Natural Law

[Peggy_in_Burien]

If your natural law is different to the Catholic Catechism and operates only according to your conscience, then it is moral relativity you are espousing.
Moral relativity can lead to all sorts of weird and wondeful moralities.

CATHOLIC CATECHISM

PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER THREE
GOD’S SALVATION: LAW AND GRACE

ARTICLE 1
THE MORAL LAW

**1950 **The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God’s pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. “Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law.”

 Alone among all animate beings, **man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason**, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

So again, was Adina Blady Szwajger morally justified in killing those babies and children?

I know that you want me to agree with you, but I cannot in, good conscience, lie to you.

My point had been that it is exceeding easy to for us to sit about discussing moral dilemmas that will never happen. It is easy to be a “Monday morning quarterback” in judging the actions of others. It is always easy to hold someone else up, and scream to the hills that he/she failed when faced with the real situation, that we, ourselves were not in.

How do we know if these women weren’t spoken to by God, just as Judith or Esther were?

We cannot read another person’s heart, only God can. I pray to God, and try to make the best choice, based on the Catechism and Natural Law, however, I fail as often as not, which is why I am grateful for the Sacrament of Confession.

I mourn the death of those children, and the babies the other doctor felt she must abort. I have much sorrow that these women felt they had to do these things. It is simply horrifying that anyone should be put in that position. However, I will never be a “black or white” judge, but a woman with a compassionate heart. If you are asking me to condemn them, so as to make myself look like a better Catholic, I will not.

My hope is that God is more compassionate a judge than most philosophers seem to be. Did Jesus throw the stone at the adultress? No, He forgave her, and told her to sin no more. He didn’t say to her," Woman, everyone here, including Me, know that you are an adultress. We all know who you slept with. So, since you not only broke the Natural Law, but the 6th Commandment as well, I am condemning you to death."

I could give you an example from my own home town, only 25 years ago, but, you would condemn me to Hell for having compassion for the poor victims.

 

[4Horsemen]

I know that you want me to agree with you, but I cannot in, good conscience, lie to you.

My point had been that it is exceeding easy to for us to sit about discussing moral dilemmas that will never happen. It is easy to be a “Monday morning quarterback” in judging the actions of others. It is always easy to hold someone else up, and scream to the hills that he/she failed when faced with the real situation, that we, ourselves were not in.

How do we know if these women weren’t spoken to by God, just as Judith or Esther were?

We cannot read another person’s heart, only God can. I pray to God, and try to make the best choice, based on the Catechism and Natural Law, however, I fail as often as not, which is why I am grateful for the Sacrament of Confession.

I mourn the death of those children, and the babies the other doctor felt she must abort. I have much sorrow that these women felt they had to do these things. It is simply horrifying that anyone should be put in that position. However, I will never be a “black or white” judge, but a woman with a compassionate heart. If you are asking me to condemn them, so as to make myself look like a better Catholic, I will not.

My hope is that God is more compassionate a judge than most philosophers seem to be. Did Jesus throw the stone at the adultress? No, He forgave her, and told her to sin no more. He didn’t say to her," Woman, everyone here, including Me, know that you are an adultress. We all know who you slept with. So, since you not only broke the Natural Law, but the 6th Commandment as well, I am condemning you to death."

I could give you an example from my own home town, only 25 years ago, but, you would condemn me to Hell for having compassion for the poor victims.

Just wondering what you think about this instance. A woman has a secret abortion. She doesn’t let her abusive husband know about it because he has abused both her and their children almost daily with beatings and withholding of food and water. Also, sexual abuse. The woman is frightened to death to report him and feels she is making the right choice. Is this the right choice?

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Just wondering what you think about this instance. A woman has a secret abortion. She doesn’t let her abusive husband know about it because he has abused both her and their children almost daily with beatings and withholding of food and water. Also, sexual abuse. The woman is frightened to death to report him and feels she is making the right choice. Is this the right choice?

No. This woman has the ability to leave the abusive husband. If she had the ability to leave her house to have the abortion, she had the ability to take her children and run. There are shelters out there for abused women and children.

