An example of where all three, Secularism, Individualism, and Relativism have come together is in the most important of human endeavors, procreation. Here are a few observations in relationship to the Natural Law.
Procreative contraception was never considered objectively valid, in other words, objectively morally right, by any Christian sect until 1930. What contraception does is separates the unitive from the procreative elements of sex. It gives man, pejoratively speaking, the attributes of becoming his own “god”. How? By giving him the ability to determine when “a life is or is not worth living”. Contraception frustrates the total self donation that is supposed to characterize the conjugal act, and for that matter, marriage. People separate themselves through contraception in a time when the purpose should be to unify. I will give up myself except for my fertility, or my goods (pre-nup), or in my case my 1970 VW Bus. Sex is reserved for marriage. Remember that metaphorical automobile manual? Sex, very simply, is reserved for marriage because of babies. Marriage is permanent because sex has something to do with babies. Why is it that any noted psychologist or psychiatrist talks about the incredible value of the nuclear family, a father, mother, and child? In relationship to each other? Is it because each component needs the other to ‘function properly’, both in respect to the present as well as the future? Is the family not the basic building block of all societies? Security, selflessness, the feeling of self worth, of being valuable, and ultimately loved is that “oil” which allows not only that unit to function properly but also directs each person within that unit towards happiness, peace and growth as an individual. Is not society a reflection of that nuclear unit? When we have over a fifty percent divorce rate in this country are there not effects that can obviously be seen from perpetuating divorce, of having children out of wedlock, absentee fathers, mothers that don’t understand how to be a mother? Because their mother did not understand how to be a mother? It is a perpetuating philosophy and system that spirals downward and ultimately out of control. And from that society becomes broken, sometimes irreparably.
Epistemology is the science of knowing. Descartes said that the only thing a person can know is his own idea. Aquinas, on the other hand, said that an idea is by which we know the outside world. All knowledge comes through the senses. Aquinas also wrote that the intellect has an active and passive component but the second aspect of intellect is judgment. Judgment is based on information received by the senses.
Descartes entire philosophy rests on relativism. If one can only know one’s own idea, then everything, everyone else’s thoughts, ideas, processes are relative. They can be acquired or dismissed subjectively and totally based on one’s own ideas. There is no objective truth.
The first act of the intellect is the act of forming the idea. The second is judgment. The third is reasoning. The Natural Law is part of the recovery of reason. John Paul II said, and he stole it from Aquinas (and Aquinas stole it basically from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle---something about “there is nothing new under the son”), that in order for man to ascend to truth he has two wings to fly on—one being reason, the other faith. Is the Natural Law objective truth? Is there a “nature” to human beings? The Natural Law is the story of how things work—including human beings. And where do we get the natural law? From the Law Giver.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
An Open Letter in response to Archbishop Quinn
An Open letter to Archbishop Quinn
You Eminence:
I read your letter of August 31, 2009 which was intended originally for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. You were correct in your opening statement which was intended for the June meeting of the American Bishops in that you said, “The right to life is a paramount and pre-eminent moral issue of our time.” All social justice stems from the right to life, for if you do not have ‘life’ you have nothing else—including social justice.
