Presbyterian Insight......... where are they?

[Tomyris]

The natural law argument with a protestant is not possible.

Thanks for letting me know.

I won’t argue with you, then.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know of any scriptural support for same-gender marriage, but that doesn’t mean that our understanding of what God allows or doesn’t allow does not change. For example, on the issue of slavery, it says in Leviticus 25:44-46:

44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property.

On the issue of polygamy, we know that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and that his father David had 6 wives. Abraham had two wives of whom one (Sarah) was his half-sister.

But most Christians nowadays would probably agree that slavery, polygamy and incest are wrong. So our understanding of what God allows has changed despite the fact that there is support for those three things in the Bible.

While Itwin’s response to this was spot-on, I just wanted to expand briefly, just so I understand your view. In Matthew 19:
*And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
*

Is Jesus here speaking in gender-specific terms? Or is this simply an example of marriage?

Jon

 

[Denise1957]

I just picked newadvent.org because some Catholics on this forum disbelieve anything not from a Catholic website.

You can use your browser’s search function on the web page to find the text, or we can use this site or this site or this site or this site or any other one which you prefer.

While the content ought to be the same, the epistemologies are incommensurably different.

Apologies for not getting back to the thread for awhile. I’ve had a grueling work week, and am not really up to the daunting task of going through all of the links posted. I was really trying to disprove your belief that same-sex relations are fine under natural law, but as it’s too difficult to separate St. Thomas’ views on natural law and revelation., I’ll have to give up on that for now. I’m really just a beginner on the teaching of St. Thomas.

Regarding New Advent, it’s not a site I rely on because it does make mistakes. As to the teachings of St. Thomas, I prefer my huge book (more like a textbook) by Fr. Ripperger, in that he makes good sense out of St. Thomas, which isn’t easy to do for laypersons like me. God bless!

 

[Denise1957]

Welcome to the Protestant reformation and the kick off of the age of enlightenment where people separated science and religion. This is also where secular humanists spawned. The natural law argument with a protestant is not possible.

Of course history shows it already happened once around 1517 so why wouldn’t it happen again.

I think you may be right about not being able to argue (um…I mean debate ) natural law with a Protestant. But then it is a difficult subject to address. I only wish more Catholics would have an understanding of Scholastic theology (st. Thomas), but it’s rather difficult. The difficult thing that I see is that while we Catholics try to rely on Church teaching and doctors and Fathers of the Church to make a point, Protestants sometimes come to their conclusions based entirely on their own interpretation of things, which I think you’ve mentioned already.

 

[Mystophilus]

Apologies for not getting back to the thread for awhile. I’ve had a grueling work week, and am not really up to the daunting task of going through all of the links posted. I was really trying to disprove your belief that same-sex relations are fine under natural law, but as it’s too difficult to separate St. Thomas’ views on natural law and revelation., I’ll have to give up on that for now. I’m really just a beginner on the teaching of St. Thomas.

Regarding New Advent, it’s not a site I rely on because it does make mistakes. As to the teachings of St. Thomas, I prefer my huge book (more like a textbook) by Fr. Ripperger, in that he makes good sense out of St. Thomas, which isn’t easy to do for laypersons like me. God bless!

May God bless you, too, and please keep up your studies of St. Thomas: it is a worthy endeavour.

 

[frobert]

I think you may be right about not being able to argue (um…I mean debate ) natural law with a Protestant. But then it is a difficult subject to address. I only wish more Catholics would have an understanding of Scholastic theology (st. Thomas), but it’s rather difficult. The difficult thing that I see is that while we Catholics try to rely on Church teaching and doctors and Fathers of the Church to make a point, Protestants sometimes come to their conclusions based entirely on their own interpretation of things, which I think you’ve mentioned already.

Sure you can you just have to accept that Protestants have different beliefs about what natural law is. You seem unable to see the differences.

Hers is a simple example. St. Thomas says something to the effect that homosexuality is not natural and therefore an intrinsic evil.

Ornithologist have documented homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Are homosexual birds intrinsically evil? As a Catholic you have no choice but to believe that homosexuality is not natural and therefore an intrinsic evil. A protestant might not share your belief.

