What makes a law just?

[Robyn_p]

I know according to the Church we’re supposed to obey all just laws. But what does that mean? What makes a law just or unjust?

Obviously if it’s contradicting the natural law (like abortion) that would qualify as unjust, but what if a law or ordinance isn’t contrary to natural law? Does that automatically make it just and are we therefore bound to follow it?

I ask this because there are so many laws where I live, I’ve lost count. For example, there’s a bridge by my house that’s over some water, so naturally, all the kids have fun in the summer jumping off it and diving into the water. Well, according to my city, doing that is illegal and you can get fined for it. A fun, innocent activity has been turned into an illegal one now. To me that seems unjust, but am I right?

How do we discern which laws are just and unjust?

 

[4love2God]

The Question : **“I know according to the Church we’re supposed to obey all just laws.
But what does that mean?
What makes a law just or unjust?
How do we discern which laws are just and unjust?”
**
There are 2 main ways to determine if a law is Just:

1. the Catholic Church can offer its opinion (as in the Catechism); or
2. an individual decides

As far as you, personally, discerning which laws qualify as unjust, there is NO set formula.
It can be as simple as you saying to yourself: “That is a stupid law, and I am not going to obey it.”

Most laws (whether or not they might be unjust) are completely out of our conscious arena.
Of all of the laws that exist in the World, I probably know of about 1000 or 2.
This defines the arena of possible scrutiny.

Out of that list, most of the remaining laws probably seem just-enough.
So those laws do not need to be studied further.
Of the few laws that remain, you will be drawn to a couple of them as possible unjust laws.
Half the job has been done.
Now that the logistical items are taken care of, it is time to open your heart and your soul … to see which of the remaining laws (somehow) go against your moral fiber.
Some prayer may be helpful to help you decide. Or, talk to a priest or close friend about your misgivings of this law.

In the end, it is just your personal opinion that governs your Unjust-law list.
Therefore, if “there’s a bridge by my house that’s over some water, so naturally, all the kids have fun in the summer jumping off it and diving into the water” it may come upon you to determine to disobey this (or rather, have the Kids disobey the law).

 

[hicetnunc]

I know according to the Church we’re supposed to obey all just laws. But what does that mean? What makes a law just or unjust?

Obviously if it’s contradicting the natural law (like abortion) that would qualify as unjust, but what if a law or ordinance isn’t contrary to natural law? Does that automatically make it just and are we therefore bound to follow it?

I ask this because there are so many laws where I live, I’ve lost count. For example, there’s a bridge by my house that’s over some water, so naturally, all the kids have fun in the summer jumping off it and diving into the water. Well, according to my city, doing that is illegal and you can get fined for it. A fun, innocent activity has been turned into an illegal one now. To me that seems unjust, but am I right?

How do we discern which laws are just and unjust?

Hi Robyn;

I certainly could not agree with 4love2God; option 2 (an individual decides) is certainly not Catholic moral teaching. St Thomas Aquinas gives is good criteria for deciding which laws we have to obey. In fact, any law which the state issues, which are not contrary to natural law, we are bound to follow. Since, if a law is not contrary to natural law, then neither is it contrary to eternal law, as the natural law is nothing less than the participation in the eternal law (ST 1a2ae, 97, a.1, ad.1) and the duly appointed state is the legitimate representative of God here on earth. The state may have very good reasons for prohibiting kids jumping off bridges; and they have the right to judge, according to prudence, what is in the best interest of the community at large regardless of the wants of the individual, so long as such laws do not contravene the legitimate universal rights of individuals, all things justly considered. 4love2God’s suggestion, that you simply disobey this law, is nothing less than an advocacy for relativism.

Moral actions, including laws, should obey three criteria: it should have just matter, form and end. In other words, it must be morally good act in itself; it must be realised in good circumstances; and it must be directed to a good end. A law banning kids jumping off a bridge would seem to satisfy all three criteria. However, if you disagree, you are perfectly within your rights to challenge the law—not by breaking it—but by lobbying your duly appointed or elected representative, at which time the state may either change the law or keep it. Many laws, like the one your describe are indeed contingent (that is, not necessary laws) but this does not detract from their legitimacy, since the government has the right to enact even contingent laws for the good of society.

 

[4love2God]

hicetnunc says: "St Thomas Aquinas gives us good criteria for deciding which laws we have to obey. In fact, any law which the state issues, which are not contrary to natural law, we are bound to follow."

Many things in Life are hard to comprehend when the words are not interpreted the same. Please give me your definition of “Natural Law.”

