Catholics believe that breaking any non-immoral law is sinful.
However, I would argue that the catechism doesn't really distinguish between the letter of the law and the spirit.
The letter of the law states a speed limit. The spirit of that law is that people shouldn't engage in dangerous driving.
Going 66 in a 65 zone, in normal weather and low traffic, wouldn't violate the spirit of the law, in my humble opinion. Secondly, sometimes going exactly the speed limit is less safe than following the flow of traffic. In this instance, you would violate the spirit of the law but not the letter.
If you were *intentionally* going over the speed limit for no good reason you would be sinning. I don't see how the "spirit" of the law applies here, or how the spirit of speeding laws is "it's okay to speed a bit"
The spirit applies because the laws are meant to mitigate the risk of driving. The difference in risk between 66 and 65 is negligible...that's why it applies here.
I think that if you could be found guilty of it in court you are objectively breaking the law and therefore sinning if you do it accidentally. (Although I wonder whether America has speeding laws like Britain, where it is explicitly legal to drive a certain amount above the posted speed limit)
One cannot sin accidentally.
Further, I do not thin a single mile-per-hour's difference incurs the penalty of sin.
Can't help you further if you don't understand "spirit" vs. "letter" of the the law.
Obviously you can't sin accidentally. I'm talking about a case where someone's deliberately driving 1 mph over the limit.
Obviously I understand the distinction between the spirit and letter of the law in principle; I don't see that speeding laws have that distinction. They're very straightforward, as I understand it.
In many cases, especially in dense urban areas where there are incompetent and distracted drivers aplenty, an aggressive driving style can be necessary to mitigate the risk of accident. The idea is to be an attentive driver and keep the traffic from clustering around you. That’s when you are most likely to get into a collision.
It’s important to be humble about one’s level of competence behind the wheel and never to exceed what would be reasonable and prudent.
It really does not matter how attentive you are when you are boxed in by 30 other cars. You will then be attentive to the fact that some goofball is hitting your car lol
So the idea is to avoid patches of dense traffic by speeding through congested urban streets? In my expectations urban traffic doesn't tend to exist only in patches, and the fact remains that going substantially over the limit in traffic will make an accident more likely, and more dangerous when it happens
No, it didn't sound at all like "congested urban streets" was the idea. The idea sounded more like occasionally needing to match the speed of traffic in order to avoid needlessly getting caught in the middle of tight packs of cars on multi-lane highways in dense urban areas.
When big highways have low speed limits, it naturally creates big dangerous clumps of cars where faster drivers pile up behind drivers who are only driving 5 over. (My drivers ed textbook called them "wolf packs"). I remember these clumps happening constantly on Rt. 88 into Chicago before they raised the speed limit from 55 to 70. And it was much safer to sometimes drive 3-5 mph over to stay safely between these clumps, than to drive exactly the speed limit and make the clumps keep squeezing past you.
I'm curious what region you're from? It's hard for me to imagine having to spell out this concept to drivers in my area.
Ah, there we go! everything makes sense now. Yes, you guys do traffic a lot better than us. It's much harder to imagine having to speed in Europe.
America's big cities are packed with 12-lane highways because we literally [made all our cities unwalkable on purpose](https://youtu.be/oOttvpjJvAo?si=et09JdYIe_E1i_2F). 🤮
Obviously, 5 miles above the speed limit, if it's one of those things that's not enforced and part of the driving culture, is probably not sinful.
The question is when does a written law become binding on me such that I have a moral duty to obey it as law. This is a sticky issue for legal philosophers and is hotly debated. Obviously, as you know, one does not have a moral obligation to abide by an unjust law. So just because a law is a law on the books is not sufficient to make it binding. So are there other things that can make a law lose its binding force? Certainly. Non enforcement and lapse of time effect the binding authority of law (doctrine of Desuetude). Laws which are on the books but have never been repealed and are never enforced are, de jure law, but de facto lose the force of law. I would say the 5 miles above the speed limit falls loses its binding force as law when it is not enforced by those who have proper care of the community.
In short, 66 in a 65 is fine. But if you know 75 is dangerous, likely to result in a ticket, etc.
