ignorant of that here is a quote from the CE:

So this is exactly what you were trying to say. I understand now. The will of the lawgiver and the custom of the community show that a posted speed limit is a purely penal law. This means that if I choose to drive above the speed limit (to a reasonable extend as understood by the lawgiver and community) as long as I am willing to pay the ticket if given one, then it is not a sin.

Thank you! That clears it up!

Actually I was saying “perhaps” one could see it this way…that at least at the lower “speeding” …that at least the concept helps…

(I imagine there are various ways one can look at this question…various arguments)

But I do think even without the possibility of purely penal laws…that the nature of the law itself…that one must take into account the intent of the lawgiver here… and that this is that one stay around that speed…hence the post it lower than they intend one to go…

Certainly one can sin in various circumstances…and especially as the CCC notes …when one puts lives at risk…(gravely!)

 

[cthulhubryan]

Actually I was saying “perhaps” one could see it this way…that at least at the lower “speeding” …that at least the concept helps…

(I imagine there are various ways one can look at this question…various arguments)

But I do think even without the possibility of purely penal laws…that the nature of the law itself…that one must take into account the intent of the lawgiver here… and that this is that one stay around that speed…hence the post it lower than they intend one to go…

Certainly one can sin in various circumstances…and especially as the CCC notes …when one puts lives at risk…(gravely!)

At worst speeding is (to use the legal phrase) malum prohibitum, that is it is wrong only because it is prohibited. It is clearly not malum in se (it is not an inherently evil act to speed)
Also, speeding is morally vague because are enacted by a state but the constitution allows for freedom of assembly which, it can be argued, speed limits encroach upon.

Speed limits are often morally offensive as they are used by a state simply to extract money from drivers. This occurs when speed limit signs are obscured or are unclearly marked.

All in all, speeding should be avoided because of the danger it can pose to those on the roads, but it fails to reach the threshold of rendering unto caesar.

My :twocents:

Your mileage may vary. In fact one could make an argument that speeding is immoral simply because it reduces your mileage and causes you to be a poorer steward.

I love arguing myself in circles. I’ll go bang my head into a wall now.

 

[vz71]

This leads me to an interesting question…

Given the understanding that makes speeding a non-sin.
There is a significant part of the population that has no understanding of this.

what of the testimony an/or scandal brought to others without the full understanding there.
Do we bear part of the responsibility for the scandal created in a behavior others view as sinful that is not directly so?

 

[Bookcat]

This leads me to an interesting question…

Given the understanding that makes speeding a non-sin.
There is a significant part of the population that has no understanding of this.

what of the testimony an/or scandal brought to others without the full understanding there.
Do we bear part of the responsibility for the scandal created in a behavior others view as sinful that is not directly so?

I would propose that most that you refer too are just thinking “hey I am only going 60 in a 55 Zone…no big deal…” or do not even think about it…

 

[vz71]

I would propose that most that you refer too are just thinking “hey I am only going 60 in a 55 Zone…no big deal…” or do not even think about it…

Perhaps.
But when I am passed on the highway by someone in a roman collar, I sometimes wonder.

 

[Bookcat]

Perhaps.
But when I am passed on the highway by someone in a roman collar, I sometimes wonder.

yes that he is rushing to give a dying man absolution…

 

[vz71]

yes that he is rushing to give a dying man absolution…

The fact of the clarification lends to my question concerning the scandal created by the apearance of sinful behavior when no sin really exists.

 

[Bookcat]

The fact of the clarification lends to my question concerning the scandal created by the apearance of sinful behavior when no sin really exists.

One has to be very reasonable in looking at such.

There are certainly things that one should avoid due to such…

but other things one need not…for all sorts of things can be misinterpreted…

 

[HelenRose]

Actually I was saying “perhaps” one could see it this way…that at least at the lower “speeding” …that at least the concept helps…

(I imagine there are various ways one can look at this question…various arguments)

But I do think even without the possibility of purely penal laws…that the nature of the law itself…that one must take into account the intent of the lawgiver here… and that this is that one stay around that speed…hence the post it lower than they intend one to go…

Certainly one can sin in various circumstances…and especially as the CCC notes …when one puts lives at risk…(gravely!)

If speeding is not a mortal sin, would it be a mortal sin if in the act of speeding one caused an accident and someone was killed?

 

[Bookcat]

If speeding is not a mortal sin, would it be a mortal sin if in the act of speeding one caused an accident and someone was killed?

