Natural Law Morality

[Charlemagne_III]

Natural Law Morality

“I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.” - Hebrews 8:10

“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.” Paul’s Epistle to Romans 2:11-15

Thomas Aquinas:
“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. 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.” ST 1-II q. 91-94

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Given the persistant teaching of the Church on natural law morality, why do so many Catholic and Christians (according to recent surveys) support the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion? Are not same-sex marriage and abortion alike opposed to the natural law?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do Catholic catechists even teach natural law morality to the young?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Do Catholic catechists even teach natural law morality to the young?

Does anyone, secular schools suggested they would prefer teaching sex-education to 1st graders forward. Chicago was considering this last year. They are not teaching morality but “safety”. That’s not working and STDs are the proof in the pudding. Its rather late for good advice after someone acts off their feelings.

 

[catholictiger]

Natural Law Morality

“I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.” - Hebrews 8:10

“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.” Paul’s Epistle to Romans 2:11-15

Thomas Aquinas:
“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. 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.” ST 1-II q. 91-94

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Given the persistant teaching of the Church on natural law morality, why do so many Catholic and Christians (according to recent surveys) support the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion? Are not same-sex marriage and abortion alike opposed to the natural law?

I hate when the liberal media or abortion supporters bring up polls of Catholics or Chrisitans, saying oh look how many of your flock believe in abortion and gay marriage the Church should change their teaching. I would love to see a poll of Church attendance vs view on Gay Marriage and abortion. I fully suspect that those who go to Mass at-least once a week if not more will be much less supportive of Gay Marriage and Abortion, and those who only go on big feasts, like Easter or Christmas, are more in line with mainstream america.

there are so many culturally catholic people especially in this country and even more so where I live. there are a lot of people who are Catholic because their parents are catholic, their friends are catholic etc. People get married in a Catholic Church because that is what everyone does. These polls don’t take into consideration if these people are faithful devout Catholics or if they are just culturally Catholic only catholic because they grew up Catholic.

Those who are devout Catholics (and Christians) aren’t that supportive of these two issues.

 

[DrTaffy]

Given the persistant teaching of the Church on natural law morality, why do so many Catholic and Christians (according to recent surveys) support the legalization of same-sex marriage and abortion?

Maybe because they disagree with you about what the ‘natural law’ says?

Are not same-sex marriage and abortion alike opposed to the natural law?

Debateable.

To start with, could you define exactly what you mean by natural law?

Laws we deduce from looking at nature, or from looking at the presumed ‘purpose’ of various aspects of biology, or just “what is written on our hearts”?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To start with, could you define exactly what you mean by natural law?

Laws we deduce from looking at nature, or from looking at the presumed ‘purpose’ of various aspects of biology, or just “what is written on our hearts”?

All of the above.

Do you believe there is any natural law morality?

For example, do you think sodomy is natural?

Do you think killing the unborn is natural?

Do you think the last two sentences before this one refer to presumed “purpose” of our biology.

Is sodomy natural?

Is killing our unborn child natural?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Maybe because they disagree with you about what the ‘natural law’ says?

They would not just be disagreeing with me. They would be disagreeing with the law written on their hearts. They would also be disagreeing with the Church founded by Christ to teach them about the law.

If they disagreed with the Church, would they not be setting themselves above the Church and above the law?

In which case, why would they bother to call themselves Catholics?

 

[simpleas]

Thomas Aquinas
“We must love those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”

I like this quote you have, seems to me that it answers your questions in a way. People (even catholic) will always look at things differently from others. We won’t always agree, thats a given. I don’t think it makes any of us more catholic or less catholic, or not call a person a catholic at all, because we are all searching for answers…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thomas Aquinas
“We must love those whose opinions we share and those whose opinions we reject. Both have labored in the search for truth and both have helped us in the finding of it.”

I like this quote you have, seems to me that it answers your questions in a way. People (even catholic) will always look at things differently from others. We won’t always agree, thats a given. I don’t think it makes any of us more catholic or less catholic, or not call a person a catholic at all, because we are all searching for answers…

The problem here is to define who and what a Catholic is. Is it someone who disagrees with the Church, whom we can love? Or someone who agrees with the Church, whom we can also love? If we find Catholics who do not agree with the Church, and admonish them to agree, it does not mean we love them any the less. It means we love them all the more, because we are trying to help them be true to their Catholic faith, rather than to oppose it.

 

[DrTaffy]

All of the above.

Confusing, as they mean different things. Are you deliberately obfuscating your argument?

Do you believe there is any natural law morality?

By which definition?

Our ‘gut instinct’ is real, and generally a reasonable but not perfect guide to morality, but not everyone’s gut agrees. Mine, for example, tells me that the love of a same-sex couple is a priori as beautiful and as worthy of recognition as ‘marriage’ as that of any other couple, and that it is those who would discriminate against them who are vile.

As for deducing morality from nature, either directly or from a presumed ‘purpose’, nature is an awful guide to morality. For example, parents eating their young. Generally frowned upon in human society.

