Was Prohibition a unjust law?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Serpent
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Civil authorities have authority, the people don’t.

Correct. Laws are created by authorities. Laws do not have authority in themselves, the civil authorities who govern possess authority.

A law is not a person, so it cannot possess anything.

If an order is not immoral, how can it be immoral to order it?

It may well be a sin, but because the person passing the law has sinned, that does not make it OK for us to disobey that law, unless of course the law was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.”

That’s correct. If someone has been given authority over you, then you are obliged to follow what they order you to do, so long as what they are ordering is within the limits of their jurisdiction.
Alright, I think I understand now. Civil authorities possess authority that was given to them by God, and that’s why we have to obey them. They have unlimited power to enact laws within their jurisdiction, but are limited by the people who have authority over them (so in America that’s the checks and balances system, I guess- Justices can strike down laws, Presidents/Governors can veto them, and legislatures can make them, and each branch has to accept the actions of the other two). And of course, nobody can morally pass or follow a law that is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons, or the teachings of the gospel.”

Thanks for explaining all that. I learned quite a bit. 🙂
 
They have unlimited power to enact laws within their jurisdiction, but are limited by the people who have authority over them
The people do not have authority over them. They have authority over the people.

The people may elect a government (in political systems which operate like that) but the people do not have authority over the government, the government has authority over the people. The authority comes from God, not from the people.
 
The people do not have authority over them. They have authority over the people.

The people may elect a government (in political systems which operate like that) but the people do not have authority over the government, the government has authority over the people. The authority comes from God, not from the people.
I meant other government authorities. Like, a state governor is limited by the federal government, or my battalion commander is limited by our teacher. I figured the same thing would apply to how different parts of the federal government limit each other, like how the President can’t stop the Supreme Court from striking down laws. Is that wrong?
 
I should have clarified. We are expected to follow all laws unless those laws are “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” CCC2242.

And it has nothing to do with whether or not you “personally agree with it”. It isn’t about what we, as individuals, personally agree with or not. It is about what, according to the teachings of the Church, is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”. Whether or not an individual agrees with a law, or not, is irrelevant, it is about whether or not Church teaching agrees with a law.
If a government passed a law that was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”, would you be bound to obey that law? You said that all governments derive the authority to rule from God. Would you still believe that a government that passed a law that was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” has a legitimate authority to rule from God, and thus we should obey the law?
 
If a government passed a law that was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel”, would you be bound to obey that law? You said that all governments derive the authority to rule from God. Would you still believe that a government that passed a law that was “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” has a legitimate authority to rule from God, and thus we should obey the law?
Of course not, because the teachings of our Church specifically state that if a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law. That quotation of mine is from the Catechism (CCC2242).

And as for governments deriving the authority to rule from God, that is also the teaching of our Church. Romans 13:1 " Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Our Church is very clear, all authority comes from God. Therefore to disobey authority is to go against God’s authority. However if, as stated in CCC2242 a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law (as that law would be outside of the limits of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel).

Some people may not like it but, according to the Church, governments derive their authority to rule from God, not from the people, and we are obliged to obey the laws they pass, unless these laws are outside of the limits of of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel.

This teaching would not have been so much of an issue in the past, but today’s views of individualism and anti-authoritarianism have become so ingrained that people somehow see it as an infringement of their ‘rights’ to have to submit to authority, instead people see themselves as the source of authority. These views have their roots in the ideals of the Enlightenment, not the Gospel.
 
Of course not, because the teachings of our Church specifically state that if a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law. That quotation of mine is from the Catechism (CCC2242).

And as for governments deriving the authority to rule from God, that is also the teaching of our Church. Romans 13:1 " Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Our Church is very clear, all authority comes from God. Therefore to disobey authority is to go against God’s authority. However if, as stated in CCC2242 a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law (as that law would be outside of the limits of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel).

Some people may not like it but, according to the Church, governments derive their authority to rule from God, not from the people, and we are obliged to obey the laws they pass, unless these laws are outside of the limits of of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel.

