Something gets banned and people still use it? What positions could there be now?

The qustion could be a bit controversial, but I would like to ask about it to make sure about positions on stuff, so I would try to bowdlerize it and make it as general as possible to avoid pointing fingers, if the question is actually bad then maybe noting would be a need.

A govt somewhere establishes a law that bans a certain thing, omething like beer/coffee/jewels/violent media/weapons/strong medicines outside of hospitals/etc, with reasoning such as it causing violence or something. It is something that is ONLY done in that region (the ban), everywhere else the thing isn’t banned or is just regulated, and actually, most of the people that would have something to do with it don’t follow that law except by maybe hiding the stuff from enforcement.

OR for short: A Govt of a place makes a law, it bans a thing, it is not followed.

What would the position of pretty much everyone be in this sort of case now? what in the case where the reasoning of said law could be considered dubious or in the case it is refuted or something similar like the govt not being completely informed?

I read this twice and still don’t know what you’re asking.

I meant to ask if then the people who aren’t following (which could be a LOT) that ban would be considered bad or not, or maybe something else from a religious point of view, and what would it be if the 2nd case I mentioned (the case of the ban’s reason being dubious or even just plain refuted) occurs?

Sorry, I might have worded it badly.

What I meant was if, from a religious point of view, would that many people still be considered bad? or would the point of view just be held back or someting else maybe like declaring the situation as “gray” or something?

Right or wrong don’t depend on majority vote. If it is a just law, then it is immoral to violate without necessity.

What, I don’t get it, how isn’t “right and wrong” not related to a majority? Isn’t an objective of it to get the most good possible to as many people as it can be done?

Also, what about the 2nd case (Where the ban’s reasonings are dubious, if it is pretty ambiguous, etc)?

… I don’t get it, how isn’t “right and wrong” not related to a majority? Isn’t an objective of it to get as much good as possible to as many people as it can be done?

Also, what if the other case (Where the ban’s reasonings are dubious, if it is pretty ambiguous, etc) happens?

In such a case, one is still bound by civil law, unless that law is in conflict with moral law. Let us take coffee. It is not immoral. On the other hand, drinking coffee is not a moral imperative. Therefore, a law banning coffee, while not reflecting moral law, does not come into conflict with moral law. In such a case, drinking coffee would still be a violation of civil law, which we are supposed to follow, making it sinful. Think speeding or running a red light.

I don’t exactly understand the idea, how would it still be considered justified and binding when pretty much most people already forfeited it? Would that mean that an authority would be able to ban ALL things that aren’t allowed by religion and still be considered ok for being considered an authority and those who resist be considered bad or something?

At least in the 2nd case, considering the ban would be losing it’s reason, dunno how it would still be considered to bind one when, like, the ban would pretty much not be exactly just.

Running a red line?.. AFAIK, no one minds when there’s absolutely no one else around.

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.