B
BlackFriar
Guest
Its a long text can you quote what you refer to.
The main principles essential to marriage by natural law are procreation, rearing and education.
While identification of paternity may be argued as equally primary I think it is reasonably clear it rests on the need to ensure the husband remains committed to rearing and educating for the long term…because it is his own flesh. It therefore is reasonably judged to be secondary and not essential and therefore not primarily from NL but a prudential requirement arising from these more primary principles.
And for that reason we can also reason that there can be exceptions. Many men (who usually materially provide for the unit) are prepared to accept adopted children or the children of a previously married wife. Certainly not ideal, but then neither is divorce or polygamy but clearly these realities have been tolerated by God and therefore cannot directly contradict primary natural law principles.
Likewise then in polyandry by the very nature of the established commitments a husband is prepared to rear a child of those unions even if it may not be his. In fact there are two men to materially provide and the child will belong to at least one of them.
Really the only reason the focus is on paternal identity is because the male is traditionally the provider. In more democratic societies where women are as materially secure as men the male paternity identification thing loses a lot of its prudential support from application of primary NL principles.
I suggest that is why it is a “principle” that doesn’t really seem to get a lot of air time as a primary principle of NL.
Expansion of the Israelite is but one example of a circumstance why the Patriachs chose polygamy, it is not a principle of natural law.
The main principles essential to marriage by natural law are procreation, rearing and education.
While identification of paternity may be argued as equally primary I think it is reasonably clear it rests on the need to ensure the husband remains committed to rearing and educating for the long term…because it is his own flesh. It therefore is reasonably judged to be secondary and not essential and therefore not primarily from NL but a prudential requirement arising from these more primary principles.
And for that reason we can also reason that there can be exceptions. Many men (who usually materially provide for the unit) are prepared to accept adopted children or the children of a previously married wife. Certainly not ideal, but then neither is divorce or polygamy but clearly these realities have been tolerated by God and therefore cannot directly contradict primary natural law principles.
Likewise then in polyandry by the very nature of the established commitments a husband is prepared to rear a child of those unions even if it may not be his. In fact there are two men to materially provide and the child will belong to at least one of them.
Really the only reason the focus is on paternal identity is because the male is traditionally the provider. In more democratic societies where women are as materially secure as men the male paternity identification thing loses a lot of its prudential support from application of primary NL principles.
I suggest that is why it is a “principle” that doesn’t really seem to get a lot of air time as a primary principle of NL.