Obeying Civil Laws
#41
To me, it seems based on the intent of the lawmaker--if the legitimate lawmaker intends it to be followed absolutely, then it must be unless it violates the natural law or law of God. Here are some lengthy passages from encyclicals on the topic, but I've bolded the most pertinent parts:

From Pope Leo XIII
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm


13. And it is impossible that any should be found not only more true but even more advantageous than this opinion. For the authority of the rulers of a State, if it be a certain communication of divine power, will by that very reason immediately acquire a dignity greater than human -- not, indeed, that impious and most absurd dignity sometimes desired by heathen emperors when affecting divine honors, but a true and solid one received by a certain divine gift and benefaction. Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty. And by this means authority will remain far more firmly seated in its place. For the citizens, perceiving the force of this duty would necessarily avoid dishonesty and contumacy, because they must be persuaded that they who resist State authority resist the divine will; that they who refuse honor to rulers refuse it to God Himself.

14. This doctrine the Apostle Paul particularly inculcated on the Romans; to whom he wrote with so great authority and weight on the reverence to be entertained toward the higher powers, that it seems nothing could be prescribed more weightily: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation . . . wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake."[16] And in agreement with this is the celebrated declaration of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, on the same subject: "Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors, as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good, for so is the will of God."[17]

15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,"[18] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."[19] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.


From Gregory XVI
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16cumpr.htm
3. Surely the fraud of these would-be teachers must be uncovered in clear words for the good and the instruction of the faithful. The fallacy of their thought must be refuted courageously everywhere with the words of divine scripture and the testimony of Church tradition. From these most pure fountains (from which the Catholic clergy ought to draw the plan of their lives and the material for their sermons to the people) We are taught most clearly that the obedience which men are obliged to render to the authorities established by God is an absolute precept which no one can violate, except if by chance something is commanded which runs counter to the laws of God or of the Church. "Let everyone" says the Apostle, "be subject to higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordination of God . . . wherefore you must needs be subject not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Rom 13.1,2,5). Similarly St. Peter (1 Pt 2.13) teaches all the faithful: "Be subject to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors sent through him . . ." for (he says) such is the will of God, that by doing good you would silence the ignorance of foolish men." By observing these admonitions the first Christians, even during the persecutions, deserved well of the Roman emperors themselves and of the security of the state. "Christian soldiers," says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor: when it came to the subject of Christ, they recognized no one except Him who is in heaven. They distinguished between the eternal Lord and the temporal lord, but also were subject to the temporal lord because of the eternal Lord" (St. Aug. On Ps 124).

4. The holy Fathers have always taught this doctrine. The Catholic Church has taught it and continues to teach it. Having been taught it, the first Christians lived and acted in such a manner that, although the crime of cowardice and desertion had contaminated the pagan army, it never contaminated the Christians. On this point Tertullian reports: "Concerning the majesty of the emperor, we Christians are brought into ill repute. Nevertheless, no Christians will be found among men like Albinus or Niger or Cassius. But among these very peoples, who recently had sworn by their gods, who had offered sacrifices for the safety of emperor and state, and who frequently condemned the Christians, enemies of the state have been found. No Christian is an enemy, certainly not of the emperor. Since we know that the emperor is appointed by God, it is necessary that he be loved and reverenced, and that we wish him well." We understand that you know these things. We do not intend to say them as if we might be afraid that you would not propagate and disseminate sounder doctrine concerning the obedience which subjects must have for their legitimate prince.


Reply
#42
(08-12-2009, 12:26 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: To me, it seems based on the intent of the lawmaker--if the legitimate lawmaker intends it to be followed absolutely, then it must be unless it violates the natural law or law of God. Here are some lengthy passages from encyclicals on the topic, but I've bolded the most pertinent parts:

From Pope Leo XIII
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13civ.htm


13. And it is impossible that any should be found not only more true but even more advantageous than this opinion. For the authority of the rulers of a State, if it be a certain communication of divine power, will by that very reason immediately acquire a dignity greater than human -- not, indeed, that impious and most absurd dignity sometimes desired by heathen emperors when affecting divine honors, but a true and solid one received by a certain divine gift and benefaction. Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty. And by this means authority will remain far more firmly seated in its place. For the citizens, perceiving the force of this duty would necessarily avoid dishonesty and contumacy, because they must be persuaded that they who resist State authority resist the divine will; that they who refuse honor to rulers refuse it to God Himself.

14. This doctrine the Apostle Paul particularly inculcated on the Romans; to whom he wrote with so great authority and weight on the reverence to be entertained toward the higher powers, that it seems nothing could be prescribed more weightily: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers, for there is no power but from God, and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist purchase to themselves damnation . . . wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake."[16] And in agreement with this is the celebrated declaration of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, on the same subject: "Be ye subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake; whether it be to the king as excelling, or to governors, as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good, for so is the will of God."[17]

15. The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated.If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's,"[18] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men."[19] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.