This teaching would not have been so much of an issue in the past, but today’s views of individualism and anti-authoritarianism have become so ingrained that people somehow see it as an infringement of their ‘rights’ to have to submit to authority, instead people see themselves as the source of authority. These views have their roots in the ideals of the Enlightenment, not the Gospel.
Dear Brendan64,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good to see a fellow British resident on these boards.

Hear, hear to all of that, dear friend. The bolded paragraph is especially bang on target.

Indeed, dear friend, individualism and anti-authoritarianism are major problems that blight our present age. Men take great pride in wanting to challenge almost everything and seem to take some perverse delight in holding the values and traditions of the past up to scorn. There is an assumption that new ideas and insights must always be true and infinitely superior, simply because they are new ideas and insights. Oftentimes this is nothing more than a cloak for rebellion against all that is considered to be old and therefore worthless. Sometimes it is a lame excuse for Catholics who have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious profession which dislikes the arduous demands of our most holy faith.

What is sometimes contemptuously referred to as the ‘old order’ once made America and Great Britain a living force in the world, but now it is held up to derision by modern man and pundits of all sorts. However, dear friend, what does modern man have that is truly noble and worthy to replace the old order and old values? Our politicians and radical types vociferously speak about freedom of choice and being liberated from supposed outmoded ideas, but men will not remain free for long unless they learn from the past and humbly receive its wisdom. The urgent need of the hour is surely for men to again learn something of proper discipline - the habit of obedience; how to give orders and how to take them. Alas, today we are witnessing rank insubordination by all classes of society, but especially the youth who think it jolly smart to challenge parental authority and deride values and traditions that have stood the test of time. This is a sad consequence of Enlightenment ideology and the freethinking of the permissive Sixties. This revolt against authority and the past does not, I say, bode well for future generations and should be denounced in the strongest terms.

As Catholics, dear friend, it is imperative that we set a worthy example, especially to our youth, and be true to honour, duty, moderation and decency, for the days are dark and evil. Let us ignore the smears of the cynics and moral relativists - even the Catholic ones. We need now more than at any other time the great noble traditions of the past and a manly authentic Catholicism that values the extrinsic tradition of Holy Mother Church throughout the ages. If we look around us today what do we see? Violence, rebellion, vulgarity and increasing moral and cultural deterioration. Let men not arrogantly refuse to consult the true standard of antiquity, for only a complete and utter fool would reject long usage and the good old tried and trusted ways of the past. These have stood the test of time and always will, regardless of the unrelenting attack of evil forces contrary to the cause of good. Of course we cannot be guided soley by antiquity, but neither can we make true progress by ignoring it or holding it up to ridicule.

My plea, dear friend, is for men to humble themselves and not fear to enquire of a former age, for they might just learn of the true way of godliness and righteousness. This has always been the way that God has owned and blessed and in which men have always prospered - “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls”. Let us take heed to this wise counsel and not rebel by saying “We will not walk therein” (see Jer. 6: 16).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos
 
Some people may not like it but, according to the Church, governments derive their authority to rule from God, not from the people, and we are obliged to obey the laws they pass, unless these laws are outside of the limits of of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel.
This is the part that is a stretch on your part, and not clearly required by CCC2242.
 
This is the part that is a stretch on your part, and not clearly required by CCC2242.
Open your Bible and read Romans 13:1. St Paul is very clear on this, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

If we defy authority, we defy God’s authority. Refusing to obey a law is defying authority (unless of course that law defies Moral Law or Natural Law).
 
Of course not, because the teachings of our Church specifically state that if a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law. That quotation of mine is from the Catechism (CCC2242).

And as for governments deriving the authority to rule from God, that is also the teaching of our Church. Romans 13:1 " Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Our Church is very clear, all authority comes from God. Therefore to disobey authority is to go against God’s authority. However if, as stated in CCC2242 a law is “contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel” then we ought not to follow that law (as that law would be outside of the limits of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel).