 

[John21652]

To a doubter, it might look as if Christ was committing suicide. Afterall, if He was God, the doubter might say, why didn’t He save us some other way? How does the doubter know that He laid down His life for another? What others?

We believe that Christ laid down His Life for others, because we have been given the Gift of Faith.

What should this woman done? You don’t like the reasons that she herself gave. What would you have done?

She never lost her faith in God, however, God did not save all of those poor souls, Jews, Christians, and otherwise, who begged Him to rescue them. But she kept her faith in God, because she knew she was doing a horrible thing, and prayed that she could make up for this before God.

If she had lost all hope in God, she would have simply killed herself. She didn’t, and she bore the guilt and horror of what she had felt she had to do, in mercy, for the rest of her life.

Given the leisure of hindsight and safety, it is easy to cast aspersions, I suppose. However, there is such a thing as moral courage and adherence to Natural Law and to the Catholic Catechism which demands it of us. The Catechism is based on a recognition of Natural Law, as shown in the quoted part of the Catechism I posted earlier.

The Natural Law and Catholic teaching espouse such things as “hope” and “duty” and “obligation”. I think this woman, Adina Blady Szwajger, lost hope, failed in her duty to protect and nurture the lives of the children and pre-empted whatever God had in store for them. We can contrast her behavior with that of the martyred pediatrician, Janusz Korczak. He declined several opportunities to escape from the Warsaw ghetto and chose to accompany and comfort the two hundred orphans in his charge when they were transported in cattle trains to their deaths at Treblinka. Surely, obviously, that was an unparalleled act of defiance and courage, a paradigm of “death with dignity”. He did not pre-empt what God may have had in store for those children and he put his faith in God. To the end he nurtured those children, cared for them and was “there” for them. doing his “duty”. Dr. Adina Blady Szwajger however, despaired and so killed the children who were under her care. They gave no consent and would have been totally trusting of her right up to the end. In fact, she tells us she lied to gain their trust. Her moral courage collapsed. What she did was in fact to follow the Godless Utilitarian precept of minimising pain. Her actions were in fact, a form of hedonism, carried out to assuage how she felt. Her actions were consequentialist and the very antithesis of Natural Law morality and of what the Catholic Church stands for. Utilitarianism judges the morality of actions on their consequences. Natural Law judges actions themselves and tells us that ends do not justify the means.

In the case of the sailors who killed and ate the cabin boy, it is enlightening to read the judgement of the Queens Bench judges. They put forward very strong Natural Law arguments as to why killing and eating the cabin boy was wrong. In terms of Utilitarianism, killing and eating the cabin boy maximised happiness, for the “greater good”, which was the survival of the offending sailors. In terms of Utilitarianism, the act of killing and eating the boy was an act made moral because of its outcome, which was the survival of the other sailors.

The Court had this to say -

To preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. War is full of instances in which it is a man’s duty not to live, but to die. The duty, in case of shipwreck, of a captain to his crew, of the crew to the passengers, of soldiers to women and children, as in the noble case of the Birkenhead; these duties impose on men the moral necessity, not of the preservation, but of the sacrifice of their lives for others, from which in no country, least of all, it is to be hoped, in England, will men ever shrink, as indeed, they have not shrunk.

This case was famous because it was a case about men killing another where there could be no argument about self defense. The court had to decide whether, in the absence of self defense, that is, where the killers were not under any threat from the victim, the killing of one person for the benefit of others was justified. Lord Coleridge, the Chief Justice said “…the absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence…”.