And, “the duly appointed state [the governments within the USA] is the legitimate representative of God here on earth. … and they have the right to judge … what is in the best interest of the community at large regardless of the wants of the individual”.
Please explain. When you use words like “Legitimate representative of God here on earth” I do not know where you got that from (e.g., the Pope, the New Testament, the Old …).

If I would bestow that “title” on anyone, it would be the Pope. But even then, I see him more as God’s representative to spiritual matters.

And, "4love2God’s suggestion, that you simply disobey this law, is nothing less than an advocacy for relativism."
Are you suggesting that every single law (not exempted by Natural Law) MUST be followed by every person, at every time?
I hope you have never driven 38 MPH in a 35 zone. (or, any number of other laws which are better suited as the proper thing to do).
This may make you an advocate for relativism.

And, "However, if you disagree, you are perfectly within your rights to challenge the law—not by breaking it—but by lobbying your duly appointed or elected representative, at which time the state may either change the law or keep it."
Yeah, Mister Smith goes to Washington.

Anyway, part of Life’s confusion is know being on the same page as the speaker.
I hope you can define the terms you are using.
Then, at least, I will understand what you mean.

 

[hicetnunc]

You can read what the Church teaches about civil authority in the following passages in the catechism: 1888, 1897-98, 1901-03, 1921-22, 2238, 2309, 2406, 2498

Hope this helps.

 

[mikekle]

Do you all think this applies when a law or set of laws are clearly put in place to take advantage of people or just a way to gain another revenue stream?

Example, I just paid for tags to be renewed on my car, we have to pay this ‘tax’ once a year and it is based on the value of our vehicles, well, in my case, I had sold a truck in March of last year, but they told me since it was in my possession in Jan 1 of that year, I was required to pay for the ENTIRE year for that vehicle!!!

To make matters worse, they just refuse to let someone pay to update their current car only, anything in the past MUST be paid right then and there before they will renew your current car, IMO, this seems wrong.

When I got home, I wondered how they can justify charging someone an entire year of taxes, when I only owned it for 2 months of that year…it also made me wonder if the person who bought that truck was being charged tax for that year as well. I did email this person so hopefully I get a reply back soon…if they are charging both of us for the same year, for the same vehicle, that is criminal in my opinion.

Personally I feel tax laws are way out of control, they charge us sales tax when we buy the car, we pay tax every year on its value, we pay tax on the fuel we MUST buy for it, we pay tax on all parts, labor, maintenance, etc. We pay tax on the insurance we are required to carry, HOW MANY times are they trying to swindle money out of us for a vehicle?!!! LOL

 

[Robyn_p]

Hi Robyn;

I certainly could not agree with 4love2God; option 2 (an individual decides) is certainly not Catholic moral teaching. St Thomas Aquinas gives is good criteria for deciding which laws we have to obey. In fact, any law which the state issues, which are not contrary to natural law, we are bound to follow. Since, if a law is not contrary to natural law, then neither is it contrary to eternal law, as the natural law is nothing less than the participation in the eternal law (ST 1a2ae, 97, a.1, ad.1) and the duly appointed state is the legitimate representative of God here on earth. The state may have very good reasons for prohibiting kids jumping off bridges; and they have the right to judge, according to prudence, what is in the best interest of the community at large regardless of the wants of the individual, so long as such laws do not contravene the legitimate universal rights of individuals, all things justly considered. 4love2God’s suggestion, that you simply disobey this law, is nothing less than an advocacy for relativism.

Moral actions, including laws, should obey three criteria: it should have just matter, form and end. In other words, it must be morally good act in itself; it must be realised in good circumstances; and it must be directed to a good end. A law banning kids jumping off a bridge would seem to satisfy all three criteria. However, if you disagree, you are perfectly within your rights to challenge the law—not by breaking it—but by lobbying your duly appointed or elected representative, at which time the state may either change the law or keep it. Many laws, like the one your describe are indeed contingent (that is, not necessary laws) but this does not detract from their legitimacy, since the government has the right to enact even contingent laws for the good of society.

Thanks. I think I understand. I’m still struggling a little though. Can the government overstep it’s boundaries with that right? Would that qualify as an example of an unjust law??

If the government decided that chocolate was damaging to society because it leads to obesity, and then bans all selling and consumption of chocolate, would we be bound to follow that law? Or would that be an example of an unjust law that’s not technically contrary to natural law?

Kids jumping off a five foot high bridge into water is hardly detrimental to society. To me that seems like an example of government going too far, especially since the main reason the law is there is to protect the city from lawsuits.

I’m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding which laws to follow on my own, but there comes a breaking point after a while with so much legislation, you know? We can’t even let kids be kids.