Some people may not like it but, according to the Church, governments derive their authority to rule from God, not from the people, and we are obliged to obey the laws they pass, unless these laws are outside of the limits of of Natural Law and the Law of the Gospel.

This teaching would not have been so much of an issue in the past, but today’s views of individualism and anti-authoritarianism have become so ingrained that people somehow see it as an infringement of their ‘rights’ to have to submit to authority, instead people see themselves as the source of authority. These views have their roots in the ideals of the Enlightenment, not the Gospel.
Does the US government derive it’s authority from God? I think that we can both agree that abortion and gay marriage are against natural law and immoral, yet the US government condones these things and passes laws making them legal. Therefore, is the US government in the eyes of God? Do they still derive there authority from God even though they pass laws that are against natural law?
 
Does the US government derive it’s authority from God?
Yes it does. The Church is clear, ALL authority comes from God. So yes, the US government does indeed derive its authority from God. Read Romans 13:1, St Paul is very clear on this.
I think that we can both agree that abortion and gay marriage are against natural law and immoral, yet the US government condones these things and passes laws making them legal.
And these are laws that CCC 2242 tells us that we are obliged not to support.
Therefore, is the US government in the eyes of God? Do they still derive there authority from God even though they pass laws that are against natural law?
Yes they do. The fact that authorities may abuse this God-given authority, pass unjust laws (or even oppress their people) does not take away from the fact that ALL authority is derived from God.

Open your bible and read Romans 13:1 It is very clear.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

Are you dissenting from Church teaching on this?
 
Open your Bible and read Romans 13:1. St Paul is very clear on this, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

If we defy authority, we defy God’s authority. Refusing to obey a law is defying authority (unless of course that law defies Moral Law or Natural Law).
That is correct, to an extent. Prohibition, fortuntately, made an exception for wine for liturgical use. If it did not, it would have been clearly a violation of Divinely revealed commands, and therefore unjust.

I would also claim, that St Paul’s directive to take wine for one’s stomach’s sake ( 1 Tim 5:23) would also constitute a directive that wine be available to the faithful for medicinal purposes ( both acute and preventative)

In that Prohibition failed.
 
Yes it does. The Church is clear, ALL authority comes from God. So yes, the US government does indeed derive its authority from God. Read Romans 13:1, St Paul is very clear on this.

And these are laws that CCC 2242 tells us that we are obliged not to support.

Yes they do. The fact that authorities may abuse this God-given authority, pass unjust laws (or even oppress their people) does not take away from the fact that ALL authority is derived from God.

Open your bible and read Romans 13:1 It is very clear.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

Are you dissenting from Church teaching on this?
At one time the US was ruled by Britain. According to you, Britain is a legitimate government given authority by God. Therefore, did the colonies disobey God by breaking from Britain and founding an independent country? Under you logic, the US government isn’t a legitimate government in the eyes of God and we should be ruled by Britain still.
 
Yes they do. The fact that authorities may abuse this God-given authority, pass unjust laws (or even oppress their people) does not take away from the fact that ALL authority is derived from God.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that governments that oppress their people have the authority to do this from God? Are you saying that if the people revolt and overthrow the government that they are disobeying God?
 
Open your Bible and read Romans 13:1. St Paul is very clear on this, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.”

If we defy authority, we defy God’s authority. Refusing to obey a law is defying authority.
I’m glad you are now clearly admitting that this part of your argument stems from your own interpretation of scripture, not from CCC 2242.
Brendan 64:
Are you dissenting from Church teaching on this?
I realize freeRadical’s quibble with you is slightly different from mine, but I assume you would pose the same question to me. I don’t think Church teaching says what you claim it does. I agree we certainly must give deference to authority, but we may ultimately decide that our wisdom on an issue outweighs the guidance of the law.

