Natural Law Today
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Natural Law Today as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,933
- Pages: 5
NATURAL LAW TODAY Outline: 1. Documents of the II Vatican Council which make definitive statements
2.
3.
4.
5.
regarding natural law: Dignitatis Humanae (DH) #3 Gaudium et Spes (GS) #16 Based on these statements, there is what is called “common morality of humankind.” Such morality is the basis of addressing the social encyclicals to “all people of goodwill.” As the natural law is defined as the participation of rational creature in the eternal law of God… by means of his reason he discovers moral truths that will guide his choices and actions. These moral truths are rooted in the being of the human person and the constitutive elements of human nature. DH #14 GS #51 “What is demanded by natural law is imprinted in human nature.” It answers the question what is the source of moral truths. The controversy: “What is human nature?” the principles and norms of morality are derived from the natural inclinations, physical operations and biological processes as nature has endowed the human person. (position taken by the magisterium) This is what is called physicalism or biologism. (revisionist position) - the origin of moral absolutes and intrinsically evil acts (Moral absolutes are norms which prohibit certain kinds of actions because they are intrinsically evil, e.i., they go against nature) - the controversy is centered on sexual ethics and bioethcs - two schools of thought: - one representing the natural law tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas with its leading moral theologians in the person of Grisez, Finnis, Boyle and May and the other called the Revisionists represented by Richard McCormick, Josef fuchs, Louis Janssens. In response to the controversy: Veritatis Splendor
Natural moral law today
1|Page
Content: 1. There are two statements from the documents of the II Vatican Council
which have obvious reference to natural law, namely:: a) Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty) b) Gaudium Et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. DH #3;: “…the highest norm of human life is the divine law itself – eternal. objective, universal, by which God orders, directs, and governs the whole world and the ways of the human community according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has enabled man to participate in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of divine providence, many will be able to arrive at a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth.” GS #16: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice ever calling him to love and to do what is good and avoid what is evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.” 2. In a very positive sense, the implications of these statements constitute the
foundation of what is called “common morality of humankind.” Gaudium Et Spes clearly affirms that such a morality can be established: “Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solutions to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.” (GS 16) By appealing to natural law the Church can come forward with moral teaching which is acceptable not only to Catholic faithful, specifically, or to other non-Catholic Christians, in general, but even to non-Christians. Such is the case of the landmark social encyclical “Pacem in Terris” which was the first encyclical to be addressed to “all people of goodwill.” The doctrine on natural law is solidly grounded on the recognition of the ability of every human person to discover through the reflection of reason the demands of the moral order. This is the basis of the solidarity of humankind in the promotion and defense of universal values such as peace, justice, human dignity and rights and others. Thus the magisterium has used natural law arguments in many of its teaching on moral matters so that such teachings may have a universal acceptance not only within the Church but outside of it. This is the case on the teaching of the Church regarding social issues and the social order. An example of this are the social encyclicals. However such is not the case Natural moral law today
2|Page
regarding teaching in sexual ethics and conjugal ethics (and even perhaps with bioethics). (no universal acceptance) Many of the disputes and controversies between the teaching authority of the church and moral theologians revolve around these areas. An example of this is the encyclical Humanae Vitae which provoked dissension to the teaching authority of the Church. The question is WHY? Why is it that there are question is in the field of sexual ethics and conjugal or bioethics? 3. To answer the question let us again return to the definition of natural law of
St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologiae, defined natural law “as the participation of the rational creature in the eternal law of God.” This means that by means of his reason, the person discovers moral truths that will guide his choices and actions. These moral truths are rooted in the being of the person and the constitutive elements of human nature. In other words, moral truths are imprinted in human nature and the person discovers this through the reflection of reason on human nature. What is demanded by natural law is in human nature. The documents of the II Vatican Council I cited, Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes clearly indicate this: DH # 14: “…to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself. GS # 51: “…the objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action…” So the critical point of discussion which has divided moral theologians is the understanding of what human nature is as the source of moral norms. This problem of understanding is very complex which I dare not touch in this presentation. But let me put it simply that those who follow St. Thomas Aquinas will accept that human nature refers to those natural inclinations, including the physical operations and biological processes, endowed by God to the person that protect and promote his good. These inclinations as apprehended by reason are directed toward particular goods and based on these goods we draw moral norms.