 

[Cristiano]

Thanks. I think I understand. I’m still struggling a little though. Can the government overstep it’s boundaries with that right? Would that qualify as an example of an unjust law??

If the government decided that chocolate was damaging to society because it leads to obesity, and then bans all selling and consumption of chocolate, would we be bound to follow that law? Or would that be an example of an unjust law that’s not technically contrary to natural law?

Kids jumping off a five foot high bridge into water is hardly detrimental to society. To me that seems like an example of government going too far, especially since the main reason the law is there is to protect the city from lawsuits.

I’m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding which laws to follow on my own, but there comes a breaking point after a while with so much legislation, you know? We can’t even let kids be kids.

An unjust law is a law that forces immoral behaviors and it should be disobeyed, failure to do so is sinful. Other laws can be annoying or inconvenient and they should still be obeyed because they are either morally right or morally neutral, failure to do so is sinful.
Now you can keep it simple by associating “morally wrong” with “sin” and I am quite sure that most of the time you can figure out what is sinful. When you cannot figure it out do not trust your feelings but consult with the religious authority, moral relativism is the danger of the emotion based DIY.
If there is a law that says not to jump from a bridge it is sinful to disobey it unless jumping would be necessary to do something morally right (e.g. save a life) You still cannot jump to do something that is morally neutral (e.g. you do not like to have dust all over yourself).
Is a government forcing you to do something sinful when making chocolate illegal? I would say no, thus the law is not unjust, it might look stupid and unpleasant but at worst it appears to be morally neutral.

 

[markomalley]

I know according to the Church we’re supposed to obey all just laws. But what does that mean? What makes a law just or unjust?

Obviously if it’s contradicting the natural law (like abortion) that would qualify as unjust, but what if a law or ordinance isn’t contrary to natural law? Does that automatically make it just and are we therefore bound to follow it?

I ask this because there are so many laws where I live, I’ve lost count. For example, there’s a bridge by my house that’s over some water, so naturally, all the kids have fun in the summer jumping off it and diving into the water. Well, according to my city, doing that is illegal and you can get fined for it. A fun, innocent activity has been turned into an illegal one now. To me that seems unjust, but am I right?

How do we discern which laws are just and unjust?

• Does the human law implement the natural law or, conversely, does obedience to the human law force (or provide legal sanction) one to violate the natural law?
  For example, human laws against murder obviously implement the natural law. Laws allowing abortion provide legal sanction for one to violate the natural law. Anti-discrimination laws in many states force one to violate the natural law (through their promotion of homosexual behavior and open advocacy of homosexuality as a morally neutral or morally good thing).
• Does the human law support commutative justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual)?
  Most of the examples here would fall into contract law; however, an example of such a law would be one to require a thief to pay restitution for the goods that he/she stole or one that sanctioned an employer who cheated an employee out of wages earned. An example of a law that would violate commutative justice would be one that allowed thieves to escape without paying restitution or one that nullified contracts.
• Does the human law support distributive justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights that an individual may claim from society)
  The two most obvious examples of laws that would violate distributive justice would be:
• those that implemented a type of a caste system
• inequitable distribution of taxes
  (If you are not familiar with what distributive justice mandates, I suggest you read S. Th. II-II-61)

I would think that there is a greater obligation to obey those laws that implement the above (or, conversely, a greater obligation to oppose / disregard those laws that violate the above)

But there are a whole ton of laws that are strictly a matter of human discretion…and regard for those, while one may pay a price in human terms, do not rise to the level of a grave sin (or, for that matter, a venial sin in many cases).

For example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that proposals be submitted by 4:30 PM (local time) on the due date (unless otherwise specified in the RFP) and be marked with the date/time received. (The FAR implements federal acquisition law). If a vendor does not submit his proposal by 4:30 PM on the due date, he has not committed any kind of a sin. If a contracting office employee inadvertently neglects to stamp the proposal with the date and time received (inadvertent is the operative word here), that employee hasn’t committed some sort of sin either. But yet that regulation has the force of law.

Your example (no kids jumping off the bridge into the water) would seem to me to follow into the latter example (one that is discretionary, rather than implementing the natural law or supporting the virtues of commutative/distributive justice). The reason behind it is likely that the government jurisdiction that made the law doesn’t want to be sued if one of the little darlings cracks his/her head open as the result of diving.

Is it unjust in of itself? While I don’t see how the law supports justice, I can’t say it’s an “unjust” law. But is violation of it a mortal sin? I can’t honestly see how.

 

[hicetnunc]

Thanks. I think I understand. I’m still struggling a little though. Can the government overstep it’s boundaries with that right? Would that qualify as an example of an unjust law??