I did not say speeding could not be a mortal sin…

It actually CAN be. Note the CCC quote above…

 

[Bookcat]

here it is so you do not have to look for it…

2290 - The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

 

[Bookcat]

This too will be of interest

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/pom2007_104-suppl/rc_pc_migrants_pom104-suppl_orientamenti-en.html

 

[Bookcat]

Here is one section of the link above:

The obligatory nature of road regulations

1. When drivers endanger their own and other people’s lives, and the physical and mental wellbeing of persons, as well as considerable material goods, they are guilty of a serious shortcoming, even when such behaviour does not cause accidents, because, in any case, it entails serious risks. It should also be pointed out that the majority of accidents are precisely caused by such carelessness.
2. The Church’s teaching on these issues is very clear: “The often tragic consequences of infringements of the Highway Code give them an intrinsically obligatory nature that is far more serious than is generally thought. Motorists cannot merely rely on their own vigilance and ability to prevent accidents, but should rather maintain an appropriate margin of safety, if they wish to be free of carelessness and avoid unforeseeable difficulties.”[11] Indeed, “rightly, civil laws regarding human coexistence support the great law of Non occides, thou shalt not kill, which stands out in the timeless Ten Commandments, and is a holy precept of the Lord for everyone”.[12]
3. Therefore, “through strict observance of the Highway Code, everyone should be committed to creating a ‘road culture’ based on widespread understanding of everyone’s rights and duties and behaviour consistent with its implications”.[13]
4. Theological, ethical, legal and technological principles support the moralisation of road use. “Such principles are based on the respect due to human life, to the human person, which is inculcated from the very first pages of Holy Scripture. The human person is sacred: it is created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Genesis 1:26), and redeemed through the immeasurable price of Christ’s blood (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 1:18-19), and has been introduced within the Church and the Communion of Saints, with the right and the duty of mutual, effective and sincere charity towards one’s brothers and sisters, according to the command of the Apostle Paul: ‘Love must be sincere … Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honour one another above yourselves’ (Romans 12:9-10).”[14]

 

[Bookcat]

More…

The moral responsibility of road users

1. Obviously, careless motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians do not wish for the fatal consequences of an accident they cause, nor do they intend to harm the life and property of others. However, as these consequences are the product of a conscious action, we may rightly speak of moral responsibility.

“For a bad effect to be imputable it must be foreseeable and the agent must have the possibility of avoiding it, as in the case of manslaughter caused by a drunken driver.”[15] When driving without the requisite conditions (for example, carelessly, or lacking the necessary capacities), one endangers life and goods, which presupposes infringement of moral law, due to the voluntary nature of the act.

1. The moral responsibility of road users, both drivers and pedestrians, derives from the obligation to respect the Fifth and Seventh Commandments: “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”. The gravest sins against human life, deriving from the Fifth Commandment, are suicide and murder, but this commandment also requires respect for one’s own and other people’s physical and mental wellbeing.

Careless absent-mindedness and negligence are acts that go against such commandments, and their degree of moral seriousness is measured in terms of how foreseeable, or to some extent intentional, they are. This means that, beyond the prohibition of directly killing, wounding or maiming, the Lord’s commandment forbids any act that might bring about such harm indirectly. The same goes for any damage caused to one’s neighbour’s goods.

1. Moral law prohibits exposing anyone to grave danger, without serious grounds, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger. In addition, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “the virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and other’s safety on the road, at sea, or in the air”.[16]

 

[Bookcat]

I should note too …remember …what Europeans consider a strict observance is not the
same thing as what Americans do…we have different approaches to law…etc

One needs to consider very much the road conditions…weather…etc…
but I think still that the intention of the law giver comes into play as I noted
and Jimmy Akin’s note regarding “legemoron” where the lawgiver is expecting
variance from the limit…and the limit is there to enforce especially if ones is driving dangerously …too fast etc…and it keeps people hopefully around a safe speed…

and as we can see from the quotes above…it can be even very grave! We need to take good care…keeping say good distance (thats right…please do not tail gate!) etc…

 

[surritter]

But I do think even without the possibility of purely penal laws…that the nature of the law itself…that one must take into account the intent of the lawgiver here… and that this is that one stay around that speed…hence the post it lower than they intend one to go…

I think that this is a very dangerous way to look at any law… If I take it upon myself to figure out the “intent of the lawgiver” then I am opening myself up to very subjective interpretations… perhaps even crossing into relativism.

I like the quote that you gave 3 posts above, BC:

The laws of the road should be regarded as having “an intrinsically obligatory nature.” That kinda takes out the notion of getting into the mind of the lawgiver, doesn’t it?