Natural moral law today
3|Page
-
Ex: man has a natural tendency to preserve and promote life this natural inclination point to a particular good, the good of life. From this good we draw a moral principle “life must be respected.” Then from this principle we enunciate a moral norm “do not kill.” Thus a norm becomes an expression of a particular good of the human person rooted in his natural inclinations.
Thus anyone who frustrates the natural course of the operations of what God has designed for nature so that a particular human good is attained or whoever uses a natural faculty outside what is designed for by nature, acts against nature itself thus commits something immoral. Ultimately, he violates the order established by God, the author of nature. This particular understanding of what human nature runs through magisterial pronouncements regarding sexual ethics and conjugal ethics. To cite an example taken from Persona Humana, the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, it has this to say : “The main reason that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty.” `
Since human nature has been designed to attain its proper ends, any action that hinders or deviates towards the attainment of these ends are considered intrinsically evil acts and therefore their prohibition is absolute. Thus this understanding of natural law as imprinted in human nature also gave rise to the interrelated concepts of intrinsically evil acts and moral absolutes.
In reaction, however, this understanding has been criticized as reducing natural law to physicalism or biologism. Physicalism refers to the tendency in moral analysis to emphasize or even to absolutize, the physical and biological aspects of the human person and human actions independent of reason and freedom. A group of theologians known as “Revisionists” have come up with their own interpretation of natural law by saying that it is not human nature which becomes the source of moral norms but it is reason itself reflecting on human experience. So today there are two strains of natural law interpretation. One is the interpretation of natural law which takes human nature as the source of moral norms and the other is the interpretation that designates reason not human nature as the source of moral norms. (Richard Gula p.238ff.) (The former is about the natural inclinations, physical operations and biological process, while the latter is the freedom of human reason to reflect on human experience.) Natural moral law today
4|Page
From the Revisionist point of view, “Natural law is reason reflecting on human experience discovering moral value.” (Gulla 241) This framework emphasizes the freedom of the individual expressed in the capacity of reason to reflect on the moral truths of human experience to determine the meaning of his behavior. It assumes that morality is based on reality and that we come to know morality through human experience. It is worth noting that that revisitionist considers the following as the key features of natural law: real, experiential, consequential, historical, proportional and personal. (Gulla 241-246) Following the criticism of Veritatis Splenodour against the revisionist In their view, man, as a rational being, not only can but actually must freely determine the meaning of his behaviour. This process of "determining the meaning" would obviously have to take into account the many limitations of the human being, as existing in a body and in history. Furthermore, it would have to take into consideration the behavioural models and the meanings which the latter acquire in any given culture. Above all, it would have to respect the fundamental commandment of love of God and neighbour. Still, they continue, God made man as a rationally free being; he left him "in the power of his own counsel" and he expects him to shape his life in a personal and rational way. (VS 47) Conclusion: From what has been said, natural law today is not a settled theological question but a subject of controversy among moral theologians and between the magisterium and those dissenting to its authority. However to set forth authoritatively what is the official teaching of the church regarding moral matters, John Paul II came out with the encyclical Veritatis Splendor which addressed wide ranging disputes in catholic moral theology. John Paul II categorically asserts that “this moral theory does not correspond to the truth about man and his freedom.” (VS 48) In regard to the objection of the revisionist regarding the interpretation of natural law as physicalism or biologism, John Paul II stated that the human person is a unity of body and soul which means to say the as a bodily being the natural inclinations, bodily faculties and operations, and biological processes are not merely indicative of something that is purely physical but also of the nature of the human person in his totality, and not merely as a bodily being. His bodily characteristics become a medium of what it means to be fully human. VS 47, 48, 49 and 53, william may, 276-279 Natural moral law today
5|Page
2.
3.
4.