You are also correct in that there is no disagreement “…within this conference about the moral evil of abortion, it’s assault upon the dignity of the human person, or the moral imperative of enacting laws that prohibit abortion in American society”. But your folly begins to ascend when you make the statement “The bishops’ voice has been most credible in the cause of life when we have addressed this issue (abortion) as witnesses and teachers of a great moral tradition, and not as actors in the political arena.” You continue that folly with the statement, “…Republican candidates are, in general, more supportive of the church’s position on abortion and euthanasia, while Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace.” Why are those statements folly? First, because you, whether you believe it or not, want to or not, become “actors” in the political arena. By stating publicly with clarity why abortion is evil you are considered to be those ‘actors’ by every group from NARAL to Planned Parenthood to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. When you don’t state the truth with clarity, or you mask it completely, for whatever reason, you become shells, ‘actors’, for the faithful. Words do mean something. And by making the statement that the “Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace,” you make a mockery of truth, reason, logic, the Natural Law and self-sacrifice. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat. I find both parties lacking in so many respects. But if you’re going to make generalizations such as these then you need to be reminded of history. Speaking of social justice it was the GOP headed by Lincoln that ended slavery. Not the Democrats. Of world peace, it was a Democrat who was in power at the beginning and during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. It was a Republican who ended Vietnam. Hoover, FDR and Truman, the latter two being Democrats, who shipped more illegal immigrants out of this country than any other president. LBJ began the war on poverty in 1963 and the per capita for poverty has increased, according to the Heritage Foundation, consistently at the hands of government even after billions of tax money has been thrown at the “problem”. It is the National Democratic Party that has a platform of death, not just abortion, but in Oregon, euthanasia; the Republicans have a party platform of protecting life. The general philosophy for helping the poor and the downtrodden from the Republican perspective is to stimulate economic growth so that people can work—those who wish to work. For those who do not for legitimate reasons, need to be taken care of by people from a basis of subsidiarity, which as you know has been a Catholic philosophy for over a hundred and fifty years. When the government takes from those who produce, i.e. taxes, in order to fund what ‘they’ wish, they are stealing. There is not a whit of concern for that individual. The concern of this secular government, of all governments for that matter, is growing itself in power at the expense of freedom, of individual responsibility, and most importantly, Charity—the ability for the individual to choose ‘Charity’ as part of his or her commitment to Christ. Forced ‘charity’ is not charity at all. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard before or after Mass that an individual is not giving to a particular charitable cause because the government is now doing that for them. Your Eminence, if you want to build a socially just and charitable society, you must build it from the ground up, not the top down. Christ did not begin with Caesar. In an instance, it seems to me, that’s exactly what you are proposing and calling for.
Why are you even concerned about how people perceive you? You need to speak the ‘truth’. Your comment “The bishops are believed to communicate that for all the promise the Obama administration has on issues of health care, immigration reform, global poverty and war and peace, the leadership of the church in the United States has strategically tilted in favor of an ongoing alliance with the Republican Party. A sign of this stance is seen to be the adoption of a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of engagement with the Obama administration.” My question to you, your Eminence, is would you have had a policy of engagement with Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, knowing what you know about them now? Well, you do know what Obama’s philosophy is on abortion—as being the most radical of any president to take the Oval Office. But what about closer to home? Nancy Pelosi claiming to be a Catholic and claiming that she knows the Church’s teaching on abortion because she’s read Augustine? Or Biden, or Dodd, or especially Kennedy? HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, who is radically for abortion including what is called infanticide and whose candidacy for governor was supported by the only late term abortionist in the country? There is no transcendency with evil, your Eminence. You speak the ‘truth’ and you will suffer for it. By merely speaking the truth you will draw confrontation to you.
When you make the statement, “The approach of the Holy See might justly be characterized as a policy of cordiality” you don’t even know your own history. Before Benedict became Pope he was Cardinal Ratzinger and called for any individual in office who considered to be supporting the ‘right’ to abortion to be refused the Sacrament of Communion. Other than outright ex-communication that’s about as confrontational as it gets.
You place all forms and formats of irrationality within your scope. You equate what went on at Notre Dame, your quote, “….the spirited condemnation of the president’s visit and degree at Notre Dame last May have reinforced for many African-American Catholics those feelings of hurt and alienation. It is not that African-American Catholics do not understand that the church must oppose abortion, or that they themselves personally believe that the bishops are acting out of racist motivations. It is rather that when the church embraces a new level of confrontation when an African-American is involved, this readily raises widespread questions about our racial sensitivity. And these questions will only continue to be raised more forcefully if we continue to walk down the path of confrontation with this administration.” more important than proclaiming the ‘truth’ that over forty million pre-born children have died since 1973.
