Was Prohibition a unjust law?

[Brendan_64]

I guess the Church thinks it would have been better for millions of Japanese civilians to die, millions of Americans to die, and thousands of British, with a possible complete annihilation of the Japanese, then for a couple of hundred thousand Japanese to die. If that’s what the Church thinks then of course I disagree with them.

So you know better than Christ’s Church on Earth? The Church teaches that evil can NEVER be done to achieve a good end, never. The Church condemns the deliberate bombing of civilians. The Church has specifically condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So you disagree with the Church? You disagree with teachings that, as a Catholic, you are BOUND by Christ to obey?

Btw, here’s what Winston Churchill said about the dropping of the atomic bombs:

" There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. …] I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives."

—Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945

What has Winston Churchill got to do with the teachings of the Church? Do you hold Winston Churchill up as a higher authority than Christ’s Church on Earth? It would seem that you do.

The Church clearly condemns the deliberate bombing of civilians, therefore the deliberate bombing of civilians is wrong. If the Church condemns it then there can be no discussion.

If you hold a view that is contrary to the teachings of the Church then, as a Catholic you are bound to accept that your own view is wrong and conform your view to the teachings of the Church. If the Church teaches it, then it must be right.

 

[freeRadical]

So you know better than Christ’s Church on Earth? The Church teaches that evil can NEVER be done to achieve a good end, never. The Church condemns the deliberate bombing of civilians. The Church has specifically condemned the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So you disagree with the Church? You disagree with teachings that, as a Catholic, you are BOUND by Christ to obey?

Yes, I disagree with the Church on this matter and the other matter we have been discussing.

If you hold a view that is contrary to the teachings of the Church then, as a Catholic you are bound to accept that your own view is wrong and conform your view to the teachings of the Church. If the Church teaches it, then it must be right.

I actually have two choices: accept my view is wrong and conform my view to the teachings of the Church or leave the Church.

If the Church can get away with contradicting its own teachings then I think it’s okay that I disagree with it on one or two things.

 

[freeRadical]

Btw, the US did not deliberately target civilians, I don’t know where you are getting that from.

 

[Brendan_64]

Btw, the US did not deliberately target civilians, I don’t know where you are getting that from.

So dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not deliberately bombing civilians? So they assumed that the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had all left town that day?

Anyway, the Church has specifically condemned the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You of course insist that your views on this matter take precedence over the teachings of the Church. That is quite sad really.

As a Catholic you are bound to accept the authority of the Church on what it teaches, reject your own views and seek to conform yourself to Church teachings. Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose, the authority that binds you to accept Church teaching is the authority of Christ. The Church CANNOT be wrong when it comes to teaching on faith and morals.

 

[Digitonomy]

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."

You seem to have issue with the teachings of our Church on this. What you think on the matter is not relevant, all that matters is what our Church teaches on this.I would suggest that someone who disagrees with you about the interpretation of a particular scripture verse does not automatically have issue with the teachings of our Church.

It is certainly legitimate to cite scripture to aid in interpreting the Catechism. But if if the Church had as strict a view on this as you do, you wouldn’t need to cite Romans because the Catechism would explicitly say exactly what you are saying. It doesn’t.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Because it is being implied and stated that a government somehow receives its authority from the Constitution. Authority does not come either frolm an existing law, or from the people, it comes from God.

I’m not trying to say that the law is a source of authority. Instead, I’m stressing the need for authorities to act within the confines of the law, and that the law does not cease to exist when one or more legislators cease to breathe. For totally obvious reasons.

But let’s take a really simple example: say we’ve got a unicameral Western state where laws require a 2/3s vote to pass. No single legislator can, by their own will decide that because they are an “authority,” they may therefore pass laws all by themselves.

Similarly, a justice cannot take upon herself to issue sentences that are proscribed by the law.

Likewise, a government school teacher may be entitled to detain a pupil after class, but almost certainly does not have that ability when it comes to the pupil’s parents.

Finally, to the point, U.S. legislators may not make laws “abridging the freedom of speech,” without first repealing the 1st amendment. Because, again, it’s the law.

So, as a Catholic, you are now saying that the Church is lost, because it is opposed to the deliberate and indiscriminate bombing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? The Church also teaches that evil can **never **be done in order to achieve good. Certainly the deliberate bombing of civilians is evil, our Church is very clear on that.

So to top off your refusal to accept the authority of the Church regarding its teaching that all authority comes from God, you are now saying that the Church is lost because it condemns the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Perhaps it is you who are lost, not the Church?

