AmericanPapist Comments
Hopefully, we can also expect the "10 Commandments for cell phone use in public places," as well as the "10 Commandments for the express check-out lane in supermarkets."
Well, for that matter, why put out any extra teachings of the Church? Why encyclicals, either, since the things written there also are included in the basic moral laws.
I dare say that perhaps the reason for this is because, even among those who know the Great Commandment, it's not always easily seen how it applies to things in life such as driving. After all, if in this age we can have Christians who claim that abortion isn't regulated because it isn't spoken about specifically in the Bible, or contraception, likewise, the same can be said of driving or a multitude of other subjects.
Part of the mission of our Magesterium, from the pope on down to your local parish priest, is to teach us how to apply various portions of doctrine, Scripture, and Tradition to our lives today. Though I am sure that you are perfectly capable of seeing all such applications and never in need of such simple instruction as this, could you perhaps see that not everyone makes the connections between the Great Commandment and something like driving?
Perhaps we ought to avoid criticizing our priest, bishops, and cardinals. Detraction itself can be a sin, you know.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Detraction is the unjust damaging of another's good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty or at any rate is seriously believed to be guilty by the defamer.
It's unclear as to how questioning the need for this document falls under the sin of detraction.
Right Paul. This is not, even closely, detraction.
Only the first part of this document deals first with drivers. The other three have to do with the care of 'street women' (prostitutes), street children (vagrants without family ties), and the homeless (tramps).
Okay, so it's not detraction per se as seen from a theological point of view. But it's still nitpicking. Are we seriously supposed to be criticizing the Magisterium for instructing us (again) on how to treat other people in various conditions and circumstances? I mean, it's not like none of us need to hear it over and over again.
The Ten Commandments of Driving that has been floating around is, indeed, a simplification of it. As Lauren said, other things were dealt with. Latching on to the driving section seems to be something that the secular press would do in order to detract from the teaching authority of the Church.
BTW, a cursory glance at the sections on women of the street, street children, and tramps (the homeless) shows me some material that is truly needed. Such problems are rampant in many areas of the world, and we all should take note of the recommendations here. Once the driving section is passed, you can see a real call for a return to actively pursuing the Corporal Works of Mercy. Such a call shouldn't be questioned or made fun of.
Even if your initial reaction was, "They spent time on that?" you ought to at least admit that there is more to it than "Ten Commandments of Driving" and not fall into the same trap that the secular media does. And, really, it boils down to questioning the teaching authority of the Church.
Personally, I think I'll try printing this off and taking a serious look at what the Church is asking of me.
Christine- This was a horrendous move by the inept Cardinal Renato Martini, who has a track record of doing really stupid things such exclaiming in a rage that America had degraded Saddam Hussein's inherent dignity.
The Ten Commandments are sacrosanct, and yet Martino degrades them and the Church by using the words "Ten Commandments" in something so banal as ethics of driving a car.
It is also morally confusing. Is he stating that if I go 57 down the Fairfax County Parkway in a 50 mile per hour zone on my way home from work, I am committing a sin?
Pope Benedict needs to clean house and sweep away some Italian cardinals who obviously think they are running the Vatican.
I've got to agree with Christine. I've read the document, and I have to say I think it's a good document.
We all are supposed to know the Ten Commandments and the other teachings of the Church, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hear homilies during Mass. The whole purpose of a homily, in fact, is to apply the Gospel to what we already know and to admonish and encourage us to live these things out. It's to reinforce. This document simply does that.
I think that, aside from Cardinal Martino's involvement, one of the reasons that this document is being reacted to the way it is, is due to one of the points the document keeps emphasizing: people really don't take their faith, as it applies to driving, seriously. We act as if the speed limit is trivial, as if its not a big deal to fiddle with the radio in traffic, and things like that.
It's not only driving... it all goes back to the tendancy of people to see faith as believing all the right stuff and avoiding mortal sin, rather than a total way of life. People don't take this document seriously because people don't take venial sin seriously (or those sins which by popular opinion ought to be venial, though we may be taught otherwise).