I suggest to you strongly that by making statements or insinuating that racial sensitivity is more important than speaking the ‘truth’ boldly only alienates and confuses the ‘faithful’, those who are truly trying to follow the Magesterium of the Church. The Church today has less credibility than ever because of the sexual scandals it has wrought on itself. Your American Catholic Bishops, with their continuation of taking not only the government’s money but also that of the Church’s faithful to support operations like Acorn just adds to the lack of trust. And when you make such erroneous statements, as you have done throughout your piece, I cry for Pilgrim Church.
As St. Francis of Assisi did, although this writer is of no comparison with that great Saint, with a priest he had gently chastised several hundred years ago, I too will gladly kneel and kiss your ring and hands. For your hands still hold the power to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Christ Jesus.
You Eminence:
I read your letter of August 31, 2009 which was intended originally for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. You were correct in your opening statement which was intended for the June meeting of the American Bishops in that you said, “The right to life is a paramount and pre-eminent moral issue of our time.” All social justice stems from the right to life, for if you do not have ‘life’ you have nothing else—including social justice.
You are also correct in that there is no disagreement “…within this conference about the moral evil of abortion, it’s assault upon the dignity of the human person, or the moral imperative of enacting laws that prohibit abortion in American society”. But your folly begins to ascend when you make the statement “The bishops’ voice has been most credible in the cause of life when we have addressed this issue (abortion) as witnesses and teachers of a great moral tradition, and not as actors in the political arena.” You continue that folly with the statement, “…Republican candidates are, in general, more supportive of the church’s position on abortion and euthanasia, while Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace.” Why are those statements folly? First, because you, whether you believe it or not, want to or not, become “actors” in the political arena. By stating publicly with clarity why abortion is evil you are considered to be those ‘actors’ by every group from NARAL to Planned Parenthood to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. When you don’t state the truth with clarity, or you mask it completely, for whatever reason, you become shells, ‘actors’, for the faithful. Words do mean something. And by making the statement that the “Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace,” you make a mockery of truth, reason, logic, the Natural Law and self-sacrifice. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat. I find both parties lacking in so many respects. But if you’re going to make generalizations such as these then you need to be reminded of history. Speaking of social justice it was the GOP headed by Lincoln that ended slavery. Not the Democrats. Of world peace, it was a Democrat who was in power at the beginning and during the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War and Vietnam. It was a Republican who ended Vietnam. Hoover, FDR and Truman, the latter two being Democrats, who shipped more illegal immigrants out of this country than any other president. LBJ began the war on poverty in 1963 and the per capita for poverty has increased, according to the Heritage Foundation, consistently at the hands of government even after billions of tax money has been thrown at the “problem”. It is the National Democratic Party that has a platform of death, not just abortion, but in Oregon, euthanasia; the Republicans have a party platform of protecting life. The general philosophy for helping the poor and the downtrodden from the Republican perspective is to stimulate economic growth so that people can work—those who wish to work. For those who do not for legitimate reasons, need to be taken care of by people from a basis of subsidiarity, which as you know has been a Catholic philosophy for over a hundred and fifty years. When the government takes from those who produce, i.e. taxes, in order to fund what ‘they’ wish, they are stealing. There is not a whit of concern for that individual. The concern of this secular government, of all governments for that matter, is growing itself in power at the expense of freedom, of individual responsibility, and most importantly, Charity—the ability for the individual to choose ‘Charity’ as part of his or her commitment to Christ. Forced ‘charity’ is not charity at all. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard before or after Mass that an individual is not giving to a particular charitable cause because the government is now doing that for them. Your Eminence, if you want to build a socially just and charitable society, you must build it from the ground up, not the top down. Christ did not begin with Caesar. In an instance, it seems to me, that’s exactly what you are proposing and calling for.