On one side, I’ve got him saying that one may do evil that good may come. On the other side, I’ve got you getting morally outraged about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while simultaneously pressing the point that God instituted the authority of Hitler, Stalin and yes, even Truman who, ironically, is the one who dropped those same bombs in the first place.

So, a correction:* I’m *the one that’s the most lost here.

 

[Brendan_64]

I would suggest that someone who disagrees with you about the interpretation of a particular scripture verse does not automatically have issue with the teachings of our Church.

It is certainly legitimate to cite scripture to aid in interpreting the Catechism. But if if the Church had as strict a view on this as you do, you wouldn’t need to cite Romans because the Catechism would explicitly say exactly what you are saying. It doesn’t.

Or with CCC 2314?

Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).

The poster stated that if the Catholic Church believed that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong then the Catholic Church is lost. The Chuirch clearly does condemn these bombings, this was stated at Vatican II, John Paul II restated it and it is clearly a breach of CCC 2314.

That was my reason for the reply. If a person claims that the Church is lost because of what it teaches (as in CCC 2314) then it would seem that there is an issue between that person and what the Church teaches.

Here is an excellent article from CAF on what constitutes a just war, and it makes specific reference to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresedn) as grave violations of CCC 2314.

catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine

 

[Brendan_64]

On the other side, I’ve got you getting morally outraged about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki while simultaneously pressing the point that God instituted the authority of Hitler, Stalin and yes, even Truman who, ironically, is the one who dropped those same bombs in the first place.

You are confusing having authority with using that authority wickedly.

God did not institute Hitler’s government, no more than he instituted Stalin’s government, or Truman’s government, yet all these governments (like it or not) were in authority. The fact is that all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1). Now that does not mean that God approves of the actions of these regimes, or that these regimes (or rather individuals holding authority) cannot carry out acts of unspeakable evil. God grants all of us the gift of free will, even those in authority and he dos not limit the scope of that free will. These people will have to answer to God for their sins committed as a result of abusing their authority.

Was Truman in a position of authority when he authorised the dropping the atomic bombs on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Yes he was. Was Hitler in a position of authority when he carried out his heinous crimes? Yes he was. Did these acts therefore have God’s approval? Most certainly not. These acts were grave violations of the Fifth Commandment and extreme cases of abuses of authority. The Church condemns them. And I’m not saying that Truman or Hitler are morally comparable, or that the dropping of the Atom bombs is comparable to the Holocaust, just that both acts are condemned by the Church, yet both were authorised by men in positions of authority. Having authority that derives from God is not an approval by God, in any way, of how that authority is used.

And it’s not me getting morally outraged about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, these bombings have been condemned by our Church and are grave violations of Church teaching on the Fifth Commandment (CCC 2314).

 

[Digitonomy]

The poster stated that if the Catholic Church believed that the bombings of Hiroshima…

That was my reason for the reply. If a person claims that the Church is lost because of what it teaches (as in CCC 2314) then it would seem that there is an issue between that person and what the Church teaches.

I actually quoted your post #64, before just war theory and Hiroshima was first broached in post #70. I was commenting on your argument that you repeated again in post #65,
Brendan64:

You are bound, by Church teaching as a US citizen, to follow the laws of your country (just as I am bound to follow British laws)…

I really fail to see why you have such an issue with this. It is the teaching of our Church.

It appeared to me that your reading of the Romans verse informed your interpretation of the CCC 2242 paragraph on submission to authority, and thus you imply that we must accept and follow under pain of sin every law, rule, and regulation issued by legitimate authority, unless it is unjust. While I disagree with that, it’s a reasonable conclusion one could draw. But it is not Church teaching.

CCC 2242 does not say that we must obey each and every just law. It says we must “not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded… by the common good”. I submit that we are free to determine that some just laws and rules do not promote the common good, but are either neutral or even opposed to the common good, and we may at times morally disobey such laws.

 

[Brendan_64]

I actually quoted your post #64, before just war theory and Hiroshima was first broached in post #70. I was commenting on your argument that you repeated again in post #65, It appeared to me that your reading of the Romans verse informed your interpretation of the CCC 2242 paragraph on submission to authority, and thus you imply that we must accept and follow under pain of sin every law, rule, and regulation issued by legitimate authority, unless it is unjust. While I disagree with that, it’s a reasonable conclusion one could draw. But it is not Church teaching.

CCC 2242 does not say that we must obey each and every just law. It says we must “not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded… by the common good”. I submit that we are free to determine that some just laws and rules do not promote the common good, but are either neutral or even opposed to the common good, and we may at times morally disobey such laws.

I see your point and it is a a fair one. But would the same apply to a child and the authority of his parents? Is a teenager free to disregard instructions from his parents if he feels that those instructions are not reasonable (even though they are not contrary to natural Law of scripture)? A parent has authority, civil authorities have authority, and all authority comes from God.