If the government decided that chocolate was damaging to society because it leads to obesity, and then bans all selling and consumption of chocolate, would we be bound to follow that law? Or would that be an example of an unjust law that’s not technically contrary to natural law?

Kids jumping off a five foot high bridge into water is hardly detrimental to society. To me that seems like an example of government going too far, especially since the main reason the law is there is to protect the city from lawsuits.

This is an excellent point. Yes, certainly the government can and does overstep its boundaries, but the violation of such boundaries—if it is indeed a violation of its rights as government—would at the same time be a violation of natural law. Because the natural law necessitates the exercise of virtue (virtue and natural law are intrinsically linked), any law which violates virtue (including the virtue of prudence), even if materially legitimate, is secondary to the judgement of virtue. Here’s St Thoma’s text from the Summa Contra Gentiles:

“Moreover, it is not the same thing to transgress virtue and to trespass over boundaries set up by a judge. Virtue is, in fact, good in itself, and so to depart from virtue is an evil in itself. Hence, to go farther away from virtue is a greater evil. But to pass over a boundary line set up by a judge is not essentially evil, but accidentally so—to the extent, that is, that it is prohibited.” [SCG III.139.16]

I’m not comfortable with the idea of just deciding which laws to follow on my own, but there comes a breaking point after a while with so much legislation, you know? We can’t even let kids be kids.

Another great point. Here in the UK, the government is about to pass a law which prohibits smoking in your own car, if there are kids in the vehicle. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable law; but as a good friend of mine pointed out to me, this is the exercise of the ‘nanny state’ which ultimately treats people as morons. Prudence would dictate that I obey the law, since it is not contrary to natural law, but only in order to avoid a fine, and not because I acquiesce to the government’s intrusion into the daily life of its people. There will however come a point (you in the US are now experiencing this directly with the HHS mandate) when we must resist the intrusion of the government when it starts intruding directly upon the dictates of the natural law.

 

[bobballen_18]

This interests me, and especially your post, markomalley. It resonates pretty well with me. Not that I’m necessarily trying to justify some things I’ve done (such as speeding within reason and drinking underage [mostly at home]), but there are definitely some laws that, when the question of degree of sinfulness (if any) comes up, seem to be debatable, such as the bridge example being discussed, and others.

Your example (no kids jumping off the bridge into the water) would seem to me to follow into the latter example (one that is discretionary, rather than implementing the natural law or supporting the virtues of commutative/distributive justice). The reason behind it is likely that the government jurisdiction that made the law doesn’t want to be sued if one of the little darlings cracks his/her head open as the result of diving.

Is it unjust in of itself? While I don’t see how the law supports justice, I can’t say it’s an “unjust” law. But is violation of it a mortal sin? I can’t honestly see how.

Right, it certainly isn’t an unjust law. Obviously I am not any kind of authority, but my opinion is that it certainly isn’t a mortal sin. And if that is true, we could then ask, is it even a venial sin? I don’t know, maybe. I’d like to say no, but I have enough respect for law that I wouldn’t answer “no” definitively.

Is a government forcing you to do something sinful when making chocolate illegal? I would say no, thus the law is not unjust, it might look stupid and unpleasant but at worst it appears to be morally neutral.

OK, obviously this is just an example, but that would be totally absurd, and, depending on the reason for them implementing the law, it would definitely not be any kind of sin to break this law.

My last sentence reflects my usual train of thought when I come across situations like these. I think the reason for implementing the law must be taken into account. In that chocolate example, at least as of now, when there is nothing immoral about eating/selling chocolate whatsoever, there would be no good reason to implement the law.

In this bridge example, well, that might be more tough. The reason behind implementing the law prohibiting children/whoever to jump off of it is probably 1) as someone mentioned, to protect the city against lawsuits, but perhaps it’s also 2) for safety of all involved who may want to jump off of the bridge. Well, I think (1) is kind of silly - how could the city possibly be rightly sued for another’s decision to jump off the bridge? I mean, maybe it would be prudent to post a sign saying “shallow water” or something to that effect, but I would be outraged, as a city official, if I were sued for something like that. I can’t imagine how they would be sued. Parents should be responsible for their kids, not the city. OK, as for (2), ok, that’s a good intention, but again, parents have responsibility for their kids - why should it be necessary for the city to outlaw doing something like jumping off a bridge for fun? Anyway, I think this is more of a gray area than the chocolate example, but to me it seems to be pretty obvious that it is at absolute worst, a venial sin to violate a law prohibiting kids to jump off the bridge.