Why are you even concerned about how people perceive you? You need to speak the ‘truth’. Your comment “The bishops are believed to communicate that for all the promise the Obama administration has on issues of health care, immigration reform, global poverty and war and peace, the leadership of the church in the United States has strategically tilted in favor of an ongoing alliance with the Republican Party. A sign of this stance is seen to be the adoption of a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of engagement with the Obama administration.” My question to you, your Eminence, is would you have had a policy of engagement with Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, knowing what you know about them now? Well, you do know what Obama’s philosophy is on abortion—as being the most radical of any president to take the Oval Office. But what about closer to home? Nancy Pelosi claiming to be a Catholic and claiming that she knows the Church’s teaching on abortion because she’s read Augustine? Or Biden, or Dodd, or especially Kennedy? HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic, who is radically for abortion including what is called infanticide and whose candidacy for governor was supported by the only late term abortionist in the country? There is no transcendency with evil, your Eminence. You speak the ‘truth’ and you will suffer for it. By merely speaking the truth you will draw confrontation to you.
When you make the statement, “The approach of the Holy See might justly be characterized as a policy of cordiality” you don’t even know your own history. Before Benedict became Pope he was Cardinal Ratzinger and called for any individual in office who considered to be supporting the ‘right’ to abortion to be refused the Sacrament of Communion. Other than outright ex-communication that’s about as confrontational as it gets.
You place all forms and formats of irrationality within your scope. You equate what went on at Notre Dame, your quote, “….the spirited condemnation of the president’s visit and degree at Notre Dame last May have reinforced for many African-American Catholics those feelings of hurt and alienation. It is not that African-American Catholics do not understand that the church must oppose abortion, or that they themselves personally believe that the bishops are acting out of racist motivations. It is rather that when the church embraces a new level of confrontation when an African-American is involved, this readily raises widespread questions about our racial sensitivity. And these questions will only continue to be raised more forcefully if we continue to walk down the path of confrontation with this administration.” more important than proclaiming the ‘truth’ that over forty million pre-born children have died since 1973.
I suggest to you strongly that by making statements or insinuating that racial sensitivity is more important than speaking the ‘truth’ boldly only alienates and confuses the ‘faithful’, those who are truly trying to follow the Magesterium of the Church. The Church today has less credibility than ever because of the sexual scandals it has wrought on itself. Your American Catholic Bishops, with their continuation of taking not only the government’s money but also that of the Church’s faithful to support operations like Acorn just adds to the lack of trust. And when you make such erroneous statements, as you have done throughout your piece, I cry for Pilgrim Church.
As St. Francis of Assisi did, although this writer is of no comparison with that great Saint, with a priest he had gently chastised several hundred years ago, I too will gladly kneel and kiss your ring and hands. For your hands still hold the power to change simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Christ Jesus.
Essay/Letter from Archbishop Quinn
The Public Duty Of Bishops Lessons from the storm in South BendJohn_F. . Quinn I AUGUST 31, 2009the cover of America, the Catholic magazineditors’ note: Archbishop Quinn prepared these observations for consideration at the June meeting of the American bishops. Circumstances did not make that possible at the time. He has submitted them to America as a contribution to the debate on the role of bishops in dealing with public issues.The right to life is a paramount and pre-eminent moral issue of our time. The Catholic bishops have borne a consistent and prophetic witness to the truth that all other rights are anchored in the right to life. When Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. this conference was nearly alone among institutional voices pointing out the defects and dangers of this decision and calling for its reversal.Our witness to the sanctity of human life cannot diminish and our effort cannot cease. We must continue to enlist new vehicles of communication to highlight the grave moral evil inherent in abortion. We have to design effective and imaginative strategies to help people see that the choice for life is the most compassionate choice, And we have to speak with courtesy and clarity about why the protection of the unborn is a requirement of human rights and not their diminishment.There is no disagreement within this conference about the moral evil of abortion, its assault upon the dignity of the human person, or the moral imperative of enacting laws that prohibit abortion in American society.But there is deep and troubled disagreement among us on the issue of how we as bishops should witness concerning this most searing and volatile issue in American public life. And this disagreement has now become a serious and increasing impediment to our ability to teach effectively in our own community and in the wider American society.The bishops’ voice has been most credible in the cause of life when we have addressed this issue as witnesses and teachers of a great moral tradition, and not as actors in the political arena. Coming out of the Catholic moral tradition, this conference has defended human life in the context of the pursuit of justice, covering the whole continuum of life from its beginning in the mother’s womb to its natural end. The Second