Ignorance of the natural law?

[MilesVitae]

As I understand it, there are some parts of the natural law of which we cannot be ignorant, or at least not invincibly and without guilt. Other parts of the natural law, however, require more complex reasoning to know and it is possible for one to (without fault) not know these parts.

My question is, what falls under the latter category? For instance, can one have ignorance (without fault) of the immorality of homosexual activity or (heterosexual) fornication (both of which are prevalent in our society)? What about suicide (I’m thinking specifically of the Samurai).

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism (approved by Pope Benedict XVI)

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[MilesVitae]

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

I understand this, but I am trying to understand the degree to which it is possible for one’s knowledge of the natural law to be fogged, and how it effects one’s moral culpability - particularly in the specific areas I mentioned.

 

[nespero]

I think we can be ignorant of any and all parts of the natural law, and thus have invincible ignorance. I don’t have Canon Law quotes, but I think about what Jesus said on the Cross in Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” He didn’t say, “Father, I know they know what they are doing, but forgive them anyway,” which would also have made a lot of sense. But He said that even in murder they didn’t know what they were doing, they had no sense of the natural law in even this extreme case.

Now, I realize this doesn’t mean that none of us know that murder is wrong. But at least in this important case we know that a group of men, some of them Romans, and some of them Jewish and taught according to the law of Moses, were ignorant of the natural law. So I think we have to conclude that might be the case across the board, and we should never judge anyone on the basis that they should have known better, according the the natural law, even murderers.

 

[Bookcat]

I understand this, but I am trying to understand the degree to which it is possible for one’s knowledge of the natural law to be fogged, and how it effects one’s moral culpability - particularly in the specific areas I mentioned.

mileage will vary…

(each person has their own particular background and impediments…and capacity etc)

 

[MilesVitae]

Jesus said on the Cross in Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” He didn’t say, “Father, I know they know what they are doing, but forgive them anyway,” which would also have made a lot of sense. But He said that even in murder they didn’t know what they were doing, they had no sense of the natural law in even this extreme case.

I have always understood Jesus’ words to mean that they did not know that they were killing the Son of God.

 

[MilesVitae]

The general teaching of theologians is that the supreme and primary principles are necessarily known to every one having the actual use of reason.

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

So, there are parts of the Natural Law which we cannot not know.

Others we can be ignorant of, but only vincibly:

When we pass from the universal to more particular conclusions, the case is different. Some follow immediately from the primary, and are so self-evident that they are reached without any complex course of reasoning. Such are, for example: “Do not commit adultery”; “Honour your parents”. No person whose reason and moral nature is ever so little developed can remain in ignorance of such precepts except through his own fault.

Finally, there are those about which one can have vincible ignorance

Another class of conclusions comprises those which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning. These may remain unknown to, or be misinterpreted even by persons whose intellectual development is considerable. To reach these more remote precepts, many facts and minor conclusions must be correctly appreciated, and, in estimating their value, a person may easily err, and consequently, without moral fault, come to a false conclusion.

So what I am wondering is this - what are some more examples of each case? There are more or less subtle points of the natural law - I think, for instance, that St. Thomas talks in the Summa about how, although one is ordinarily required to return what he has borrowed, he is not under this obligation if, by returning the thing, he would be providing a means for some evil (I return a gun which a man is going to use to kill someone). Is the immorality of fornication, homosexual activity, or suicide something which is easily enough concluded that one cannot be innocently ignorant of it?

I strongly lean towards thinking that one cannot have invincible ignorant of the immorality of these actions, considering their gravity (or at least that of the latter two). And, yet, I have argued enough about the morality of homosexuality to see why it wouldn’t seem wrong; I have already mentioned the example of the Samurai and suicide; and fornication is something which seems difficult to argue the immorality of (furthermore, it is more or less culturally widespread).

(Why, you may ask, am I so concerned about these three particular sins. What can I say, I find strange things to worry about - sometimes, actually, I feel like I am suffering from scrupulosity about doctrinal matters).

 

[jrgiancola]

Actually, I consider the “natural law” to be that which God permits “nature” to do or creeate. It is not necessarily the “norm.” Siamese twins are a part of the natural law, although not the norm. The differences in the laws of physics near a black hole are part of the natural law, though not the norm for us here on earth.

I also disagree that there is some code written on all hearts whereby one thing is universally known to be absolutely always wrong and another thing is absolutely always right. Most issues have more gray areas than black or white areas.

For the sake of argument though, let’s say some things are always wrong and others always right.

For me, these would only be the things that Jesus taught us. If we do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and widows, have faith as a little child, comfort those in mourning, love God and our neighbor as ourselves, then the failure to do these would always be wrong and doing them would always be right.

 

[John21652]

Actually, I consider the “natural law” to be that which God permits “nature” to do or creeate. It is not necessarily the “norm.” Siamese twins are a part of the natural law, although not the norm. The differences in the laws of physics near a black hole are part of the natural law, though not the norm for us here on earth.

jrgiancola, you have just written your own version of what the Natural Law should be. In the process, however, you have contradicted around three thousand years of intellectual tradition. If we accept what you are saying, you will have ruined the reputations of Plato and Aristotle, blackened the name of Cicero, laughed in the face of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I and given the impramatuer to moral theologists of the uilitarian mind set. In fact, you have undermined the very foundations of Catholicism, Judaism and Islam!

