Natural Law Morality Dying?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
When this “any mumber” becomes siginficantly large, Schism is an inevitable effect, Charlemagne. I am not trying to see the doctrine of natural law aside, and Johan Bonny most certainly isn’t, and I am not 'thinking against nature",
 
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.
Actually, I am not a Catholic. I was born a Catholic, converted to Methodism, returned to Catholicism, and then converted to Orthodoxy. So now I am Orthodox. Sorry for the confusion.
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.
I don’t think belrog ever said he/she is against natural law. After all, that would be pretty radical since Natural Rights are founded upon Natural Law Theory. However, what both belrog and I disagree with is the version of Natural Law Theory that the Catholic Church proclaims. All we’re are asking is that the specific points brought up by Bonny be addressed by those who hold the Catholic Church’s version of Natural Law Theory. It isn’t an unreasonable request.
 
Those of us old enough to remember, can connect the dots. Modern Thomistic theology was revived and fairly popular in the first half of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, that revival ended in the 1960s, post Vatican II, when the influence of Thomism went into decline almost exactly and coincidentally during the decade of the Woodstock concert in New York in 1968. It is no accident that the explosion of the pleasure seeking drug culture began about that time. I remember a young lady acquaintance of mine at the time dismissing natural law morality as a lot of nonsense.

Well, nature abhors a vacuum, as they say. Throw one morality out and another takes its place. Thomism is in decline, and hedonistic pleasure seeking is now the ruling moral philosophy in the Western world. As Pope Francis has complained, we live in a throw-away culture, even to the point of scrapping our unborn children, or maybe removing organ parts of their shredded bodies for Planned Parenthood to sell on the open market.

Hedonism is the view that whatever gives me pleasure, whatever makes me feel good, is right. If it feels good, do it. As one of my friends has put it, the hedonist’s prayer might go something like this: “Hallowed be MY name; MY kingdom come; MY will be done, on earth as it is in hell.”

According to the hedonists, whatever opposes your feelgood sensation is the real immorality. That is why the hedonists will never stop trying to persuade Catholics that they should feel guilty about opposing all their desires for illicit pleasure, as long as their illicit pleasure is self-directed or is between consenting adults.

This is exactly the opposite of what St. Thomas taught, which is that we ought not to be ruled by our passions, but by our built-in and instinctive knowledge of the natural law God has planted in our hearts, which is for our own good, and for our happiness, and ultimately for our salvation.

All of the above is, or should be, understood by every Catholic bishop who has been properly trained in theology. It should not be necessary for the bishops to have to have a synod to re=examine what they already know to be true, and what the Catholic Church has taught regarding natural law since the days of St. Paul, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas.
 
When this “any mumber” becomes siginficantly large, Schism is an inevitable effect, Charlemagne. I am not trying to see the doctrine of natural law aside, and Johan Bonny most certainly isn’t, and I am not 'thinking against nature",
Then precisely what is it you are trying to see?

And what is it you think the bishops do not see that Bonny wants them to see?
 
Your practice of quoting someone else, and then adding your comments within the quote as if they wrote them is confusing, and on a monochrome display impossible to know who wrote what.

Could I ask you to quote people the way everyone else does, there are lots of tutorials. I appreciate it might cost you a bit of time but it’s not difficult and will avoid confusion.

PS: On some forums, calling another poster a liar and a troll would lead to an instant ban.
 
Then precisely what is it you are trying to see?

And what is it you think the bishops do not see that Bonny wants them to see?
I have already told you a couple of times what I am trying to see. I am trying to see respect for someone’s opinion. I am not trying to see everyone agreeing with my opinion, and niether is Bonny.
What I do want to see is that in dealing with opinions that are not yours, you should address the arguments of your “opponent” and not ask for someone to be reprimanded.
That’s all Johan Bonny is trying to do. He is not trying to have al; people agree with him, he is trying to raise a serious and thorough discussion about some interpretations of Catholic Doctrine for the sake of the Catholic church.
 
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.
Thanks so much for calling me an intellectual ❤️ ❤️ ❤️

As for your conspiracy theory, seems to me that as Bonny is a Catholic Bishop, and he quoted an international Catholic theological conference, and all I did was repeat one of those quotes and agree with it, I’m not the one seeking to “divide Catholics against Catholics”.

As the thread seems particularly bad-tempered, I’ll just repeat that the rule-book formulation of natural law should die, it should never have been born, since Jesus was always against legalism. If that divides legalists from the rest of us Catholics and other Christians, great.
 
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.”
This is from the article cited:

*Bishop Bonny also discusses in his article the question of homosexuality and the Church’s traditional rejection of homosexual acts. According to Bonny, “scientific progress allows us to modify this point of view. First of all, one knows that homosexuality exists also in the world of animals.” With his reference to the animal world, Bonny tries to show that the natural instinct for heterosexuality, as put into nature by God, might not exist, after all.

Bonny also argues that “in our personalistic culture, the interdiction of homosexual relationships is regarded as an unacceptable discrimination: there shall be men and women who do not have the right to live out their sexuality, only because they do not live in the same manner as the great majority of the people live!”

Finally, Bonny claims the “externally induced suppression of the sexual practice” is the cause of ailments such as alcoholism, aggressivity and drug abuse.*

This kind of logic is so puerile and absurd that it requires ridicule.

Morality is not decided by the great minority of men any more than it is decided by the great majority. Morality is decided by God’s will, not by perverse hedonistic impulses.

Moreover, to blame the “alcocholism, aggressivity and drug use” on the suppression of sexual perversity is no more logical than to blame the “externally induced suppression of homicide” for the number of perverse homicides ballooning throughout America.
 