Vatican Council rightly described abortion and infanticide as “unspeakable crimes.” But the council did not stop there. In a coherent moral logic, the council exhorted bishops to be faithful to their duty of teaching and witnessing concerning “the most serious questions concerning the ownership, increase, and just distribution of material goods, peace and war, and brotherly relations among all countries” (“Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church,” No. 12). The more recent “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Lifl proposes an equally broad spectrum of concerns. This consistent focus over nearly 50 years, as well as the teaching of the popes, including Pope Benedict XVI, underline that neither the bishop nor the Catholic Church can confine itself to one single issue of concern in human society, If we proclaim that the right to life is necessary for the exercise of all other rights, then we must also address and defend those other rights as well. Consequently, the Catholic Church brings to the defense of life and the pursuit of justice in this world the vision of faith and a living hope that transcends the limitations of what can be accomplished in this world. This comprehensive and transcendent vision must provide the benchmark in weighing proposed pathways through the thicket of public policy choices that confront us. This traditional benchmark provides a challenge to us bishops today in evaluating our future approach to those who disagree with us on issues of fundamental importance.The dilemma that confronts us today is whether the church’s vision is best realized on the issue of abortion by focusing our witness on the clear moral teaching about abortion and public law, or whether it is preferable or obligatory to add to that teaching role the additional role of directly sanctioning public officials through sustained, personally focused criticism, the denial of honors or even excommunication.This dilemma has troubled us for many years now, but it has been crystallized in thc controversy over the decision of the University of Notre Dame to award an honorary degree in May of this year to the president of the United States This is the first time in the history of this conference that a large number of bishops of the United States have publicly condemned honoring a sitting president, and this condemnation has further ramifications due to the fact that this president is the first African-American to hold that high office.False MessagesThe case for sanctioning President Obama by declaring him ineligible to receive a Catholic university degree is rooted in a powerful truth: The president has supported virtually every proposed legal right to abortion in his public career, and abortion constitutes the pre-eminent moral issue in American government toda.Notwithstanding this fact, the case against a strategy of such sanctions and personal condemnations is rooted in a more fundamental truth: Such a strategy of condemnation undermines thc church’s transcendent role in the American political order. For the Obama controversy, in concert with a series of candidate-related condemnations during the 2008 election, has communicated several false and unintended messages to much of American society. There are four such messages that call for our serious consideration today.I. The message that the Catholic bishops of the United States function as partisan political actors in American life. The great tragedy of American politics from a Catholic perspective is that party structures in the United States bisect the social teachings of the church, thus making it impossible for most citizens to identify and vote for a candidate who adequately embraces the spectrum of Catholic teaching on the common good. For instance, Republican candidates are, in general, more supportive of the church’s position on abortion and euthanasia, while Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace. For most of our history, the American bishops have assiduously sought to avoid being identified with either political party and have made a conscious effort to be seen as transcending party considerations in the formulation of their teachings. The condemnation of President Obama and the wider policy shift that represents signal to many thoughtful persons that the bishops have now come down firmly on the Republican side in American politics. The bishops are believed to communicate that for all the promise the Obama administration has on issues of health care, immigration reform, global poverty and war and peace, the leadership of the church in the United States has strategically tilted in favor of an ongoing alliance with the Republican Party. A sign of this stance is seen to be the adoption of a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of engagement with the Obama administration.Such a message is alienating to many in the Catholic community, especially those among the poor and the marginalized who feel that they do not have supportive representation within the Republican Party. The perception of partisanship on the part of the church is disturbing to many Catholics given the charge of Gaudium c Spes that the church must transcend every political structure and cannot sacrifice that transcendence, and the perception of transcendence, no matter how important the cause.2. The message that the bishops are rari/j’ing the “culture war mentality, which corrodes debate both in American politics and in the internal life of the church. Both poles of the American political spectrum see our society as enmeshed in a culture var over the issues of abortion, marriage, immigration rights and the death penalty. In such a war, they argue, the demonization of alternative viewpoints and of opposing leaders is not merely acceptable, but required. More intense tactics and language are automatically seen as more effective, as necessary and more in keeping with the importance of the issues being debated. The “culture war mentality” has also seeped into the life of the church, distorting the debate on vital issues and leading to campaigns against bishops for their efforts