Written Law vs. Enforcement of Law? = Submitting to Authority

[FraterInChristo]

To start off, there have been a number of threads discussing the moral matter of whether or not speeding is a sin; I do not intend to create another one discussing the same thing, though that may come up.

The point of this post is to see where this community thinks the “submitting to authority” moral obligation applies: at the written level or the enforcement level of the law.

The higher moral teaching that governs this is that we should submit to the authority over us while things are just and morally acceptable; if the authority imposes things that are unjust or immoral then we have the right to stand up for what is good (Godly).

Situation:
I have a non-Catholic Christian friend that is telling me that he can exceed the speed limit up to the speed that is “enforced” because that is what the authority of the “enforcers” is telling them the limit is for enforcement. I am telling him that the authority created the law that says you shall not exceed the speed limit posted for that section of road.

He believes that it is OK to “break” the law while remaining under the “enforced limit” because that is the true law because that is how the authority communicates the limit; and that fulfills “submitting to authority.”

What do you think? Or, better, yet, what do you know the Church to teach and why?

 

[chevalier]

“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is Gods.”

While Jesus said that about taxes, I think it applies to behaviours too, not just required donations.

I think your friend gets it a bit wrong, but where he may be a little right is that some laws fall in disuse but are not formally repealed. Especially in systems with a lot of customary law, preceding and sometimes trumping statutory law, enforcement can bring about some trouble in interpreting what actually is law.

There is also the problem of which law is reasonable and which is not. I’m not a big fan of submitting to groundless bans or senseless taxation rules. If the law required something particularly burdensome, without a good need, and it were not enforced, I would probably not do it, although I’d be careful not to overstep my boundaries.

In case of speeding, I’m not fully sure. I wouldn’t keep the legal speed if everyone else were speeding and my being slow could cause a crash. Similarly, if I had a dire need to be somewhere on time, I might speed. I can’t predict my behaviour if I saw a truly senseless limitation that obviously had no grounds, but I suppose I’d be tempted.

 

[wjp984]

Drive at a speed that is safe. If there is no one on the road in the middle of the desert, then speed all you want since there are rarely any cops. One thing I realized about being in Michigan is there aren’t any cops here either so speed all you want in Michigan. However, once I cross the border into Ohio I make sure not to speed more than 10 over since there are cops everywhere and they will get you. It really upsets me too since I have to pay to go on the stupid turnpike yet I can’t even speed. It might even be sinful to speed there though since there are more cars and it could be reckless to endanger them. I agree with the flow of traffic argument. When it is safe to speed then there is no sin and when there are no cops it is probably is not sinful either since if they don’t care enough to enforce the law then they don’t think it is important so it probably is not sinful to not obey it.

.

 

[FraterInChristo]

I wouldn’t keep the legal speed if everyone else were speeding and my being slow could cause a crash.

If going the speed limit was so much slower than everyone else, especially to the point of being able to cause a crash because of the relatively slower speed, then there is something else wrong going on there. Going 65 in a 65 while most of the others are going 80 is perfectly acceptable, though.

Drive at a speed that is safe. … One thing I realized about being in Michigan is there aren’t any cops here either so speed all you want in Michigan. However, once I cross the border into Ohio I make sure not to speed more than 10 over since there are cops everywhere and they will get you.

(These are all honest questions that I’d like to know the answers to to increase my wisdom and the wisdom of others reading this thread so that we may make more holy decisions in the future.)
How do you know what is “safe?” Why would you think you know better than those who posted the speed limit in a particular area to determine what speed is safe?
Why is the fact of a higher chance of being pulled over more of a significant reason not to speed than the fact that you are breaking the law by exceeding the speed limit no matter where the police are?
How do you justify speeding in light of paragraphs 2238-2243 of the CCC?

 

[wjp984]

because I really can care less. I’m tired of defending why I think it is not a sin to speed. You know when you are endangering the lives of others. The law does not need to tell you this. Speed limits help make money for the states. What if it were one a reward basis and not a punishment basis as in everyone pays a fee each year of maybe $500 and if you don’t speed you get the money back. Would it still be sinful then? I think we each need to examine our own conscience and deternine whether something is sinful. In my opinion, unless I am endangering the life of another then I am not sinning while speeding. In the desert, there is no on on the road who I can endanger so I should be able to safely drive at 90 mph or so. In the city, I probably only can safely drive 75 mph when there is free flowing traffic or less according to how many cars there are. Those are my moral speed limits and I can care less what the law states.

Finally, what about the fact that our own government can’t submit to their own laws. We are supposed to have a federal govt. with states rights but nope, the govt has to impose its ways by cutting funding if the states do not impose speed limits. This alone tells me that it is a law I don’t need to follow with fear of sin.

 

[FraterInChristo]

wjp984, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut, but am really looking for dialog on what really constitutes the command to submit to our authorities pertaining to the difference between written law and enforcement of that law.