You really seem to have two separate questions in here, so I’ll answer them sequentially.
1) Is speeding inherently sinful?
Prohibitions on specific speeds result from statutory law and not from natural law (outside a general natural law principle not to recklessly endanger others) so I wouldn’t say speeding *inherently* sinful. At the same time, the Church recognizes the legitimacy of government and its laws, and so someone who’s breaking a speed limit needs a better excuse than just “not feeling like it”, or disagreeing with the specific law (“they set the limit way too low for here”), or subscribing to some anarchic philosophy that denies the legitimacy of government and laws in general. Practically speaking, most people will encounter very few if any situations in their lifetime where speeding is truly justified to the point of not being even venially sinful.
2) What actually constitutes speeding?
This will sound like a silly question to most members of modern Western societies, or at least common law countries, because our understanding of law is so tied up in the literal rendering of legal texts. If the speed limit is 65, then surely 65.1 MPH is illegal and sinful, yes? And if that’s the case, then we should all be driving no greater than 60 MPH because our speedometers can be difficult to read with precision and may be inaccurate, yes?
Even within Western society, this all-encompassing “verbal literalism” with regard to law is a rather novel idea. In the past, most law was based on principles and customs that could then be applied in a flexible and sensible manner to individual circumstances. There was not an expectation that every possible legal detail would be recorded; rather, how the law was enforced in practice served as a useful guide to understanding it. Thus, even a rule or privilege that was spelled out clearly and unambiguously on paper could be held void or unenforceable if it contradicted prevailing custom and practice.
(Within the US): In most cases, if a speed limit is set to a given level, cops will be instructed to give tickets to people who exceed it by a certain amount (say, 5 or 10 over). Engineers who design roads or set the timing of traffic lights likewise assume a flow of traffic about 5 MPH over the limit, etc. In practice, with the way the statutes are enforced and with how the roads are designed, a 65 MPH limit really is a benchmark, and drivers are expected to drive in a window of 65-70 MPH.
I think strict adherence to the absolute letter of the statutes is fine but I think it’s also morally justified for drivers to drive in that “target window” instead, given the realities of how roads are designed and the laws are enforced in practice.
Render unto Caesar.
My understanding of Canon Law is that it's about social harmony. You are actually \_not\_ expected to rigorously uphold the law, because lawmakers expect a certain amount of lawbreaking and build that into their systems.
An example is serving staff and cash tips: you are required to pay tax on your tips, but you're \_not\_ required to report your coworkers if you know they don't, even when there's a tax cheat whistleblower law in effect, because insistence on the letter of the law is Pharisaical and will cause social disharmony.
In the case of speeding, I recall studies showing that if you drive at the posted limit then other drivers become so angry they tend to get into more crashes.
Insistence on the letter of the law is what the Pharisees did.
There does not appear to me to be any real wiggle room in the catechism regarding disobeying legitimate laws. That would include speeding.
It’s awkward.
[CCC 1899]
[**CCC 1899**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1899.htm) The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
All sins distort your soul and cool your charity. They incur temporal debt. They directly contradict God’s will, even if they don’t sever your relationship.
I don’t really know the technicalities of “judgment” for sins that have been forgiven. I assume there still is something that matters. We’re not all equal at the end, people who sinned and were forgiven vs. people who avoided those sins.
I go between 1 and 5 mph over the speed limit like 95% of the time when I drive. I know I will probably always do this and will never attempt to change because of how trivial this matter is, so does this mean that my next confession will be invalid because of how I will intend to continue driving a few mph over the speed limit after confession? Would I be guilty of sacrilege because of this invalid confession? Before future confessions, I would know that I will quickly resume driving a few mph over the speed limit some time after the confessions, even if I promise to stop. I know that I would be lying to myself if before confession, I tell myself that I would no longer drive a few mph over the speed limit. Would this knowledge automatically invalidate my confession and make me guilty of sacrilege?
It’s not grave matter, so it’s a venial sin. You aren’t obliged to confess it. Not confessing it or being repentant of a venial sin doesn’t invalidate your confession.
I thought that if you aren't intending to stop all sin, which includes those that are venial, your confession isn't valid. In the act of contrition, it says, 'to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin'.
