T
Theophorus
Guest
I never said it was ‘holy’ I said it reflects reality. I generally find realism and properly grasping reality(as natural law does) to be good things to do.
- Status
M
MattofTexas
Guest
No what I’m saying is that it’s hypocritical for Catholics to demand religious freedom and the right to live according to their own morals, while simultaneously doing everything within their power to prevent another group of people from doing the same.
T
Theophorus
Guest
Yes because letting people, who will tell you whatever you want to hear to have a cushy job in a national parliament for a few years, base law entirely on convention is a much better idea.
Philosophy recognises natural order in reality it doesn’t invent it. And given that natural law reflects reality rather than the churches beliefs it does not contain morals external to it. The Church can’t amend natural law, in the same way national constitutions can be amended, to include revealed truths; anymore than we can decide that gravity no longer applies or that the sky is normally neon pink.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
A couple of points:
(i) I don’t think Catholics do “everything within their power to prevent another group of people” from living by their own morals. Catholics don’t call for gaol sentences for not attending Mass on Sundays, watching pornography, adultery, and a host of other things.
(ii) The issue here is legalisation of same-sex marriage. The Church believes that there is no such thing as same-sex marriage and most people in the world think this too not only now, but throughout history. Practically every vote (bar one or two, I think) that has been taken on the issue by the public has voted it down. This suggests that the Church isn’t imposing its morality on the community but rather another group imposing its morality.
(iii) How far would you extend the “right to live according to one’s own moral beliefs”? I mean, some social institution, such as the law and government, has to decide where to draw the line. I mean, I think if we’re going to be fair, we ought to legalise polygamy too, so that Muslims, Mormons and general polygamists shouldn’t be prejudiced against.
D
DexUK
Guest
Well not ‘all’ natural law is bunk, but as I pointed out above, it’s clearly rooted in more than just observable nature because of the way in which the concept of ‘natural law’ was developed. And as for society, we clearly do judge it by our faith. As is our right. But in order to get people to agree with us, we have to persuade them to share the same faith as us over and above appealing to their reason, because their reason is informed, at least in part, by their morals, as is ours, but their morals are different.
I think we’re getting to the crux of the matter here - and I really value this conversation too as it’s helping me compose my arguments better (for which you have my thanks - a polite challenge is always good).
The ‘righteousness of our own making’ is that which we claim by virtue of relying on a ‘natural law’ argument that isn’t - to the other person - as disconnected with morals as we say it is. Basically, it looks to the other side like we’re making a fraudulent argument, no matter how much we might believe we’re right.
That really depends on the law and how its outward effects make a difference to people’s lives. My life will continue unchanged no matter how many people of the same gender get married, whereas laws that have a demonstrable affect on other people (i.e. abortion laws) can be easily opposed because, apart from anything else, they’re demonstrably at odds with what we thought other laws applied to - i.e. murder of other human beings, and, in fact, laws that prosecute people for causing the death of unborn children when the mother doesn’t wish for an abortion. Such contradictions are prime cases for action by anyone interested in saving lives. But, to return to the subject at hand, my life is neither lost nor affected if someone else gets same-sex married.
I accept the Church’s right to teach us that same-sex relationships may be nothing other than celibate and chaste - i.e. “disinterested friendship” in the language of the Church: we’re members of the Church and we subscribe to its morals. I accept that all Churches have the right to seek to attract new members, and hopefully these people will choose Catholicism because I believe it is the guaranteed expression on this Earth of how to reliably make it to the next life successfully, but I don’t believe the people of the Church (including Bishops) are always right in how they approach things. I believe in the dogmas of the Church, I believe in the Creed which, despite the revisions, I know off by heart and it lives IN my heart. But my main beef is that we tell other people what to do in such a way as a: it’s senseless to them, and b: is uncharitable and now and then harmful to them. No, we’re not behaving in such a way as to emulate the excesses and sins of the Inquisition, but nonetheless, many things said in the name of the Church on this matter are needlessly hurtful to other people.
D
DexUK
Guest
Just because something is not ‘natural’ according to a philosophical convention that was refined by Christian thinkers, doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.
Aeroplanes are not ‘natural’… Neither is polyester! Nobody would ever say that those were wrong.
If we appeal to ‘natural law’ to draw a moral conclusion, where is it that we get the idea that the conclusion that we draw is right or wrong? From our religious convictions of course. Hence the bemusement of those who we argue with when presented with that conclusion: they, understandably, perceive a fraudulent argument because they don’t possess that which we do in respect of the argument we make, that being faith.
meltzerboy
New member
One quibble: quite apart from the Jewish prohibition of shatnez, which involves mixing wool and linen, polyester is wrong on almost all counts, except its being tear-resistant!