Now the examples I mentioned above in relation to myself. First, speeding. I regularly go 5 mph (over the speed limit). This is a case of clearly violating a law set by the city or wherever it is, but is it really a mortal or venial sin? First of all, obviously speeding for the sake of it or going an exorbitant amount over the speed limit should be avoided - at least for common sense if not for respect for the law. For me personally, I still base my speeding on the speed limit, so it’s not like I’m totally disregarding the law/authorities who have a legitimate reason to regulate our speed. Obviously, when laws (such as speed limits) are designed not just for the driver, but for others on the road, they should definitely be paid attention to, but you can’t legitimately tell me it’s a sin to go 70 in a 65. If law enforcement doesn’t mind, then you shouldn’t either (at least in this case - I’m not advocating for abortion or anything like that). If law enforcement has to consider whether to pull you over, you’re probably overstepping your boundaries. Of course, you don’t know what law enforcement officers are thinking, so that means you should be prudent and not speed an exorbitant amount. So I repeat, I’m not saying that speeding is never a sin - only in certain circumstances, and I’m not just saying it for myself.

As for drinking underage, I think I’ll limit my “argument” to drinking at home and with parents’ consent, although I think in some circumstances (NOT ALL), drinking outside of your home, with or without parents’ knowledge/consent, could be fine (although admittedly, that’s definitely gray area). It is not objectively sinful to drink alcohol, so that’s that. This is also a case in which the reason for the law being made should be taken into account. Of course, I don’t know EXACTLY why this law was made (have to be 21 to purchase/drink alcohol), but I would suspect it has something to do with excessive drinking on college campuses, as well as safety of individuals whose brains are still developing, and other things related to that.

 

[bobballen_18]

(continued…wow, I think this is the first time I’ve ever had to post a comment as 2! woohoo!)

Well, if you’re not violating any of those principles, despite being under 21, I see no reason that a sin was committed. If you’re drinking in moderation (if you have sensible parents around, that will be the case), there’s nothing wrong with having a drink. Obviously if your mental capabilities are beginning to take a hit, you should stop. And parents certainly should monitor their kids in this instance. This is another case of the government going too far with what parents can do with their kids. Yes, I know it’s legal in some states for people under 21 to drink if they’re with their parents, but in some it’s not. Who is the government to tell me about my own kid drinking alcohol in my own home, if my purpose is not to get them drunk or to damage their brain? Why can’t I, as a parent (well, I’m not a parent, but when/if I do become one), decide that for myself?

Now admittedly, I can see why the law wouldn’t allow consumption of alcohol with parents, because there are some bad parents out there. But why should those bad parents be the cause of the limiting of my own parenting? Not all parents are bad, and I definitely don’t think my parents were bad parents for allowing me to consume alcohol at home, within reason.

Heck, I think it could even be argued that getting tipsy isn’t objectively sinful. Drunk and tipsy are two different things. But again, that’s gray area.

Obviously this post got personal, with the last two instances, but I know there are many others that feel this way, not regarding just going 70 on a highway and drinking, but other issues which do not involve objectively sinful content.

I’m probably going to get hounded, especially with the drinking scenario…bring it on! Haha. I’m interested to see the replies.

 

[Robyn_p]

• Does the human law implement the natural law or, conversely, does obedience to the human law force (or provide legal sanction) one to violate the natural law?
  For example, human laws against murder obviously implement the natural law. Laws allowing abortion provide legal sanction for one to violate the natural law. Anti-discrimination laws in many states force one to violate the natural law (through their promotion of homosexual behavior and open advocacy of homosexuality as a morally neutral or morally good thing).
• Does the human law support commutative justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual)?
  Most of the examples here would fall into contract law; however, an example of such a law would be one to require a thief to pay restitution for the goods that he/she stole or one that sanctioned an employer who cheated an employee out of wages earned. An example of a law that would violate commutative justice would be one that allowed thieves to escape without paying restitution or one that nullified contracts.
• Does the human law support distributive justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights that an individual may claim from society)
  The two most obvious examples of laws that would violate distributive justice would be:
• those that implemented a type of a caste system
• inequitable distribution of taxes
  (If you are not familiar with what distributive justice mandates, I suggest you read S. Th. II-II-61)

I would think that there is a greater obligation to obey those laws that implement the above (or, conversely, a greater obligation to oppose / disregard those laws that violate the above)

But there are a whole ton of laws that are strictly a matter of human discretion…and regard for those, while one may pay a price in human terms, do not rise to the level of a grave sin (or, for that matter, a venial sin in many cases).

For example, the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires that proposals be submitted by 4:30 PM (local time) on the due date (unless otherwise specified in the RFP) and be marked with the date/time received. (The FAR implements federal acquisition law). If a vendor does not submit his proposal by 4:30 PM on the due date, he has not committed any kind of a sin. If a contracting office employee inadvertently neglects to stamp the proposal with the date and time received (inadvertent is the operative word here), that employee hasn’t committed some sort of sin either. But yet that regulation has the force of law.