I think we should get rid of the focus on Cardinal Martino, because its an easy cop out, and there's a very good reason why the appeal to his involvement really isn't very powerful at all: there isn't much new in this document. Most of what is taught is taken from statements from previous teachings from encyclicals, papal statements, and even the Second Vatican Council. The Church has been teaching most of this stuff for years, its just now been put into one easy to reference source.
People don't want to hear that going 75 in a 65 mph zone is a sin. That's the real problem, I think. This has been something I have had conversations with people about long before this document came out... so long as we don't kill someone, we're handling the roadways well, the general thinking seems to be.
I know this isn't true of everybody, of course. In fact, everyone reading this may be very concerned with the tiniest of tiny sins. That being said, I think that really is the big problem here.
Only the first part of this document deals first with drivers. The other three have to do with the care of 'street women' (prostitutes), street children (vagrants without family ties), and the homeless (tramps).
Methinks the document would have been better received had the first portion (I agree with the criticism) had not been paired with the second (which is rather more substantial).
We should listen to the Church. Could this particular teaching have been better taught? Are there issues that YOU feel need taught with more force that are being ignored. Probably yes to both. But there is nothing wrong in this document and we should listen to it.
Christopher,
You are probably right. I think the document, which was given the prior approval of Pope Benedict XVI before its publication, also suffers from what appears to be a personal bias against Cardinal Martino, a bias that has been exhibited on this blog before and, in particular, in this thread. Had the document be issued directly by, say, Cardinal Arinze or the Pope himself, I truly doubt it would have been met with so many shaking heads.
To be blunt - which I rarely do - what it comes down to is that this is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium and to refuse to submit to it is a grave sin.
Shane- You are absolutely wrong.
I asked my professor at the summer session at Christendom about the ridiculous "Ten Commandments for Driving" (once again Cardinal Martino does something colossally stupid.) My question was if this document was Magisterial. I'm always careful to be obedient.
My professor stated point-blank that this document is not in the least bit Magisterial (and he is an expert on Scripture and Catechesis). This is Martino's personal opinion, and wrong personal opinions have been issued throughout Church history. This document is certainly not the Magisterial teaching of the Church and does not have that weight. Furthermore, he stated that the choice of words (juxtaposing "Ten Commandments" with something so banal as driving etiquette) was "foolish."
Once again, Cardinal Martino has caused grave scandal to the dignity of the Church.
Had the document be issued directly by, say, Cardinal Arinze or the Pope himself, I truly doubt it would have been met with so many shaking heads.
I don't know Michael -- some of the language in the document is so over the top and quintissential "Martino", I'd have a hard time imagining Cardinal Arinze would write it with a straight face. ;-)
The eyebrow-raising first section, however, gives the impression of straining gnats, precisely because it takes a commonplace of daily life and tries, in effect, to turn it into a catechism lesson. Ten commandments for drivers, indeed! It is almost inevitable that this section will strike many readers as either amusing, or shallow, or simply platitudinous, if I may be excused the word. It is this quality of the document which lends force to the “valiant attempt” theory cited above.
And yet, and yet. In this business of critiquing our use of the “road”, the document makes a first effort to call our attention to something significant about the spatial mobility which lies at the heart of modern culture. If we step outside ourselves, as if we are from another planet or another era, we might begin to see a deeper significance in how we move around, how we purchase and use automobiles, how we view the freedom and independence of travel, how we behave when we leave home, and how all this shapes our identity as persons. We might begin to think about rootlessness, evasion of responsibility, and spiritual vacuity.
Does the document say anything particularly deep about this problem? Well, perhaps not, at least not at first reading. But it is a problem worth thinking about, and I suspect there are profound insights to be gained from a deeper reflection. In this process, Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road may lead to insights which go beyond the letter of its text.
Martino's Folly, by Jeff Mirus
Gabe,
Your professor is absolutely wrong. An expertise in ecclesiology is perhaps what is needed.