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
So, are you honestly suggesting that for people to agree with us that (i) homosexual actions are unnatural, (ii) killing a child in the womb is wrong, and (iii) watching pornography is exploitative and degrading to human beings, they have believe (i) in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, (ii) that he established the Catholic Church, and (iii) that this Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals? If that’s the case, we’ll never have moral agreement about anything!
In fact, I think most people do resort to natural law theory, and their morals aren’t different. People know that homosexual unions are unnatural, that killing babies is wrong and that something stinks about pornography. Practically everyone in the world disagrees with same-sex marriage, and almost every public vote has failed to secure this legislation. The reality is that a minority is imposing their views on the world.
But it is always going to look like your opponent is making a fraudulent argument or else you’d agree with him! This doesn’t mean therefore that we don’t make arguments. Furthermore, we actually have all the good arguments for keeping marriage as is. How many public debates have you seen on this issue? I’ll tell you how many I’ve seen: zilch. And why? Because nobody wants a debate. They just want to force the legislation through without public debate.
Well, it seems obvious that abortion laws are not easily opposed.
Also, if the justification for not opposing these laws is: “it won’t make a difference to my life”, why are you against other Catholics who vociferously oppose the laws if they believe it will make a difference to their lives. After all, we don’t know if it’s going to make a difference or not. So, if you want to follow that line of reasoning, you should say: “I’m not going to oppose the legislation because I don’t think it will affect me; but you can go ahead if you think it will affect you.”
Nevertheless, I think this is a very insular way of looking at society, law and social norms.
The truth is always hurtful. If I knew my brother was having an affair and his wife didn’t know, even though I know it would hurt her, I would tell her because it’s the truth. I’d try to do so as compassionately as possible and support her, but I wouldn’t lie or say nothing about the issue. I think that would be worse for everyone involved.
What you are advocating, and I know you’re doing it in love, Dex, I don’t doubt it, but it sounds like a Church acting in this way - that is, doing nothing - is a Church that really doesn’t believe that what they hold is true. Jesus didn’t say to his apostles, don’t upset the pagans with your morality or doctrines, but rather told them to preach the good news. Now, I agree, our tactics aren’t always good, but if we see a clear evil in society, we must oppose it. Same-sex marriage legislation is a clear evil - you yourself think it’s wrong - and so we must oppose it. Again, Cardinal Bergoglio opposed it. If he did, I’m standing behind him.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Umm that’s not what natural law is. Natural law is the use of reason applied to human moral actions based on teleology, that is, the flourishing of human beings.
We can clearly see that homosexual actions are against natural law even beyond biology (that is, our sex organs), because (i) the psychological make-up and (ii) socialisation of males and females is different so that they are complementary (this is based, in part, on biology), and two persons of the same sex in an intimate sexual relationship, especially if male (I think), has far less chances of success than a heterosexual one. The individuals would also be less fulfilled as human beings because of the lack of complementarity.
Furthermore, marriage is an institution which binds parents together for the purpose of rearing children. This has been self-evident throughout history. All human beings flourish best in a family. However, same-sex marriage denies the binding of parents to children by equating “marriage” with “adult partnership”, which is not the same thing.
No it isn’t. We get our conclusions from looking at an issue and drawing a reasonable conclusion. There are lots of texts of natural law that don’t ever recourse to religious arguments. Some aren’t even by religious people.
D
DexUK
Guest
No… clearly they can share the same morals as us for all sorts of different reasons but the important part of my argument is that it’s not automatic that they should because their morals may (and clearly do) deviate from our own.
Well that’s the thing, isn’t it? Some people don’t “know” in that absolute sense. Some may not consider homosexual unions wrong, but may well still believe that abortion is abhorrent or that porn is exploitative abuse. In fact I could name some people who think just that (although obviously I won’t actually name them).
Ok, I’ll rephrase it… I find such laws easy to oppose. Perhaps though that’s part of the problem. What seems ‘easy’ to me may not be easy to other people.
I was having a real life conversation about something similar only a couple of hours ago, as it happens. This comes down to whether you have a personal relationship with the matter at hand and/or a personal responsibility to become directly involved. My own inclination would be to talk to my brother first, rather than take the initiative and talk to my sister-in-law. I would be more likely to issue him with an ultimatum.
In the case of SSM, this means that the Catholic Church can issue such an ‘ultimatum’ to its members (which, essentially it already does) telling them that if they behave in this way, then they are latae sententiae excommunicated. However you can’t excommunicate someone who was not already in communion with the Church, but it does appear to the outside world sometimes like this is what we’re trying to do… and that’s why I hear a lot of complaints about the ‘Church’ trying to tell “them” (i.e. the people complaining) that they’re sinners, hell-bound, deviant, that their marriages don’t exist, aren’t valid, are gravely wrong, harmful, etc. When these people hear that message they simply don’t hear a message of love and, unsurprisingly, they are deeply offended by it. While we refuse to meet people in their present moment and at their level, we fail every time to do what it is we wish we could, which is heal, convert and love.