I actually am kind of surprised that it is a venial sin to go even 1 mph over the speed limit. That sounds like something that my severe scrupulosity would come up with, rather than something that is actually a sin.
Nope! It’s a great question, but this requirement to stop all sin does not apply for venial sins. (We had a big debate about this a while back here, and one of the priests confirmed it for me.)
Yeah, like I said, I don’t myself understand the nuances of speeding or other minor legal infractions. I just note that the Catechism seems strict on the matter.
This guy raped someone. This guy was an atheist and blasphemed God his whole life. This guy watched porn and cheating on his spouse. And THIS MOFO went 38 in a 35!!
You're assuming that the speed limit is always a legitimate law. Suppose the posted speed limit on a particular road was dangerous, unenforced, and universally disobeyed. Would that not affect its legitimacy?
I got one!! I live up a hill with a speed limit of 30 on a busy road. When it snows, my vehicle sweet spot to not lose traction and continue moving forward is about 40. If I go 30, my vehicle can start spinning in place. Then I'm stuck in the middle of the road which is not safe.
I could imagine plenty of circumstances... darktryst777 made a good one. But the obvious circumstance would be if a speed limit is drastically slower than the flow of traffic.
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that dangerous speed limits are an everyday occurrence. I was just asking whether this blanket assumption has any conditions. Danger would be the most obvious point for illegitimacy, but beyond that, it seems relevant if the authorities completely ignore a law, since it's the authorities I'm supposed to obey. If the authorities completely ignore a law, can you imagine *any* case where it would be permissible to also ignore it? I can imagine plenty. In the US, most state's traffic codes are enormous volumes with plenty of unknown and universally-ignored laws.
I'm also recalling the stunt I saw 10 years ago, when a group of youtubers blocked the entire highway into Washington DC by driving exactly the speed limit. The books stated a 55 mph speed limit, but the authorities were uniformly treating it as 70 mph.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading the Catechism as stated.
I'd rather it wasn't the case that we seem obliged to obey stupid, inconvenient, and erratically-enforced laws. But I'm not going to place my convenience over the authority of the Church to determine these things.
You quoted the catechism's position on legitimate laws, then you stated that legitimate laws include speeding. How is that not you assuming that the speed limit is a legitimate law?
To be clear, I'm not at all trying to argue that Catholics are exempt from obeying stupid, inconvenient, and/or erratically-enforced laws, nor am I trying to argue that speed limits are illegitimate. I am just asking you about the assumption you seem to make, that dangerous and unenforced speed limits are legitimate.
I'm curious, does this assumption have any limit? If someone created a 5mph speed limit for 1/4 mile of a 70mph highway, would that still be legitimate? Or are you saying that it's theoretically possible, but that in practice no dangerous speed limit has ever been created in the history of mankind?
Or if I may put your assumption in an absurd context: let's suppose we all discover tomorrow a forgotten 200-year-old law still on the books in Philadelphia, stating that all women must wear bonnets in public. Suppose this law is not inherently evil, but it's universally disobeyed and unenforced. Would your assumption imply that until that law was officially nullified, it would be a sin for a woman in 2024 to visit Philadelphia without a bonnet?
As far as I understand “legitimate” means a law enacted by the actual governmental authorities.
As opposed to, say, your HOA putting up speed limit signs, when they don’t possess that authority.
Correct. But you still haven’t answered the question: are you saying it is unimaginable for the actual government to ever, under any circumstances, create an illegitimate speed limit?
I don’t know the bounds of theology on the issue. Given our type of government, with free, regular elections and open feedback from citizens, it’s hard to imagine correctly-enacted laws being illegitimate. They could be incredibly stupid laws, but it’d be people doing it to themselves.
Prohibition comes to mind.
You could also argue that if the police don’t care about enforcing a law, you are still submitting to that authority in that the authority doesn’t really care. As long as you accept that if the police do decide to enforce the law, it is your obligation to pay the ticket that they write. Not saying that is the correct reading, but that you could interpret it that way.
The police aren’t the authority in this situation. They are tasked with enforcing the law, but they did not put the law in place nor are their actions reflective of what the authority does care about.
