Natural Law Morality Dying?

[Charlemagne_III]

One might consider that natural law morality is dying a slow death throughout the world when even a Catholic bishop has no use for it.

lifesitenews.com/news/in-sweeping-critique-vatican-synod-father-attacks-humanae-vitae-and-even-th

Your thoughts?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As you know, Arius produced a tremendous civil war within the Church.

It will be interesting to see if this bishop gets a reprimand, and from whom.

 

[belorg]

As you know, Arius produced a tremendous civil war within the Church.

It will be interesting to see if this bishop gets a reprimand, and from whom.

Maybe people should listen to Bonny’s arguments before reprimanding him.

BTW, I am from Belgium and I can assure you that Johan Bonny isn’t the only bishop who thinks this.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Can you clarify the reference to civil war produced by the apostle James?

 

[belorg]

Are you aware of what Bonny’s actual arguments are, (name removed by moderator)?

He does have serious philosophical arguments for his position and those should be met with philosophical counter-arguments.

As you you claim about many bishops in the 60’s, considering the state of the Catholic Church in Europe, I dount that they were wrong.
Anyway, nobody should just accept arguments from authority. if there are arguments against his position, thn present them

 

[belorg]

I very much doubt that you are aware of them. Have you read his essay?

He does have serious philosophical

arguments for his position and those should be met with philosophical counter-arguments. They already have been.

So you assert, but, again, I don’t think you have read the actual essay, so I don’t think you can back up your claims.

As you you claim about many bishops in the 60’s, considering the state of the Catholic Church in Europe, I doubt that they were wrong. Sorry, I don’t understand your comment. However, the church in Europe, was, is and always will be only a small part of the Church

The rest will follow.

Anyway, nobody should just accept arguments from authority. We can agree to disagree on that. As a Catholic, we are absolutely required, in some circumstances to "just accept arguments (or conclusions) from authority

I know Catholics are still ‘required’ to just accept such arguments, but gradually this is changing, as Bonny’s (and others) courageous words prove.

if there are arguments against his position, thn present themNo thanks. Been there, done that, wasted energy.

If the arguments were good, the energy wasn’t wasted.
[/quote]

 

[belorg]

Great. A link to Bonny’s essay. I could have given you that. But the question stilll is: have you actually read it?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Great. A link to Bonny’s essay. I could have given you that. But the question stilll is: have you actually read it?

Have you read it? If so, what do you take to be the most important statements made in it?

Feel free to include key passages in your reply?

When I see an atheist siding with a bishop, I have concerns for the bishop.

So you might explain to me what there is about this bishop that excites you.

Please be specific, as it is highly unusual for an atheist to be on the side of the bishop unless the bishop is felt by the atheist o be on his side.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe the issues at the Council of Jerusalem (circumcision, dietary habits) were in no way so serious as the issues at Nicea, and therefore I don’t see the Jerusalem Council as a civil war within the Church.

A Catholic Council today that would countenance the sacrament of marriage between same sex partners I believe would bring about real civil war within the Catholic Church. That isn’t going to happen so anyone who hopes and prays that it does is wasting his breath.

 

[Rhubarb]

The idea of a natural law is ontologically and epistomologically bizarre to me. I don’t understand why it’s needed except to justify other ideas, and I don’t know how it itself is justified in a consistent and congruent way.

 

[Rhubarb]

The idea of a natural law is ontologically and epistomologically bizarre to me. I don’t understand why it’s needed except to justify other ideas, and I don’t know how it itself is justified in a consistent and congruent way.

 

[belorg]

Have you read it? If so, what do you take to be the most important statements made in it?

Feel free to include key passages in your reply?

When I see an atheist siding with a bishop, I have concerns for the bishop.

So you might explain to me what there is about this bishop that excites you.

Please be specific, as it is highly unusual for an atheist to be on the side of the bishop unless the bishop is felt by the atheist o be on his side.

Yes, I have read it.

