A Lament at the Secular World’s Rejection of Natural Law

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | July 19, 2012 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[NYer]

Missed this one ... Enjoy!

[Pollster1]

I miss the days when logical thought was valued in the public sphere.

[Telepathic Intruder]

The concept of right and wrong is quickly being replaced by what feels good and what doesn’t. The idea of a higher morality, one determined apart from our personal feelings, is considered outdated by the “enlightened” secularists, who believe we are nothing more than animals with no spiritual aspect. Ironic that they consider themselves so sophisticated and yet consider the highest purpose in life to eat, sleep, have sex, and then die.

[Natural Law]

"One of the great losses to Western Culture is the increasing refusal to accept that there is a Natural Law..."

Would it be terribly immodest of me to agree?

[SkyPilot]

I miss the days when logical thought was valued in the public sphere.

So do I.

This is what the Obama voters call "culture."

[EternalVigilance]

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture."

-- William Blackstone

[EternalVigilance]

"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith, and inconsistent with it. But all science, in fact, rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws - a thing which can never be demonstrated."

-- Tryon Edwards

[EternalVigilance]

The summation of the work of the Committees of Correspondence:

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. … it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

– Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (November 20, 1772)

[Ohioan]

To reject Natural Law is to reject the foundational premises of America. Since one of the premises of Natural Law is that man does in fact have Free Will, we can not deny the right of people to hide their 'head in the sands,' as it were. But, clearly, if you reject the concept of Natural Law, you reject the premises of American political societies, and ought to at least have the decency not to vote in any of our elections.

No, I am not being 'tongue in cheek.'

For an introduction into the dependence on Natural Law theories as to our political origins, see Declaration Of Independence With Study Guide.

Of course, if one truly rejects Natural Law, they not only disqualify themselves from intelligent participation in our political institutions; they render themselves unable to deal with the disciplines of chemistry, physics, biology, botany, etc., etc..

Come to think of it, didn't some humanists, who believed that man could reinvent reality, once try to build a tower to heaven?

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Ironic that they consider themselves so sophisticated

Considering the roots of the word, the better interpretation of "sophisticated," is to be heavily influenced by sophistry. Those whom you describe, correctly consider themselves to be heavily influenced by sophistry.

Further to the effect of my previous post, just above: America, as every nation with a history, was conceived (and dedicated) to multi-generational purpose. The reality of human existence inherently involves multi-generational purpose. One of the many absurdities of the Leftwing humanist effort to force the acceptance of mock marriage, today, is that the whole function of marriage is to sanctify the multi-genrational procreational family formation. Arguably, those advocating "same sex marriage," are either clinically insane, or close to it. But I do not want to spend band-with 'preaching to the choir.'

My apologies for the over-use of cliches. It has been a long week.

William Flax

[Salvation]

This was a good article!

[lastchance]

You need to read the comments at the site, it will explain why so many modernists are moral pygmies.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Well my week has just started. You know the real reason they try to break down traditional institutions such as marriage, religion, and America’s founding principals themselves? They think they can recreate the world in their own image. And for that, they must destroy whatever is currently taking its place. Like tearing down an old building to erect a new one. This is more in the back of their minds, however, not discussed in open meetings or in dark smoke-filled rooms. Everyone marches to a particular drum, whether they know it or not; and they don’t, for the most part. Lenin said to make an omelet, you must break a few eggs. The problem is, the egg-breaking never stops.

[Alex Murphy]

To reject Natural Law is to reject the foundational premises of America.

Oh, I sincerely doubt that.

[Heart-Rest]

"One of the great losses to Western Culture is the increasing refusal to accept that there is a Natural Law..."

"Would it be terribly immodest of me to agree?"

Well, not as long as you blush profusely and sincerely while you are doing the agreeing, Natural Law.

I'm also thinking that, even though you did not personally post this excellent lamentative article, it might be appropriate for you (and incumbent upon you) to post some kind of "Vanity Post" notice or disclaimer somewhere in this thread ...     :-)

[SeaHawkFan]

Bump for later.

[ravenwolf]

Romans 1:26-27

Romans ch 1

26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

---

The libs are trying to tell us that there is no such thing as nature, ( but the above scripture contradicts that )that we can be what ever they tell us to be.

Many people of faith agree with them as they will preach that we can deny our natural desires, people who can deny their natural desires could also do things that are not natural, just depends on what their teacher tells them.

Our nature will protect us if we let it and it can also get us in to trouble if we let it, but God made man what he did and he made woman what he did for good reason.

And any one who claims there are no difference is completely insane.

[albionin]

I agree with everything in the article about natural law and reason. What I don’t understand is why we need a book of supernatural revelations. If man’s mind is capable of reasoning the laws of nature on what basis can he believe in supernatural revelations or revelations from a realm outside of reality?

[Ohioan]

You may doubt, but how can you argue with The Declaration Of Independence, which justifies the sovereign independence of the original States, based upon Natural Law premises. These were carried forward in a Constitution, which deals functionally with realities of human nature, which the Founders clearly recognized as reflecting the Laws of Nature.

Actually, the very dedication in the Preamble, recognizing "Liberty" as a "Blessing," and their purpose as multi-generational, reflects Natural Law as providing the foundation for the sort of political societies that they sought.

William Flax