Keep in mind that St. Thomas did not share the insight of a modern Ornithologist.

If you accept that others can have honest beliefs reasoning that are different from your believe and reasoning, you can discuss similarities and differences.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sure you can you just have to accept that Protestants have different beliefs about what natural law is. You seem unable to see the differences.

Hers is a simple example. St. Thomas says something to the effect that homosexuality is not natural and therefore an intrinsic evil.

Ornithologist have documented homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting, as noted in researcher and author Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity.

Are homosexual birds intrinsically evil? As a Catholic you have no choice but to believe that homosexuality is not natural and therefore an intrinsic evil. A protestant might not share your belief.

Keep in mind that St. Thomas did not share the insight of a modern Ornithologist.

If you accept that others can have honest beliefs reasoning that are different from your believe and reasoning, you can discuss similarities and differences.

I’m not sure Catholics don’t already accept that others have different beliefs. I think the discussion difficulties may lie more in that because they believe they know they are the one and only true faith, they are of such a mindset that they begin and end with the concept that in matters of faith only Catholic beliefs and reasoning can possibly be right. Whereas Protestants tend to view differently who constitutes Christ’s church and can allow for differences while including a variety of believers as part of Christ’s church body.

 

[Denise1957]

Keep in mind that St. Thomas did not share the insight of a modern Ornithologist.

True. But what St. Thomas did understand is that human nature has some things in common with animals, and some things not in common. For instance, St. Thomas describes three inclinations, according to natural law, the first which has to do with what we have in common with animals:

“Therefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of natural law. For, firstly, the inclination of man is to the good according to nature, which he has in common with all substances, as namely every substance desires the conservation of its being according to its nature. And according to this inclination, it pertains to the natural law that the life of man may be preserved and the contrary impeded.”

So what I believe that St. Thomas is saying here is that all substances desire the conservation their being - they want to live. It’s a basic nature that is natural to all beings, and substances.

The second natural inclination is this:

"The second inclination in man is something more specific, according to nature which he has in common with other animals. And according to this, they are said to be of the natural law those “which nature teaches to all animals, such as the mixture of masculine and feminine, education of children, and the like.”

What we have in common with animals is that we all reproduce, eat food, bring up offspring, etc. However, what differs here is that how humans go about the raising of offspring, for instance, is very different from that of animals. So while there’s a natural inclination to have offspring, the way in which it is done differs from species to species, according to their specific nature, and so Fr. Ripperger’s says…“that specific nature teaches that species how it is to be done.” For instance, it would not be appropriate to raise a human child in a nest, as bird’s raise their young initially. Birds need to teach or encourage their young to fly from the nest. Humans don’t do this.

The third inclination according to St. Thomas is as follows:

“In the third way, an inclination is found in man to the good according to the nature of reason, which is proper to him; as man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society. And according to this, those which consider this kind of inclination pertain to the natural law, for example, that man avoid ignorance, that he does not offend others with which he ought to converse and other things of this kind.”

So the third category shows something which is specific to man alone, which animals do not have. If, for instance, we are going to pursue truth about God (such as we are trying to do here on the forum) we need the use of reason, which is proper to man, or humans. We can reason what we should do according to our nature. So, I don’t think that we can compare ourselves to animals as far as determining that certain actions by humans are natural (such as homosexual acts), just because these acts are seen in the animal world. We have our use of reason to determine whether something is natural to human nature; birds do not.

 

[Denise1957]

Are homosexual birds intrinsically evil?

Who here has said that a subject, such as a bird, is evil if it engages in homosexual acts? If an inclination or act is contrary to human nature, then it is the act that is evil, not the subject. You are making an assertion that has not been made here (by St. Thomas or myself).

 

[Tomyris]

Who here has said that a subject, such as a bird, is evil if it engages in homosexual acts? If an inclination or act is contrary to human nature, then it is the act that is evil, not the subject. You are making an assertion that has not been made here (by St. Thomas or myself).

I think STA would say the bird is the creation of God, and therefore good, but homosexuality and homosexual acts are not proper to the bird and an impediment to its obtaining happiness, with ‘happiness’ meaning the fulfillment of good desires.