But in keeping with the spirit of Christ and our duties as disciples of said Savior I will share the wisdom of our faith as it has been handed down to me. wjp984, know that I care about you and am praying for you (and I’m not just saying that).

because I really can care less.

Whether we care about the choices we make or not doesn’t change how God judges us. Fortunately, or unfortunately, the set of “requirements,” if you will, we need to follow in order for us to spend eternal life with Him in Heaven is set in stone (excuse the pun ).

I think we each need to examine our own conscience and deternine whether something is sinful.

That ideology flies in the face of the definition of truth and the one God who created it. Like it or not, believe it or not, we are creatures created by Him and for Him living in a universe/world/space/time created by Him; they’re His “rules” and not following them can very well lead us to a place where we would need lots of fans and ice.

Those are my moral speed limits and I can care less what the law states.

Maybe, but your own moral laws won’t keep you from spending eternity separated from God; only His will.

Finally, what about the fact that our own government can’t submit to their own laws. We are supposed to have a federal govt. with states rights but nope, the govt has to impose its ways by cutting funding if the states do not impose speed limits. This alone tells me that it is a law I don’t need to follow with fear of sin.

Again, the federal government’s views on law doesn’t change the way God views those same laws nor how we’re supposed to submit to them.

 

[fix]

If going the speed limit was so much slower than everyone else, especially to the point of being able to cause a crash because of the relatively slower speed, then there is something else wrong going on there. Going 65 in a 65 while most of the others are going 80 is perfectly acceptable, though.

This seems backward. Those who break the law are the ones culpable for any crash. Why try and balme those obeying the law? Do we blame those who are robbed for being robbed?

 

[FraterInChristo]

This seems backward. Those who break the law are the ones culpable for any crash. Why try and balme those obeying the law? Do we blame those who are robbed for being robbed?

Correct. I agree. I’m not sure if you misunderstood what I meant or meant to quote somebody else, but that is the point I was trying to make. Also, all I meant from the first part of what I said was that if the majority of everyone else was going so much faster than the speed limit to the point of causing a crash then there is something greater that needs to be addressed then the people who are going the speed limit.

 

[rwoehmke]

Reading Law is a little like reading the Bible. One needs to put a particular regulation into context with the rest of the law. Speeding seems to be the choice. So what is the purpose and intent of the law? Certainly the overriding factor is operating ones vehicle in a manner safe and prudent for conditions and all concerned. Thus dragging along at 45, 55, or even 65 in a 65 MPH Zone when traffic is moving at 80 could be considered operating one’s in an unsafe manner. It is fairly commonly believed that moving with the flow of traffic will not get one a ticket. Being the lead vehicle in a speeding column or weaving in and out faster than the flow can assure you a ticket if you are caught. Moving at the speed limit on ice would be a violation of the law.

When I was a young man I asked a similar question of my confessor. His reply was that the degree of sinfulness if any would depend on the situation behind the law, such as endangering others cheating on ones taxes, etc. For the more trivial situations there may not be any sin at all, but one must still be willing to pay any penalty exacted for breaking the law. I suppose not picking up your dog’s dodo in a city that has an ordinance requiring that one do so would be a fine example of such.

One problem that arises is that when laws are passed that almost everyone ignores, those laws are poor ones as they lead to a general disrespect for all law. I think Aquinas may have commented on this.

 

[fix]

Correct. I agree. I’m not sure if you misunderstood what I meant or meant to quote somebody else, but that is the point I was trying to make. Also, all I meant from the first part of what I said was that if the majority of everyone else was going so much faster than the speed limit to the point of causing a crash then there is something greater that needs to be addressed then the people who are going the speed limit.

Sorry, I was not clear. Your points often come up in these threads. Bascially, folks invent reasons to do as they will.

 

[FraterInChristo]

Sorry, I was not clear. Your points often come up in these threads. Bascially, folks invent reasons to do as they will.

OK. Point taken.

For the sake of this thread and for the pursuit of dialog and hopefully an answer to the original question I would like to dismiss all comments related to speeding being a sin or not.

Saying that, there seems to be the need to establish a few concepts before continuing this discussion:

1. God has made clear with the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity through St. Paul’s writings to the church in Rome that we must submit to authority; “Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.” ~ Romans 13:2. Read chapter 13 in its entirety for a refresher. Now we all know that this is just one piece of the equation, which lead to point 2…
2. God is the ultimate authority, creator of authority, and has established “laws” that the universe itself obeys and laws that we as human beings need to obey to be with Our Creator for eternity.

So, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church so nicely puts it,

“The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community.”

So, in knowing that we need to submit to our authorities while upholding the moral law, and in the context of the civil law in which one lives under, what defines what one will submit to? Is it the written law or what is enforced of that written law? (Assuming that these laws are still needed and used.)