The case given to us by 4Horsemen is similar. The woman committed a grave wrong hoping for a better outcome, which was peace and stability at home. However, she still had no gaurantee of gaining that peace and stability and the sacrifice of her child may have been in vain. The Chief Justice in the case of the cannibal sailors pointed out that *“They might possibly have been picked up next day by a passing ship; they might possibly not have been picked up at all; in either case it is obvious that the killing of the boy would have been an unnecessary and profitless act.” *However, the offending sailors despaired, failed in their duty to care for a helpless and ill memebr of their crew, put their own selfish interests first and so killed and ate the cabin boy.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Given the leisure of hindsight and safety, it is easy to cast aspersions, I suppose. However, there is such a thing as moral courage and adherence to Natural Law and to the Catholic Catechism which demands it of us. The Catechism is based on a recognition of Natural Law, as shown in the quoted part of the Catechism I posted earlier.

The Natural Law and Catholic teaching espouse such things as “hope” and “duty” and “obligation”. I think this woman, Adina Blady Szwajger, lost hope, failed in her duty to protect and nurture the lives of the children and pre-empted whatever God had in store for them. We can contrast her behavior with that of the martyred pediatrician, Janusz Korczak. He declined several opportunities to escape from the Warsaw ghetto and chose to accompany and comfort the two hundred orphans in his charge when they were transported in cattle trains to their deaths at Treblinka. Surely, obviously, that was an unparalleled act of defiance and courage, a paradigm of “death with dignity”. He did not pre-empt what God may have had in store for those children and he put his faith in God. To the end he nurtured those children, cared for them and was “there” for them. doing his “duty”. Dr. Adina Blady Szwajger however, despaired and so killed the children who were under her care. They gave no consent and would have been totally trusting of her right up to the end. In fact, she tells us she lied to gain their trust. Her moral courage collapsed. What she did was in fact to follow the Godless Utilitarian precept of minimising pain. Her actions were in fact, a form of hedonism, carried out to assuage how she felt. Her actions were consequentialist and the very antithesis of Natural Law morality and of what the Catholic Church stands for. Utilitarianism judges the morality of actions on their consequences. Natural Law judges actions themselves and tells us that ends do not justify the means.

In the case of the sailors who killed and ate the cabin boy, it is enlightening to read the judgement of the Queens Bench judges. They put forward very strong Natural Law arguments as to why killing and eating the cabin boy was wrong. In terms of Utilitarianism, killing and eating the cabin boy maximised happiness, for the “greater good”, which was the survival of the offending sailors. In terms of Utilitarianism, the act of killing and eating the boy was an act made moral because of its outcome, which was the survival of the other sailors.

The Court had this to say -
This case was famous because it was a case about men killing another where there could be no argument about self defense. The court had to decide whether, in the absence of self defense, that is, where the killers were not under any threat from the victim, the killing of one person for the benefit of others was justified. Lord Coleridge, the Chief Justice said “…the absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence…”.

The case given to us by 4Horsemen is similar. The woman committed a grave wrong hoping for a better outcome, which was peace and stability at home. However, she still had no gaurantee of gaining that peace and stability and the sacrifice of her child may have been in vain. The Chief Justice in the case of the cannibal sailors pointed out that *“They might possibly have been picked up next day by a passing ship; they might possibly not have been picked up at all; in either case it is obvious that the killing of the boy would have been an unnecessary and profitless act.” *However, the offending sailors despaired, failed in their duty to care for a helpless and ill memebr of their crew, put their own selfish interests first and so killed and ate the cabin boy.

John, you still have not answered my question:

What would you have done if you had been in the place of the Jewish doctor who performed those abortions in the death camps?

I answered your question…

 

[John21652]

John, you still have not answered my question:

What would you have done if you had been in the place of the Jewish doctor who performed those abortions in the death camps?

I answered your question…

No you never.

Notwithstanding, I stick by the old Natural Law argument that two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not perform any abortions for any reason or for anyone and would find another way to resist. Simple really.

 

[anthony022071]

You will note that they didn’t just sit there praying; God called those women to action.

Not to killing fetuses.

What about Judith, who killed Holofernes, as he lay sleeping? Didn’t she break the Natural Law and commit murder? Wasn’t even a fair fight, as he was murdered in his sleep!

In Judith chapter 13: 4-9, Judith calls upon God to give her strength to kill Holofernes.

She did what she thought was the moral right, to save her people. Why is she considered a holy woman, and these other two, you are condemning?