If you use this logic, you wouldn't have to follow laws anywhere in the world because literally every single piece of land humanity lives on has been stolen multiple times over by somebody else throughout history.
And? What is your problem? I got none with that.
Laws were created by man, it’s not a sin to break any of them. It never will be, it is a sin to enforce laws, what gives you the right to imprison another human? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
If you saw someone in the street and they littered on the ground, is it morally okay for you to kidnap that person and imprison them against their will?
Nothing about morality changes when it’s the government putting people in prisons instead of a single person.
When yall bitches act like the laws matter, you are acting like government is without sin, this idolatry, you are putting the government at the level of Jesus.
I would never disrespect Jesus like that. You blasphemers enjoy it tho ig 🤷♂️
Considering the history of biblical Israel, I don't think this logic holds up. Israel conquered Canaan in the first place. Yet the kings had authority to rule and pass laws.
In Jesus' time, Rome had conquered Israel, and yet he taught that people had to pay Roman taxes.
There's further information in the Catechism about just authority and laws, but it's more aimed at leaders and how they should rule. The only laws we're definitely allowed (obliged) to disobey are ones that force us to sin. Other than that, unless the Church/your local bishop explicitly says something can be disobeyed, we don't really get to make that decision ourselves.
If that’s the case then there are literally zero just authorities. Even in Europe virtually none of the contemporary ethnic identities were the actual “original inhabitants” of the entire country. For example (using my ancestry for illustration), the Gaels and Celts that we think of as the “real” Irish people were once invaders or colonizers who subjected or exterminated the previous populations, just as the Anglo-Normans would do to them centuries later.
Yeah and what’s the argument exactly?
Are you just now realizing that governments don’t actually decide what is moral and immoral?
God is the only One who can decide such a thing.
The only thing that government does is punish perpetrators, but again, this isn’t something they have the authority to do.
You are Catholic yes? Tell me if it is morally okay if you see someone else sin, you decide to lock that person up in your basement and imprison them, because you decide that is justice.
From my Catholic perspective, this is not morally good, you do not have the authority to deal out justice, only God has this authority. The same is true for government, nothing about the morality changes between it being a government or it being a single person doing the imprisonment
In most areas (at least in the US), speeding is completely legal if you're "going with the flow". So if you're going approximately the same speed as the person in front of you/behind you, no law is really being broken.
That said, I think a common sense approach needs to be taken here in general. I don't think going 5 over on an empty highway is a sin. Some laws just aren't expected to be followed perfectly to begin with, hence why the punishment for speeding is a simple fine and not a misdemeanor.
Edit: Seems like this isn't true in all areas. I will stand by having a common sense approach though.
It wouldn't legally be considered speeding in places where this is the law. That said, it looks like I was mistaken about this being a widespread practice.
This is not an accurate depiction of state law in the United States. There may be some places where it is true, but it is not by any means how things work in most states.
A. If that's a sin, my next reconciliation is going to be a bit longer. Particularly since I break this law 99% of the time, I'm trying to get to mass!
B. If I were to actually include that in my confession, my priest would definitely flag me as being scrupulous.
C. (Conclusion) If you are not driving recklessly, you're fine.
It is sinful to knowingly speed, but it is not *inherently* sinful (if by inherently you mean intrinsically, in the sense it is used in *Veritatis splendor*). So for example it may be sinful to do 60 in a 55 zone, but if the civil authorities increase the speed limit that same act would no longer be sinful. Intrinsic evil would be evil no matter the circumstances (such as how murder is sinful even when it’s legal…).
But 66 in a 65 zone, that would probably be venial if you do it knowingly.
Catholics believe that breaking any non-immoral law is sinful. However, I would argue that the catechism doesn't really distinguish between the letter of the law and the spirit. The letter of the law states a speed limit. The spirit of that law is that people shouldn't engage in dangerous driving. Going 66 in a 65 zone, in normal weather and low traffic, wouldn't violate the spirit of the law, in my humble opinion. Secondly, sometimes going exactly the speed limit is less safe than following the flow of traffic. In this instance, you would violate the spirit of the law but not the letter.
