Obey the law.

I have big problems understanding this.

case1, what about if you are going in a highway and you see that there is nothing, so you decided to speed up over the legal limit.

case2: what about the rules of a place made by the owners and not a law, for example the typical “don’t bring your food in here” but you can buy the one they sell (overpriced) not like a restaurant, but more like a club or something.

What’s your question exactly?

  1. Speeding when there is nothing, as you say, is like a child who takes cookies from the cookie jar when the parent isn’t looking when the child knows they aren’t supposed to eat cookies without permission.
  2. An owner of a business can make whatever rules they want as long as they are applied to everyone. Why should the owner provide you a free table to eat at? Selling food and drinks is part of how the person makes money. If you think the food there is overpriced, you can either not eat there or go somewhere else.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Society makes laws for the good/safety of all. If you don’t want to be part of society, there’s still lots of space in Montana or Patagonia.

If you want to stay at the Ritz then you pay Ritz’ prices. This is a capitalist world.

The world is not going to change direction for one individual. If you feel strongly about something then start a group or an e-petition. These are very successful

Case 1: You are breaking the law.
Case 2: The owner can ask you to leave. If you don’t, the police can charge you with trespassing. Then you are breaking the law.

Very simple, eh? :slight_smile:

I mean in the sinful way of breaking the law, i mean in the first you are sure no one is going to get hurt, and you speed up is it sinful to do so?

and in the second way, is it sinful to sneak up something? I mean if the owner of the place did not catch you there is no problem with them, but you can’t hide anything from God,

so what i want to know if there is something wrong with not following certain rules, when there is no one affected, or they are just rules of a place and not laws.

Speeding that also involves reckless endangerment is obviously sinful.

I think that minor speeding that is not reckless is not sinful. Several other threads here on the subject have cited priests in confession telling them as much (for example, forums.catholic.com/member.php?u=22071). Posters speaking here to the contrary are presumably saying they know more than the priests, or that someone is lying.

The Catechism never explicitly states we must obey the laws, rather it emphasizes deference to legitimate authority as a logical extension of the Fourth Commandment. This is normally accomplished by obedience, but I would argue not necessarily so, and I think this is what the priests were getting at.

I find no false dichotomy in saying that I can transgress a law but still defer to its authority to it as long as I submit willingly to whatever sanction is legitimately prescribed. If a cop wants to pull me over for going ten miles, or even one mile, over the speed limit, I will submit since they are fulfilling their lawful duty. I may or may not consider it bad “luck”, but I will very respectfully submit to cop and judge in that instance. I will not flaunt my legislature and break it for no reason.

Similarly, I will not drive on five miles out of my way to turn around if I only have 190 feet to lawfully get into a turn lane instead of 200. If inconvenient, I will happily keep a library book over the prescribed day and pay a fine rather than feel obliged to return it. I will jaywalk if safe and not scandalous. If I live under a truly silly law (google those), I will feel no compunction for transgressing them, but will pay my debt (or argue its unconstitutionality) if needed.

This makes sense to my conscience at any rate. I normally don’t speed myself, unless late to an appointment, in at least some proactive deference to the state, and even then around five mph max. Those that claim all unnecessary speeding is a sin need to confirm on the record here that the priests speaking to the contrary were wrong.

As to your second case, I’m on shaky ground, but I think that the same standard of deference to either the house rule or the consequence is warranted, and that you may be morally permitted to break the letter of the rule if it is unreasonable, at least as applied. It’s a contract or license and people break the fine print of those all the time as they are given on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I might stray a foot off a trail to pick up an interesting leaf. I might keep a rosary in my pocket for a bar exam even though it is not on the list of acceptable items. I might refuse to throw away chewing gum (whether in mouth or pocket) when walking into a movie theater. I might burn a CD onto my computer for archival purposes even if the terms prohibit it. I might bring a gluten-free cracker into an amusement park if I’m not likely to find anything suitable to eat from the vendors. Let them sue me, and again I will defer to the civil authorities and to God if wrong.

In contrast, I would not take a drink to a restaurant (unless I buy another drink there perhaps) as that would not be fair to my hosts; their rule IS reasonable. I may consider bringing certain nominally prohibited items into a place that provides them, IF I consider their rates to be highway robbery. Even so, I will accept the consequences should it come to that.

If your conscience troubles you about a specific issue, definitely bring it up at your next confession. No harm in clearing it up. In the meantime, educate yourself (as you are doing here) and pray for further discernment.

Case 1. Are you in the US? Then consider that the government itself is getting pretty lawless. For example both parties at the federal and state level have been ading and abetting the violation of immigration law on a massive scale. If aiding and abetting criminals is ok, I wouldn’t worry much at all about operating a vehicle safely at some speed. If amnesty from the law is ok for ‘good folks’ just wanting to take care of their familes- well then it’s a good idea regardless of the class of criminal.

Case 2. Respect for other people. Treat others the way you wish to be treated. If you had guidelines for how folks treat your property, or act in your home- than respect others setting rules in their home/place of business.

Christ did nothing out of HIs own perfect will, but out of obedience to the Father in Heaven.