For example, do you think sodomy is natural?

Do you think killing the unborn is natural?

Do you think the last two sentences before this one refer to presumed “purpose” of our biology.

Is sodomy natural?

Is killing our unborn child natural?

Sodomy is ‘natural’ in that it occurs in nature, sometimes in situations where its ‘purpose’ is evident.

Killing the unborn, deliberately, not so much. I think some birds will at least abandon eggs on some occasions, maybe even chuck them out of the nest, but that is the closest I can think of.

Badgers, for example, if starving will re-absorb fertilised eggs that have developed as far as the blastocyst stage, but that is not deliberate.

They would not just be disagreeing with me. They would be disagreeing with the law written on their hearts.

You are assuming that what is ‘written on their hearts’ agrees with what your heart is telling you. Maybe this is a false assumption?

If they disagreed with the Church, would they not be setting themselves above the Church and above the law?

In which case, why would they bother to call themselves Catholics?

One of the things the Church teaches is that once baptised you are a Catholic forever, whatever you believe. So either you say that they are Catholics, or you too are disagreeing with the Church!

 

[orang]

This is a very easy question and all about the objective morality or what is called natural law.

To begin I will share something I noticed on an internet clip. It was a debate between two guy’s, both with double PHd’s , and they were discussing the topic of objective morality in a debate style.

It was at a university which for now will be nameless. The one speaker representing objective morality was terrific, clear well organized and very articulate.

The other was nothing short of ridiculous, refused to answer any issues brought forward even when shown repeatedly, he smoke-screened and railroaded virtually the whole topic , come to think of it.

The moderator did NOT…stop the discussing or point out the lack of content and attention to this guy and allowed the thing to continue right until the question answer thing from the students.

The students , some of them asked questions where you would think they were completely sound asleep juring the talk.

My opinion is , if the two experts were told, hey lets see how you do, instead of 18-24 year olds…dumb it down just a tad and see how you can explain the views to 10-14 year olds.

The 10-14 year olds would of asked questions which were more to the topic and subject -guaranteed-

Above opens the door to understanding just what the question in OP is dealing with, with respects to some deal of majority in the culture.

As far as the mentioned topic talked about in OP and its general observations, in general what is being introduced is in fact anti-science. There would be a bad example by the adults in the adult world attaching traditional celebration’s and an idea of full accepting to what would be a contradiction to the learnings in school for the youngsters. There is no mating connection between two of the same gender in the operations of the world and there is nothing which is destructive which is constructive. Its all Anti-science and a contradiction to education and the youths. Bad example by the adult world who have bullied and bullied a way to create a society with zero regard for the future society in these things and are trying to suggest there is no responsibility in areas of example for progress. Rel can talk about these things all , but these are culture issues of depravity which don’t even get to the door. Many of the early Greek plays were designed to dissuade some of these things, why…because man is not flat out stupid, these are bad times. The new Communicating World is a good thing but its coming with some learning curves.

 

[simpleas]

The problem here is to define who and what a Catholic is. Is it someone who disagrees with the Church, whom we can love? Or someone who agrees with the Church, whom we can also love? If we find Catholics who do not agree with the Church, and admonish them to agree, it does not mean we love them any the less. It means we love them all the more, because we are trying to help them be true to their Catholic faith, rather than to oppose it.

Well one priest know said if one does not believe in the immaculate conception then one can not call themself a catholic. Don’t think I’ve heard him say you can’t call yourself catholic if you support gay marriage or don’t think that abortion is murder…

Yes we should try to love all, like I said you will always find people who agree and disagree with some church teachings, its the way we are. We can’t accuse people of being less a catholic or more a catholic, everyone has their own personal relationship with God at the end of the day.
I think the church is a great support to people who face difficulties in our current times.

 

[orang]

( opinion)
There is a problem , the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception more concern’s interior comprehensions, understandings, knowledge, and translations of the teachings .

For example, a believer may have trouble believing a sin is truly forgotten by God when confessed in the good contrite hope, and is needing time in the becoming and translating and so on.

Or a believer is overly focused or overwhelmed on a kind of physical torment in a hell idea , taking a human translation of the teaching word for word without realizing both heaven and hell would be somewhat of a mystery,

These issues being talked about however have to do with not translating things…BUT flat out supporting and encouraging things.

If a person has a thinking which says, deep down inside I just don’t know how this could be wrong…well then that is a knowledge problem and could be related to deliberately refusing to look at the facts of the matter, suggesting a mental wall.

There is no mating connection between two of the same gender in the operations of the world, an apple does not fall back into its own tree.

The only way the disordered idea’s can be considered is to consider another world which has nothing to do with this world. All immorality is rooted in theft and often in the frame of territorial matters. Taking or refusing the deserved value into the deserving species.

So in my opinion these two issues, either the individual supports and can do nothing but encourage for it, or ignores as it would be a world which is not this world.