T
Theophorus
Guest
Thats the thing, natural law is not conventional anymore than the laws of physics are conventional. Natural law is a foundation not a structural support. Nor does it mean that if something is artifical it is automatically wrong according to natural law, the moral dimension of natural law is also independent of Christian belief but since natural law reflects reality there is a lot of overlap(such as the wrongness of willful murder of the innocent). the natural law argument for marriage has as a premise that the relationship we call marriage is intimately connected to the biological complementarity of man and woman.
For this reason we can no more call every consenting sexual relationship between persons a marriage than we can call every thing with four legs a table, even when its a horse rather than a dog or a chair. this is natural law realism rather than revealed catholic doctrine, that they agree does not mean we tinkered with natural law to suit our position, simply that Catholic doctrine also mirrors reality. So far most people who I’ve spoken to and who argue against natural law don’t understand it.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
*]Civil unions and homosexual marriage have had a negative impact on religious liberty:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10611397&postcount=3
Ten people punished for believing in traditional marriage
*]There is a link between an increase in out of wedlock births and a decline in how people feel about marriage and cohabitation in countries where marriage has been redefined compared to countries that have not:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10447350&postcount=256
*]Enshrining homosexual marriage into law intentionally deprives children of the right to grow up with a mother and a father
*]Massachusetts Supreme Court redefined marriage in 2004. In 2006 parents in Lexington, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit because their second-grader was a read a book about two princes who fall in love called The King and King. There was no opt out from the class. That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. Federal appeals court affirmed that saying
The son of the father who filed the lawsuit was later beaten in school and the father speculated it had to do with the lawsuit
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
But I’m not talking about sharing morals - that could be an accident of society - but humans universally recognising certain moral truths, as St Paul highlights in Romans. If you accept this, then you have a basis on which to make a case against same-sex marriage and sexual actions which is not religious, and therefore can be put forward to the secular public.
Be that as it may, if “X is morally wrong” can be the subject of knowledge, and we know it, shouldn’t we attempt to inform those who do not know it?
Perhaps, but I still think you’re approaching this too subjectively: “what I think”, “what x person thinks”, etc. If something is true, and I think the opposite, I’m wrong and the sooner I recognise this the better for me. I don’t think it does anyone any benefits to pretend their falsity is truth. We know that same-sex marriage is a lie and so we should not be shy to say so and why. Yes, we should do so compassionately but we shouldn’t deny truth to anyone.
True, definitely speak to him first.
Excommunicating people should be the last thing on our minds! I’m talking about preaching the Gospel. That’s why we need to oppose same-sex marriage legislation and sinful lifestyles (no matter whose) because it detracts from the Gospel and turns people away from it. As I’ve said before, it’s not about being part of the “club” but reaching out to the lost sheep. Every Christian has a responsibility to do this. Okay, perhaps telling them they are “hell-bound” isn’t a great tactic - but you know they might very well be hell-bound! So, don’t tell them that but try to get them to change their ways. And legislating same-sex marriage isn’t going to get anyone to change their ways but quite the opposite.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
His response was not uncharitable. It was requiring his debater to apply logic to unsupported statements.
Only on CAF are those who use logic instead of emotion or unsupported statements called uncharitable.
meltzerboy
New member
Elizabeth, I am also a member of an Orthodox Jewish Forum, and it’s not so different from here.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
That’s a relief. 
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Don’t be so uncharitable in your attempted charity, Elizabeth!
It’s amazing how frequently the word “charity” is used on this forum, often as a kind of blanket word: “As I can’t argue against what you’re saying, I’ll just call you uncharitable”.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Yep. It’s used as an effective weapon to shame and silence. (Ironically.)Don’t be so uncharitable in your attempted charity, Elizabeth!
It’s amazing how frequently the word “charity” is used on this forum, often as a kind of blanket word: “As I can’t argue against what you’re saying, I’ll just call you uncharitable”.
D
DexUK
Guest
I try very hard to avoid accusing individuals of being uncharitable in and of themselves. What I do try hard to illustrate though is how their words and opinions could be perceived as uncharitable by others who have a different outlook to us.
Isn’t that part of what it means to be a Christian? I.e. to love others means to ensure that where we would wish to be loved in such a way they would also experience it lovingly as well?
It’s not good telling someone you’re being charitable when they experience something different. They just perceive a lie and it immediately undoes any good you’re trying to do.
Isn’t that part of what it means to be a Christian? I.e. to love others means to ensure that where we would wish to be loved in such a way they would also experience it lovingly as well?
It’s not good telling someone you’re being charitable when they experience something different. They just perceive a lie and it immediately undoes any good you’re trying to do.
- Status