So asking if a homosexual bird is evil is a conflation and confusion of issues.

I agree with Denise here.

 

[frobert]

Who here has said that a subject, such as a bird, is evil if it engages in homosexual acts? If an inclination or act is contrary to human nature, then it is the act that is evil, not the subject. You are making an assertion that has not been made here (by St. Thomas or myself).

Please do not assume things that I did not say. I did not say St Thomas or anyone here said a bird is evil. I asked the question “are homosexual birds evil” based on the premise that many species of birds exhibit homosexual behavior. Birds and other animals that exhibit homosexual behaviors are part of nature. Natural law is derived from nature and animals are part of nature and the fact that most animals that have been studied exhibit homosexual behavior would indicate that homosexuality is a natural condition. If it is a natural condition nature has a reason for it.

If you want to argue as many here are doing that while homosexuality is ok for birds and animals but humans need to reason it is evil I have no objections even though I don’t believe it is a valid argument. The better argument which sidesteps normalcy is that homosexuality is evil because it is contrary to divine command.

 

[frobert]

True. But what St. Thomas did understand is that human nature has some things in common with animals, and some things not in common. For instance, St. Thomas describes three inclinations, according to natural law, the first which has to do with what we have in common with animals:

“Therefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order of the precepts of natural law. For, firstly, the inclination of man is to the good according to nature, which he has in common with all substances, as namely every substance desires the conservation of its being according to its nature. And according to this inclination, it pertains to the natural law that the life of man may be preserved and the contrary impeded.”

So what I believe that St. Thomas is saying here is that all substances desire the conservation their being - they want to live. It’s a basic nature that is natural to all beings, and substances. If homosexuality is natural to both birds and humans why is it intrinsically evil in men but not birds. To say it is intrinsically evil in one but not the other is bypassing nature.

The catechism of the CC once included the phase “the origins of homosexuality are largely unknown” which they quietly removed in the last edition. The main reason that if we do not know the origin of homosexuality then we do not know that it is not natural.

The second natural inclination is this:

"The second inclination in man is something more specific, according to nature which he has in common with other animals. And according to this, they are said to be of the natural law those “which nature teaches to all animals, such as the mixture of masculine and feminine, education of children, and the like.”

What we have in common with animals is that we all reproduce, eat food, bring up offspring, etc. However, what differs here is that how humans go about the raising of offspring, for instance, is very different from that of animals. So while there’s a natural inclination to have offspring, the way in which it is done differs from species to species, according to their specific nature, and so Fr. Ripperger’s says…“that specific nature teaches that species how it is to be done.” For instance, it would not be appropriate to raise a human child in a nest, as bird’s raise their young initially. Birds need to teach or encourage their young to fly from the nest. Humans don’t do this.

The third inclination according to St. Thomas is as follows:

“In the third way, an inclination is found in man to the good according to the nature of reason, which is proper to him; as man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society. And according to this, those which consider this kind of inclination pertain to the natural law, for example, that man avoid ignorance, that he does not offend others with which he ought to converse and other things of this kind.”

So the third category shows something which is specific to man alone, which animals do not have. If, for instance, we are going to pursue truth about God (such as we are trying to do here on the forum) we need the use of reason, which is proper to man, or humans. We can reason what we should do according to our nature. So, I don’t think that we can compare ourselves to animals as far as determining that certain actions by humans are natural (such as homosexual acts), just because these acts are seen in the animal world. We have our use of reason to determine whether something is natural to human nature; birds do not.

Thomas did say that homosexuality is “intrinsically evil.” Not once in your harangue did you mention “intrinsically evil” (whether in birds or humans), which was central to my original post.

 

[frobert]

I think STA would say the bird is the creation of God, and therefore good, but homosexuality and homosexual acts are not proper to the bird and an impediment to its obtaining happiness, with ‘happiness’ meaning the fulfillment of good desires.

So asking if a homosexual bird is evil is a conflation and confusion of issues.

I agree with Denise here.

Your theory that a homosexual bird is not proper or happy is your value judgement derived from your faith beliefs.