Your example (no kids jumping off the bridge into the water) would seem to me to follow into the latter example (one that is discretionary, rather than implementing the natural law or supporting the virtues of commutative/distributive justice). The reason behind it is likely that the government jurisdiction that made the law doesn’t want to be sued if one of the little darlings cracks his/her head open as the result of diving.

Is it unjust in of itself? While I don’t see how the law supports justice, I can’t say it’s an “unjust” law. But is violation of it a mortal sin? I can’t honestly see how.

This is very helpful thanks! The sin part was my main concern. I can handle getting a ticket or paying a fine, but I really don’t want to do anything immoral or objectively wrong.

 

[Robyn_p]

This is an excellent point. Yes, certainly the government can and does overstep its boundaries, but the violation of such boundaries—if it is indeed a violation of its rights as government—would at the same time be a violation of natural law. Because the natural law necessitates the exercise of virtue (virtue and natural law are intrinsically linked), any law which violates virtue (including the virtue of prudence), even if materially legitimate, is secondary to the judgement of virtue. Here’s St Thoma’s text from the Summa Contra Gentiles:

“Moreover, it is not the same thing to transgress virtue and to trespass over boundaries set up by a judge. Virtue is, in fact, good in itself, and so to depart from virtue is an evil in itself. Hence, to go farther away from virtue is a greater evil. But to pass over a boundary line set up by a judge is not essentially evil, but accidentally so—to the extent, that is, that it is prohibited.” [SCG III.139.16]

Ah I see, ok that makes sense. I really need to start reading Aquinas more.

Another great point. Here in the UK, the government is about to pass a law which prohibits smoking in your own car, if there are kids in the vehicle. On the surface, this seems like a reasonable law; but as a good friend of mine pointed out to me, this is the exercise of the ‘nanny state’ which ultimately treats people as morons. Prudence would dictate that I obey the law, since it is not contrary to natural law, but only in order to avoid a fine, and not because I acquiesce to the government’s intrusion into the daily life of its people. There will however come a point (you in the US are now experiencing this directly with the HHS mandate) when we must resist the intrusion of the government when it starts intruding directly upon the dictates of the natural law.

Yeah. It’s only going to get worse over here before it starts getting better. :sad_yes:

 

[Robyn_p]

• Does the human law implement the natural law or, conversely, does obedience to the human law force (or provide legal sanction) one to violate the natural law?
  For example, human laws against murder obviously implement the natural law. Laws allowing abortion provide legal sanction for one to violate the natural law. Anti-discrimination laws in many states force one to violate the natural law (through their promotion of homosexual behavior and open advocacy of homosexuality as a morally neutral or morally good thing).
• Does the human law support commutative justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual)?
  Most of the examples here would fall into contract law; however, an example of such a law would be one to require a thief to pay restitution for the goods that he/she stole or one that sanctioned an employer who cheated an employee out of wages earned. An example of a law that would violate commutative justice would be one that allowed thieves to escape without paying restitution or one that nullified contracts.
• Does the human law support distributive justice (The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights that an individual may claim from society)
  The two most obvious examples of laws that would violate distributive justice would be:
• those that implemented a type of a caste system
• inequitable distribution of taxes
  (If you are not familiar with what distributive justice mandates, I suggest you read S. Th. II-II-61)

I would think that there is a greater obligation to obey those laws that implement the above (or, conversely, a greater obligation to oppose / disregard those laws that violate the above)

But there are a whole ton of laws that are strictly a matter of human discretion…and regard for those, while one may pay a price in human terms, do not rise to the level of a grave sin (or, for that matter, a venial sin in many cases).

I have another question related to this, and was wondering if you could kindly help me out again.

Got into an interesting discussion on drug use with my brother the other day, about whether it would be immoral to use something like marijuana. Since it’s illegal, I said it seems like a just law and we should follow it, otherwise we’re sinning.

Well, clearly we’re related, because he came back with the same question I started out this thread with, how do we know something’s a just law? He even used the chocolate example I used here. Would we say it’s a sin to eat chocolate if the government decided to outlaw it like they did alcohol during the prohibition? I really didn’t have a response.

As I thought about it more, and re-read your post, it looks like according to the guidelines listed, that such a law is more a matter of human discretion, and wouldn’t be a grave sin. Am I wrong or right there?