Both obeying your parents and obeying authorities are covered by the Fourth Commandment. CCC 2234 “God’s fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God.” Our Church does teach us that we are required to submit to legitimate authorities (our submission to authority is mentioned in CCC 2238, CCC 2239 and CCC 2340). Do acts of disobedience constitute submission to authority?

CC 2238 “Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God”

I know that this is not popular in today’s individualistic, anti-authoritarian climate, but it is nevertheless what our Church teaches.

 

[Tzimisce]

I believe “Justice” has no definition.

 

[The_Serpent]

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

There is an excellent book that deals with government from a Catholic perspective. “The Political Philosophy of St. Robert Bellarmine” by Rev. Fr. John Clement Rager. If you can find it in print. In Bellarmine’s view authority is given to the community that puts it in the form of government they create. So the 'consent of the governed " does occur!

 

[Brendan_64]

I believe “Justice” has no definition.

Without a definition of Justice, then there is no justice. Each man makes up his own version and is morally accountable to nobody but himself, not accountable to God, not accountable to society, only accountable to himself. Each man is effectively his own God, bringing us into the realms of all the “Do what thou wilt” garbage (drawn up by a man who recommended ritual child murder)

This is all well and good until somebody breaks into an old lady’s home, beats her to death and steals her pension, or somebody kidnaps a child and abuses her. Do what thou wilt eh?

Thankfully the pagans I happen to know do believe in justice, as do the atheists I know. An instinctive understanding of the basic concept of justice is hard-wired into human beings through natural law.

Anyone denying the concept of justice is choosing to deny something that is self evident.

 

[Tzimisce]

Without a definition of Justice, then there is no justice. Each man makes up his own version and is morally accountable to nobody but himself, not accountable to God, not accountable to society, only accountable to himself. Each man is effectively his own God, bringing us into the realms of all the “Do what thou wilt” garbage (drawn up by a man who recommended ritual child murder)

This is all well and good until somebody breaks into an old lady’s home, beats her to death and steals her pension, or somebody kidnaps a child and abuses her. Do what thou wilt eh?

I know the Catholics have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Pagans have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Atheists have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Republicans have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Democrats have definition of “Justice”.
I know Muslims have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Nazis have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Communists have a definition of “Justice”.
I know Boy Scouts have a definition of “Justice”.

But all these groups argue over it amongst each other and amongst themselves with very little agreement or overlap.

I believe the Catholic definition of “Justice” is obeying God’s will.

But God isn’t here to talk to us in every single strange event that comes up.

Let’s take the original poster’s question for example:

Is prohibition an “unjust” law?

If a drunkard who beats his family while on the bottle had to sober up when the nation went dry, I guess yes.

If there was someone suffering in the woods cause he couldn’t reach a hospital and needed liquor to kill the pain, I guess no.

Does God’s will demand that we not drink? Jesus drank wine.
Not drink to excess? What is excess? It varies from person to person.

Thankfully the pagans I happen to know do believe in justice, as do the atheists I know. An instinctive understanding of the basic concept of justice is hard-wired into human beings through natural law.

I find it odd that a devote Catholic would suggest that there is “Justice” without God.

Anyone denying the concept of justice is choosing to deny something that is self evident.

My question is innocent. I mean no disrespect at all. You don’t have to get snarky and condescending.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I find it odd that a devote Catholic would suggest that there is “Justice” without God.

He just said “Justice” is hard wired into us by God according to the natural law. Therefore, even the atheist will be held accountable for acting justly right along with the Catholic. So how do you figure he said there is Justice without God?

God is the fountain source of all that is good. Justice is good.

 

[Brendan_64]

I find it odd that a devote Catholic would suggest that there is “Justice” without God.

I never said anything of the sort. Natural law is a core Church teaching. All humans are hard-wired with a sense of justice as part of their human nature. This has been built into us as part of creation. It is not a complete understanding of justice, but it is an understanding of justice at a basic, operational level. So yes, atheists, Pagans have an inherent sense of justice built into their nature

Catholic morality has three sources, the Bible, the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, and Natural law

Natural Law is the universal, moral law given by God in the very act of creating human beings.

“When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all” Romans 2:14-16

From CCC 1954: “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin .”

Natural Law is written into the hearts of all men. As a result of this, all men have an instinctive sense of justice as part of their nature.

 

[Digitonomy]

I see your point and it is a a fair one. But would the same apply to a child and the authority of his parents? Is a teenager free to disregard instructions from his parents if he feels that those instructions are not reasonable (even though they are not contrary to natural Law of scripture)?

