Why would he rethink it? He’s right. Here’s what CCC 1903 is referencing if you take a look at the footnote:
5l. Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since "it is right to obey God rather than men " (34)
Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse. As St. Thomas teaches, “In regard to the second proposition, we maintain that human law has the rationale of law in so far as it is in accordance with right reason, and as such it obviously derives from eternal law. A law which is at variance with reason is to that extent unjust and has no longer the rationale of law. It is rather an act of violence.” (35)
- The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority. Hence the above teaching is consonant with any genuinely democratic form of government. (36)
John XXIII PT.
So, that you have an obtuse personal interpretation of this part of the CCC proves to us all . . . . . . . what? That you have an obtuse personal interpretation.
Also (and this is beside the point I was getting at above) note these thoughts from your CC:
2030 From the church he learns the example of holiness (emphasis in original)…he discerns it in the authentic witness of those who live it
2044 In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of the Christians
2051 the infallibility of the Magisterium of the pastors extends to al l the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine (emphasis added)
What do you think the Magisterium of the Pastors is? Why don’t you look in the index of the CCC and find out.
both totally in context about church leadership. thought your boys were infallible? just a side point. re think your last post then we’ll work on that one.
He had better not, because he’s correct. But out of curiousity, why should we believe anything you have to say, especially after this:
THe part about “your reasoning is flawed” I am fully aware that my reasoning is flawed. So is yours, and eveyone else on this forum.
By your own admission, your reasoning is flawed. I agree with you by the way. So tell me, why should we listen to someone who is unreasonable? Also, please get to the point (if there is one) about your issue with private interpretation.