5.
regarding natural law: Dignitatis Humanae (DH) #3 Gaudium et Spes (GS) #16 Based on these statements, there is what is called “common morality of humankind.” Such morality is the basis of addressing the social encyclicals to “all people of goodwill.” As the natural law is defined as the participation of rational creature in the eternal law of God… by means of his reason he discovers moral truths that will guide his choices and actions. These moral truths are rooted in the being of the human person and the constitutive elements of human nature. DH #14 GS #51 “What is demanded by natural law is imprinted in human nature.” It answers the question what is the source of moral truths. The controversy: “What is human nature?” the principles and norms of morality are derived from the natural inclinations, physical operations and biological processes as nature has endowed the human person. (position taken by the magisterium) This is what is called physicalism or biologism. (revisionist position) - the origin of moral absolutes and intrinsically evil acts (Moral absolutes are norms which prohibit certain kinds of actions because they are intrinsically evil, e.i., they go against nature) - the controversy is centered on sexual ethics and bioethcs - two schools of thought: - one representing the natural law tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas with its leading moral theologians in the person of Grisez, Finnis, Boyle and May and the other called the Revisionists represented by Richard McCormick, Josef fuchs, Louis Janssens. In response to the controversy: Veritatis Splendor
Natural moral law today
1|Page
Content: 1. There are two statements from the documents of the II Vatican Council
which have obvious reference to natural law, namely:: a) Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty) b) Gaudium Et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. DH #3;: “…the highest norm of human life is the divine law itself – eternal. objective, universal, by which God orders, directs, and governs the whole world and the ways of the human community according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has enabled man to participate in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of divine providence, many will be able to arrive at a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth.” GS #16: “Deep within his conscience man discovers a law he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice ever calling him to love and to do what is good and avoid what is evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.” 2. In a very positive sense, the implications of these statements constitute the
foundation of what is called “common morality of humankind.” Gaudium Et Spes clearly affirms that such a morality can be established: “Through loyalty to conscience Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solutions to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.” (GS 16) By appealing to natural law the Church can come forward with moral teaching which is acceptable not only to Catholic faithful, specifically, or to other non-Catholic Christians, in general, but even to non-Christians. Such is the case of the landmark social encyclical “Pacem in Terris” which was the first encyclical to be addressed to “all people of goodwill.” The doctrine on natural law is solidly grounded on the recognition of the ability of every human person to discover through the reflection of reason the demands of the moral order. This is the basis of the solidarity of humankind in the promotion and defense of universal values such as peace, justice, human dignity and rights and others. Thus the magisterium has used natural law arguments in many of its teaching on moral matters so that such teachings may have a universal acceptance not only within the Church but outside of it. This is the case on the teaching of the Church regarding social issues and the social order. An example of this are the social encyclicals. However such is not the case Natural moral law today
2|Page
regarding teaching in sexual ethics and conjugal ethics (and even perhaps with bioethics). (no universal acceptance) Many of the disputes and controversies between the teaching authority of the church and moral theologians revolve around these areas. An example of this is the encyclical Humanae Vitae which provoked dissension to the teaching authority of the Church. The question is WHY? Why is it that there are question is in the field of sexual ethics and conjugal or bioethics? 3. To answer the question let us again return to the definition of natural law of
St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas, in his Summa Theologiae, defined natural law “as the participation of the rational creature in the eternal law of God.” This means that by means of his reason, the person discovers moral truths that will guide his choices and actions. These moral truths are rooted in the being of the person and the constitutive elements of human nature. In other words, moral truths are imprinted in human nature and the person discovers this through the reflection of reason on human nature. What is demanded by natural law is in human nature. The documents of the II Vatican Council I cited, Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes clearly indicate this: DH # 14: “…to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature itself. GS # 51: “…the objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and human action…” So the critical point of discussion which has divided moral theologians is the understanding of what human nature is as the source of moral norms. This problem of understanding is very complex which I dare not touch in this presentation. But let me put it simply that those who follow St. Thomas Aquinas will accept that human nature refers to those natural inclinations, including the physical operations and biological processes, endowed by God to the person that protect and promote his good. These inclinations as apprehended by reason are directed toward particular goods and based on these goods we draw moral norms.
