S
Saxum
Guest
What is law? Who created it? And why do we need it? As a Catholic, how would you answer these questions?
Last edited:
- Status
E
Entwhistler
Guest
From what I have read there is a difference between Supernatural law, natural law, and man-made law. I will leave those with more knowledge to speak about the difference between supernatural and natural law, but basically, the natural is laws set down by God. You shall not kill, you shall not lie, you shall not cheat. Natural law can be encapsulated in human law but it is separate from it in a sense. Human law is, for instance, what speed you can drive your car at. Whether or not you have to get a permit for your boat. Stuff like that. Human laws are supposed to make our lives easier by making everyone get along better. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with going 90 miles an hour on the freeway. But in order for us to be safe on the road, a speed limit is given. Unlike natural law which it is intrinsically wrong to break.
That is what I know about law. Hopefully others will chime in and tell me if I am wrong.
That is what I know about law. Hopefully others will chime in and tell me if I am wrong.
S
Saxum
Guest
Thanks for your reply.
I agree with your points about the natural law. My issue is how does everybody agree on the content of the natural law? The Declaration of Independence says that the right to life, liberty and happiness are natural rights. I guess we’d all agree on those. But does natural law consist of other things? It seems like nobody agrees about what is natural law.
When it comes to human law, why do we obey it? Is it because we fear punishment or is there something more?
I find these questions very interesting because we Catholics often debate issues such as gay marriage without discussing the actual nature of the laws we create. In my opinion, we don’t have to obey any human law that breaks God’s law. In other words, Congress or Parliament can make laws allowing abortion, but I say that law is invalid. It is no law. For a law to be valid, it has to conform to the laws of God.
I agree with your points about the natural law. My issue is how does everybody agree on the content of the natural law? The Declaration of Independence says that the right to life, liberty and happiness are natural rights. I guess we’d all agree on those. But does natural law consist of other things? It seems like nobody agrees about what is natural law.
When it comes to human law, why do we obey it? Is it because we fear punishment or is there something more?
I find these questions very interesting because we Catholics often debate issues such as gay marriage without discussing the actual nature of the laws we create. In my opinion, we don’t have to obey any human law that breaks God’s law. In other words, Congress or Parliament can make laws allowing abortion, but I say that law is invalid. It is no law. For a law to be valid, it has to conform to the laws of God.
U
upant
Guest
do we? there is no list and that is where many disagreements occur. what is a natural right and what isn’t.
or more importantly, laws that are forced on us.
define obey, there are no consequences if you don’t have an abortion or support abortion.
i question this after all Jesus said render unto caesar what is caesar’s; therefore there must be laws made by the state that aren’t God’s law. i agree God’s law take priority.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
S
Saxum
Guest
My opinions on this topic are provisional at this point. That’s why I’d really like to hear your thoughts? If these natural rights are a source of debate, why did the framers include those specific three? And why do some people disagree with the framers?
U
upant
Guest
what did the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean back when it was written in to the constitution?
how is that meaning being expanded today.
for instance does the right to life include healthcare? is healthcare a God given right? i don’t believe it is even if it is a worthy goal. yet many claim it is a right under the right to life.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I would go straight to St Thomas Aquinas.
Many people don’t realize (or want to admit it) but the principles of law articulated (not necessarily invented, but articulated) by St Thomas provide the very foundation of our American legal system, which is itself based on British Common Law.
Many people don’t realize (or want to admit it) but the principles of law articulated (not necessarily invented, but articulated) by St Thomas provide the very foundation of our American legal system, which is itself based on British Common Law.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
My opinion, since you asked: Law is a system that humans construct to foster cooperation.
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
I’ve never thought about this but I think you’re right. I’ve read ancient jurists who say that the Common Law existed since the beginning of time. People scoff at such comments but it makes sense if you realise the Common law is connected to the eternal law and natural law. In the American context, you’re fortunate have express references to the law of nature in the declaration of Independence. Most nations have politicians who believe only in positive law. This means they can change it at whim. For them, law is a social construct that must change with society.
S
Saxum
Guest
I’d class myself as an Originalist. Scalia has been a great influence on my thought in that regard. However, for the life of me, I can’t understand why Americans oppose nationalised healthcare that is free at the point of service for everybody. Nobody should die for want of medical insurance.
U
upant
Guest
wanting something doesn’t make it a right.upant:
I’d class myself as an Originalist. Scalia has been a great influence on my thought in that regard. However, for the life of me, I can’t understand why Americans oppose nationalised healthcare that is free at the point of service for everybody. Nobody should die for want of medical insurance.
my personal belief is a government run anything does not have the best interest of the consumer at heart. it will cut corners to meet a budget especially when one tries to control cost. if the profiteers run it you know they will not control the cost and the price will skyrocket.
i am all for it if they can pay for it. the question is how to pay. the cost estimate is between 14 trillion (the politicians) and 32 trillion (think tanks). the low end will require a tax increase of 10 to 20%.
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
‘For want’ is another way of saying ‘for lack.’
The British National Health Service is very good. We all have comprehensive coverage and never have to worry about medical bills. It’s not perfect but I personally would have died if we didn’t have it. I know this might seem off-topic, but it is very related. It could be argued that the natural right to life requires the community to care for it’s weakest members. National health, paid vacation, state pensions, free education etc are all positive laws that can give effect to ‘Love Thy Neighbour
As Thyself.’
U
upant
Guest
a natural right is something God given that man can not take away.
does your nhs guarantee all services for any ailment?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Because we know that when we take away individual freedom and replace it with a system run by the government, the result is a disaster.
Socialized medicine is not “free.”
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If every American were to take the same amount of money that would be necessary to uphold socialized medicine and use it to buy health insurance, we’d have no problems at all.
Your government forces people to pay for health care upfront. You have no choice. They take the money in the form of taxes.
Our system (before Obama, at least) allowed people the free choice to either buy insurance or not buy it.
Instead, people choose to spend money on cable tv, clothes, toys, etc. It’s their choice.
We’ve had healthcare for the poor for over 50 years now. We call it Medicaid (other countries might use the same word for a different program). So we don’t just let the poor die in the streets. We do provide healthcare.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
But the “effect” isn’t really true to ‘Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself’ because it takes free will out of the process, which in turn takes love out of the process.
That’s the difference between Socialism and Christianity. One uses force, the other uses free will, or choice, if you will.
Last edited:
- Status