Why don't we turn ourselves in to the law?

[fakename]

If the law is supposed to be just, and if justice means to establish or re-establish some antecedent equality, then if one breaks a law one is obliged (when trying to re-establish justice) to undergo the legal punishment.

But Catholics do break the law sometimes by accidentally infringing copyrights or some such thing.

So shouldn’t we be obliged to call the law to our attention?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

If the law is supposed to be just, and if justice means to establish or re-establish some antecedent equality, then if one breaks a law one is obliged (when trying to re-establish justice) to undergo the legal punishment.

But Catholics do break the law sometimes by accidentally infringing copyrights or some such thing.

So shouldn’t we be obliged to call the law to our attention?

There are 3 “if” in the starting sentence.
Too many “ifs”, “to call the law to our attention”.

 

[fakename]

There are 3 “if” in the starting sentence.
Too many “ifs”, “to call the law to our attention”.

But all the hypotheticals and conditionals are true, so don’t let the “ifs” get to you.

 

[St_Francis]

But all the hypotheticals and conditionals are true, so don’t let the “ifs” get to you.

But are all the hypotheticals true?

If the law is supposed to be just,

The law is supposed to be applied justly. It does not have true complete justice as its end as that is impossible to achieve. What about all the bad things which are not against the law, like deliberately hurting people’s feelings, breaking up with people, etc.

and if justice means to establish or re-establish some antecedent equality,

Antecedent refers to the past, which we cannot change. How will the law establish an antecedent equality?

then if one breaks a law one is obliged (when trying to re-establish justice) to undergo the legal punishment.

No. It is the job of the police to find criminals, and the Church has always taught that one does not have to incriminate oneself to the authorities, just as our Constitution does.

However, the Church does teach that a person should make restitution insofar as the person is able.]

 

[Richard320]

We do better than that. We turn ourselves in to a priest in confession. If we have no intention of stopping the behavior, the priest won’t absolve us. He may also tell us to give something back, or destroy something we copied, who knows? Maybe turning yourself in to the police would be part of the penance?

 

[fakename]

user "St. Francis":

Antecedent refers to the past, which we cannot change. How will the law establish an antecedent equality?

by fixing a present inequality. I’m not proposing time travel.

No. It is the job of the police to find criminals, and the Church has always taught that one does not have to incriminate oneself to the authorities, just as our Constitution does.

However, the Church does teach that a person should make restitution insofar as the person is able.]

But why does that mean that self-incrimination is not a duty and only optional as part of penance and in general?

If the law’s job is to solve crimes, and one has committed a crime, then it must be solved by the police, just like when someone wants to build a boat, one needs the proper instruments and the proper instruments for justice are the state or the police.

Is it because the injustice is sufficiently removed by merely returning the property? If so does that mean that the police don’t add anything to procuring justice except a more normal and conventional way of doing so?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

But all the hypotheticals and conditionals are true, so don’t let the “ifs” get to you.

If the “ifs” were true, OK, you could turn yourself in.
But, let’s start from the first “if”.

“If the law is supposed to be just”
I forgot the “supposed”…
That is in an ideal world.
In Paradise, maybe…