Determining Truth in Natural Law

[Eric_Prine]

How does the Church determine truth in philosophy and Natural Law? Is it clear if one uses logic or can we only do it in light of Divine Revelation, Tradition, God enlightening us through the sacraments, or something else?
I mostly ask for apologetic reasons in talking with fundamentalists. I have friends who go to a denomination I used to be a part of before I became Catholic. They say they rigidly only believe in following Scriptures alone yet much of how they interpret the Bible is due to the founder of their denomination 200 years ago who was very influenced by John Locke. They have certain philosophical paradigms without knowing it or being aware of it. They encourage using spiritual directors but they are very influenced by Lockes idea of Tabula Rasa, that we are born a blank slate and do not have certain individual temperaments we must work with and respect. They also have a very utilitarian view of approaching spiritual obedience, lack pastoral care, get annoyed by people who think too much. Even if they don’t become Catholic, I would like to at least see them adopt healthier approaches along with their dedication. Can a fundamentalist adopt Natural Law without the guidance of the Church? What determines Natural Law?

 

[beleg]

Natural Law comes from a logical understanding of the natures of things.

For example, we can see that the nature of sex is that it is ordered towards procreation and unity, since its natural consequences are children, and increased bonds of affection between participants. Therefore Natural Law shows us that any departure from these two functions must be disordered: contraception, abortion, masturbation, sterilization, homosexual behavior, polygamy etc. are all disordered because they deny the procreative aspect; polygamy, masturbation, divorce, etc. likewise twist the unitive aspect.

Each teaching of the Church that’s derived from Natural Law follows a similar argument.

 

[hicetnunc]

Hi Eric;

Thank you for your very interesting question…one which is close to my own heart too! First of all, maybe I could say a few things about natural law. St Thomas says that the natural law is our participation in the eternal law. The eternal law, he says (ST II, q.91, a.1, ff.), is the “Supreme Reason” of God. Given that the human person is made “in the image of God”, we are made in the image of this Supreme Reason. Human reason, in other words, is oriented towards the good, the true and the beautiful by its very nature. We are hard-wired, so to speak, for the truth. In this sense, we do not need Revelation to know what can be known through the natural law properly speaking; we do not derive the natural law from Scripture, for example, but from the proper exercise and ordering of reason by its own nature, in conformity with the nature of reality as we experience it.

One thing which is often overlooked about natural law, on the other hand, is that it is not totally autonomous. The understanding of the natural law requires, St Thomas goes on in various places, (1) the exercise of virtue (given that sin blinds us, the lack of virtue—which includes a lack of wisdom and prudence—will hinder the exercise of natural law) and (2) that the human person does not live and learn in a vacuum, independently of the community; and given that the Church is the paradigm and perfection of the earthly community, the perfection and training of the natural law can only be realised through participation in the divine law too, which is an expression of the eternal law and which the Church gives us.

As to John Locke, and the other empiricists (including Hume, etc). On the one hand, the notion of the blank slate is compatible with Catholic thinking (at least Aquinas, etc) insofar as sense experience is the starting point of all of our natural knowledge. But on the other hand, empiricism does not account for infused knowledge, which although presupposes natural knowledge, does not depend on it. Nor does Locke or Hume provide an adequate grounding for the concept of virtue, including faith, etc, and in many respects, their naturalism contributed to the rise of materialism.

All that said, there is no reason why a Protestant could not admit of natural law. You may find the following article from First Things very interesting on how to approach the idea of natural law (and moral theology in general) when speaking with your Protestant friends:

firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

Hope this helps…

 

[Rhubarb]

I think natural law arguments are very problematic from a philosophical point of view, but I won’t go into that right now.

With regard to your question, assuming we put aside those problems, I don’t think Protestantism in general objects to natural law. Is there a specific thing you want to argue, using natural law as a premise or assumption? That would make it easier to say specifically what your worry is.