I would say yes. I think most of us have been in situations where we say “Dad, I know you said to rake the yard before doing my homework, but the leaves were really wet this morning so I thought it would be better to wait until the wind and sun dried them out a bit.”

His response may be “That was probably a smart move. They’re done now? Good.” No throwing out of backs, no breaking of trash bags under the formidable weight of soaked leaves. And so we are rewarded for considering the situation, and working in the most reasonable way toward the ultimate goal, even though we disobeyed the exact instructions given to us. This is surely not a sin.

Or he may say “You’re grounded for disobeying me.” And punishment is always a risk we take when we do not slavishly follow every instruction from authority, but instead try to second guess the purpose and work toward that. So it is proper to consider carefully before disregarding such instructions.
Brendan64:

Do acts of disobedience constitute submission to authority?

Yes, they can - if we are submitting ourselves to the goals of authority, and occasionally adjusting the means as necessary. We have discussed how all authority ultimately comes from God, and how just laws are geared toward the common good. If we think an action is better-suited toward the common good on a particular task, or closer to how God would want us to act, then I think it is appropriate to act in that way, even if it is contrary to what authority has directed.

Obviously the views of authority are important in deciding this - if authority is going to be highly offended and angry, there had better be a very good reason to disobey. If it’s a matter that authority hasn’t shown much regard for, then a much lower threshhold must be met for an act of disobedience to be geared toward the common good.

 

[Brendan_64]

I would say yes. I think most of us have been in situations where we say “Dad, I know you said to rake the yard before doing my homework, but the leaves were really wet this morning so I thought it would be better to wait until the wind and sun dried them out a bit.”

That is very different from completely obeying a law because you personally don’t think the law is reasonable (even though the law is not unjust). If the kid thought, “I’m not going to rake the yard, that’s unfair, none of my friends are asked to do that by their parents, and my Dad has let my brother get away without any chores, Dad is being unreasonable so I will simply ignore this instruction”. Would that be OK? Or would that be a sin?

His response may be "That was probably a smart move.

And you think that the authorities would say that to someone breaking the law because he thought that law was unreasonable? Of course not.

They’re done now? Good." No throwing out of backs, no breaking of trash bags under the formidable weight of soaked leaves. And so we are rewarded for considering the situation, and working in the most reasonable way toward the ultimate goal, even though we disobeyed the exact instructions given to us. This is surely not a sin.

Or he may say “You’re grounded for disobeying me.” And punishment is always a risk we take when we do not slavishly follow every instruction from authority, but instead try to second guess the purpose and work toward that. So it is proper to consider carefully before disregarding such instructions.Yes, they can - if we are submitting ourselves to the goals of authority, and occasionally adjusting the means as necessary.

And you think that the courts would accept that defence for choosing to break the law? It might mitigate your sentence in some cases, but if you are guilty of breaking the law then you have committed an offence.

We have discussed how all authority ultimately comes from God, and how just laws are geared toward the common good. If we think an action is better-suited toward the common good on a particular task, or closer to how God would want us to act, then I think it is appropriate to act in that way, even if it is contrary to what authority has directed.

However the laws that people choose to ignore and break are more often than not the laws that they consider as an infringement of their own individual freedom to behave as wish to behave.

 

[Tzimisce]

He just said “Justice” is hard wired into us by God according to the natural law. Therefore, even the atheist will be held accountable for acting justly right along with the Catholic. So how do you figure he said there is Justice without God?

God is the fountain source of all that is good. Justice is good.

Well he assumed that since I said Justice has no definition I was excusing any and every action.

So I guess we’re all prone to making mistakes.

 

[Tzimisce]

I never said anything of the sort. Natural law is a core Church teaching. All humans are hard-wired with a sense of justice as part of their human nature. This has been built into us as part of creation. It is not a complete understanding of justice, but it is an understanding of justice at a basic, operational level. So yes, atheists, Pagans have an inherent sense of justice built into their nature

Catholic morality has three sources, the Bible, the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church, and Natural law

Natural Law is the universal, moral law given by God in the very act of creating human beings.

“When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all” Romans 2:14-16

From CCC 1954: “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin .”

Natural Law is written into the hearts of all men. As a result of this, all men have an instinctive sense of justice as part of their nature.

“Justice” has no definition.

If it did, we wouldn’t be sitting here arguing about it.
If it did, there would be no crime at all.
If it did, there would be no sin.
If it did, there would be no evil.

The Arabs believe that if you steal something, you should have your hand cut off. Is that justice? What if I’m starving and I’m stealing food?

I could come up with tons of other examples, but you get the idea.