But I am not only willing to discuss its content in depth with someone who is equally willing to discuss, Because, as Bonny states in his essay, things are far more complex than some people are claiming.

As for ‘sinding with a bishop’, I side with eveybody who expresses his freedom of speech and backs it up with arguments. And whether Bonny is right or wrong, should be decided on the basis of arguments, not by some kind of reprimand.

I really don’t see how any decent person, whether theist or atheist can disagree with this.

 

[belorg]

The idea of a natural law is ontologically and epistomologically bizarre to me. I don’t understand why it’s needed except to justify other ideas, and I don’t know how it itself is justified in a consistent and congruent way.

I can understand that the idea of a kind of natural law makes sense to a theist, especially in light of the Aristotelean idea of final causes.
The point is that even under natural law, things are not just black or white. And that is one of the key parts in Bonny’s essay.

 

[inocente]

I can understand that the idea of a kind of natural law makes sense to a theist, especially in light of the Aristotelean idea of final causes.
The point is that even under natural law, things are not just black or white. And that is one of the key parts in Bonny’s essay.

Bonny’s essay is long, and I only looked at passages explicitly mentioning natural law. He quotes the work instrument for a Synod:* “In a vast majority of responses and observations, the concept of natural law today turns out to be, in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible. The expression is understood in a variety of ways, or simply not understood at all”*.

I would understand natural law as in Romans 2:14-15 - that we are all moral agents and we all wrestle over the right thing to do.

But some Catholics mean natural law to refer instead to a system of ethics produced by Thomas Aquinas, and a few see that as providing strict universal rules on what is good or bad - for them wrestling over the right thing to do would be moral relativism, follow the rule-book, never question the rule-book.

It seems it’s not just Bonny who finds the rule-book a poor substitute for a moral conscience. He quotes an International Theological Commission document: “Natural law [cannot], therefore, be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making a decision”.

According to polls, most Catholics ignore rule-books anyway, at least when it comes to marriage and family, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Which is either very heartening or appalling anarchy, depending on what you think about rule-books. .

 

[belorg]

Bonny’s essay is long, and I only looked at passages explicitly mentioning natural law. He quotes the work instrument for a Synod:* “In a vast majority of responses and observations, the concept of natural law today turns out to be, in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely incomprehensible. The expression is understood in a variety of ways, or simply not understood at all”*.

I would understand natural law as in Romans 2:14-15 - that we are all moral agents and we all wrestle over the right thing to do.

But some Catholics mean natural law to refer instead to a system of ethics produced by Thomas Aquinas, and a few see that as providing strict universal rules on what is good or bad - for them wrestling over the right thing to do would be moral relativism, follow the rule-book, never question the rule-book.

It seems it’s not just Bonny who finds the rule-book a poor substitute for a moral conscience. He quotes an International Theological Commission document: “Natural law [cannot], therefore, be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making a decision”.

According to polls, most Catholics ignore rule-books anyway, at least when it comes to marriage and family, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

Which is either very heartening or appalling anarchy, depending on what you think about rule-books. .

The way Natural Law morality is used in this thread is more in line with what Tomas of Aquino thought about it. The problem is that it is not at all uncontroversial what exactly is acceptable or not, depending on what is part of natural law and what isn’t.
What Johan bonny is saying is not that Natural law morailty is worthless, but that it is not a black and white matter and that there are other elements to consider.
It is a personal reflection by a man who is every much aware of the problems and who doesn not believe that a simple appeal to a strict natural law has any chance of success.

Let’s not forget some (name removed by moderator)ortant background here. the Catholic Church in Belgium has suffered a great deal under abuse scandals, involving one of Bonny’s fellow bishops, and in the process has lost most of its moral authority. This cannot be restored by a simple appeal to natural law, and most certainly not by calling someone a heretic.