To take a trivial example, suppose upon renewing your car tags, you see a sign: “Keep left to renew tags.” Only problem is that an inconsiderate slob has spit out a few fresh wads of chewing gum on the floor. Not slippery, but unpleasant enough that you decide since it’s not crowded, you will stand to the right instead of walking through the gum.

By your logic, the appropriate state authority has given you an order, and in your insolence you are sinfully defying authority, right? Nonsense, there is no sin in standing to the right, even if it is only for your own comfort – so long as you have been considerate of others and weighed our usual deference to authority before deciding to ignore their instructions.
 
At one time the US was ruled by Britain. According to you, Britain is a legitimate government given authority by God.
Yes, Britain did derive from God, its authority to rule America.
Therefore, did the colonies disobey God by breaking from Britain and founding an independent country?
Probably. There are strict limited conditions, outlined in the Catechism, where overthrowing an existing government by force is allowable, but I don’t think that the American revolution would have fitted the that criteria.

CCC 2243 “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

However, whether or not power was ceased rightfully or not, the fact that the US government was in a position of authority afterwards meant that its authority also came from God.
Under you logic, the US government isn’t a legitimate government in the eyes of God and we should be ruled by Britain still.
No, you do don’t get it. It’s not about a government being legitimate, or otherwise, in the eyes of God. It is about the fact that all authority comes from God, and those who rule have derived this authority from God. Even oppressive regimes derive their authority from God. What people who make up governments then do with that authority is on their conscience and they will be judged for abusing that authority.

It is the teaching of our Church that all authority come from God (even the authority wielded by oppressive regimes). God bestows this authority upon people in positions of authority, and we are required to submit to this authority, so long as we are not being compelled to break Moral or natural Law. Authority wielded for oppressive purpose is man using God’s gift of authority for evil ends. However we are still required to submit to those authorities on matters that do not cause us to break Moral or Natural Law.
 
Yes, Britain did derive from God, its authority to rule America.

Probably. There are strict limited conditions, outlined in the Catechism, where overthrowing an existing government by force is allowable, but I don’t think that the American revolution would have fitted the that criteria.

CCC 2243 “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

No, you do don’t get it. It’s not about a government being legitimate, or otherwise, in the eyes of God. It is about the fact that all authority comes from God, and those who rule have derived this authority from God. Even oppressive regimes derive their authority from God. What people who make up governments then do with that authority is on their conscience and they will be judged for abusing that authority.

It is the teaching of our Church that all authority come from God (even the authority wielded by oppressive regimes). God bestows this authority upon people in positions of authority, and we are required to submit to this authority, so long as we are not being compelled to break Moral or natural Law. Authority wielded for oppressive purpose is man using God’s gift of authority for evil ends. However we are still required to submit to the authorities on matters that do not cause us to break Moral or Natural Law.
So does that mean that the US government does not derive its authority from God since God gave that authority to Britain and we wrongly revolted against Britain?
 
Yes, Britain did derive from God, its authority to rule America.

Probably. There are strict limited conditions, outlined in the Catechism, where overthrowing an existing government by force is allowable, but I don’t think that the American revolution would have fitted the that criteria.

CCC 2243 “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

However, whether or not power was ceased rightfully or not, the fact that the US government was in a position of authority afterwards meant that its authority also came from God.

No, you do don’t get it. It’s not about a government being legitimate, or otherwise, in the eyes of God. It is about the fact that all authority comes from God, and those who rule have derived this authority from God. Even oppressive regimes derive their authority from God. What people who make up governments then do with that authority is on their conscience and they will be judged for abusing that authority.

It is the teaching of our Church that all authority come from God (even the authority wielded by oppressive regimes). God bestows this authority upon people in positions of authority, and we are required to submit to this authority, so long as we are not being compelled to break Moral or natural Law. Authority wielded for oppressive purpose is man using God’s gift of authority for evil ends. However we are still required to submit to those authorities on matters that do not cause us to break Moral or Natural Law.
What does the Catholic Church say about conquering other nations? Didn’t Britain conquer America? Did God give authority to the leaders of the Native Americans to rule the Native Americans? Did Britain violate God’s will by usurping the authority he gave to the Native Americans to rule America?
 
