Natural Law Morality Dying?

[belorg]

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.”

If you read the essay, you will find out that Bonny is nowhere “attempting to redefine the natural law as a law inferior to the law of love”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then what is he seeking to change about the Catholic Church on natural law?

You seem to be getting something from the article that I cannot find.

Please tell us what it is.

 

[belorg]

Then what is he seeking to change about the Catholic Church on natural law?

You seem to be getting something from the article that I cannot find.

Please tell us what it is.

Just try to read it with an open mind. But I am afraid that is impossible for you. And that is why there is no point in discussing this.

I wonder why there is even going to be a synode if everything is so clear. Seerms like a big waste of time and expenses.

 

[belorg]

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

.

Of course lots of them have succeeded. They changed the doctrine and those who didn’t agree kept it. The fact that they continued calling themselves Catholic doesn’t mean that “the doctrine” wasn’t trasformed into lots of different doctrines.
And I am convinced “the doctrine” will survive in a handful of people claiming to be true Catholics. But will this still be a true universal 3catholic" church?

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

Actually, I do not really care.

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.

The Bishop’s article doesn’t speak of decimating Natural Law.

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.

Part of the Catholic Church did go the way of the Church of England and started calling themselves the Church of England.

 

[Brendan]

Well here is a flaw in the essay

The Council had expected the pope to make a decision in relation to 'the problem of population, family and birth, but it had not expected him to depart in doing so from the collegial question to achieve the greatest possible consensus

The quest of the Church is to articulate Moral Truth, that is distinct from collegiality.

The Council expects the Pope to teach what is Morally True, nothing more and nothing less, and that is not dependent on the number of bishops who agree, or disagree with him.

It would be interesting to see if +Bonny is also logically consistent in his quest for collegiality. Does he expect his proposals to be unanimously adopted by his fellow bishops? If this full collegiality does not happen, is the Church to reject his proposals in the same way (and for the same reason) that he rejects Humane Vitae. Would he be logically consistent and then likewise reject his own proposal, again for the same reason?

 

[belorg]

Well here is a flaw in the essay

The quest of the Church is to articulate Moral Truth, that is distinct from collegiality.

The Council expects the Pope to teach what is Morally True, nothing more and nothing less, and that is not dependent on the number of bishops who agree, or disagree with him.

It would be interesting to see if +Bonny is also logically consistent in his quest for collegiality. Does he expect his proposals to be unanimously adopted by his fellow bishops? If this full collegiality does not happen, is the Church to reject his proposals in the same way (and for the same reason) that he rejects Humane Vitae. Would he be logically consistent and then likewise reject his own proposal, again for the same reason?

As far as i can tell, Bonny does not expect his proposals to be unanimously adopted by his fellow bishops, I think he expects his proposals to be a solid basis for discussion and hopes that the *result *of this discussion will be something that can be virtually unanimously adopted. That’s what the word 'synod 'means: walking together.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As far as i can tell, Bonny does not expect his proposals to be unanimously adopted by his fellow bishops, I think he expects his proposals to be a solid basis for discussion and hopes that the *result *of this discussion will be something that can be virtually unanimously adopted. That’s what the word 'synod 'means: walking together.

Seems to me you are an atheist intruder into the doings of the Catholic Church, hoping to see dissension triumph with a little help from you.

Too little, I’m afraid, since your protest that “I do not really care” amounts to nonsense or else you would not even be participating in the forum.

 

[Rohzek]

Seems to me you are an atheist intruder into the doings of the Catholic Church, hoping to see dissension triumph with a little help from you.

Too little, I’m afraid, since your protest that “I do not really care” amounts to nonsense or else you would not even be participating in the forum.

Who cares if he is an atheist? I certainly don’t. Him being an atheist has no effect on the merits of his argument. Atheists aren’t the only ones to criticize natural law theory as expounded by the Catholic Church. Plenty of theologians, especially Orthodox, have their own take on the matter.

Sure continuously asking whether or not you have read the essay certainly is a bit rude. However, he never called you a liar. He merely wanted you via a harmless “taunt” to discuss the inner workings of the material, in which case you refused to do so. You basically said, “Case closed, as it has been settled.” No argument is ever settled. We continuously challenge what we hold dear and cast aside all that cannot withstand scrutiny. Claims have to be justified, and when you won’t discuss the matter, you cannot justify the claims.