to proclaim the Gospel with charity’ rather than with affiagonism.The movement toward sanctions against public officials will be seen as ratil this trajectory in our political, cultural and ecelesial lil Whatever our intention may be, the acceptance and employment of a strategy that deliberately moves beyond teaching and pointing up the moral dimensions of public issues to labeling those with whom we disagree, will inevitably embolden those who dc-Christianize our public debate both within and outside the church.3. The message that the bishops are effective l ind rent to all grave evils other than abortion. Perhaps the most difficult task we face, as teachers on the moral dimensions of public policy in the United States today, is emphasizing the pre-emiiiencc of abortion as a moral issue while defending a holistic view oh’ the rights intrinsic to the deftnse of the dignity of the human person. This task of balancing arises not only in the formulation of our policy statements, but also in the steps we as bishops take to achieve justice in the political order. The pathway of sanctions and personal condemnation will open every bishop to the charge that if we do not use the tactic of sanctions and condemnations on issues such as war and peace or global poverty, we are tacitly relegating those issues to a level of unimportance. And it would indeed be difficult to explain how it is appropriate for a Catholic university to honor those who authorize torture or initiate an unjust war or cut assistance to the world’s poor. To assert on the one hand that the tactics of sanction and personal condemnation are legitimate tools for episcopal action in the public order. while on the other hand refusing to employ those tactics for any issue other than abortion will only deepen the suspicions of those in American society who believe that we bishops of the church in the United States are myopic in our approach to Catholic social teaching.4. The message that the bishops are insensitive to the heritage and the continuing existence of racism in America. The election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States in November 2008 was a unique and signal moment in the history of racial solidarity in the United States. L’Osservatore Romano compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. All over the world the election was hailed as ushering in a new chapter in the rejection of racial stereotypes and the enhancement of international relations. America Magazine - The Public Duty Of Bishops Page 4 of 4Yet here in the United States, there has been the perception that we bishops did not grasp the immense significance of the moment. African-American priests, religious and lay persons have related that they felt they had to mute their jubilation at the election of an African-American president, and that we bishops did not share their jubilation. Some have expressed deep hurt over this, precisely because they respect the bishops and they love the church.Added to this, the spirited condemnation of the president’s visit and degree at Notre Dame last May have reinforced for many African-American Catholics those feelings of hurt and alienation. It is not that African-American Catholics do not understand that the church must oppose abortion, or that they themselves personally believe that the bishops are acting out of racist motivations. It is rather that when the church embraces a new level of confrontation when an African-American is involved, this readily raises widespread qucstions about our racial sensitivity. And these questions will only continue to be raised more brccfully if we continue to walk down the path of confrontation with this administration,A Policy of CordialityAs we confront the admittedly difficult task of balancing the need to uphold the sanctity of human life while avoiding the enormously destructive consequences of the strategy of sanction and condemnation, we bishops could profitably look to the example of the l-loly See, which wrestles with these same complex issues of integrity of witness. fidelity to truth, civility in discourse, and political, national and racial sensitivities evcry day.The approach of the l-loL See might justly be characterized as a policy of cordiality. It proceeds from the conviction that the integrity of Catholic teaching can never be sacrificed. It reflects a deep desire to enshrine comity at the center of public discourse and relations with public officials. It is willing to speak the truth directly to earthly power.Yet the I-Iolv See shows great reluctance to publicly personalize disagreements with public officials on elements of church teaching. And the approach of the Holy See consistently favors engagement over confrontation. As Pope John Paul II put it, “The goal of the Church is to make of the adversary a brother.”These principles of cordiality will not make our task as bishops in the public square an easy one. But they do provide the best anchor for insuring that our actions and statements remain faithful to the comprehensive and transcendent mission of the church, our ultimate mandate. Much of this is summed up in the council’s decree on bishops, C’hristus Dotninus (No. 13):The Church has to be on speaking terms with the human society in which it lives. It is therefore the duty of bishops especially to make an approach to people. seeking and promoline dialog with them. If truth is constantly to be accompanied by charity and understanding by love, in such salutary discussions they should present their positions in clear language, unagrcssiveiy and diplomatically. Likewise they should show prudence combined with confidence, for this is what brings about union of minds by encouraging friendship.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Natural Law Part II
The Natural Law Part II November 4, 2009
What is the Natural Law? Again, according to Webster, the definition is, “rules of conduct supposedly inherent in the relations between human beings and discoverable by reason; law based upon man’s innate moral sense”. This is our ‘owner’s operating manual’ which was spoken of in the previous essay.