 

[Bookcat]

I think that this is a very dangerous way to look at any law… If I take it upon myself to figure out the “intent of the lawgiver” then I am opening myself up to very subjective interpretations… perhaps even crossing into relativism.

I like the quote that you gave 3 posts above, BC:

The laws of the road should be regarded as having “an intrinsically obligatory nature.” That kinda takes out the notion of getting into the mind of the lawgiver, doesn’t it?

I did not pull it out of the air…but learned it myself…and believe me I go to orthodox Catholic sources…

it is a facet that actually goes into understanding some laws. And one can see in the US it is generally intended that one go around the speed limit. I can not speak for other countries…one could call them a legemoron as Jimmy would note…for even the lawgivers do not follow them precisely. Police usually do not enforce speed limits if one is only 5 mph over…(unless it is a school zone or something…as I noted)

I would not call it relativism but on aspect of laws like this.

It would be wild if you said…hey I think the intent of the lawgiver is that I go as fast as my little heart desires…and that the limit is just so they can get some extra cash from time to time…

But what I noted …seems reasonable…and not relativism…but certainly avoid R!

Yes they have “intrinsically obligatory nature” …you shall not kill! (unjustly)

If you asked the authors of the document …so if I drive safely 60 in a 55mph zone…am I sinning? I do not think they would say you were…

 

[newbie9]

If I understand the postings and the CCC quotes, basically it only becomes a sin and possibly mortal when you are doing it either in excess (let’s say 100 in a 45) or when you are doing so with full knowledge it’s unsafe. I’d suspect those two situations typically go hand in hand, but you could theoretically be driving 70 in a 65 in a blizzard where you know it’s too fast to be safe. It seems to be a little bit like drinking in moderation is fine, but crossing that threshold of losing reason and becoming a babbling drunk (8 beers in an hour as an example) would be sinful and possibly mortally so. Would this be a correct interpretation?

Assuming this is correct, for speeding I think this does make sense despite the fact that the sinful aspect really hadn’t crossed my mind in a long time (willfully or not the sinful aspect of speeding really just left my mind despite me actually suffering from scrupulosity). Speeding is a weird law. There can be many reasons why a speed limit is what it is. When politics are involved anything is possible. I have driven extensively and there are roads that are 55 or 50 (don’t remember exact numbers but just using as an example) that I think should be 40 and there are highways that are 50 that I think should be 65. If anyone drives the I-95 corridor in Connecticut, it’s a perfect example. There is literally a 3-4 lane stretch of the highway where I believe the speed limit is in the 40s despite you probably being run off the road if you do that speed. The 100 mile stretch of multi-lane highway probably has 5-10 different speed limit changes. Speed differential is also a factor in the speed you drive. If everyone in the highway or in the left lane is doing 70 in a 55 and then someone sits in the left lane doing 55, he is doing more endangering than those doing 70. Speeding is also an interestingly variable topic because of the various locations of driving and speed limits. Someone could safely drive 80 in a 65 (15 mph over) yet someone driving 35 in a 25 (only 10 mph over) could really be endangering someone. For a variety of reasons, speeding violations are very different than strict violations like red light running where, if you make a conscious decision to see a red and run it anyway, you know you are endangering yourself and others.

I wish things like this were more enforced throughout Catholic education and Catholic life in general. I went through 12 years of Catholic school and feel that despite good intentions so many important and relevant life topics are missed. I hope to grow in faith through CAF.

 

[RazzsMom]

But man… to get the SVT out on the highway in the small hours of the morning, warm summer air, the exhaust, feeling the pull through third gear into fourth… Smiling just thinking about it! Men know what I’m talking about.

Another thing. My confessor used to be an Illinois State Senator. He worked for the highway department for many years and every Sunday during the prayers for intentions he says, “Once again, let us pray for all of the police, firefighters, paramedics and nurses who risk their lives daily for the safety of our community. Let us pray to the Lord.”

When I confessed reckless driving he yelled, “What? What? Were you drunk? What do you mean you were driving recklessly???” He didn’t stop there either. I thought to myself, “Jesus is yelling at me. What am I gonna do?”

Man, God has a way, doesn’t he?.

-Tim-

Timothy — some women know what you mean, too! I used to own sports cars - a red Corvette was one of my favorites. That car could easily do 140mph on a flat stretch of highway…(not that i have ever done that, ya know…)

Now I drive an H3 Hummer. Even though I am “able” to speed, it is not as much an occasion of sin to own as was the Corvette!

Thanks for the reference to the CCC. I was not aware it was in there.