Can "Divine Positive Law" supersede or conflict with "Divine Natural Law"?

[Birdmanman]

This question occurred to me when looking around about the Mortara Affair. The book I have seen a snippet of says that Pope Pius IX makes, among other points supporting his decision about Mortara, the following:

“Once such a child has been baptised, having become a son of the Church, the Church has the duty to provide him with an education in conformity with the received Christian faith; consequently, if the child’s parents refuse to provide such an education, the Church has the right to bestow it on him and to substitute itself for the family in its educational role, in virtue of the principle of subsidiarity.** In this case, indeed, the rights of the family (which belong to the natural and divine order) are superseded by the superior right of the Church (which belongs to the divine and positive order); the law of God the Creator is included and superseded by that of God the Redeemer and Saviour, who realises himself in the Church” **
-“Pius IX” by Roberto De Mattei, page 155

(Please note, in this book the points are not quoted, so I think it is implied but unclear that these are the Pope’s words)
So, can Divine Positive Law supersede Divine Natural Law? At first glance, I intuited that these two forms of Divine Law cannot conflict, and this example (Pope Pius IX’s point) seems to be an area of conflict, rather than an area in which one law is superseding the other while including or agreeing with the other (for example, in how the Sacrament of Marriage does not conflict with “Natural Marriage” that occurred before that Sacrament was instituted). But at the same time, I like Pope Pius IX and will not easily dismiss a point made by our former Pontiff (who, while surely not always infallible, is a legitimate authority).

Until I see sufficient reason and sources to disagree with this point made by Pope Pius IX, I will agree and assent to it.

If anyone could help to justify the point made by the Pope, or can deny it with sufficient reason and sources (like, from Aquinas and another Pope or so), I would be thankful!

 

[devoutchristian]

An analogy: there are civil laws against killing people, yet these are usually superseded by a necessity defense in cases of self-defense, even if the state hasnt explicitly spelled out the rules for self-defense statutorily, but only has a general statute regarding choice of evils.

 

[Birdmanman]

An analogy: there are civil laws against killing people, yet these are usually superseded by a necessity defense in cases of self-defense, even if the state hasnt explicitly spelled out the rules for self-defense statutorily, but only has a general statute regarding choice of evils.

So how is it that what is superseded by something is included in it, or not contrary to it? (“the law of God the Creator is included and superseded by that of God the Redeemer and Saviour”)
In the example you gave, it would seem that the either the application of the statute regarding choice of evils, or the validity of the necessity defense, are contradictory to, are exceptions to the broad application of the civil laws against killing people, which civil laws are not ‘included’ in the necessity defense or statute regarding choice of evils.

 

[devoutchristian]

So how is it that what is superseded by something is included in it, or not contrary to it? (“the law of God the Creator is included and superseded by that of God the Redeemer and Saviour”)
In the example you gave, it would seem that the either the application of the statute regarding choice of evils, or the validity of the necessity defense, are contradictory to, are exceptions to the broad application of the civil laws against killing people, which civil laws are not ‘included’ in the necessity defense or statute regarding choice of evils.

Self-defense is an exception to the law against killing, but it is not a contradiction, it’s simply a case that wasn’t envisioned bythe general law.

 

[Birdmanman]

Self-defense is an exception to the law against killing, but it is not a contradiction, it’s simply a case that wasn’t envisioned bythe general law.

“Once such a child has been baptised, having become a son of the Church, the Church has the duty to provide him with an education in conformity with the received Christian faith; consequently, if the child’s parents refuse to provide such an education, the Church has the right to bestow it on him and to substitute itself for the family in its educational role, in virtue of the principle of subsidiarity. In this case, indeed, the rights of the family (which belong to the natural and divine order) are superseded by the superior right of the Church (which belongs to the divine and positive order); the law of God the Creator is included and superseded by that of God the Redeemer and Saviour, who realises himself in the Church”
-“Pius IX” by Roberto De Mattei, page 155

“In this case, indeed, the rights of the family (which belong to the natural and divine order)” -
I read this as “there are rights of the biological family to educate their child are a part of Natural Law given by God.”

“the superior right of the Church (which belongs to the divine and positive order)”​

I read this as “God has given us positive law that gives The Church the right to provide the child with education in certain circumstances”

How is it that the latter is not in contradiction to the former? Unless we say that the former is not an absolute right, but then why is it “superseded” if it is not absolute?

To supersede means to ‘take the place of’; whereas to provide an exception to does not seem to simply mean to take the place of. To include means to contain or take in or be comprised in part of.
So:
There is A and there is B.
B supersedes A.
but
A is included in B.
If A is included in B, then B = A + C (where C constitutes the difference between A and B).
So, for this to make sense; the Divine Positive Law must contain the WHOLE AND ORIGINAL rights of the family to the education of the child under Natural Law, that is, A must remain intact when it is added to C to make B.

The way around this that I can see is to say that, the natural law applies to real families and not just to biological families (adoption can be an example where natural law gives this right not just because of biology); the real family of the Baptized child is the Church since it has become a son of the Church; therefore the natural rights of the family to the education of the child apply to the actual family of the son and the Divinely instituted Church. Which “members of the family” actually educate the child are determined in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, so the lowest competent authority is used (which, in this case, is not the Jewish parents incompetent of teaching the child the Christian Faith). Does this sound agreeable?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It is containment, it is just that there’s a lack of specificity in the contained rule. The right to educate your children is not absolute in that it can be lost - if you abuse your children, say. One way to phase this would be “you have a right to educate your children, so long as you don’t forfeit this right via bad stuff.” Another would be to say that the child’s right to not be abused supercedes the parents right to educate them.

It appears that the thing you quoted is saying that having your child baptized puts another conditional on the right - if you promise to raise the child in the faith, and have him entered into the Church, then as a member of the Church, that child has a right to education about the Church and the Church has the authority to see that right met. The parents still have the right to educate their children, but in so doing cannot violate the child’s right.

Their right can be forfeited because of misuse (violating another right), and the fact that the violation of right A on the parents part causes them to forfeit right B can be called A superseding B. Not that there is an inherent conflict (conflict arises from misuse), nor that B isn’t a real or important right, only that it has limits which may not be transgressed.

That’s what I get anyway. Also note that I’m merely trying to unpack the statement, not commenting it’s applicability or anything else.

 

[TomD123]

Natural law is made by God and built into our nature as human beings. It exists as a consequence of our nature. Divine Positive Law exists as an addition…as a revealed add on in a sense in order to help accomplish our salvation.

Neither contradict one another, it is just that when natural law does not have a specific rule in a certain situation, positive law fills in.