B
BayCityRickL
Guest
I did a search and the search engine threw out ‘natural law.’ But, it is an important issue in the Church that is involved in many questions. Maybe we should bring the topic out in the forefront.
The Holy Father said recently “It has always been the Church’s belief that God gave man, with the light of reason, the capacity to be able to know the fundamental truths on life and his destiny and, specifically, the norms of moral behavior.”
One way this has been applied is to marriage. It is considered to be natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman. Now, this is also indicated early in the Bible as well.
If that’s not so clear a case of natural law, consider that the Church goes on to say that the use of contraceptives violates the intent or law of nature by frustrating the possibility of conception.
I hear the Magisterium, all right, but I’m sort of unsettled about how natural law just pops up in the discussion. The enunciation of natural law seems to be bounded by the prejudices, purposes, and intellect of the person making the argument.
How do we know, for example, that all of natural law has been discovered? Some say, only the fittest survive. but, an alternate view is, the adequate survive. So, which is the better statement of natural law?
Does anybody out there have a clear understanding of natural law?
The Holy Father said recently “It has always been the Church’s belief that God gave man, with the light of reason, the capacity to be able to know the fundamental truths on life and his destiny and, specifically, the norms of moral behavior.”
One way this has been applied is to marriage. It is considered to be natural law that marriage is between one man and one woman. Now, this is also indicated early in the Bible as well.
If that’s not so clear a case of natural law, consider that the Church goes on to say that the use of contraceptives violates the intent or law of nature by frustrating the possibility of conception.
I hear the Magisterium, all right, but I’m sort of unsettled about how natural law just pops up in the discussion. The enunciation of natural law seems to be bounded by the prejudices, purposes, and intellect of the person making the argument.
How do we know, for example, that all of natural law has been discovered? Some say, only the fittest survive. but, an alternate view is, the adequate survive. So, which is the better statement of natural law?
Does anybody out there have a clear understanding of natural law?