Holofernes was an enemy to God and his people,the Jews. God distinguishes between between a holy person killing someone to save her people and a person killing fetuses. Judith is considered a holy woman because she was obedient to God’s commandments and trusted in him,not because she killed Holofernes.

 

[PJM]

=4Horsemen;7298688]Just wondering what you think about this instance. A woman has a secret abortion. She doesn’t let her abusive husband know about it because he has abused both her and their children almost daily with beatings and withholding of food and water. Also, sexual abuse. The woman is frightened to death to report him and feels she is making the right choice. Is this the right choice?

Any decision reached under DURESS is subject to special consideration. God touches us “where we are.” Not judging us on where we might be, or perhaps ought to be.

Fear, such as you describe is a mitigating factor of GREAT dimension.

We need to keep in mind that an “intrinsic evil act always remains an evil act”. As to it always be a Mortal sin; that seems to me to be God’s Call, based on “presence of mind,” motivation, and Moral culpability, factors that we are unable to accurately judge.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[4Horsemen]

No you never.

Notwithstanding, I stick by the old Natural Law argument that two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not perform any abortions for any reason or for anyone and would find another way to resist. Simple really.

She could have started a resistance movement in the hospital and city or village. She could have refused outright to do the killings and, if it’d be the case, leave the dirty deed to the Nazis. The Natural Law applies to all people at all times.

In fact, if the whole Jewish population would have risen up to run en masse away from the gas chambers, at least they would had that real moment of freedom even though they would probably have been shot to death as they ran.

You did an excellent job in your post above explaining Utilitarinaism. I didn’t get an answer but asked Peggy in Burien why she didn’t also kill the pregnant mothers who would suffer greatly. Perhaps their unborn babies would be cut out of their wombs. And why not end the lives of all the Jews and Jewish sympathizers by euthanasia to prevent the possible suffering at Nazi hands? My point was that we could take the situation further in that we make ourselves gods which is what the philosophy of Utilitarianism does.

 

[4Horsemen]

Any decision reached under DURESS is subject to special consideration. God touches us “where we are.” Not judging us on where we might be, or perhaps ought to be.

Fear, such as you describe is a mitigating factor of GREAT dimension.

We need to keep in mind that an “intrinsic evil act always remains an evil act”. As to it always be a Mortal sin; that seems to me to be God’s Call, based on “presence of mind,” motivation, and Moral culpability, factors that we are unable to accurately judge.

Love and prayers,
Pat

God’s Mercy is even greater than His Justice, as St. Faustina writes in her diary. Also, this great love has been revealed for us by other saintly souls. The Natural Law still prevails as you said an “intrinsic evil act always remains an evil act”, and, as individual human beings, we must strive to obey God’s precepts. But God, alone, is the judge and knows our culpability. In other words, He knows our hearts.

God Bless,
4

 

[PJM]

=4Horsemen;7302109]God’s Mercy is even greater than His Justice, as St. Faustina writes in her diary. Also, this great love has been revealed for us by other saintly souls. The Natural Law still prevails as you said an “intrinsic evil act always remains an evil act”, and, as individual human beings, we must strive to obey God’s precepts. But God, alone, is the judge and knows our culpability. In other words, He knows our hearts.

God Bless,
4

WELL SAID!

Thanks and God Bless

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

No you never.

Notwithstanding, I stick by the old Natural Law argument that two wrongs don’t make a right. I would not perform any abortions for any reason or for anyone and would find another way to resist. Simple really.

I thought I had answered your question in my post #40…

I know that you want me to agree with you, but I cannot in, good conscience, lie to you.

I, like you, say to myself that I would not perform any abortions for any reason whatsoever. However, to be honest before God, I can find myself saying that these women were morally justified.

I don’t know how to explain myself any further on the subject. While I know this is wrong, I don’t think I could follow through and allow babies and little children suffer like that. I cannot bear to see an animal suffer like that, and I am allowed by Natural Law to put the animal down. Thank God I have not been in a situation where I would have been tested this way, because I am sure I would have failed. I would have probably done what they did. I know it is said that two wrongs don’t make a right, but I have failed that test many times.