Natural moral law today
3|Page
-
Ex: man has a natural tendency to preserve and promote life this natural inclination point to a particular good, the good of life. From this good we draw a moral principle “life must be respected.” Then from this principle we enunciate a moral norm “do not kill.” Thus a norm becomes an expression of a particular good of the human person rooted in his natural inclinations.
Thus anyone who frustrates the natural course of the operations of what God has designed for nature so that a particular human good is attained or whoever uses a natural faculty outside what is designed for by nature, acts against nature itself thus commits something immoral. Ultimately, he violates the order established by God, the author of nature. This particular understanding of what human nature runs through magisterial pronouncements regarding sexual ethics and conjugal ethics. To cite an example taken from Persona Humana, the Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, it has this to say : “The main reason that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty.” `
Since human nature has been designed to attain its proper ends, any action that hinders or deviates towards the attainment of these ends are considered intrinsically evil acts and therefore their prohibition is absolute. Thus this understanding of natural law as imprinted in human nature also gave rise to the interrelated concepts of intrinsically evil acts and moral absolutes.
In reaction, however, this understanding has been criticized as reducing natural law to physicalism or biologism. Physicalism refers to the tendency in moral analysis to emphasize or even to absolutize, the physical and biological aspects of the human person and human actions independent of reason and freedom. A group of theologians known as “Revisionists” have come up with their own interpretation of natural law by saying that it is not human nature which becomes the source of moral norms but it is reason itself reflecting on human experience. So today there are two strains of natural law interpretation. One is the interpretation of natural law which takes human nature as the source of moral norms and the other is the interpretation that designates reason not human nature as the source of moral norms. (Richard Gula p.238ff.) (The former is about the natural inclinations, physical operations and biological process, while the latter is the freedom of human reason to reflect on human experience.) Natural moral law today
4|Page
From the Revisionist point of view, “Natural law is reason reflecting on human experience discovering moral value.” (Gulla 241) This framework emphasizes the freedom of the individual expressed in the capacity of reason to reflect on the moral truths of human experience to determine the meaning of his behavior. It assumes that morality is based on reality and that we come to know morality through human experience. It is worth noting that that revisitionist considers the following as the key features of natural law: real, experiential, consequential, historical, proportional and personal. (Gulla 241-246) Following the criticism of Veritatis Splenodour against the revisionist In their view, man, as a rational being, not only can but actually must freely determine the meaning of his behaviour. This process of "determining the meaning" would obviously have to take into account the many limitations of the human being, as existing in a body and in history. Furthermore, it would have to take into consideration the behavioural models and the meanings which the latter acquire in any given culture. Above all, it would have to respect the fundamental commandment of love of God and neighbour. Still, they continue, God made man as a rationally free being; he left him "in the power of his own counsel" and he expects him to shape his life in a personal and rational way. (VS 47) Conclusion: From what has been said, natural law today is not a settled theological question but a subject of controversy among moral theologians and between the magisterium and those dissenting to its authority. However to set forth authoritatively what is the official teaching of the church regarding moral matters, John Paul II came out with the encyclical Veritatis Splendor which addressed wide ranging disputes in catholic moral theology. John Paul II categorically asserts that “this moral theory does not correspond to the truth about man and his freedom.” (VS 48) In regard to the objection of the revisionist regarding the interpretation of natural law as physicalism or biologism, John Paul II stated that the human person is a unity of body and soul which means to say the as a bodily being the natural inclinations, bodily faculties and operations, and biological processes are not merely indicative of something that is purely physical but also of the nature of the human person in his totality, and not merely as a bodily being. His bodily characteristics become a medium of what it means to be fully human. VS 47, 48, 49 and 53, william may, 276-279 Natural moral law today
5|Page
Related Documents
Natural Law Today
October 2019 22
Natural Law Reconsidered
April 2020 26
Prisons Violate Natural Law
April 2020 29
Maritain And Natural Law
July 2019 47
Natural Law Of Stardom
October 2019 28