So does that mean that the US government does not derive its authority from God since God gave that authority to Britain and we wrongly revolted against Britain?
You’re missing the point entirely. It is not about God giving His ‘seal of approval’ on particular governments. And if you want to push this point then the American revolution, in my opinion, probably did not fall with the limits of CCC2243. Regardless of that the American government did derive its authority over the people, from God.

Read what St Paul wrote, “ALL authority comes from God”. Even Hitler’s authority came from God, however Hitler’s abuse of that authority was his own doing and something he will be judged for.

It is not about whether a government has the approval of God, it is about the fact that all authority comes from God. Man can of course abuse authority. If someone in power has authority, then where can that authority come from other than God?
 
You’re missing the point entirely. It is not about God giving His ‘seal of approval’ on particular governments. And if you want to push this point then the American revolution, in my opinion, probably did not fall with the limits of CCC2243. Regardless of that the American government did derive its authority over the people, from God.

Read what St Paul wrote, “ALL authority comes from God”. Even Hitler’s authority came from God, however Hitler’s abuse of that authority was his own doing and something he will be judged for.

It is not about whether a government has the approval of God, it is about the fact that all authority comes from God. Man can of course abuse authority. If someone in power has authority, then where can that authority come from other than God?
Okay, so Britain had the authority from God to rule the people of America but, after America declared independence, the American government now has authority from God to rule the people of America?

So if I organized a rebellion against the US government, overthrew it, and declared myself dictator, then I would I have the authority from God to rule the people of America?
 
Okay, so Britain had the authority from God to rule the people of America but, after America declared independence, the American government now has authority from God to rule the people of America?

So if I organized a rebellion against the US government, overthrew it, and declared myself dictator, then I would I have the authority from God to rule the people of America?
Dear freeRadical,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The state lawfully claims the obedience of “every soul” (Rom. 13: 1) because the power it wields derives from Almighty God Himself. Indeed, there can be no exercise of that power apart from God (see Is. 10: 5-7, 45: 1; Dan 5: 26). The admission of this truth establishes the important principle that the authority of the state is a delegated and not an absolute authority. Thus when the demands of the state are in conflict with the law of God, resistance to them becomes a positive duty for the Christian (see I Kings 21: 3; Dan 3: 18, 6: 12; S. Mk 12: 17; Acts 4: 19, 5: 29; Heb. 11: 23). However, this does not give leave to organize a revolt against God-ordained government for the most trivial of reasons or because the present administration does not happen to meet with your approval. Certainly governments do not have carte blanche authority to exercise unlimited powers, for these powers are always necessarily limited by the nature of the authority. However, the “powers that be” are always to be rendered obedience in the exercise of their *legitimate *authority.

True, dear friend, it is sometimes argued that the legitimate authority of human government has its foundation ultimately in “the consent of the governed”, “the will of the majority”, or in some imaginary “social compact” entered into by the forefathers of the race at the origin of social life. However, it is self-evident that the divine will is the source of all government and the obligation to obey that will, resting upon all moral agents, the ultimate ground of all obligation to render obedience to human governments.

Finally, dear friend, as we all know, unrestrained freedom always results in anarchy, for then every man does that which is ‘right in his own eyes’ (Judges 21: 25). The state is mercifully ordained by God to meet the exigencies of the situation created by the entrance of sin into the world at the Fall. Indeed, the very fabric of society is preserved from total corruption by administering the law and legitimate authority. Only where rampant unfaithfulness on the part of the government exists, or where the form of it is incompatible with the design of its institution, do the governed have the moral right to remedy the evil. However, they cannot have the moral right to remedy one evil by the production of a greater. Now as there are few greater evils than instability and uncertainty in governments, the cases that justify organized rebellion and revolutions must be exceedingly rare.

God bless and hope that helps clarify things a little.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top