You can call me wrong, you can call me a coward. God is my only judge.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

She could have started a resistance movement in the hospital and city or village. She could have refused outright to do the killings and, if it’d be the case, leave the dirty deed to the Nazis. The Natural Law applies to all people at all times.

In fact, if the whole Jewish population would have risen up to run en masse away from the gas chambers, at least they would had that real moment of freedom even though they would probably have been shot to death as they ran.

You did an excellent job in your post above explaining Utilitarinaism. I didn’t get an answer but asked Peggy in Burien why she didn’t also kill the pregnant mothers who would suffer greatly. Perhaps their unborn babies would be cut out of their wombs. And why not end the lives of all the Jews and Jewish sympathizers by euthanasia to prevent the possible suffering at Nazi hands? My point was that we could take the situation further in that we make ourselves gods which is what the philosophy of Utilitarianism does.

It is so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and so easy to point fingers at others in condemnation.

 

[John21652]

It is so easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, and so easy to point fingers at others in condemnation.

Peggy, that’s a bit mean. This is supposed to be a discussion on Natural Law, a debate and that means criticising the actions of people and criticising their morality so we can be the better for it. The example of the woman who killed the children is counterbalanced by the example of the man who stayed with the children in his charge right to the bitter end. The men who killed and ate the cabin boy is counterbalanced by what the Judges of the Queens Bench had to say about ‘duty’ and ‘sacrifice’ and of how some sacrifice their lives so that others may be saved. It is sometimes too easy to carry out an action and then attempt to justify it by saying we are helping others, when actually we have not gone past examining our true motives for acting. In my long post about these cases I actually wrote *“Given the leisure of hindsight and safety, it is easy to cast aspersions, I suppose.” *We are all intelligent enough to know that we are not walking in the shoes of those whom we are examining and so we are not condeming them. We are casting a critical eye over how they reacted in a given set of circumstances and deciding on the true morality of what they did. After all, do we not discuss and analyse the Saints lives in the same way? And do we not admire their moral courage, even in the face of sure death? And do we not ask ourselves whether or not we will display that same moral courage if and when it comes our turn?

Unfortunately, in this day and age, too many people are abandoning the moral precepts that were inculcated in us by the teachings of Natural Law thinkers, community leaders, politicians, Priests and other teachers. Too many have adopted the hedonistic tendencies which can be identified as being Utilitarian, but so many don’t even realise they are doing it. Like the woman who euthanased the children and like the men who killed and ate the cabin boy, people abandon hope and adopt the morally expedient and then attempt to justify what were, when examined in the cool light of reflection, immoral acts.

 

[John21652]

On the subject of certain death, here’s another moral ‘dilemma’ -

In the Face of Death

• The Surgeon’s Dilemma*

**
You are very ill in hospital. The situation is desperate. Barring something akin to a miracle, you’re going to die. It isn’t quite clear when, but you’ll be extremely lucky to last out the week.

A transplant surgeon comes to you and explains that she’s in a fix. She needs your heart, liver and kidneys for three patients, right away. She explains that the four of you have the same very rare blood type, and that while it is possible they’ll survive without your organs, it is by orders of magnitude more likely that they’ll all be dead within the next week or so if they don’t receive them. She also tells you that one of the patients is her daughter, and that she’s desperate to save her daughter’s life.

You listen with sympathy, but you don’t want to give up the fight for life just yet. You realise you have virtually no chance of surviving beyond the next week, but while there’s any chance at all, you want to cling to life. So you tell her “No”.

Unfortunately for you, she doesn’t listen. You don’t know much about it, but she gives you a fatal dose of morphine, and then wheels your body off to surgery and extracts your organs. The transplants work well, and as a result of your death, her three patients get to live out their lives.