 

[inocente]

The way Natural Law morality is used in this thread is more in line with what Tomas of Aquino thought about it. The problem is that it is not at all uncontroversial what exactly is acceptable or not, depending on what is part of natural law and what isn’t.
What Johan bonny is saying is not that Natural law morailty is worthless, but that it is not a black and white matter and that there are other elements to consider.
It is a personal reflection by a man who is every much aware of the problems and who doesn not believe that a simple appeal to a strict natural law has any chance of success.

Let’s not forget some (name removed by moderator)ortant background here. the Catholic Church in Belgium has suffered a great deal under abuse scandals, involving one of Bonny’s fellow bishops, and in the process has lost most of its moral authority. This cannot be restored by a simple appeal to natural law, and most certainly not by calling someone a heretic.

Here in Spain the Church has also lost on moral authority, but I think Bonny is saying it would happen anyway, with or without any scandals, because a change of approach is needed. Most people don’t agree with morals in a rule-book written 750 years ago by a medieval philosopher and want inclusion not diktat. There’s an underlying debate about whether morals should be reduced to sets of rules anyway, when Jesus was against legalism.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, I have read it.

But I am not only willing to discuss its content in depth with someone who is equally willing to discuss, Because, as Bonny states in his essay, things are far more complex than some people are claiming.

As for ‘sinding with a bishop’, I side with eveybody who expresses his freedom of speech and backs it up with arguments. And whether Bonny is right or wrong, should be decided on the basis of arguments, not by some kind of reprimand.

I really don’t see how any decent person, whether theist or atheist can disagree with this.

I can disagree with this entire post in that you refuse to answer my questions. When you get around to answering them, let me know and we can talk.

Also, **ad hominems **are a poor form of argument. I assume you are decent and you might do me the same favor until you find out otherwise if that’s even possible.

This bishop is not going to change Catholic doctrine, so please do save your hopes and prayers for another time and place.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

 

[belorg]

I can disagree with this entire post in that you refuse to answer my questions. When you get around to answering them, let me know and we can talk.

Also, **ad hominems **are a poor form of argument. I assume you are decent and you might do me the same favor until you find out otherwise if that’s even possible.

This bishop is not going to change Catholic doctrine, so please do save your hopes and prayers for another time and place.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

There is no ad hominem in any of my posts. And I am willing to answer any question you might have, provided you are willing to discuss it.
Your last quote, however, tells me that there is no intention on your part to even consider a philosophical argument that might imply the magisterium could be a little bit wrong.

So, no hard feelings, you have every right to think the magisterium has declared the truth for all times, but that is not a basis for any sort of discussion.

If you really want to find out what Bonny’s position is about, just read his essay, if you haven’t already. And maybe you can come up with some counter-argument that is not just “the magisterium is always right”.
Then we might have a basis for discussion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Regarding the natural law, Saint Paul speaks of the pagans in this light. “All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:11-15)

The law is written on their hearts, it is true; but the law can also be hidden in the shadows of their hearts, which is why so many pagan moralities go against the law that is written on our hearts. In the Judeo-Christian tradition alone do we have not only the law written in our hearts, but also on tablets of stone handed down to us by Moses and affirmed by Jesus Christ. Attempts by some theologians to redefine the natural law as a law inferior to the law of love are not valid. Yes, we are to love always. We are always to love even the sinners. But we are never to love sins against nature. Theologians who sweep sins against nature under the “love”carpet only manage, as Saint Paul put it, to put our souls in jeopardy for the day when “… God will judge people’s hidden works though Christ Jesus.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then we might have a basis for discussion.

You simply have no understanding of how the Catholic Church works. There have many bishops who have been heretics, but they do not get to change settled doctrine, and none of them has succeeded in doing so.

In vain do you hope and pray to Nogod that this will someday happen.

See my post above that show how the Catechism echoes St. Paul. No Catholic bishop or theologian has ever logically decimated natural law, and there is absolutely nothing in the Bishop’s article that indicates he has or will.

For it to do so the Catholic Church would have to go the way of the Church of England.

If it went the way of the Church of England, you would have a good case to argue that the Catholic Church is all baloney, and then I would be inclined to agree.