The document was not published under Martino's name, but carries the authority of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. Because it is a document of the Roman Curia released by the approval of Pope Benedict XVI, it is constitutes a magisterial document:
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors. -Pope Paul VI, Christus Dominus
Whatever may be its shortcomings in presentation and wording (e.g., "Ten Commandments"), it was released under the authority of the Roman Curia and of the Pope himself. Is it an infallible teaching as a whole? Of course not. Does it apply some infallible moral teachings to concrete situations? You bet. Does it demand assent even though it's not infallible? Of course. Infallibility is not a criterion for submission of the intellect; authority is (Lumen Gentium).
I don't see the big deal over the document. I think it's rather trivial, but if someone as intelligent as the Pope had no problem with its release, than it must have some kind of merit.
I really don't know a whole lot about the ideologies of members of our hierarchy, but I know enough about some to say that if Arinze had written something like this, women wouldn't be allowed to drive.
Michael Joseph- I know enough about the Church to know that when Cardinal Martino, in sheer hubris, takes on the role of God the Father by issuing ten more Commandments, this is not Magisterial. Thanks to Martino yet again, we are the laughing stocks of the world.
There should be a new definition of "hubris" in the dictionary: Cardinal Martino. Apparently, he believes there are 20 Commandments, the ten regular ones and his ten for driving a car.
I didn't believe for a second this was Magisterial teaching, but I doubled checked with an expert who teaches at Christendom. He agreed: Cardinal Martino driving rules are "foolish" and not Magisterial.
I tried to read the "Ten Commandments" of driving, but the second one was worded in such an embarrassing manner, I had to stop. The presentation was absolutely awful, but it is true that people are far too aggressive and generally unChristian when they're behind the wheel. They forget their manners when they're driving, and when you forget your driving manners, somebody might get killed. For instance.
I've read of people who pray the rosary or the Divine Mercy Chaplet while driving. That's dangerous! It's not just your eyes that have to stay on the road - it's your mind, too. And your hands in the wheel. Once mom tried to get a CD and pop it into the player while driving - it's a good thing my sister noticed and took the CD from her hand, because we almost got off the road! People try to do the most spectacular things with one hand on their cellphone, another in the driving wheel - like trying making U-turns. When there's cars coming from the other direction. And then they have to reverse because the other lane was too narrow to make an U-turn. And then they ignore red traffic light and drive on. I saw a woman do all this yesterday.
People say that if you don't use swear words, you will learn how to when you learn how to drive. Other people's driving makes you angry, and your driving makes other people angry back. It's sad.
And it's even sadder that Catholics would dismiss a documents such as this so easily.
I don't care if Cardinal Martino has said many foolish things in the past - he's got a point here. It's true that he shouldn't have titled it "Ten Commandments", and that the writing style is just off, etc. But driving etiquette is not by any means "banal", and people do act "transform" when they're behind the wheel. They forget there's people inside the other cars, too.
I have only read the first section of the document. I think it is quite negative in its approach to transportation, for example, under "Road Traffic and Human Progress": (#4)"Roads are no longer just communication routes; they have become places where we spend a great deal of our lives, also in developing countries. We only need to consider the many uneven roads travelled on by unsafe and overloaded means of transport, which constitute a grave danger for everyone, especially at night." We hear of traffic congestion, noise, air pollution, intensive use of raw materials (#5), before we hear "Therefore road and rail transport are a good thing, as well as being indispensible requirements of contemporary life"(#9).
Under the heading "The Particular Psychology of Drivers", We hear about the "domination instinct" in which "by identifying themselves with their car, drivers enormously increase their own power...The free availability of speed, being able to accelerate at will, setting out to conquer time and space, overtaking, and almost "subjugating" other drivers, turn into sources of satisfaction that derive from domination" (#25). Then we hear about cars "being used by their owners to show off" (#26), and that "When driving, however, imbalances emerge and encourage regression into more primitive forms of behaviour" (#29).