As the thread seems particularly bad-tempered, I’ll just repeat that the rule-book formulation of natural law should die, it should never have been born, since Jesus was always against legalism. If that divides legalists from the rest of us Catholics and other Christians, great.
Natural law is not legalism, and it’s a perverse notion that it is.

Is it a perverse legalism to say that we should eat in order to live, not live in order to eat (gluttony)?

Is it a perverse legalism to say that we should not kill the unborn because that is a form of homicide? (“Suffer the little ones to come unto me.”)

Was it a perverse legalism for Jesus to drive the perverse thieves out of the temple?

Etc. etc.
 
Natural law is not legalism, and it’s a perverse notion that it is.

Is it a perverse legalism to say that we should eat in order to live, not live in order to eat (gluttony)?

Is it a perverse legalism to say that we should not kill the unborn because that is a form of homicide? (“Suffer the little ones to come unto me.”)

Was it a perverse legalism for Jesus to drive the perverse thieves out of the temple?

Etc. etc.
I think maybe you’re not seeing the point made by Bonny and the theologians. The point is that there is more than one version of natural law.

There is the natural law of the NT, the law based in love. Christ took care not to turn morality into a rule-book, love cannot be reduced to rules.

Then there is the medieval natural law, invented by Thomas, which is rule-book. Polls show that not just Bonny, not just other bishops and theologians, but a majority of Catholics do not agree with some of its rules. They are not disagreeing with natural law as defined by Christ but with the lack of love in Thomas’ invented rule-book. The Church can move closer to Christ or closer to rule-books. Seems like a debate worth having.
 
IThen there is the medieval natural law, invented by Thomas, which is rule-book. Polls show that not just Bonny, not just other bishops and theologians, but a majority of Catholics do not agree with some of its rules. They are not disagreeing with natural law as defined by Christ but with the lack of love in Thomas’ invented rule-book. The Church can move closer to Christ or closer to rule-books. Seems like a debate worth having.
The natural law was not invented by Thomas. It is inherent in our human nature, it’s as old as the hills, and it’s telling that you have no answer to my previous post which shows the applications of natural law that demonstrate love for the self and love for others as being the most central of the natural laws preached by Christ.
 
Here is another example of how to undermine the natural law of love for the unborn. The attempt to paint those who love the unborn as criminals when they are simply demonstrating Christ’s mandate of natural law … we were created to love, even to love the unborn who have no one to protects them from annihilation but everyone set of the legalistic doctrine that abortion is a justified right.

“Suffer the little ones to come unto me,” but not by way of the butcher’s knife.
 
The natural law was not invented by Thomas. It is inherent in our human nature, it’s as old as the hills, and it’s telling that you have no answer to my previous post which shows the applications of natural law that demonstrate love for the self and love for others as being the most central of the natural laws preached by Christ.
Thomas invented a system of ethics which he called natural law, and many people think his invention is the only version of natural law.
 
Thomas invented a system of ethics which he called natural law, and many people think his invention is the only version of natural law.
The natural law cannot be invented because it emanates from the eternal law of God. It cannot be invented, though it can be discovered and expounded. St. Paul and St. Augustine commented on the natural law long before Aquinas. Aristotle and Plato likewise did. It is certainly not a strictly Catholic doctrine since it has been recognized even by Protestant theologians through history.

This will partially educate you on the subject.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Natural_Law

Martin Luther King also invoked the natural law here.

summit.org/resources/truth-and-consequences/martin-luther-king-and-natural-law/

This may also interest you, especially the first several paragraphs.

firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law
 
Suggest you look up natural law in philosophy, ethics and legal encyclopedias.
 
Thomas invented a system of ethics which he called natural law, and many people think his invention is the only version of natural law.
You have not demonstrated this claim.

A bare assertion without evidence or even citing specific sources and/or quotes is hardly sufficient.
 
You have not demonstrated this claim.

A bare assertion without evidence or even citing specific sources and/or quotes is hardly sufficient.
If you don’t know there are many versions of natural law then you’re proving Bonny’s point for him. I already quoted him quoting the working notes 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”.

Look it up. For example Wikipedia has a good summary of the many different concepts of natural law, including this on Thomas:

“Averroes (Ibn Rushd), in his treatise on Justice and Jihad and his commentary on Plato’s Republic, writes that the human mind can know of the unlawfulness of killing and stealing and thus of the five maqasid or higher intents of the Islamic sharia or to protect religion, life, property, offspring, and reason. The concept of natural law entered the mainstream of Western culture through his Aristotelian commentaries, influencing the subsequent Averroist movement and the writings of Thomas Aquinas”. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
 
“Averroes (Ibn Rushd), in his treatise on Justice and Jihad and his commentary on Plato’s Republic, writes that the human mind can know of the unlawfulness of killing and stealing and thus of the five maqasid or higher intents of the Islamic sharia or to protect religion, life, property, offspring, and reason. The concept of natural law entered the mainstream of Western culture through his Aristotelian commentaries, influencing the subsequent Averroist movement and the writings of Thomas Aquinas”. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
This is really absurd, isn’t it?

Natural law was already known by St. Paul and St. Augustine long before Aquinas came along to affirm it.

Even Martin Luther attributes knowledge of the natural law not to Moses but rather to his own sense that the natural law exists in all of us.

“I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature” Martin Luther

books.google.co.in/books?id=…ure%22&f=false

And here is St. Augustine on natural law, so that you can put to bed any notion that Aquinas owes his views on natural law to Aristotle through the Arabs.

lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/2010/03/st-augustine-of-hippo-on-natural-law.html

Articles at Wikipedia are notoriously unreliable for their scholarship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top