 

[Brendan]

As far as i can tell, Bonny does not expect his proposals to be unanimously adopted by his fellow bishops, I think he expects his proposals to be a solid basis for discussion and hopes that the *result *of this discussion will be something that can be virtually unanimously adopted. That’s what the word 'synod 'means: walking together.

If a premise is correct, it’s validity does not depend on agreement. If a premise is false, no amount of agreement can make it true.

So the search for unanimity is distinct from the search for Truth.

Which one does +Bonny seek?

If it is the search for Truth, then it should not matter how many of his fellow bishops agree with him.

And in the search is for moral truth, what matters is if one is in agreement with the Bishop of Rome. If one is, then it does not matter how many bishops are against it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sure continuously asking whether or not you have read the essay certainly is a bit rude. However, he never called you a liar. He merely wanted you via a harmless “taunt” to discuss the inner workings of the material, in which case you refused to do so. You basically said, “Case closed, as it has been settled.” No argument is ever settled. We continuously challenge what we hold dear and cast aside all that cannot withstand scrutiny. Claims have to be justified, and when you won’t discuss the matter, you cannot justify the claims.

You also don’t have any inkling of how the Catholic Church works. When a theological question is settled, it is settled. We don’t change doctrine for any bishop or group of bishops that are seeking to impose their will upon the Church. Study some Catholic history and stop pretending that the Catholic Church needs to revise basic doctrine just because you and maybe some bishops think it should.

 

[Rohzek]

You also don’t have any inkling of how the Catholic Church works.

Actually, I do. I used to be a pretty ardent Catholic, one who left the church and then converted back. So I’m very familiar with how it works.

When a theological question is settled, it is settled. We don’t change doctrine for any bishop or group of bishops that are seeking to impose their will upon the Church.

I honestly think you are misunderstanding me here. I never demanded that you change your doctrines. I merely requested that you engage in dialogue with challenges to your positions. I might disagree with your notion of natural law theory, but I do not expect you to change your position should you still maintain your original convictions. Nevertheless, simply ignoring intellectual challenges to doctrines or dogma is not a profitable stance for anyone or any institution. Ignoring people only builds walls of separation and is harmful to all sides of any issue. You might believe that the Catholic Church proclaims truth without error and thus nothing more is needed, but even so, the Church never stops defending what it deems to be the truth. To not engage in a discussion is no defense of truth, but rather a neglect of it.

Study some Catholic history and stop pretending that the Catholic Church needs to revise basic doctrine just because you and maybe some bishops think it should.

Actually, I do study the Latin Church from Late Antiquity to the Central Middle Ages, so I think you should be more charitable in your comments.

 

[belorg]

Let it be clear to whoever reads this that I have never called you a liar.

I did not say you haven’t read the essay, I expressed doubt about you reading it because you never addressed anything that Bonny states in his essay.

Refusal to engage in a serious discussion is precisely one of the things Bonny argues is wrong with the Catholic Church nowadays.

 

[belorg]

Seems to me you are an atheist intruder into the doings of the Catholic Church, hoping to see dissension triumph with a little help from you.

Too little, I’m afraid, since your protest that “I do not really care” amounts to nonsense or else you would not even be participating in the forum.

Dissension doesn’t need any help from me. The way you and others react to Bonny et al. is actually what causes dissension and if you are not careful it could very well lead to schism.
That’s one thing people like Johan Bonny are trying to avoid.

And it is true that I don’t really care what the CC decides about these matters, what I do care about, however, is the right to express an opinion backed up with arguments, without fear of reprimands (or the stake if you were unfortunate enough to have been born a few centuries ago.)

 

[belorg]

I honestly think you are misunderstanding me here. I never demanded that you change your doctrines. I merely requested that you engage in dialogue with challenges to your positions. I might disagree with your notion of natural law theory, but I do not expect you to change your position should you still maintain your original convictions. Nevertheless, simply ignoring intellectual challenges to doctrines or dogma is not a profitable stance for anyone or any institution. Ignoring people only builds walls of separation and is harmful to all sides of any issue. You might believe that the Catholic Church proclaims truth without error and thus nothing more is needed, but even so, the Church never stops defending what it deems to be the truth. To not engage in a discussion is no defense of truth, but rather a neglect of it.

I second that. And so, I might add, does Johan Bonny.

 

[Brendan]

And it is true that I don’t really care what the CC decides about these matters, what I do care about, however, is the right to express an opinion backed up with arguments, without fear of reprimands (or the stake if you were unfortunate enough to have been born a few centuries ago.)

