| Author | |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: April 02 2008 at 10:14pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
SusanJ wrote:
In short, I think the Church's teaching is very clear, both in St. Thomas and in the Catechism: civil law is part of the natural law, and is therefore binding in conscience. To break a human law is to sin against God.
HOWEVER, both St. Thomas and the Catechism are quite careful to delimit what constitutes a true law. There are four conditions: (a) a legitimate law-maker, (b) reasonability, (c) for the common good, (d) promulgated. ! |
|
|
thanks for this. DH (only MA Theology, not sure if we have the energy right now for the PhD  ) basically stated the same thing to me.
It's been driving me crazy that I meant to say not only would I feel horrible if something physical were to happen to one of my friend's kids (seeing them double buckled, etc, maybe due to one of my own children being in the car) but also that somehow I would be "causing them" to make a choice to break the law as well.
so do I
1. Say nothing, after all it is their choice!
2. or say something and or not allow my children to be in the car?
and I also do think it is a slippery slope. If the law says 8, but many self correct that to 6, then how do we know that when the law says 4, people aren't changing that to 3, or even a big 2 y/o??
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 8:46am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Susan's dh wrote:
| HOWEVER, both St. Thomas and the Catechism are quite careful to delimit what constitutes a true law. There are four conditions: (a) a legitimate law-maker, (b) reasonability, (c) for the common good, (d) promulgated. |
|
|
Susan's dh  thank you those were exactly the "notes" that I vaguely remembered from theology. And very well explained!! I'm printing them out to look over some more. (Thanks Susan for asking him to do this).
I should read this as a law is able to be understood as opposed to practical??
Susan's dh wrote:
| HOWEVER . . . there are limit cases. If the law is truly incoherent, it is not a true law. I'll leave that call to all of you on this one, but it seems arguable: how can the state require safety laws that are impossible for an ordinary family to follow? |
|
|
This is my first complaint: without buying really expensive carseats, I can't abide by the law in the car that I owned WHEN the law was passed. It seems like undue burden on the part of the state -- it seems unjust not to have some exceptions listed in it.
Quote:
But the bigger question is what "common" means. There are two schools on this. One school reads "common" to mean "pertaining to everyone." So, for example, car safety is an obligation "common" to all parents, and thus a car-safety law would be for the "common" good.
But the more traditional meaning of that term equates "common" with "public." In this reading, a bag of apples is not a "common" good because you eat one apple, I eat another: we're not actually partaking of the same good. Truth, however, is a "common" good, because when we both know, we both participate in the *same* good.
On this reading, which is more traditional, I'd say there's a radical difference between, say, traffic safety laws (speed limits, stoplights, drunk driving, etc.) and laws about seatbelts and car seats, because one involves public safety, and the other involves only private safety. Making the roads themselves safe by preventing speeding is promoting a "common" good, a good that we all share in. But nanny-state laws about wearing your seatbelt are just promoting individual, private goods, that we all happen to have: like a bag of apples. Your seatbelt safety is similar to mine, but they aren't the same safety. It's not a "common" good. |
|
|
This is very helpful.
Quote:
| I'd be inclined to argue that many nanny-state laws fail this criterion: they have nothing to do with truly "common" goods, and therefore are not true laws, and do not oblige in conscience. They may be good recommendations (I happen to think wearing a seatbelt is a darned good idea) but they don't have the same authority, don't oblige in the same way, because they don't fit the definition of "law" given by St. Thomas and the Catechism. I'd be inclined to say that carseats are a darned good idea, but they are not a proper law and do not oblige in conscience. But people could debate this, based on their reading of "common." |
|
|
I've been "inclined to say" the same thing -- just not nearly in such an educated manner. Unlike my mom, I also think "carseats are a darned good idea" -- and would use them even if they were just a recommendation up to the point that I was able. However, when my concern is causing in undue burden on a family. I'm being a little cheeky here, but it just seems that the "carseats" shouldn't be one of the "serious reasons" to use NFP - especially if you own a car that can fit the number of children you have! 
Quote:
| (The text to read is Ia-IIae q. 90, a. 2 -- but it's pretty hard going. I think what he's saying is that law has to do with communities, and individuals only as parts of the community. Therefore the good it secures is a communal good, not just the goods of individuals. But these are big concepts.) |
|
|
Thank you. We have Thomas' treatise on law... but truly I needed my notes to understand it. I think I'll print this out and stick it right in the book!!
Quote:
| In conclusion, let me just reiterate: St. Thomas and the Catechism are very clear that laws oblige in conscience. If the law truly fits the definition -- if it is intelligible, from a legitimate authority, promulgated, and for the common good -- it is a sin to break the law. I think what's most important in our parsing of these things is to make sure we don't drown out this very clear teaching. If your understanding of law leaves no way that it can oblige your conscience, your understanding of law is out of step with Catholic teaching. True laws are not recommendations, they are commandments, with the full authority of the natural law behind them. |
|
|
Good point. I probably shouldn't have headed this "civil law VERSUS natural law"... but "the culpability of civil law infraction."
I was having a hard time "googling" this answer. I had no idea what to type!! The only debated point that I could find was civil law mandating artificial contraception which was obviously against God's law.
I wish my post had your logical flow of points!