Now, I don’t want to turn this thread into another marijuana debate, or whether it’s use is intrinsically evil or not. I know the Church says we shouldn’t consume anything that seriously impairs our ability to reason, but there’s a big debate on whether marijuana does that or not, and I don’t feel like turning the thread into that debate.

The question is IF marijuana or say caffeine or whatever else is a morally neutral substance if used in moderation (again, whether marijuana is really that is another question.) was outlawed by the government, would it be a mortal sin or even a venial sin to consume it?

Or put another way, is Prohibitionism a just law in accord with divine law that disobeying said law would be sin, or is it a human law that, though we have to deal with the consequences, isn’t a grave sin to disobey?

 

[4love2God]

What is a just law . . . . . . AND, just for whom?

To my mind, the MOST just laws are ones which protect people from being somehow injured by another person.
Murder, rape, molest, battery, even Drunk-driving laws
Then, the near occasion of injury: threats to injure, pointing guns at people
After that, stealing, fraud …

Then, around the year 1900, people began crying out for laws to prevent people from having control over their own body: Bans against heroin, and making most other mind-altering drugs prescription-only … then they totally banned people from drinking alcohol. … And in 1937, began to ban marijuana.

So this Pot debate about sinfulness, eh, no big deal.
For the people who see a sin in each law that a person violates, just go to Colorado.
Poof, there it is legal to buy and use Pot (and the Federal government has bowed out of the way of their legalization law).
And, there are other countries in the World where it is legal.

This tells me that which laws are just … spreads out to : WHERE the laws are.
If a state (or country) has a law against something, then it is a Sin.
If the state next-door has NO law against it, well then it is NOT a sin.
Is that clear? Does this make sense? Well, Life often does NOT make sense.
If you get “caught” with a can of beer in Saudi Arabia, you will do HARD time in prison.
If you try to teach a Saudi about Christianity … you might be executed.

I believe that ANYTHING can be counter-productive to spirituality.
Drugs are the case-in-point.
Everything in Moderation.
But some people are adversely affected by doing something (whether it is taking drugs, or viewing pornography, or any number of other things).
So, for them, JUST SAY NO to it.
Spirituality is the MOST important attribute God wants us to have.
When a person loses some (or all ) of her spirituality because of something she is doing … STOP DOING THAT

 

[markomalley]

I have another question related to this, and was wondering if you could kindly help me out again.

Got into an interesting discussion on drug use with my brother the other day, about whether it would be immoral to use something like marijuana. Since it’s illegal, I said it seems like a just law and we should follow it, otherwise we’re sinning.

Well, clearly we’re related, because he came back with the same question I started out this thread with, how do we know something’s a just law? He even used the chocolate example I used here. Would we say it’s a sin to eat chocolate if the government decided to outlaw it like they did alcohol during the prohibition? I really didn’t have a response.

As I thought about it more, and re-read your post, it looks like according to the guidelines listed, that such a law is more a matter of human discretion, and wouldn’t be a grave sin. Am I wrong or right there?

Now, I don’t want to turn this thread into another marijuana debate, or whether it’s use is intrinsically evil or not. I know the Church says we shouldn’t consume anything that seriously impairs our ability to reason, but there’s a big debate on whether marijuana does that or not, and I don’t feel like turning the thread into that debate.

The question is IF marijuana or say caffeine or whatever else is a morally neutral substance if used in moderation (again, whether marijuana is really that is another question.) was outlawed by the government, would it be a mortal sin or even a venial sin to consume it?

Or put another way, is Prohibitionism a just law in accord with divine law that disobeying said law would be sin, or is it a human law that, though we have to deal with the consequences, isn’t a grave sin to disobey?

If one can get rid of all prejudices (either for or against), that is an interesting question.

There are two paragraphs in the Catechism that deal with the subject, in general: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.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
And, of course, we have the capital sin of gluttony (which includes drunkenness).

The question is: how many people actually smoke marijuana for the purpose of enjoying the taste? (where the taste is the primary reason; the buzz is a mere after-effect)

I drink beer. I drink good beer and not horsep***. (I have a Leffe sitting in front of me right now, as an example) Why? Because I like the taste.

I drink wine. I drink moderate quality wine (definitely not the boxed stuff). [If I could easily afford the good stuff, I’d drink it, but the good stuff is pretty bloody expensive here]

I like bourbon every now and again. Again, I drink as high a quality bourbon as I can afford [my preference is Maker’s Mark 46]. Why? Because I like the taste.

I rarely drink enough to be be even “tipsy” – haven’t drank enough to be “drunk” for years.

Coffee or tea: the same thing. I drink them both because I enjoy the taste…and I drink as good a quality as my budget will comfortably allow.

I know a lot of people who, though they don’t smoke, say that they like the smell of a good cigar or pipe tobacco.