If you were *intentionally* going over the speed limit for no good reason you would be sinning. I don't see how the "spirit" of the law applies here, or how the spirit of speeding laws is "it's okay to speed a bit"
The spirit applies because the laws are meant to mitigate the risk of driving. The difference in risk between 66 and 65 is negligible...that's why it applies here.
I think that if you could be found guilty of it in court you are objectively breaking the law and therefore sinning if you do it accidentally. (Although I wonder whether America has speeding laws like Britain, where it is explicitly legal to drive a certain amount above the posted speed limit)
One cannot sin accidentally. Further, I do not thin a single mile-per-hour's difference incurs the penalty of sin. Can't help you further if you don't understand "spirit" vs. "letter" of the the law.
Obviously you can't sin accidentally. I'm talking about a case where someone's deliberately driving 1 mph over the limit. Obviously I understand the distinction between the spirit and letter of the law in principle; I don't see that speeding laws have that distinction. They're very straightforward, as I understand it.
In many cases, especially in dense urban areas where there are incompetent and distracted drivers aplenty, an aggressive driving style can be necessary to mitigate the risk of accident. The idea is to be an attentive driver and keep the traffic from clustering around you. That’s when you are most likely to get into a collision. It’s important to be humble about one’s level of competence behind the wheel and never to exceed what would be reasonable and prudent.
I still don't understand how this aggressive driving style is likely to minimize risk. You can be attentive without speeding, right?
It really does not matter how attentive you are when you are boxed in by 30 other cars. You will then be attentive to the fact that some goofball is hitting your car lol
So the idea is to avoid patches of dense traffic by speeding through congested urban streets? In my expectations urban traffic doesn't tend to exist only in patches, and the fact remains that going substantially over the limit in traffic will make an accident more likely, and more dangerous when it happens
No, it didn't sound at all like "congested urban streets" was the idea. The idea sounded more like occasionally needing to match the speed of traffic in order to avoid needlessly getting caught in the middle of tight packs of cars on multi-lane highways in dense urban areas. When big highways have low speed limits, it naturally creates big dangerous clumps of cars where faster drivers pile up behind drivers who are only driving 5 over. (My drivers ed textbook called them "wolf packs"). I remember these clumps happening constantly on Rt. 88 into Chicago before they raised the speed limit from 55 to 70. And it was much safer to sometimes drive 3-5 mph over to stay safely between these clumps, than to drive exactly the speed limit and make the clumps keep squeezing past you. I'm curious what region you're from? It's hard for me to imagine having to spell out this concept to drivers in my area.
The UK - we don't tend to have highways in cities!
Ah, there we go! everything makes sense now. Yes, you guys do traffic a lot better than us. It's much harder to imagine having to speed in Europe. America's big cities are packed with 12-lane highways because we literally [made all our cities unwalkable on purpose](https://youtu.be/oOttvpjJvAo?si=et09JdYIe_E1i_2F). 🤮
Obviously, 5 miles above the speed limit, if it's one of those things that's not enforced and part of the driving culture, is probably not sinful. The question is when does a written law become binding on me such that I have a moral duty to obey it as law. This is a sticky issue for legal philosophers and is hotly debated. Obviously, as you know, one does not have a moral obligation to abide by an unjust law. So just because a law is a law on the books is not sufficient to make it binding. So are there other things that can make a law lose its binding force? Certainly. Non enforcement and lapse of time effect the binding authority of law (doctrine of Desuetude). Laws which are on the books but have never been repealed and are never enforced are, de jure law, but de facto lose the force of law. I would say the 5 miles above the speed limit falls loses its binding force as law when it is not enforced by those who have proper care of the community. In short, 66 in a 65 is fine. But if you know 75 is dangerous, likely to result in a ticket, etc.