Natural Law is named so because it refers to the nature of man. It has everything to do with “the norm”. It is in fact an objective moral code based on the search for a normative ethic. Siamese twins are a part of nature, but they are not part of Natural Law moral deliberations, except for one, which I’ll leave you to figure out. It aint that difficult to discern.

The physical properties of matter near black holes have nothing whatsoever to do with Natural Law. If it were so, then Plato knew a whole lot more about astronomy than he ever let on!

I also disagree that there is some code written on all hearts whereby one thing is universally known to be absolutely always wrong and another thing is absolutely always right. Most issues have more gray areas than black or white areas.

Well, in one sense you are correct. No-one has ever seen any words inscribed on a human heart! However, philosophers and theologians have being saying since forever that there is a universal law inscribed on the heart of man. Even powerful microscopes have found nothing! Are they wrong? Or maybe, just maybe the term is actually an aphorism? The question is, an aphorism representing what? it represents what the Natural Law is. Those attributes and characteristics of mankind that can be discerned, using reason, to arrive at normative descriptions of human nature and behaviour from which we deduce ‘ought’ value statements. ‘Ought’ statements are based on discerned objective truths pertaining to the nature of man and his place in the world.

For the sake of argument though, let’s say some things are always wrong and others always right.

They sure are. Moral absolutes we call them.

For me, these would only be the things that Jesus taught us. If we do not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the sick and widows, have faith as a little child, comfort those in mourning, love God and our neighbor as ourselves, then the failure to do these would always be wrong and doing them would always be right.

That’s a very narrow view of the legacy Jesus left behind. Are all those things moral absolutes? Will I sin if I don’t go out of my way to find a naked person and clothe him? Must I do it? As a matter of fact, as a Catholic you’d also have to admit that he left behind the keys to His church and from those keys the legacy of Jesus has been lengthened and strengthened. It did not end with his crucifiction. Nor does the legacy of Jesus include the answers to all we wish to know. If it were otherwise, there would be no need for apostolic guidance or moral deliberations and our knowledge of how we ought to live would be perfect.

 

[jrgiancola]

I think we’re starting from two different points of reference. I see “natural law” as being what science has theorized or proven. What you describe, I call “moral law.”

I do believe there are only two moral absolutes: Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself. It is our task in life to discover the ways that God wants us to accomplish these two commandments. I choose the RCC to guide me because I believe its teachings are correct 99.9 % of the time.

When I listed in the last post what Jesus taught us, I did not intend that list to be all inclusive. Obviously He taught us much more than those few things I listed. But again, everything He taught us comes down to the two commandments I just quoted.

As for Aristotle and the others in his category, who cares what they thought? They had no knowledge of the true God. They are interesting reading; so is Shakespeare. But I do not look to them for moral guidance.

 

[Corki]

I think we’re starting from two different points of reference. I see “natural law” as being what science has theorized or proven. What you describe, I call “moral law.”

I do believe there are only two moral absolutes: Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself. It is our task in life to discover the ways that God wants us to accomplish these two commandments. I choose the RCC to guide me because I believe its teachings are correct 99.9 % of the time.

When I listed in the last post what Jesus taught us, I did not intend that list to be all inclusive. Obviously He taught us much more than those few things I listed. But again, everything He taught us comes down to the two commandments I just quoted.

As for Aristotle and the others in his category, who cares what they thought? They had no knowledge of the true God. They are interesting reading; so is Shakespeare. But I do not look to them for moral guidance.

That’s not an accurate definition of natural law.

CCC

1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

 

[John21652]

I think we’re starting from two different points of reference. I see “natural law” as being what science has theorized or proven. What you describe, I call “moral law.”

I do believe there are only two moral absolutes: Love God with your whole heart, mind, soul and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself. It is our task in life to discover the ways that God wants us to accomplish these two commandments. I choose the RCC to guide me because I believe its teachings are correct 99.9 % of the time.

When I listed in the last post what Jesus taught us, I did not intend that list to be all inclusive. Obviously He taught us much more than those few things I listed. But again, everything He taught us comes down to the two commandments I just quoted.

As for Aristotle and the others in his category, who cares what they thought? They had no knowledge of the true God. They are interesting reading; so is Shakespeare. But I do not look to them for moral guidance.

Once again, things are as you want them to be, not as they really are. You did not read my post properly. I described Natural law and then I showed how Natural Moral law is arrived at. So your statement that we are starting from two different points of reference is true because you create your own reality.

You state there are only two moral absolutes. What did you do with the other eight?

You have written about Aristotle in a depracating fashion. It seems your education doesn’t extend as far as knowing anything about the western tradition of thought, Aristotle to this very day exerts an influence over how we percieve the world. If you value in any way the Judeo-Christian western ethic, you would value the role Aristotle played in its development.