Why do people smoke marijuana? I have never met anybody who smoke it because they like the taste. They smoke it for the purpose of the effect. They put it in brownies…for the effect. And so on.

Now I’m not trying to judge that. If somebody claims that they can function perfectly normally when they get a little “buzzed”, I’ll take his/her word for it.

Now perhaps one day, if marijuana is legalized long enough and incorporated into the culture enough, perhaps a culture will develop where people will smoke it for the taste and where the buzz is an after-effect.

However, for now, it seems to me that the only excuse for smoking dope is the capital sin of gluttony (i.e., drunkenness).

Consider this: they sell near beer (alcohol-free beer). They sell decaffeinated coffee and tea. They sell mustum. They even sell alcohol free whiskey / rum / brandy flavored syrups.

Can you ever picture an occasion where they intentionally sell a THC-free marijuana for those who love the taste but don’t want / can’t deal with the high?

As far as the issue of it being a sin, that’s where I’m at on the subject.

As far as the justice of the law, temperance (the corresponding virtue to gluttony) is a cardinal virtue. In other words, a virtue that is based upon the natural law. So I would think that it would be reasonable (but not necessarily mandatory) for society to regulate that behavior through the human law. (You have to do the math yourself as far as how smoking dope could impact commutative or distributive justice).

Having said that, I don’t consider it (and this is my opinion) to be a moral absolute. We’d have to take a look at society where it’s legal to see the impact after 20-25 years to see if it should be a moral absolute.

FWIW.

 

[Jared2914]

I believe a just law is any law that is not contrary to Church teaching or the Bible. Some laws the Church will directly support, such as laws against murder. Sometimes you can “derive” the morality of a law based on Church teaching or the Bible even if those specific sources don’t directly have a say on the matter. If the law does not disagree with either of those, I consider it a just law. I might not agree with the law. I might think another law would be better for the intended purpose, but I will follow that law to the best of my ability.

 

[Robyn_p]

If one can get rid of all prejudices (either for or against), that is an interesting question.

There are two paragraphs in the Catechism that deal with the subject, in general: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.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
And, of course, we have the capital sin of gluttony (which includes drunkenness).

The question is: how many people actually smoke marijuana for the purpose of enjoying the taste? (where the taste is the primary reason; the buzz is a mere after-effect)

I drink beer. I drink good beer and not horsep***. (I have a Leffe sitting in front of me right now, as an example) Why? Because I like the taste.

I drink wine. I drink moderate quality wine (definitely not the boxed stuff). [If I could easily afford the good stuff, I’d drink it, but the good stuff is pretty bloody expensive here]

I like bourbon every now and again. Again, I drink as high a quality bourbon as I can afford [my preference is Maker’s Mark 46]. Why? Because I like the taste.

I rarely drink enough to be be even “tipsy” – haven’t drank enough to be “drunk” for years.

Coffee or tea: the same thing. I drink them both because I enjoy the taste…and I drink as good a quality as my budget will comfortably allow.

I know a lot of people who, though they don’t smoke, say that they like the smell of a good cigar or pipe tobacco.

Why do people smoke marijuana? I have never met anybody who smoke it because they like the taste. They smoke it for the purpose of the effect. They put it in brownies…for the effect. And so on.

Now I’m not trying to judge that. If somebody claims that they can function perfectly normally when they get a little “buzzed”, I’ll take his/her word for it.

Now perhaps one day, if marijuana is legalized long enough and incorporated into the culture enough, perhaps a culture will develop where people will smoke it for the taste and where the buzz is an after-effect.

However, for now, it seems to me that the only excuse for smoking dope is the capital sin of gluttony (i.e., drunkenness).

Consider this: they sell near beer (alcohol-free beer). They sell decaffeinated coffee and tea. They sell mustum. They even sell alcohol free whiskey / rum / brandy flavored syrups.

Can you ever picture an occasion where they intentionally sell a THC-free marijuana for those who love the taste but don’t want / can’t deal with the high?

As far as the issue of it being a sin, that’s where I’m at on the subject.

As far as the justice of the law, temperance (the corresponding virtue to gluttony) is a cardinal virtue. In other words, a virtue that is based upon the natural law. So I would think that it would be reasonable (but not necessarily mandatory) for society to regulate that behavior through the human law. (You have to do the math yourself as far as how smoking dope could impact commutative or distributive justice).

Having said that, I don’t consider it (and this is my opinion) to be a moral absolute. We’d have to take a look at society where it’s legal to see the impact after 20-25 years to see if it should be a moral absolute.

FWIW.

Thanks! All good points. Gives a lot to think about.