From Gregory XVI
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16cumpr.htm
3. Surely the fraud of these would-be teachers must be uncovered in clear words for the good and the instruction of the faithful. The fallacy of their thought must be refuted courageously everywhere with the words of divine scripture and the testimony of Church tradition. From these most pure fountains (from which the Catholic clergy ought to draw the plan of their lives and the material for their sermons to the people) We are taught most clearly that the obedience which men are obliged to render to the authorities established by God is an absolute precept which no one can violate, except if by chance something is commanded which runs counter to the laws of God or of the Church. "Let everyone" says the Apostle, "be subject to higher authorities, for there exists no authority except from God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore he who resists the authority resists the ordination of God . . . wherefore you must needs be subject not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Rom 13.1,2,5). Similarly St. Peter (1 Pt 2.13) teaches all the faithful: "Be subject to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to the governors sent through him . . ." for (he says) such is the will of God, that by doing good you would silence the ignorance of foolish men." By observing these admonitions the first Christians, even during the persecutions, deserved well of the Roman emperors themselves and of the security of the state. "Christian soldiers," says St. Augustine, "served an infidel emperor: when it came to the subject of Christ, they recognized no one except Him who is in heaven. They distinguished between the eternal Lord and the temporal lord, but also were subject to the temporal lord because of the eternal Lord" (St. Aug. On Ps 124).

4. The holy Fathers have always taught this doctrine. The Catholic Church has taught it and continues to teach it. Having been taught it, the first Christians lived and acted in such a manner that, although the crime of cowardice and desertion had contaminated the pagan army, it never contaminated the Christians. On this point Tertullian reports: "Concerning the majesty of the emperor, we Christians are brought into ill repute. Nevertheless, no Christians will be found among men like Albinus or Niger or Cassius. But among these very peoples, who recently had sworn by their gods, who had offered sacrifices for the safety of emperor and state, and who frequently condemned the Christians, enemies of the state have been found. No Christian is an enemy, certainly not of the emperor. Since we know that the emperor is appointed by God, it is necessary that he be loved and reverenced, and that we wish him well." We understand that you know these things. We do not intend to say them as if we might be afraid that you would not propagate and disseminate sounder doctrine concerning the obedience which subjects must have for their legitimate prince.

So how would one reconcile what the Catholic Encyclopedia says with these statements? 

"Not every regulation of the superior, however, is binding, but only those in accordance with reason. Law is the criterion of reasonable action and must, therefore, itself be reasonable. A law not in accordance with reason is a contradiction. That the Divine laws must of necessity be reasonable and just is self-evident, for the will of God is essentially holy and just and can only command what is in harmony with the Divine wisdom, justice, and holiness. Human laws however, must be subordinate to the Divine law, or at least, must not contradict it, for human authority is only a participation in the supreme Divine power of government, and it is impossible that God could give human beings the right to issue laws that are unreasonable and in contravention of His will. Further, law must be advantageous to the common welfare.  This is a universally acknowledged principle. That the Divine laws are advantageous to the common welfare needs no proof. The glory of the Creator is, truly, the final goal of the Divine laws but God desires to attain this glory by the happiness of mankind. Human laws must also be useful to the common welfare. For laws are imposed upon the community as such, in order to guide it to its goal: this goal, however, is the common welfare. Further, laws are to regulate the members of the community. This can only come about by all striving to attain a common goal. But this goal can be no other than the common welfare. Consequently alllaws must in some way serve the common welfare. A law plainly useless or a fortiori injurious to the community is no true law. It could have in view only the benefit of private individuals and would consequently subordinate the common welfare to the welfare of individuals, the higher to the lower."

If the CE was published in 1917, I'd imagine whoever wrote the article on law was probably familiar with what Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII wrote.  Is there more to it than this? This whole issue is really driving me up the wall right now...
Reply
#43
I'm guessing when it is unreasonable to follow a civil law, then that law loses its authority. A law contrary to reason would be contrary to the natural law. That's the best I can come up with...

In general though, I think its best to respect authority when it comes to morally neutral laws--often their reasonableness is debatable and not "openly repugnant."
Reply
#44
having me boy sip when he is ready and the state tellin me otherwise is not morally neutral.
im his father. its up to me. the state is being immoral by usurping  my God given authority to bring up me boy as i choose.
Reply
#45
(08-01-2009, 02:09 PM)Slayer Wrote:
(08-01-2009, 10:06 AM)devotedknuckles Wrote: no they do not bind under sin. u can j walk all u want and u wont go to hell.
speed limit is tricky because now u are in a vehicle and have a social responsibility not to kill someone. but use the brain God has given u> u can speed at times without putting someone at risk.
trespassing well no not a sin. but u might get blown away depending on who's land u do it.
drinking under age is not a sin either.
neither is profanity

"All naughty speech let it not proceed out of your mouth: but if there be any good to the
edifying of the faith, that it may give grace to the hearers." Ephesians 4:29

"For he that will love life, and see good days: let him refrain his tongue from evil, and
his lips that they speak not guile." 1 Peter 3:10

Yes. Additionally:

Quote:Matthew 15

11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Reply
#46
then one must first define profanity i mean what gives? u really want to go there?
sip sip
Reply
#47
Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Romans

1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. 3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. 5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. 7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. 9 For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.
Reply
#48
(08-12-2009, 08:31 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: then one must first define profanity i mean what gives? u really want to go there?
sip sip

Profane

1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : desecrate
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

An example would be the use of most common profane word beginning with the letter "f". The irreverent use of the word is a perversion and desecration of the sacred power of procreation.

Reply
#49
ok so by this definition almost all profanity i use isn't profane
phew.
i was starting to worry
sip  sip
Reply
#50
(08-12-2009, 08:38 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: ok so by this definition almost all profanity i use isn't profane
phew.
i was starting to worry
sip  sip

2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

That covers a lot. But only you can know your intention. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that are considered profanity by wrong, unworthy, or vulgar application. That includes wrong, unworthy, or vulgar titles for human excrement, sexual activity, or personal insults.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)