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 8:57am | IP Logged
|
|
|
hmm more thoughts here
I agree with the traditional meaning of common good, but it can apply to seatbelts
there are 2 reasons to wear a seatbelt
1. safety of the actual person buckled in from being tossed about
2. safety of other passengers from being banged around by a human projectile that was not buckled in. let's say my dh doesn't buckle, but I do. we get in a wreck. my seatbelt prevented me from being tossed about. however my seatbelt did not protect me from getting my block knocked off by my 150+ lb human missle husband who was not buckled in to prevent him from being tossed about.
so wearing a seatbelt is for the common good
HOWEVER, what kind of restraits are used is not for the common good and it's debatable about their individual good, so that is up for argument. (argument as in debate - not fight )
Most of the laws do not say an age AND weight
Most of the laws say an age OR weight. Such as my state used to say age 6 or 60lb, whichever came first. Then they switched to below age 6, because, as I mentioned before, they do not equip officers with scales. Not that this matters either because they don't make parents drive with birth certificates of every child in the car, but that's another issue. (That other issue being the silliness of laws that cannot be adequately enforced without an infringement on basic privacy rights or common sense.)
Lisa,
I would refuse to let your friend take your children anywhere if there's not enough room for everyone to have a seatbelt. It is not their choice to place your child in danger.
If they ask why, simply say you don't want to be the reason they get one heck of a whopper of a ticket. In my state it can start at $500 per person not buckled or in a carseat and or include jail time. Also, if she were to have an accident, it's very likely her insurance would not cover injuries once the police report showed the number of people and lack of proper restrait systems in use. Then there's the whole if she were to be pulled over, they would not just give her a ticket dilema. The cop would likely refuse to let her drive away in the same situation. Either someone would have to come get the kids right off the side of the road (if the officer will wait for them to arrive) or the officer will take the extra passengers in his car and she'd have to follow to the nearest station to await them being picked up by someone with proper seating abilities. None of these situations are what I'd want to place my child in. And it's not a reflection of low opinion of her driving abilities. It's a reflection of the fact that no one plans to have an accident and there's 1000s of other drivers out there on the road. Oh and they are safer unbuckled than double buckled, which can break ribs or cause internal injuries, esp for little people.
So I wrote all that and yet I'll say, I have in the past had no more than ONE of my kids who wasn't buckled due to over crowding in our old van until we could purchase our 12 passenger. It was rare and I avoided it as much as I could, but such was the neccessity at the time or I wouldn't have done it. There is no real reason for doing it when one does not have to out of neccessity, imho.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 9:08am | IP Logged
|
|
|
And Lisa... IMO, I would say nothing.
However, if you know that adding your kids means that her kids creates a situation that is unsafe... I wouldn't have your kids ride with her. I am of the opinion that it would be fine in an emergency (obviously you didn't realize that would happen), but not on a regular basis.
I've been in that situation before driving kids to the neighborhood library, and when another mom offers -- I just say: "Oh, no worries -- I'll just drive them."
I don't think I'm answering your whole question though.
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 9:11am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
I agree with the traditional meaning of common good, but it can apply to seatbelts
there are 2 reasons to wear a seatbelt
1. safety of the actual person buckled in from being tossed about
2. safety of other passengers from being banged around by a human projectile that was not buckled in. let's say my dh doesn't buckle, but I do. we get in a wreck. my seatbelt prevented me from being tossed about. however my seatbelt did not protect me from getting my block knocked off by my 150+ lb human missle husband who was not buckled in to prevent him from being tossed about.
so wearing a seatbelt is for the common good
HOWEVER, what kind of restraits are used is not for the common good and it's debatable about their individual good, so that is up for argument. (argument as in debate - not fight) |
|
|
Very interesting point Martha.
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 9:29am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Maryan wrote:
And Lisa... IMO, I would say nothing.
However, if you know that adding your kids means that her kids creates a situation that is unsafe... I wouldn't have your kids ride with her. I am of the opinion that it would be fine in an emergency (obviously you didn't realize that would happen), but not on a regular basis.
I've been in that situation before driving kids to the neighborhood library, and when another mom offers -- I just say: "Oh, no worries -- I'll just drive them."
I don't think I'm answering your whole question though. |
|
|
yeah, I feel like it is mostly my fault for not counting / thinking ahead of time. Like when a friend offers to take two kids to a field trip, or take them home to her house AFTER an activity we have all been at, etc. I just don't want to come across as "better than" or holier than thou in the safetly arena, but with the accidents dh and I have seen (and yeah, a few years ago in a hotel we watched "mythbusters" where even something 5lb could be a deadly projectile...) I don't want to be a party to contributing to the law being broken or safety compromised.....
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 9:47am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lisa,
I strongly disagree with you on it being your fault.
The driver knows how many seats/seatbelts they have and what is legally allowed and should inform you that they would have to compromise things to add your children to the mix.
You are not being holier than thou for expecting someone to not compromise your child's safety and to not break the law with your kids. I wouldn't have thought they'd offer unless they had room either. I wouldn't have thought they'd do something like that without at least letting me know so I could decide against if I wanted to.
I happen to think it's "better" to be safe than sorry. If they want to risk their own children, well that's yet another topic. But they should at least give you a heads up before risking yours so you can opt out. I would have been very upset over that lack of curtesty? 
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Maryan
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 02 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3145
|
| Posted: April 03 2008 at 9:51am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I agree with Martha, and just like you didn't realize - she may not have been able to do the math until all the kids were in the car too...
__________________
Maryan
Mom to 6 boys & 1 girl: JP('01), B ('03), M('05), L('06), Ph ('08), M ('10), James born 5/1/12
A Lee in the Woudes
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Domestic Church
Topic: Civil vs. Natural law