 

[Tomyris]

Your theory that a homosexual bird is not proper or happy is your value judgement derived from your faith beliefs.

That’s not what I said. I think the scholastic theological terminology is tripping you up. Your restatement indicates you are not familiar with it, or you are conflating and confusing the issues, as I said.

I’m not sure what ‘your value judgement derived from your faith beliefs’ means, or what you mean by this observation.

 

[Tomyris]

Thomas did say that homosexuality is “intrinsically evil.” Not once in your harangue did you mention “intrinsically evil” (whether in birds or humans), which was central to my original post.

What, exactly, makes her post a ‘harangue’?

What do you mean when you say ‘intrinsically evil’? I think she was showing that the phrase is a contradiction in terms when applied to birds.

 

[frobert]

What, exactly, makes her post a ‘harangue’?

What do you mean when you say ‘intrinsically evil’? I think she was showing that the phrase is a contradiction in terms when applied to birds.

It comes across as a lecture not a debate.

I am referring to a specific term “intrinsically evil” as used in Thomistic natural law. I know I am dense but please explain why something that occurs in nature is intrinsically evil in one species but not relevant in another species according to natural law without Catholic qualifications.

 

[commenter]

Sure you can you just have to accept that Protestants have different beliefs about what natural law is. You seem unable to see the differences.
…
Are homosexual birds intrinsically evil? As a Catholic you have no choice but to believe that homosexuality is not natural and therefore an intrinsic evil. A protestant might not share your belief…

If you accept that others can have honest beliefs reasoning that are different from your believe and reasoning, you can discuss similarities and differences.

There is no Protestant Natural Law, as opposed to Catholic Natural Law. Protestants (and many Jews, Muslims, and many non believers) historically affirmed the Natural Law as something that was inherently true. Legislation against homosexual acts, abortion, artificial birth control, and certain other actions were put into effect by Protestant American legislatures, signed by Protestant governors. One can argue how much the founders of our country were Protestant, as compared with Deists, but no doubt there was very little Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut into Natural Law influenced documents and traditions.

This isn’t one of those doctrinal issues where there may be Protestant theories as compared to Catholic theory. The Natural Law is something that predated Christianity, Christians in general embraced the same Natural Law. A Protestant or Catholic may cease believing in it, that does not affect its validity.

Read C. S. Lewis “The Abolition of Man” or its fictional equivalent, “That Hideous Strength”, both in the mid 1940s; both deeply prophetic in terms of the Natural Law.

 

[GKC]

There is no Protestant Natural Law, as opposed to Catholic Natural Law. Protestants (and many Jews, Muslims, and many non believers) historically affirmed the Natural Law as something that was inherently true. Legislation against homosexual acts, abortion, artificial birth control, and certain other actions were put into effect by Protestant American legislatures, signed by Protestant governors. One can argue how much the founders of our country were Protestant, as compared with Deists, but no doubt there was very little Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut into Natural Law influenced documents and traditions.

This isn’t one of those doctrinal issues where there may be Protestant theories as compared to Catholic theory. The Natural Law is something that predated Christianity, Christians in general embraced the same Natural Law. A Protestant or Catholic may cease believing in it, that does not affect its validity.

Read C. S. Lewis “The Abolition of Man” or its fictional equivalent, “That Hideous Strength”, both in the mid 1940s; both deeply prophetic in terms of the Natural Law.

And two of my favorites, of his.

GKC

 

[Tomyris]

And two of my favorites, of his.

GKC

My fav is "Til We Have Faces’ which touches on the present discussion (if I didn’t say that, it wouldn’t bear on the ‘natural law theme’, and so should stay off the thread). I am sure you can, uh, think of ways it, uh, enlightens our present discussion. Whew,

 

[GKC]

My fav is "Til We Have Faces’ which touches on the present discussion (if I didn’t say that, it wouldn’t bear on the ‘natural law theme’, and so should stay off the thread). I am sure you can, uh, think of ways it, uh, enlightens our present discussion. Whew,

Which is my least fav.

Lewis preferred it, followed by PERELANDRA.

I wander, habitually.

GKC