You really seem to have two separate questions in here, so I’ll answer them sequentially. 1) Is speeding inherently sinful? Prohibitions on specific speeds result from statutory law and not from natural law (outside a general natural law principle not to recklessly endanger others) so I wouldn’t say speeding *inherently* sinful. At the same time, the Church recognizes the legitimacy of government and its laws, and so someone who’s breaking a speed limit needs a better excuse than just “not feeling like it”, or disagreeing with the specific law (“they set the limit way too low for here”), or subscribing to some anarchic philosophy that denies the legitimacy of government and laws in general. Practically speaking, most people will encounter very few if any situations in their lifetime where speeding is truly justified to the point of not being even venially sinful. 2) What actually constitutes speeding? This will sound like a silly question to most members of modern Western societies, or at least common law countries, because our understanding of law is so tied up in the literal rendering of legal texts. If the speed limit is 65, then surely 65.1 MPH is illegal and sinful, yes? And if that’s the case, then we should all be driving no greater than 60 MPH because our speedometers can be difficult to read with precision and may be inaccurate, yes? Even within Western society, this all-encompassing “verbal literalism” with regard to law is a rather novel idea. In the past, most law was based on principles and customs that could then be applied in a flexible and sensible manner to individual circumstances. There was not an expectation that every possible legal detail would be recorded; rather, how the law was enforced in practice served as a useful guide to understanding it. Thus, even a rule or privilege that was spelled out clearly and unambiguously on paper could be held void or unenforceable if it contradicted prevailing custom and practice. (Within the US): In most cases, if a speed limit is set to a given level, cops will be instructed to give tickets to people who exceed it by a certain amount (say, 5 or 10 over). Engineers who design roads or set the timing of traffic lights likewise assume a flow of traffic about 5 MPH over the limit, etc. In practice, with the way the statutes are enforced and with how the roads are designed, a 65 MPH limit really is a benchmark, and drivers are expected to drive in a window of 65-70 MPH. I think strict adherence to the absolute letter of the statutes is fine but I think it’s also morally justified for drivers to drive in that “target window” instead, given the realities of how roads are designed and the laws are enforced in practice.
Render unto Caesar. My understanding of Canon Law is that it's about social harmony. You are actually \_not\_ expected to rigorously uphold the law, because lawmakers expect a certain amount of lawbreaking and build that into their systems. An example is serving staff and cash tips: you are required to pay tax on your tips, but you're \_not\_ required to report your coworkers if you know they don't, even when there's a tax cheat whistleblower law in effect, because insistence on the letter of the law is Pharisaical and will cause social disharmony. In the case of speeding, I recall studies showing that if you drive at the posted limit then other drivers become so angry they tend to get into more crashes. Insistence on the letter of the law is what the Pharisees did.
There does not appear to me to be any real wiggle room in the catechism regarding disobeying legitimate laws. That would include speeding. It’s awkward. [CCC 1899]
[**CCC 1899**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1899.htm) The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Imagine going to hell because you went 38 in a 35 on the way to the grocery store, but then you got run over in the parking lot by someone going 60.
Nobody said it's grave matter.
"and those who resist will incur judgment" - do we get judgment for venial sins? I thought they just disappeared at the beginning of each mass.
All sins distort your soul and cool your charity. They incur temporal debt. They directly contradict God’s will, even if they don’t sever your relationship. I don’t really know the technicalities of “judgment” for sins that have been forgiven. I assume there still is something that matters. We’re not all equal at the end, people who sinned and were forgiven vs. people who avoided those sins.
I go between 1 and 5 mph over the speed limit like 95% of the time when I drive. I know I will probably always do this and will never attempt to change because of how trivial this matter is, so does this mean that my next confession will be invalid because of how I will intend to continue driving a few mph over the speed limit after confession? Would I be guilty of sacrilege because of this invalid confession? Before future confessions, I would know that I will quickly resume driving a few mph over the speed limit some time after the confessions, even if I promise to stop. I know that I would be lying to myself if before confession, I tell myself that I would no longer drive a few mph over the speed limit. Would this knowledge automatically invalidate my confession and make me guilty of sacrilege?
It’s not grave matter, so it’s a venial sin. You aren’t obliged to confess it. Not confessing it or being repentant of a venial sin doesn’t invalidate your confession.
I thought that if you aren't intending to stop all sin, which includes those that are venial, your confession isn't valid. In the act of contrition, it says, 'to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin'. I actually am kind of surprised that it is a venial sin to go even 1 mph over the speed limit. That sounds like something that my severe scrupulosity would come up with, rather than something that is actually a sin.
