Natural Law-must it "make sense"?

[ComradeAndrei]

In the December 15, 2006 issue of Commonweal (yeah, I know… ) and editorial by Cathleen Kaveny basically puts the morality of contraception up for debate but takes it into a Natural Law realm.

A few quotes:

“So how do we think about a situation in which many, if not all, apparently reasonable and good people (including Catholics) now hold that the use of contraception by married couples is sometimes justified, while the church continues to maintain it is always objectively immoral?”

Here’s the kicker-

“The trouble with this view (to supposedly ignore ‘reason’ and trumpet the Church’s Divine authority-CA’s words) is that it esentially relinquishes the fundamental insight of a natural-law approach, which is that moral norms have to “make sense” to good people of all stripes, not merely to pious Catholics.”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think that Natural Law had anything to do with consensus or having to “make sense” to people. I’m thinking it has more to do with God’s eternal law written on every human heart to know the basis of what is right and wrong.

 

[jemfinch]

“So how do we think about a situation in which many, if not all, apparently reasonable and good people (including Catholics) now hold that the use of contraception by married couples is sometimes justified, while the church continues to maintain it is always objectively immoral?”

Here’s the kicker-

“The trouble with this view (to supposedly ignore ‘reason’ and trumpet the Church’s Divine authority-CA’s words) is that it esentially relinquishes the fundamental insight of a natural-law approach, which is that moral norms have to “make sense” to good people of all stripes, not merely to pious Catholics.”

Taking into account all people throughout hisory, rather than only the moderns, you’ll find that the sinfulness of contraception has made sense to “good people of all stripes.”

Of course, it’s a faulty argument in the first place (sacrificing children to Molech made sense to some “good people” at one point), but it’s faulty even on its own premises: it says “good people of all stripes” but then ignores the ones that are not currently walking this earth.

The Natural Law is neither formed nor reformed by democracy.

Jeremy

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Of course, it’s a faulty argument in the first place (sacrificing children to Molech made sense to some “good people” at one point), but it’s faulty even on its own premises: it says “good people of all stripes” but then ignores the ones that are not currently walking this earth.

The Natural Law is neither formed nor reformed by democracy.

That’s what I was thinking. To downgrade Natural Law into an arbitrary vote of modern Americans and Europeans strips it of any “law” status and makes it a subjective whim.

“But…but…but, everyone else is doing it!”-Truly a masterpiece of intellectual reasoning.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Andrei,

“Makes sense” is a vague expression. Natural Law is what is dictated by reason. And reason says that in our actions we must fulfil the purpose intended by the One who made us. Thus it is immoral to eat out of pure gluttony or in a way that will make you sick. In the same way, the sex act is intended for procreation. Accomplishing it in such a way as to frustrate procreation is immoral.

Verbum

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

I know Cathleen Kaveny personally.

In short – she’s a fruit basket.

Take this for instance:
What Women Want: ‘Buffy,’ the Pope, and the New Feminists

It’s a paper about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be the model for the new breed of Catholic Feminist. Can you really take that seriously? I was forced to endure two semesters of her manner of -]mindless prattling/-] teaching, and I will do everything I can not to take another class with her. It was truly frustrating; her reasoning (and presentation) is muddled, and there are typically gaping holes in her logic.

However…we have brighter bulbs at Notre Dame Law than that, particularly regarding Natural Law. Take John Finnis, for example. He is probably the leading Natural Law thinker in the world for this and last century. (Books here.) Or Charlie Rice, whom I will learn from this coming semester on a course entitled ‘Morality and the Law’, who has done work for EWTN and has a new book out - 50 Questions on the Natural Law.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

I know Cathleen Kaveny personally.

In short – she’s a fruit basket.

Take this for instance:
What Women Want: ‘Buffy,’ the Pope, and the New Feminists

It’s a paper about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer should be the model for the new breed of Catholic Feminist. Can you really take that seriously? I was forced to endure two semesters of her manner of -]mindless prattling/-] teaching, and I will do everything I can not to take another class with her. It was truly frustrating; her reasoning (and presentation) is muddled, and there are typically gaping holes in her logic.

However…we have brighter bulbs at Notre Dame Law than that, particularly regarding Natural Law. Take John Finnis, for example. He is probably the leading Natural Law thinker in the world for this and last century. (Books here.) Or Charlie Rice, whom I will learn from this coming semester in a course entitled ‘Morality and the Law’, who has done work for EWTN and has a new book out - 50 Questions on the Natural Law.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t think that Natural Law had anything to do with consensus or having to “make sense” to people. I’m thinking it has more to do with God’s eternal law written on every human heart to know the basis of what is right and wrong.

Her argument is typical and silly.

The truth is not grasped for many reasons. That some cannot, or refuse, to see the logic of the natural law does not mean the interpretation of the law is wrong. It means those who *do not get it are wrong.

*The problem is not that folks can’t see the logic. I think it is that seeing the logic would mean changing the way we do things. That means frustrated wishes. That is feared more than anything.