Guestblogger Ed Peters writes . . .
Claude Allen suddenly resigned as one of President Bush’s top advisors a couple months ago. Last weekend, he was charged with multiple counts of shop-lifting at local retailers. The MSM is having a field day, of course. I’ve already seen lines like ‘Claude Allen, a proponent of home-schooling, was making $ 161,000 per year when he allegedly scammed the stores.’ But maybe it’s payback time; after all, when Teddy Kennedy left a young woman to drown in his car, the MSM reported ‘Congressman Kennedy, who supports the public school system, did not report the accident until the next day.’… Not.
Here, I wish to make just one point, prefaced by (1) a man is innocent until proven guilty, and (2) the behavior alleged here suggests psychological problems which might impact on moral responsibility, if not legal liability.
In any case, what is it that makes some people, when they find a way to be dishonest, think their discovery entitles them to act dishonestly? If a vending machine will kick out a can of pop if I hit in a certain way, have I the right to take a soda without paying for it, just because I could? (Hey, if the company cared, they could fix the machine, right?) If a clerk turns his back on an open cash drawer, have I the right to take some money? (If they cared about it, they wouldn’t leave it within reach, right?) And if a retailer has procedures that let people get refunds on merchandise they never purchased, then sure, they better fix their procedures, but until they do, it’s open season on them.
Such attitudes, I suggest, are at root “antinomian”. They reflect the attitude that laws (and the morality upon which law rests) are merely as extrinsically-imposed rules that only apply to the degree one might get punished for breaking them. But if, on the other hand, one sees law as somehow (even remotely) being an intelligent participation in divine order, then one’s ability to avoid detection does not justify acting dishonestly.
All of us have sinned, and most of us have broken a law at one time or another. But a functioning conscience reminds us that these actions offend God; as Catholics, we accuse ourselves of wrong-doing and seek forgiveness in Confession. We resolve, with the help of God, to commit that sin no more and, if appropriate, to make reparations. By doing so, we acknowledge that we hurt mostly ourselves when we act wrongly, even when no one else finds out.
I have heard a line of reasoning that went like this:
There are only three things that keep us from doing evil;
1. Society (laws, penalties, social pressure…),
2. Physical & mental limitations (I’d like to do “x”, but I can’t), and…
3. The individual conscience.
Social restrictions have been rapidly evaporating. Anything goes, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. “Harm” is increasingly defined as physical injury.
Many, many physical and mental restrictions have been overcome through technology and affluence (at least in the West).
That leaves the individual conscience. At a time when each individual has to deal with more possible temptations than ever before, our society offers little help in developing a healthy conscience.
That’s why they call us the Church Militant!
The tricky part comes when you think the law is itself immoral or unjust. Then what do you do? Follow society’s law, or follow your conscience?
Mr. Allen apparently has a ne’er-do-well identical twin brother who may be to blame for these crimes.
then again maybe t wasn’t the brother
Regarding Tucker’s question, didn’t some great saint (Aquinas?) have something to say about unjust laws? Something like: an unjust law is no law at all…? Somebody knowledgeable please help me out here.
Obviously there is a great difference between the laws mentioned in this post and laws one could rightly consider “unjust”. (Take the can of pop example from above: it is certainly not unjust to require that people pay for the pop, though it’s tempting to get out out for free.)
If I remember correctly, Pope JPII broke some unjust laws when he was a young priest by taking a group of Catholic youth into the mountains. (Nazis had all sorts of unjust laws..)
However, I think it has to be proportionate: you can’t just skip taxes because the feds ask for too much.
It’s a thorny ara and one that I have never fully understood. How much obedience do we owe to secular authority versus how much to our own conscience? What if there is a law banning “hate speech” and it is used to silence those who disagree with immorality? What if there is a law banning the picketing of abortion clinics? What if you do think a tax is unjust- were our forefathers in the American Revolution wrong to protest and start a colonial revolt?
This is an appropriate anecdote
THE DUCK and THE DEVIL
There was a little boy visiting his grandparents on their farm. He was given a slingshot to play with in the woods. He practiced in the woods, but he could never hit the target. Getting a little discouraged, he headed back for dinner. As he was walking back, he saw Grandma’s pet duck.
Just on impulse, he let the slingshot fly, hit the duck square in the head, and killed it. He was shocked and grieved.
In a panic, he hid the dead duck in the wood pile, only to see his sister watching! Sally had seen it all, but she said nothing.
After lunch the next day Grandma said, “Sally, let’s wash the dishes.” But Sally said, “Grandma, Johnny told me he wanted to help in the kitchen.” Then she whispered to him, “Remember the duck?” So Johnny did the dishes.
Later that day, Grandpa asked if the children wanted to go fishing, and Grandma said, “I’m sorry, but I need Sally to help make supper.” Sally just smiled and said,” Well, that’s all right because Johnny told me he wanted to help.” She whispered again, “Remember the duck?” So Sally went fishing, and Johnny stayed to help.
After several days of Johnny doing both his chores and Sally’s, he finally couldn’t stand it any longer. He came to Grandma and confessed that he had killed the duck.
Grandma knelt down, gave him a hug, and said, “Sweetheart, I know. You see, I was standing at the window and I saw the whole
thing, but because I love you, I forgave you. I was just wondering how long you would let Sally make a slave of you.”
Thought for the day and every day hereafter . . . . Whatever is in your past, whatever you have done that the devil (or the media) keeps throwing it up in your face (lying, stealing, adultry, cheating, pride, gluttony, debt, fear, bad habits, hatred, anger, bitterness, etc.) . . . whatever it is .
You need to know that God was standing at the window, and He saw the whole thing anyway . . . He has seen your whole life, and He
wants you to know that He loves you and that you are forgiven. He’s just wondering how long you will let the devil make a slave
of you . . . . We only need to turn back to God and do the right thing.
Always remember: God is at the window.
That’s a lovely story but, I’m sorry- I don’t see how it applies to the discussion.
tt. sure it does. pretty sugary, and i wouldn’t use it at a men’s group. but yeah, it basically applies. sure, the initial act was so thoughtless it’s probably not imputable, but yeah, sure it applies. sortof.