The first thing that comes to mind when we hear the Fourth Commandment (“Honor your father and mother.”) is naturally the relationship that we have with our parents. But this commandment also governs any number of other relationships, including our relationship with any legitimate authority in our lives. This would normally include civil authorities, and therefore, civil laws.

 

The morality of driving a car is an area where moral laws and civil laws can either overlap or sometimes illustrate the differences which exist between them. The commandment obliges us to respect and to follow just civil laws (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2234, 2238 and 2239), since they are directed toward a proper ordering of society, and presumably, the protection of human rights, including in a preeminent way, the right to life itself. This would include respecting of course, traffic laws. 

 

The only times one would be morally justified in intentionally breaking a civil law would be when that law was not just, or reasonable, or it otherwise obliged one to break a moral precept. This is an area where the distinction between a moral law and a civil law needs to be made. 

 

In the hierarchy of law, the moral law always takes precedence over a civil law, since the moral law ultimately comes from God, the supreme authority. While civil laws exist to protect people within society (and indeed, society itself), the moral law helps to perfect the human person, so that he or she can reach their proper end: eternal life and happiness with God. 

 

Human persons, because of their dignity (which comes from being made in the image and likeness of God), will always be more valuable than the following of any human law. 

 

If the dignity or the true good of a person is threatened by a law, the good of the person always takes precedence. Furthermore, the true good of the human person is always directly connected with God’s moral law. 

 

It is always wrong therefore to break a moral law, but it is not always wrong to break a civil law — especially if doing so actually enables a moral duty to be upheld, or a higher value to be protected. 

 

Traffic laws by their very nature, are meant to protect human life, and as such should therefore be respected and obeyed. But clearly there can be exceptions. 

 

For example, a police officer or an ambulance driver would be permitted to disobey some normal traffic laws at times without penalty, in the carrying out of his or her duty. This would be an example of an individual being authorized by a society to be exempted in certain circumstances from a traffic law in order to offer greater service to the value of human life. 

 

But this would only apply when it is necessary — and only to the degree that it is necessary. There would be no exemption, for example, when he or she is driving to work. This makes sense. 

 

The problem comes in, however, when individuals exempt themselves from obeying legitimate civil laws on their own authority. This can be harmful to both persons and society itself.  

 

Is there ever a time or set of circumstances when we are justified in disobeying normal traffic laws? Only in those rare exceptions when following them would put us or someone else in danger or would otherwise be unreasonable. We can think of a true emergency situation as one possible scenario.  

 

So where does that leave us in terms of the morality of driving a car? Generally speaking, we are obliged to respect traffic laws as one way we show due respect to legitimate civil authorities and contribute to the common good of society at the same time. 

 

A follow up question might be this: “Does that mean that if I drive over the speed limit I’m sinning?” It’s a common question. Therefore, I will address it, and other similar questions in my next column.