Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: buwaya
“natural law” is (by adoption) a Catholic concept. We went through that quite thoroughly in high school. It has nothing to do, definitionally, or conceptually, with the “natural” in “natural born”.

I think it is more than just a Catholic concept. My recollection is that Samuel Rutherford was Presbyterian or something. John Locke started as a Calvinist.

The British had their own version of "natural law." To them, it was "natural" that the King would rule over other men, and that he was chosen by God to perform that task, and disobedience to the King, was tantamount to disobedience to God.

Rule by "Divine Right."

This is a different foundation for their natural law than that which America adopted.

59 posted on 01/19/2024 6:03:54 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

They all started as Catholics, or their ancestors did, and the modern sense of it (natural law) comes straight through Aquinas, whom they probably read. Or they got it via someone else who got it via Aquinas.

“Divine right” is another matter. The Catholic view is in fact that “natural law” trumps “divine right”, as does, well, actual divinity. It is a limited concept and not part of any conception of “natural law”.


71 posted on 01/19/2024 6:18:47 PM PST by buwaya (Strategic imperatives )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson