Posted on 09/02/2004 10:10:00 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
read later
That whole "truths to be self-evident" thing...
Natural law is certainly a concept the Angelican Church retained after it split from Rome. But I think perhaps you should review a couple of pieces before deciding the Founders were these great theistic philosphers:
A Catholic Response to Certain Myths of Civic Americanism (1997) Is the individual all-important? Is civil society an invention of human convenience? Are all men created equal? Is freedom the great political objective, and tyranny the thing to be feared most in life? Is religious liberty really a good idea? Is America a Christian nation? Was the French Revolution that different from our own? We answer these and other questions in a way you’ve perhaps never seen before. More importantly, we trust that we answer them correctly.
http://www.charlesdenunzio.com/myths.html
Which is actually just a chapter from the larger work:
Variations on a Theme, Op. 45 (1998) The situation of the Catholic Church in the United States we see today is a product of not only these last forty years, but rather has its genesis in the attitudes of English and American churchmen predating even Archbishop John Carroll — attitudes that permitted American Catholics to uncritically accept a cultural outlook that in theory always was, and now in practice has shown itself to be, vitiating and even destructive of their Faith. [The link leads to the main portal page for this manuscript, which was the eventual result of The Catholic Church & American Culture Project, the endeavor that inspired the very existence of this journal itself.
http://www.charlesdenunzio.com/op45/
The philsophical underpinings of the Constitution and Declaration are more in keeping with the dominant Protestant and Deist thought of the time, connected by the work of Hobbes and Locke.
Living under the Leviathan [Matthew M. Anger, 2002]: The extreme individualism of Hobbes and Locke (undergirding classical civic Americanism) has given way to the extreme egalitarianism of Rousseau (exemplified in Political Correctness), and no wonder: both strains of thought have crucial fundamentals in common. [Replaces “The Legacy of Hobbes and Locke,” posted here in 1996.]
http://www.charlesdenunzio.com/hobbes.html
This is what's missing, I think, in the discussions of why does our society keep sliding towards more and more collectivist organizations. It's also key to understanding moral relativism, which is of course the antithesis of natural law theory.
Understanding that the roots of Marx lie in the work of Locke, Hobbes and Protestantism is crucial. American "conservatives" that tout a return to the "vision of the founders" miss the whole point that what we have now is a natural outgrowth of their vision.
A key modern document of the Church, in refutation of relativism and affirmation of the natural law is Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth - Regarding Certain Fundamental Question of the Church's Moral Teaching) August 6, 1993
You can find it here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
This is an extensive document that the scholar should study at length, I'll only quote the stated purpose given for it's promulgation by John Paul II:
The purpose of the present Encyclical
4. At all times, but particularly in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted, passed judgment and explained. In their efforts on behalf of humanity, in fidelity to their mission, they have confirmed, supported and consoled. With the guarantee of assistance from the Spirit of truth they have contributed to a better understanding of moral demands in the areas of human sexuality, the family, and social, economic and political life. In the tradition of the Church and in the history of humanity, their teaching represents a constant deepening of knowledge with regard to morality.8
Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose values", in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.
We essentially find ourselves in an age where many, perhaps even the majority, take the position of Pontious Pilate when he cynically asks Christ "What is truth?"
The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about his business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. (Two Treatises on Civil Government)
In his 1998 encyclical “Faith and Reason” JP2 affirms the (Roman) Church’s relationship with reason:
“The Church remains profoundly convinced that faith and reason "mutually support each other"; (122) each influences the other, as they offer to each other a purifying critique and a stimulus to pursue the search for deeper understanding.”
He admits the relationship between faith and reason had strayed, and hence the encyclical to encourage theologians, priests, teachers and scientists to rekindle and encourage the study of philosophy with theology.
Bookmarked for reading tomorrow.
I know I agree with the premise. Truth is truth, regardless of one's religion or lack of it or whether a person "believes" in truth or not. God is the Father of all living beings whether they acknowledge Him or not, or call Him by one name or another.
Moral absolutes are basically the same in not only every monotheist religion (which includes Hinduism, in its foundational scriptures, the Vedas) and even non-monotheist philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism. Moral absolutes are the very foundation of human civilization and are not sectarian.
This looks very familiar to anyone who has visited the Claremont Institute's website. Claremont is perhaps the closest organization we get in our time to unapologetic defences of Americanism. They do use a lot of natural rights arguments. Its site can be accessed through this:
http://www.claremont.org
Oh, please!!! Thomas Aquinas was an Anglican?
The Greek word—yuxikoj—for natural man is used six times in the New Testament.
In I Corinthians 15:44, 46 reference is made to a psuchikos body, an organism adapted to the soul, in contrast to a pneumatikos body, an organism adapted to the spirit.
In 1Corinthians 2:14, James 3:15, and Jude 1:19 the whole self is in view or the 'natural man’ limitations are indicated by means of this terminology.
One of the designations used by Paul for the unregenerate indeed is to be found in this term (1 Cor. 2:14). They are described accordingly as unchanged from their original fallen and depraved state.
Distinctions must be drawn between the natural man and the spiritual as well as between the natural and the carnal. (See Flesh.)---Vol 7 Systematic Theology
IMHO, some additional distinction arises historically in discerning between the laws created by man for the governance of all men, regenerate and unregenerate, and the laws of the Church, applying to the regenerate. The natural law was more focused in the 15th through 19th centuries on discerning between these different groups of governed bodies.
Lord Acton also provided some letters to the Queen of England which alludes to this discernment in describing the meaning of the 'Separation of Church and State' many decades before such political enunciations in the colonies.
Law is a term used about 200 times in the Bible, meaning a rule which regulates human conduct. Six subdivisions of the Bible doctrine of law follow:
1. NATURAL, INHERENT, OR INTRINSIC. That which God requires of every creature because of His own character, as it is written: “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1: 16). This law was binding upon all, from Adam to Moses (cf. Gen. 26:5; Rom. 2:14-15; 5: 12-14).
2. PRESCRIBED BY MAN
3. By MOSES
4. REVEALED WILL OF GOD IN ANY FORM
5. MESSIANIC RULE OF LIFE FOR THE KINGDOM
6. OF CHRIST
I'm not sure what this dissertation on "Natural Man" has to do with Natural Law. Could you elaborate, since it is less than obvious to me?
With all due respects to the founding fathers, just because they may have thought Natural Law existed doesn't make it so. For many years the church also taught and believed that the world was flat using scriptures (wrongly I might add) to prove their case. They had to make some adjustments to their theology once it was proven that wasn't the case.
Thanks for the ping.
I believe that when God created the universe he included in the mix Natural Law, I believe all codified law comes from Natural law which gives stability to all things.
It is in effect our conscience, which if we let it, will aloow us to do the right thing.
Conscience cannot stand alone, because of original sin people tend towards evil acts, we will mis-use our gift of reason to rationalize and justify evil. A mal-formed conscience is worse than none at all for a man will follow it to Hell and all the while believe he is doing the right thing.
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
Right there lies the error of Protestantism
The prohibition of the taking of innocent life is but one example of a principle of natural law.
My point is without some clear guidance, our moral compass is skewed.
I take it you mean guidance clearer than human reasoning. I and most natural law theorists agree with this. Natural law is not a substitute for revelation, though with God's grace it can point the way to revelation. Both Budsizewski and another natural law theorist named Alisdair MacIntyre were lead to Christianity in part from their revulsion at the amoralism of Nietszche and Marxism, respectively. Their attempts at accounting for that revulsion led them to the Christian natural law tradition.
The cultural differences is apparent. How do you know the "civilized" folks are much more in tune to their Natural Law then the pirate folks? Just because you happen to agree with the civilized folks doesn't mean your Natural Law self isn't skewed as well.
Your skeptic pose is tiring me. Are you really willing to say that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between civilization and pirates? Are we really to be neutral between the fire brigade and the fire? If so, we'll have to say without qualification "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And my "agreement with the civilized folks" is no mere happenstance, it's come out of a lot of contemplation and prayer. Pirates don't do much of either.
As for how I know if my natural law reasoning is skewed, God so deigned to give us a couple of error-checkers in addition to my individual human reason: the thought of other men wiser than I, and the church, and the bishop of Rome. Thought, like salvation, has communal as well as individual aspects.
The Gnostic might have been right had not God given us His word.
It's strange you should say that. I would say the Gnostic might have been right had God really been the wicked demiurge they believed him to be.
While Moses was up on Mount Sinai and God was writing the tablets, the children of Israel (Aaron included who should have known better) was making golden calves, breaking the laws even as God was writing them-Ex 32. They didn't exhibit any Natural Law so why would you think we are any better then they and have an innate sense of Natural Law? God could have just said, "follow your conscience".
Why are you so sure the Israelites didn't have an innate sense of the natural law? Their sinfulness doesn't require ignorance. A man may have knowledge of mathematical laws, yet break them through a lapse of the mind or maliciousness of heart. This is not to say that the moral law is knowledge at the level of mathematical certainty, but the analogy holds.
This isn't about a Natural Law that mankind can and should aspire to. The law Paul talks about does not justify, it condemns.
Natural law is not about salvation, it's about knowledge. And knowledge in itself doesn't save. It's enough for me that St. Paul speaks of a law known even to the gentiles. As for other possible references to the natural law in St. Paul, I myself suspect that St. Paul's line in Ephesians 5 "For who hates his own flesh?" is a rhetorical question acknowledging the self-evident goodness of the body of oneself and one's spouse and the communion of those two bodies--in other words to a sort of natural law principle which can be reasoned from.
If there was Natural Law Paul would say "you who preach that one shall not steal, listen to your inner self."
Look, you are attacking a straw man of your own construction. St. Paul taught that one's "inner self" was fallen and had to be formed by God working through His church, body mind and soul. That's just what Christian natural law theorists believe.
I DID NOT SAY THAT.
sheesh...you make one statement and a world of fools mixes it up and tries to say you meant something else.
I said nothing about Thomas Aquinas. I said that my church, the Anglican Catholic Church appears to agree with the statement I singled out. Where the heck did you get that I was referring to Thomas Aquinas?! I suggest you look up the history of the Catholic Church in England. You might start here.
Touche...and glad to hear it. So does the Original Province of the Anglican Catholic Church.
I'm glad you bring it up, I'm not going to play the game of dueling atrocities but the anti-Catholic laws of England from the 16th Century onward are irrefutable, as it the reigns of terror of Elizabeth I, James I, Oliver Cromwell and others.
The Anglican hereasy has much to answer for spreading error around the globe
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm
Explain William the Conqueror before you send me on a wild goose chose of the 'Anglican heresies.' As far as I am concerned the ACC is the true catholic church.
The church never taught that the world was flat. The center of the universe, yes,(with qualification) but never flat. See The Myth of the Flat Earth
Thanks for the correction. This was indeed interesting. I wasn't sure if this might have been a little revisionist history but after looking through various sites it seems to confirm this. The atheists try to excuse early Greek (non-church) writings that said the earth was round in order to make it seem people believed the earth was flat. That's what I get for watching all those "B" rated Christopher Columbus movies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.