But one of his premises, that the Second Vatican Council mandated unanimity in opinion on a moral issue, is an invalid one.

Ergo, there is no logical requirement to accept his conclusions.

In fact, it is sufficient evidence to reject his claim as a false one.

 

[belorg]

But one of his premises, that the Second Vatican Council mandated unanimity in opinion on a moral issue, is an invalid one.

That isn’t one of his premises, AFAICT.

Ergo, there is no logical requirement to accept his conclusions.

In fact, it is sufficient evidence to reject his claim as a false one.

I haven’t said anything about a logical requirement to accept his conclusions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, I do study the Latin Church from Late Antiquity to the Central Middle Ages, so I think you should be more charitable in your comments.

Charity begins at home. Try not to sow the seeds of dissension among fellow Catholics.

Settled doctrine is settled doctrine. No need to get feathers flying on the pretext of the search for truth. The truth has already been found.

 

[Rohzek]

Charity begins at home. Try not to sow the seeds of dissension among fellow Catholics.

Settled doctrine is settled doctrine. No need to get feathers flying on the pretext of the search for truth. The truth has already been found.

I more than welcome being proven wrong, which is probably one of the highest charities. I like to find out new things. But if you won’t discuss something, then you can’t proclaim the truth.

(name removed by moderator), him doubting that you didn’t read the document is not necessarily calling you a liar. You didn’t indicate anywhere in any of your posts specifics from the document. You claimed that you read it, but then you didn’t talk about it in detail. In fact, you refused to talk about it. You simply said, “Issue is settled.” Well maybe it is for you, and that’s fine. But other people would at least like to know why the issue is settled. Simply stating, “Because the papacy said so” is hardly the final answer because the papacy often gives reasoned arguments for its position. So there is always much to discuss. Many people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, usually want to know why the papacy takes certain positions against certain arguments, rather than just the basic position. We already know the “what” but we also want to know the “why.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Dissension doesn’t need any help from me. The way you and others react to Bonny et al. is actually what causes dissension and if you are not careful it could very well lead to schism.
That’s one thing people like Johan Bonny are trying to avoid.

This is so laughably untrue. There are any number of Catholic bishops and theologians who are always trying to stir up discord within the Church. They must always be opposed and put down as rabble rousers. When atheists join them in diatribes against the faithful, they have to be considered all the more suspect for troubling the waters of faith.

You and inocente have become intellectual partners in seeking to divide Catholics against Catholics. It is a strategy that has worked from time to time, as you can see from the remarks of Rohzek, who like myself is a returned Catholic, but who does not seem to understand fully what it is he has returned to.

The essence of Catholic theology that distinguishes it from Protestant theology is that it has discovered the truth and never wavers from the truth and does not continually have to defend the truth it has discovered with other Catholics. The only defense it has to make is with atheists like yourself, who evidently do not believe in, for example, natural law, and would like very much to see that doctrine set aside because it truly is a bulwark of Catholic theology.

“Thinking against nature, you will become foolish; and persisting you will go insane.” St. Irenaeus

 

[belorg]

Even reading (name removed by moderator)'s “paraphrases” of what I said don’t show me calling him a liar anywhere. Notice (name removed by moderator) doesn’t even claim to have read the essay, so how can expressing doubt about someone’s action be interpreted as unequivocally calling someone a liar?

If (name removed by moderator) paraphrases Bonny’s words the way he did mine, then I can believe that Bonny paraphrased arguments have been refuted, But I can paraphrase the entire Catholic Doctrine and knock donw the very strawman I erected. Would that mean I had refuted Catholic Doctrine?

For those who are interested, here are my exact words (not paraphrased):

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.

Yes, I doubted and I still doubt that (name removed by moderator) is really aware of Bonny arguments. I am sure that he is aware of arguments made by others that have been refuted but nowhere does he show any kind of familiarity with the actual arguments at stake. Does that mean (name removed by moderator) was lying about being familiar with them? No, it means I doubt he has really understood those particular arguments because he never addresses even one of them.
I can be wrong about that, but I haven’t seen anything from (name removed by moderator) that shows any sort of understanding of Bonny’s arguments. Up and until I see something like that, my doubt is justified.

As a final comment, I have noticed on several occasions that when people don’t have any serious argument to make, they start unequivolcallly accusing me of trolling. That happen at other forums too, but more so on this forum. And that’s a very sad observation.