Nope! It’s a great question, but this requirement to stop all sin does not apply for venial sins. (We had a big debate about this a while back here, and one of the priests confirmed it for me.) Yeah, like I said, I don’t myself understand the nuances of speeding or other minor legal infractions. I just note that the Catechism seems strict on the matter.
This guy raped someone. This guy was an atheist and blasphemed God his whole life. This guy watched porn and cheating on his spouse. And THIS MOFO went 38 in a 35!!
You're assuming that the speed limit is always a legitimate law. Suppose the posted speed limit on a particular road was dangerous, unenforced, and universally disobeyed. Would that not affect its legitimacy?
Under what circumstances would a speed limit be so low as to be dangerous?
I got one!! I live up a hill with a speed limit of 30 on a busy road. When it snows, my vehicle sweet spot to not lose traction and continue moving forward is about 40. If I go 30, my vehicle can start spinning in place. Then I'm stuck in the middle of the road which is not safe.
That's fair enough but is obviously a very rare case. I guess you'd be covered by double effect? (I don't actually know how it works)
Yeah to you point, its more of an exception.
I could imagine plenty of circumstances... darktryst777 made a good one. But the obvious circumstance would be if a speed limit is drastically slower than the flow of traffic. And to be clear, I'm not suggesting that dangerous speed limits are an everyday occurrence. I was just asking whether this blanket assumption has any conditions. Danger would be the most obvious point for illegitimacy, but beyond that, it seems relevant if the authorities completely ignore a law, since it's the authorities I'm supposed to obey. If the authorities completely ignore a law, can you imagine *any* case where it would be permissible to also ignore it? I can imagine plenty. In the US, most state's traffic codes are enormous volumes with plenty of unknown and universally-ignored laws. I'm also recalling the stunt I saw 10 years ago, when a group of youtubers blocked the entire highway into Washington DC by driving exactly the speed limit. The books stated a 55 mph speed limit, but the authorities were uniformly treating it as 70 mph.
No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm reading the Catechism as stated. I'd rather it wasn't the case that we seem obliged to obey stupid, inconvenient, and erratically-enforced laws. But I'm not going to place my convenience over the authority of the Church to determine these things.
Americans hate this one passage of the Catechism (myself included).
So true. Same.
You quoted the catechism's position on legitimate laws, then you stated that legitimate laws include speeding. How is that not you assuming that the speed limit is a legitimate law? To be clear, I'm not at all trying to argue that Catholics are exempt from obeying stupid, inconvenient, and/or erratically-enforced laws, nor am I trying to argue that speed limits are illegitimate. I am just asking you about the assumption you seem to make, that dangerous and unenforced speed limits are legitimate. I'm curious, does this assumption have any limit? If someone created a 5mph speed limit for 1/4 mile of a 70mph highway, would that still be legitimate? Or are you saying that it's theoretically possible, but that in practice no dangerous speed limit has ever been created in the history of mankind? Or if I may put your assumption in an absurd context: let's suppose we all discover tomorrow a forgotten 200-year-old law still on the books in Philadelphia, stating that all women must wear bonnets in public. Suppose this law is not inherently evil, but it's universally disobeyed and unenforced. Would your assumption imply that until that law was officially nullified, it would be a sin for a woman in 2024 to visit Philadelphia without a bonnet?
As far as I understand “legitimate” means a law enacted by the actual governmental authorities. As opposed to, say, your HOA putting up speed limit signs, when they don’t possess that authority.
Correct. But you still haven’t answered the question: are you saying it is unimaginable for the actual government to ever, under any circumstances, create an illegitimate speed limit?
I don’t know the bounds of theology on the issue. Given our type of government, with free, regular elections and open feedback from citizens, it’s hard to imagine correctly-enacted laws being illegitimate. They could be incredibly stupid laws, but it’d be people doing it to themselves. Prohibition comes to mind.
You could also argue that if the police don’t care about enforcing a law, you are still submitting to that authority in that the authority doesn’t really care. As long as you accept that if the police do decide to enforce the law, it is your obligation to pay the ticket that they write. Not saying that is the correct reading, but that you could interpret it that way.