Why, then, would any of us seek to satisfy our own wills instead of those (legitimate) wills around us, in obedience? There is nothing wrong with asking someone not to bring food and water into a place (there are exceptions for health reasons of course). Mortify your own will and become obedient if you are to imitate Christ our King.

I say that this is so important that it needn’t even be a case of sin or no sin, such as breaking a law, but in any instance where you can mortify your own will to serve another in a legitimate will, without grave reason against doing so, you ought to do so.

Not exactly sure now, got a little confused…
How would speeding an empty highway even matter if it’s empty anyways? Would that mean that one must stop at a street that’s empty when there’s a red traffic light?

If I may, could I add some other cases to the topic at hand tho?

Case a: A Govt. bans a thing or action, however, said ban goes majorly ignored by probably pretty much everyone, and the terms for said ban’s reasons are dubious, if not just plain debatable or something like that too.

Case b: Copyright states one cannot reproduce something comercially if it’s not the owner, yet, like in Case a, there are cases where it goes majorly ignored, as in, for example, it’s perfomance in some cases (such as let’s plays or maybe even singing some songs in public), or in the case of some other people, selling “fanmade” stuff (plushies, artist commissions of fanart, buttons, toys, etc); but apparently most companies and such seem to not even mind or act in most of the cases tho except (maybe) some specific ones where they kind of take action with Cease and Desist tho.

Excuse me, on Case b, it was not properly edited.
What I meant was, people did do the "fan"ish stuff, and that apparently, according to copyright, doing such things would be illegal, HOWEVER, companies or such a lot of the time don’t even care or act because it woud give them free marketing andd/or acting against them could make them look like “legal bullies” or something, however, there are some cases (such as when an artist makes a lot of pofit off their stuff) where they do send cease and desist stuff, that kinda seems to be the rule, so people seem to just do it unless they get a CandD.
In those cases would it be considered bad?

Excuse me, on Case b, it was not properly edited.
What I meant was, people did do the "fan"ish stuff (not sure if actually FREE stuff would count as well), and that apparently, according to copyright, doing such things would be illegal, HOWEVER, companies or such a lot of the time don’t even care or act because it woud give them free marketing andd/or acting against them could make them look like “legal bullies” or something, however, there are some cases (such as when an artist makes a lot of profit off their stuff) where they do send cease and desist stuff, that kinda seems to be the rule, so people seem to do it unless they do get a CandD notification.

In those cases, would those be considered bad?

Thats not entirely accurate, sure they tell us that is why certain laws are in place, but if this is true, then why are some laws consistently broken by people, like speeding, running thru red lights, stop signs, wearing seatbelts, etc? Since these types of laws are still being broken on a daily basis, why do lawmakers think the current punishment will do anything to prevent or even slow this down…if it hasnt in decades?

The literal definition of INSANE, is continuing to do the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result, this is exactly what lawmakers are doing, they somehow think the current punishments for crimes like these will eventually put a stop to it, or lower the amount of people doing it…hasnt yet though?! Why has no one even suggested something new to deal with this, I mean, the goal is to stop the activity, or at least make less people do it…right? DUIs are the same thing, they happen more and more, so that should tell any intelligent person the current method in dealing with it, is not working.

While there has been alot of threads on this already, there is also drug laws, and again, they tell us its for the health and safety of the public, but while they aggressively go after SOME drugs, others, like tobacco and alcohol, remain as legal as can be, even though they are proven to cause more problems than most illegal street drugs? Any ER employee will tell you what the real problem is when it comes to drug abuse…ALCOHOL!!, yet anyone over 21 can buy as much as they want…how is this keeping the health and safety of the public?

I think laws like this have more to do with revenue versus protecting the health and safety of the public, many police depts will admit they literally rely on drug seizure money to operate on…LOL, This is not right imo, laws are meant to protect the public, not to prop up police depts or viewed as a revenue stream, I think thats why they really dont want people to stop speeding or running red lights/ stop signs…they rely on a certain number of people doing this each month!!!

The problem is the utilitarian understanding OP seems to have concerning law. It seems that in his mind, the moral quality of an act is dependent on the harm it causes another person.

If a person speeds, therefore, and does not harm anyone by his conduct, then speeding is justifiable morally. If speeding is morally justifiable, then why bother following the civil law in the first place?

Well, there are a lot of responses to the root utilitarian proposition. I wouldn’t even really know where to start. On top of that, there are many reasons to obey civil law regardless of its moral content.

Of course it’s dependent! (at least sometimes) As long as an action is not intrinsically sinful, then to determine whether or not it is morally permissible certainly factors the harm caused to others. Double effect analysis. If you didn’t allow for a means-end analysis, your position must be that you are prevented from speeding even if that was necessary to save someone’s life. It seems very unfair to fault the OP for that analysis.

The original post was not clear. When I asked him to clarify, the OP said that he wanted to know whether his actions were sinful. He did not inquire as to what was ideal. There is a big difference between being morally justifiable and justified. The first takes into account hypotheticals, the second analyzes past action.

I linked earlier in this thread where a forum poster claimed that their priest said speeding (alone) is not a sin. Here is another link stating the same: forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=10676694&postcount=1; here is another stating the same by a state trooper: forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=6009052&postcount=67. Why do you suppose those priests say otherwise?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.