The facts of this case are clear. You were killed by the surgeon because she believed you were going to die anyway, that she could save the lives of her three patients, one of whom was her daughter, by using your organs, and that without the transplant taking place immediately, it was overwhelmingly likely that all of you would die.

The question is was she morally justified in killing you?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

My position is that natural law exists,that it is created by God and is contituted into man’s conscience,human nature and body,and that it can be discerned through reason. But since it is given by God,it ought to be understood in light of what we know about God and man through Catholic doctrine. . . . Even though it is possible to discern natural law through reason alone,it should also be understood in light of the Catholic doctrine of creation,simply because the doctrine is true and it is necessary for a more thorough understanding of natural law.

The church has stressed over and over that it is the guardian of the natural law (=NL). So existentially, if you are speaking to RCs, your position is redundant. If not to RCs (and maybe some other Xns), it is pointless.

Methodologically, however, you seem to be skating awfully close to blurring the distinction between philosophy and theology. Exploring the truth in all philosophical themes including NL by the natural light of reason is not only legitimate but laudatory for all people as JPII makes clear in Fides at Ratio.

Furthermore, non-catholic and non-believers are not all Richard Dawkins type militant atheists. They are often sincere (if ignorant or misguided) people of good will. The NL can be common ground for arguing individual morality, law, social policy, and apologetics. Regarding nonbelievers who do not have Scripture Aquinas is clear: “We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent.” (Contra Gentiles I, 2, 3) Also see Justinian’s Institutes (I, 2) on the social use of NL.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Peggy, that’s a bit mean. This is supposed to be a discussion on Natural Law, a debate and that means criticising the actions of people and criticising their morality so we can be the better for it. The example of the woman who killed the children is counterbalanced by the example of the man who stayed with the children in his charge right to the bitter end. The men who killed and ate the cabin boy is counterbalanced by what the Judges of the Queens Bench had to say about ‘duty’ and ‘sacrifice’ and of how some sacrifice their lives so that others may be saved. It is sometimes too easy to carry out an action and then attempt to justify it by saying we are helping others, when actually we have not gone past examining our true motives for acting. In my long post about these cases I actually wrote *“Given the leisure of hindsight and safety, it is easy to cast aspersions, I suppose.” *We are all intelligent enough to know that we are not walking in the shoes of those whom we are examining and so we are not condeming them. We are casting a critical eye over how they reacted in a given set of circumstances and deciding on the true morality of what they did. After all, do we not discuss and analyse the Saints lives in the same way? And do we not admire their moral courage, even in the face of sure death? And do we not ask ourselves whether or not we will display that same moral courage if and when it comes our turn?

Unfortunately, in this day and age, too many people are abandoning the moral precepts that were inculcated in us by the teachings of Natural Law thinkers, community leaders, politicians, Priests and other teachers. Too many have adopted the hedonistic tendencies which can be identified as being Utilitarian, but so many don’t even realise they are doing it. Like the woman who euthanased the children and like the men who killed and ate the cabin boy, people abandon hope and adopt the morally expedient and then attempt to justify what were, when examined in the cool light of reflection, immoral acts.

John, you know me better than to call me mean. I am merely stating the obvious.

Since I am not a philosopher, either by training or inclination, I will leave this thread to the rest of you.

 

[John21652]

John, you know me better than to call me mean. I am merely stating the obvious.

Since I am not a philosopher, either by training or inclination, I will leave this thread to the rest of you.

I didn’t call you mean. I said “…that’s a bit mean”, referring to you comment only.
You don’t need to be a philosopher by ‘training or inclination’ to discuss morality.

Before you decide to head off into the wilderness, read your signature.

Then have a crack at the last scenario!

 

[anthony022071]

The church has stressed over and over that it is the guardian of the natural law (=NL). So existentially, if you are speaking to RCs, your position is redundant. If not to RCs (and maybe some other Xns), it is pointless.

Many Catholics do not even know about natural law. As for those outside the Church,they need to be taught Church doctrine anyway.