No doubt, these things happen - it is one of the reason insurance is so expensive for youth, especially young males - but again, the reason that discounts are given for good grades - when youth show a degree of responsibility. The attitude dealt with here is one of extreme immaturity. Is there anything instrinsic to the automobile that bring out these tendencies? No. I have seen the same kind of wars among parents with fancy video cameras dueling it out for the best space to film the school musical. It is true, however, that on the road, this degree of immaturity can be deadly. I don't equate this with travelling 35mph in a 30mph zone, however - the Catechism, as quoted in the document reads "the virtue of temperence disposes us to avoid EVERY KIND OF EXCESS: the abuse of food, alchohol, tobacco or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or love of speed, endanger their own and other's safety on the road, at sea or in the air"(#2290). I am not suggesting anyone go out of their way to speed, but sometimes the limits set seem a bit arbitrary - like when crossing state lines and the speed limit suddenly drops by 10 mph from 65mph to 55mph on the exact same road in the exact same conditions. If my speed was not right on 55mph immediately, I don't think it would be a sin, although I think I should be in as close conformity to it as possible. Obviously, the state has the authority to set the limit, but it would not appear to be an objective moral norm. Sometimes, acceleration above the speed limit can be an exercise in good driving and judgment when a danger is perceived and avoidance
The real question is, why do they have time to translante this but not the motu proprio?
Gabe - whether or not your proffesor or anyone else thinks that the document is foolish has nothing to do with it being Magisterial or not. Many Catholics believe(d) that Humani Vitae is foolish, but it is still Magisterial. The fact is that we are Catholics, and as Catholics we owe obedience to the Church not only in the small, but in the large as well. It was not meaningless that Christ once said, "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is unrighteous in a very little is also unrighteous in much." The heart that accepts the small teaching is the same as the heart that accepts the large, and so if our heart is willing to reject the small teaching, it is the same heart that will reject the large.
Your professors can say what they want - and professors do tend to do just that regardless of the Church's teaching - but you are not disagreeing with me or with Michael - you are disagreeing with Pope Paul VI. I would really take a long consideration of this... it is grave matter.
I'll also point out again that, as one who has actually looked at the document, I can attest that the majority of the teachings in it are simply restatement of earlie, clearly Magisterial sources such as popes and Councils - frequently Magisterial sources that speak specifically on matters of the road.
Please, look into your heart... is it really a matter of who published the document? Or, is it a matter of not wanting to give up that extra 5 mph, or as you said, not wanting to be the laughing stock of the world? We are Catholic. We are supposed to be the laughing stock of the world. If we aren't, we're not following Christ quite well enough.
God bless! :)
Marie - the moral quality of speeding is not a matter of driving 65 versus 55 in itself, but is a matter of obedience to a just civil authority.
Now how we drive can be a moral matter apart from the law when it comes to cases where real moral principles, such as safety, come clearly into play. So for example, driving 100 mph on a curvy road would be a sin even if there weren't a law against it - it's just clearly and grievously dangerous. Now because moral principles in themselves are more primary than laws to which we owe obedience, they can sometimes, as you suggest, overrule the laws. For example, I would not be bound to go 45 in a 45 mph minimum zone in the middle of a blizzard, regardless of whether or not the law made this exception. I imagine that in a given case, speeding up - even high above the limit if the circumstances called for it - would not be sinful but even meritorious.
The question that arises about driving under normal conditions pertains to whether or not the limit is really the limit. Obedience is a matter of submitting to what the rightful authority wants you to submit to, so what that is exactly determines the whole question. When the government sets the speed limit at 65 mph, do they really want people to stick to that, or are they intending people to drive a few mph over and so setting it at 65 rather than 70 deliberately? The general consensus is the latter. If that is so, then that is what we are bound to. I really don't know what the right answer is, but that's the right way of thinking about it so far as I understand.
Many Catholics believe(d) that Humani Vitae is foolish, but it is still Magisterial.