Love thy neighbor as thyself, the self ignores the disordered world and would be within charity to show the same example of ignoral to those encouraging in the many crafty and cunning ways. The more something is given attention for example, say associates or something in these area’s, the greater the suggestion would be …one of the two worlds is winning out. So there is only one world and ignoring all kinds of details and baloney in the other reflects reality. For myself and Im not trying to push anything, if I had a relative and he was gay, ok…then he wants to bring lovy dovy over…no thanks , that is your world and nothing to do with the one I live in and there would be nothing to relate about from with any point. Virtue wouldn’t be a push over.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the church is a great support to people who face difficulties in our current times.

I agree. The Church is here to support us. And we are here to support it. Or else why say we are Catholics and we support it when we don’t?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Confusing, as they mean different things. Are you deliberately obfuscating your argument?

**No. Are you? **

By which definition?

Our ‘gut instinct’ is real, and generally a reasonable but not perfect guide to morality, but not everyone’s gut agrees. Mine, for example, tells me that the love of a same-sex couple is a priori as beautiful and as worthy of recognition as ‘marriage’ as that of any other couple, and that it is those who would discriminate against them who are vile.

As for deducing morality from nature, either directly or from a presumed ‘purpose’, nature is an awful guide to morality. For example, parents eating their young. Generally frowned upon in human society.

Yes. Unnatural.

Sodomy is ‘natural’ in that it occurs in nature, sometimes in situations where its ‘purpose’ is evident.

Killing the unborn, deliberately, not so much. I think some birds will at least abandon eggs on some occasions, maybe even chuck them out of the nest, but that is the closest I can think of.

Badgers, for example, if starving will re-absorb fertilised eggs that have developed as far as the blastocyst stage, but that is not deliberate.

**Generally speaking, we don’t think of animals as having a conscience and therefore being subject to natural law morality. **

You are assuming that what is ‘written on their hearts’ agrees with what your heart is telling you. Maybe this is a false assumption?

I don’t understand this. Can you clarify? The natural law should be universal. The fact that some people reject it does not mean that it is not universal. It just means that they reject it.

One of the things the Church teaches is that once baptised you are a Catholic forever, whatever you believe. So either you say that they are Catholics, or you too are disagreeing with the Church!

A Catholic only because the indelible mark has been received. But as you probably know, many Catholics (including priests) down through history have been excommunicated by various bishops and popes.

 

[orang]

The Church from my understandings supports the whole communion of believers who are sinners.

As soon as the issue starts to get itemized at the individual believer with specificities the conversation completely changes.

It’s impossible to talk about these issues without it being open to be read from an individual in a pointed way, the intent of the faiths objectives become conflated.

This is how I think the subject expose’s itself to embroiled argument.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is how I think the subject expose’s itself to embroiled argument.

Sometimes it is more than embroiled.

Catholicism can only remain fully Catholic if Catholics are united in obedience to the teachings of the Church.

Otherwise we will get truly embroiled, and perhaps a good deal more embroiled than the Protestants who have split themselves up into a thousand sects because they would not listen either to Christ or to the Apostles.

That they may be one, even as we are one, Christ cries out to his Father; (John 17:11) that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee; that they also may be in us. (John 17:21) This exhortation to unity flows in a constant stream from the lips of Jesus, for every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (Matthew 12:25) It is a teaching which is converted into a vehement desire: And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)

The business of getting embroiled really originates not with the teachings of the Church, but with those who rebel against those teachings. They are fully vain to think they are right and the Church is wrong.

We have for our model the submission of Thomas Aquinas, who is reported to have said on his deathbed:

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

 

[orang]

Sometimes it is more than embroiled.

Catholicism can only remain fully Catholic if Catholics are united in obedience to the teachings of the Church.

Otherwise we will get truly embroiled, and perhaps a good deal more embroiled than the Protestants who have split themselves up into a thousand sects because they would not listen either to Christ or to the Apostles.

That they may be one, even as we are one, Christ cries out to his Father; (John 17:11) that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee; that they also may be in us. (John 17:21) This exhortation to unity flows in a constant stream from the lips of Jesus, for every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (Matthew 12:25) It is a teaching which is converted into a vehement desire: And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. (John 10:16)

The business of getting embroiled really originates not with the teachings of the Church, but with those who rebel against those teachings. They are fully vain to think they are right and the Church is wrong.

We have for our model the submission of Thomas Aquinas, who is reported to have said on his deathbed:

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

good reading

 

[Ion]

I think many people are confused by the language:
Natural Law = Law of nature
Scientific Law = Law of nature
Conclusion: Natural Law includes “survivor of the fittest” etc

 

[DrTaffy]

A lot of stuff

If you want me to respond to your posts, kindly write them in the normal way such that I can use the standard “Quote” system to respond.

I am not going to go through cutting and pasting just because you were too lazy to put your responses separately rather than embedded in my text, especially when I am responding on a tablet where cutting and pasting sucks!

If nothing else you are presenting what you wrote as my text.