Natural law question

[Penny_Plain]

This arises out of a different thread where a poster stated (and I’m paraphrasing) that the only sexual relationships that comport with Natural Law are those that take place within marriage.

I don’t understand this statement. I think it’s because I don’t understand the concept of Natural Law. Would somebody please explain it to me using words of two or fewer syllables?

Thanks.

 

[renee1258]

I’ll try. Marriage is open to the natural consequences of sexual relations. The possibility of having a child from the act. In the Pre-cana course that my husband and I help with, we are taught if a husband and wife love each other, the child will be loved.

Of course there are plenty of people who happen not to be with the other parent of the child, and love there child. But day in and day out a child will see their parents love as husband and wife. How can one not love something that came out of an act so beautiful.

That is how natural law fits into sexual relations and the church’s teaching on marriage. The child is the final result of one’s love making. It represents the love that a husband has for his wife, and vice versa. When we take sexual relations outside of the concept of the Sacrament of Marriage, they we are accepting the final result of our actions. We are going against natural law.

 

[JimG]

I’ll try, although it’s been awhile since I studied natural law.

Natural Law has to do with the nature of things, and the nature of people–how they are made, and what they are made for.

Because men and women are designed to be physically complementary, we can infer that this complementarity is for a purpose. That purpose is so that the human beings can be fruitful and multiply. Physical complementarity brings about the next generation. That’s just the nature of the sexual act.

Natural sexual relations always have this possibility of bringing new life into the world. And that new being will require care and nurturing for 18 to 21 years or more! That means that the act itself means bonding and permanence. That’s why it should only occur within a committed, lifelong relationship–in other words–marriage.

Deviant sexual relations, of whatever type, do not fulfill this natural purpose, this natural complementarity, and are thus, even at the physical level, un-natural.

 

[Catholic2003]

We are subject to natural law, divine law, and ecclesiastical law:

• Natural law is unchanging and applies to everyone. It is the law that is implicit in how God made us and the rest of creation.
• Divine law is from God, given to us via divine revelation. Over history, God has changed it, the last change occuring when Christ was made man. The first divine law had only one rule: “Do not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden.”
• Ecclesiastical law is made by the Church, and can be changed (or specific exceptions made) at any time by the Church.

Examples of ecclesiastical law are: priestly celebacy, mass obligation, first confession prior to first communion, not being able to marry your first cousin. Morality relating to birth control and sexuality derive from natural law, except in so far as they are also a part of divine law, e.g., prohibitions of homosexuality from the Bible.

 

[justinmatter]

Catholic2003:

Morality relating to birth control and sexuality derive from natural law, except in so far as they are also a part of divine law, e.g., prohibitions of homosexuality from the Bible.

this is definitely digressing from the topic but i was wondering if you could help me since your quote set of a string of thoughts

when i started reading about contraception, i saw some references to paul’s letter to the romans where he says

26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.

now, obviously, there is refence to natural law also here
i was wondering if god’s hatred (that’s one of the words used in OT, i believe) for homosexualtiy also arises from the fact that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex; or because it rejects both aspects; or is it some other reason (known/unknown)?

BTW, does homosexuality have a unitive aspect
at all?

thanks

 

[mercygate]

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that a natural human sexual act between a man and a woman, even outside of marriage, does not offend the natural law but rather the moral law, which requires marriage as the proper support for sexual expression and procreation. Thus, masturbation is, objectively, a “greater” (?!) evil than fornication.

 

[mercygate]

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that a natural human sexual act between a man and a woman, even outside of marriage, does not offend the natural law but rather the moral law, which requires marriage as the proper support for sexual expression and procreation. Thus, masturbation is, objectively, a “greater” (?!) evil than fornication.

 

[justinmatter]

justinmatter:

this is definitely digressing from the topic but i was wondering if you could help me since your quote set of a string of thoughts

when i started reading about contraception, i saw some references to paul’s letter to the romans where he says

now, obviously, there is refence to natural law also here
i was wondering if god’s hatred (that’s one of the words used in OT, i believe) for homosexualtiy also arises from the fact that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex; or because it rejects both aspects; or is it some other reason (known/unknown)?

BTW, does homosexuality have a unitive aspect
at all?

thanks

please ignore.
i think i’ll start a new thread on this topic
sorry

 

[Catholic2003]

mercygate:

Somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that a natural human sexual act between a man and a woman, even outside of marriage, does not offend the natural law but rather the moral law, which requires marriage as the proper support for sexual expression and procreation. Thus, masturbation is, objectively, a “greater” (?!) evil than fornication.

This could be right; I don’t know for sure. But now that you mention it, didn’t they have concubines and multiple wives in the Old Testament?

 

[1ke]

Penny Plain:

This arises out of a different thread where a poster stated (and I’m paraphrasing) that the only sexual relationships that comport with Natural Law are those that take place within marriage.

I don’t understand this statement. I think it’s because I don’t understand the concept of Natural Law. Would somebody please explain it to me using words of two or fewer syllables?

Thanks.

I would recommend reading **50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It ** by Charles E. Rice.