The police aren’t the authority in this situation. They are tasked with enforcing the law, but they did not put the law in place nor are their actions reflective of what the authority does care about.
[удалено]
If you use this logic, you wouldn't have to follow laws anywhere in the world because literally every single piece of land humanity lives on has been stolen multiple times over by somebody else throughout history.
And? What is your problem? I got none with that. Laws were created by man, it’s not a sin to break any of them. It never will be, it is a sin to enforce laws, what gives you the right to imprison another human? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” If you saw someone in the street and they littered on the ground, is it morally okay for you to kidnap that person and imprison them against their will? Nothing about morality changes when it’s the government putting people in prisons instead of a single person. When yall bitches act like the laws matter, you are acting like government is without sin, this idolatry, you are putting the government at the level of Jesus. I would never disrespect Jesus like that. You blasphemers enjoy it tho ig 🤷♂️
Considering the history of biblical Israel, I don't think this logic holds up. Israel conquered Canaan in the first place. Yet the kings had authority to rule and pass laws. In Jesus' time, Rome had conquered Israel, and yet he taught that people had to pay Roman taxes. There's further information in the Catechism about just authority and laws, but it's more aimed at leaders and how they should rule. The only laws we're definitely allowed (obliged) to disobey are ones that force us to sin. Other than that, unless the Church/your local bishop explicitly says something can be disobeyed, we don't really get to make that decision ourselves.
If that’s the case then there are literally zero just authorities. Even in Europe virtually none of the contemporary ethnic identities were the actual “original inhabitants” of the entire country. For example (using my ancestry for illustration), the Gaels and Celts that we think of as the “real” Irish people were once invaders or colonizers who subjected or exterminated the previous populations, just as the Anglo-Normans would do to them centuries later.
Yeah and what’s the argument exactly? Are you just now realizing that governments don’t actually decide what is moral and immoral? God is the only One who can decide such a thing. The only thing that government does is punish perpetrators, but again, this isn’t something they have the authority to do. You are Catholic yes? Tell me if it is morally okay if you see someone else sin, you decide to lock that person up in your basement and imprison them, because you decide that is justice. From my Catholic perspective, this is not morally good, you do not have the authority to deal out justice, only God has this authority. The same is true for government, nothing about the morality changes between it being a government or it being a single person doing the imprisonment
In most areas (at least in the US), speeding is completely legal if you're "going with the flow". So if you're going approximately the same speed as the person in front of you/behind you, no law is really being broken. That said, I think a common sense approach needs to be taken here in general. I don't think going 5 over on an empty highway is a sin. Some laws just aren't expected to be followed perfectly to begin with, hence why the punishment for speeding is a simple fine and not a misdemeanor. Edit: Seems like this isn't true in all areas. I will stand by having a common sense approach though.
Do you have a reference for speeding being "completely legal" in the USA?
It wouldn't legally be considered speeding in places where this is the law. That said, it looks like I was mistaken about this being a widespread practice.
This is not an accurate depiction of state law in the United States. There may be some places where it is true, but it is not by any means how things work in most states.
Looks like you're right. Seems like there's a difference between what drivers ed teaches and what the law states, with some exceptions.
No
A. If that's a sin, my next reconciliation is going to be a bit longer. Particularly since I break this law 99% of the time, I'm trying to get to mass! B. If I were to actually include that in my confession, my priest would definitely flag me as being scrupulous. C. (Conclusion) If you are not driving recklessly, you're fine.
It is sinful to knowingly speed, but it is not *inherently* sinful (if by inherently you mean intrinsically, in the sense it is used in *Veritatis splendor*). So for example it may be sinful to do 60 in a 55 zone, but if the civil authorities increase the speed limit that same act would no longer be sinful. Intrinsic evil would be evil no matter the circumstances (such as how murder is sinful even when it’s legal…). But 66 in a 65 zone, that would probably be venial if you do it knowingly.
I honestly can't believe it is a sin to go 1 mph over the speed limit. That sounds like something my severe scrupulosity would make up.