That's not a good analogy. Humanae Vitae was an encyclical and, therefore, clearly Magisterial.
Cardinal Renato Martino's absurd Ten Commandments for Motorists certainly is not. For something to be Magisterial, there has to be union with Tradition and Scriptures.
There have been many arrogant cardinals in Church history, but, as far as I know, none has ever had the hubris to add ten more Commandments to the Ten Commandments that God the Father has given us. Cardinal Martino has just stated to the world there are actually 20 Commandments: The Ten God the Father gave humanity and 11-20 that Cardinal Martino, who evidently thinks he is on the same level as God, has given us in his wisdom.
The only other Person Who has added Commandments appears to be Christ, who added the Golden Rule and worshiping God with all your heart.
Cardinal Martino has taken it upon himself to add Commandments about driving a car. In 2000 years of Holy Tradition, Martino feels it is finally time to add more Commandments, and the incredibly important issue of motor vehicles is the reason.
This is comical and absurd (in a negative way). It causes heaps of scorn to be leveled at the Church.
In light of Tradition and Scripture, it can be clear that adding Commandments is not Magisterial.
What's quite amazing to me is that there are people who are putting down this document based solely on a soundbite that the mainstream media picked up on it.
Gabe is telling us that a cardinal - a prince of the Church, selected to be such by the Supreme Pontiff - is an idiot. That something he is connected with - not the sole author of - is not Magisterial because it is not from the pope alone. The Magisterium includes all of the priests and bishops under whose authority we are. We are all under their authority. Not just the ones we like, either.
The document might seem clumsily-worded, but keep in mind that it was not written in English. This would be the translators. I have to say, though, that five pages into it, I have not noticed much that is clumsy in the wording.
As far as what it covers...consider for a moment what Church you belong to. It is the Catholic Church. And the Church is catholic, which means that it is for everyone, everywhere, and at every time. The reactions to this - calling it idiotic, ridiculous, a waste of time - all take no consideration of the fact that this document is directed to the entire world.
And, as far as speeding goes, breaking the speed limit means that we have broken the Fourth Commandment: we have refused to submit to the authority under which we live. It's not an unjust law, so that means we do not have permission to break it. Am I without guilt here? No. But that doesn't mean that it's okay.
Look at yourselves. Look at the reaction that you are having at a document that the VATICAN has released for our benefit. Are you acting like a Catholic who is faithful to the Church when you call one of Her cardinals an idiot?
What I'd recommend is that you invest in the 22 pieces of paper it takes to print it out and actually read the document. Those of you who are busy criticizing the Church over this do not seem to have taken the time to actually read it. I see no discussion of the merits of the paper itself - only the disparagement of a cardinal of the Church.
Gabe is picking and choosing which documents he wants to be magisterial and which he does not. Notice that he has only made assertions regarding this, never once producing an argument. It's reminding me a bit of many American theologians today. A little tour through Vatican II documents (esp. Lumen Gentium), Paul VI's Christus Dominus, and Canon Law will tell a very different story than Gabe and his misled professor.
The fact remains that the document is not in Martino's name (therefore, it is not his personal opinion), it was published by a branch of the Roman Curia, and it was approved by Pope Benedict XVI. That's magisterial material in Catholic terms.
My younger brother Joseph (age 30) was killed by an underage drunk driver who got embroiled in a road rage high speed car chase. Joe was coming home from visiting our youngest brother in the hospital who was being treated for leukemia and was driving responsibly, yet killed by two irresponsible drivers only four blocks from our home. These 10 Commandments for Auto drivers are not silly. Wreckless driving and Drunk driving kill more innocent people than any other deadly means. Rarely do I hear my colleagues preach on the MORTAL SIN of drunk driving, even less on the SIN OF OMISSION when someone allows an intoxicated person to drive rather than taking their keys and calling a cab. As a hospital chaplain for one year, I saw the injuries and deaths caused by road rage and DUI, yet every year more people get mamed and killed, not by terrorists but by motorists.
Commenting by HaloScan