Methodologically, however, you seem to be skating awfully close to blurring the distinction between philosophy and theology. Exploring the truth in all philosophical themes including NL by the natural light of reason is not only legitimate but laudatory for all people as JPII makes clear in Fides at Ratio.

Philosophy and theology over-lap. Theologians make use of philosophical terms and ways of thinking. The historical result of detaching natural law from knowledge about God is that natural law,as a concept,has lost its force in society,since it is not seen as a matter of divine law.

Furthermore, non-catholic and non-believers are not all Richard Dawkins type militant atheists. They are often sincere (if ignorant or misguided) people of good will. The NL can be common ground for arguing individual morality, law, social policy, and apologetics. Regarding nonbelievers who do not have Scripture Aquinas is clear: “We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent.” (Contra Gentiles I, 2, 3) Also see Justinian’s Institutes (I, 2) on the social use of NL.

Having recourse to natural reason does not mean that relevant knowledge about God should be ignored. Aquinas was wrong to say that all men are forced to give their assent to natural reason. Reason does not really force anyone to assent to it. And for many people since the 17th century,“reason” means naturalistic thinking.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Many Catholics do not even know about natural law. As for those outside the Church,they need to be taught Church doctrine anyway.

True many RCs do not know about the NL and it goes without saying that those outside the church need to be evangelized/catechized. And . . . .?
My point was the CC already stresses that it is the guardian of the NL. One who does believe the Catholic faith must assent to this. So just who is your argument aimed at? What’s its purpose? To repeat a Catholic truism that is a matter of public record?

Philosophy and theology over-lap. Theologians make use of philosophical terms and ways of thinking.

Yes . . . an age old truism. Fides et Ratio: theology uses the results of philosophy without intrumentalizing it.

The historical result of detaching natural law from knowledge about God is that natural law,as a concept,has lost its force in society,since it is not seen as a matter of divine law.

As you phrased this here, I completely agree. But the natural law from its inception in Greek and Roman thought has always been in a religious context (in the context of knowledge about God) and continued to be so in the Catholic Church.
So again you are asserting the oft-repeated observation that with the breakup of the Catholic synthesis of faith and reason, nature and the supernatural, freedom and grace in the Enlightenment and the frequently resultant atheism, the life reason and its role in human affairs has suffered. Is there anybody here that doesn’t know this already?
You have not addressed the issue of the rightful autonomy of the earthly sciences (Gaudem et Spes, 36) and the distinction in object and method between philosophy and theology (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I, 1; Fides et Ratio, 15, 45-49, and passim). Where are you with this?

Having recourse to natural reason does not mean that relevant knowledge about God should be ignored.

As should be abundantly clear from my first response this is true for RCs, but often useless as an explicit premise in discussions with atheists, at least early on in an apologetic discussion. Later, maybe.

Aquinas was wrong to say that all men are forced to give their assent to natural reason. Reason does not really force anyone to assent to it. And for many people since the 17th century,“reason” means naturalistic thinking.

“Naturalistic thinking” can still be true in its limited domain. Aquinas was speaking in generalities about reason in much the same way one could speak about sense experience. Indeed there are those who dispute both, but not all non-Catholic’s do. Recourse to the natural light of reason can and has been a useful tool to reach common ground or expose falsehoods especially when held accountable in public forums. This is what Aquinas as a scholastic thinker teaching in a university and engaging in public disputations had in mind. He did not mean that every last individual is deterministically bound to assent to the voice of reason.

So:
(1) If you are simply repeating the standard RC doctrine that the RCC is the guardian of the NL, I agree.
(2) If you are simply asserting the oft-repeated observation that with the breakup of the Catholic synthesis the life reason and its role in human affairs including the NL has suffered, I agree.
(3) If you affirm the rightful autonomy of the earthly sciences (Gaudem et Spes, 36) and the distinction in object and method between philosophy and theology (Aquinas, *Summa Theologica *, I, 1; Fides et Ratio, 15, 45-49, and passim; as well as Gilson, Maritain, Pieper, etc.), I agree.

But if so, why not just say up front that you want to reaffirm what we orthodox RCs have always believed???