How do we know that humanity has known this from the beginning? Beyond the knowledge of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle writing about the Natural Law there are certain elements of all society and all cultures that adhere to this ‘Natural Law’. Through reason, again, we know that for everything created, there is a creator. Through man’s experience and reason we also know that everything created has a purpose and a function. That function can either work properly or not depending on the adherence to our ‘owner’s manual’, the Natural Law.
Within the past couple of decades or so several new and never seen before societies were discovered in both South America and in the Pacific (This harks back to that Stan Freeberg gag about Columbus showing up on the beach, meeting an Indian chief and telling the chief that he, Christopher Columbus, had discovered him. The chief, a little indignant retorted, ‘what you mean you discover us?…we discover you. ‘How’s that Chief? asked Columbus. ‘….well, we discovered you on beach here. It’s all how you look at it.). These small villages of people were living by a code. Surprising to the sociologists and anthropologists was the factor that each of these small communities were living by what we would consider a moral set of rules, a sort of universal code including the ‘commandment’ of no murder, no stealing, and interestingly enough a contract of marriage. None of these peoples had had any contact previously with the outside world.
What does this mean? That there is a ‘code’ that is somehow imprinted in our very being, that dictates to us, unlike anything in the remainder of the animal kingdom, a sense of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’? Do we now have an implosion going on where society can no longer recognize this ‘moral code’, a confusion of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ within community? Is there no longer an objective understanding of what is truth? Are we somehow today different then times past and suffering under the yoke of ‘moral relativism? And if so where did this philosophy and process come from and is it correct? What has happened to society, the world’s as well as ours, and why?
The breakdown of handing on morality from one generation to the next in regards to the modern era really had its beginnings in the Enlightenment Period of world history. We can trace the beginnings of relativism, secularism and individualism from the end of that period or the 18th century.
Secularism is that ‘ism’ which states there is no Creator, no God, no eternal being or ‘first cause’ according to Aquinas. Going back to the original essay in this series, every effect has a cause. This is self evident. I have encountered people who have argued that there was a time of absolute ‘nothingness’ in space and time. The response to that, through reason, is if there was a time of absolutely nothing then there could never be anything. Something cannot come from nothing.
Relativism purports that all things are relative; that you can’t know anything positively, that there is no objective truth or at least no way to come to objective truth. From there we come to, and more to our point, the concept of legal positivism which states since no one can know what objectively or ultimately is right or wrong then any law which is enacted is valid. Based on this assumption Hans Kelsen put forth the idea that then justice is an irrational ideal. It’s irrational because, according to him, justice cannot be known objectively. In other words, there is no ‘objective truth’. With this concept every two bit dictator, fascist, or group or law making body is correct in whatever law he, she or they put on the books and therefore the pseudo validity and the rise of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, the Politburo, Il Duce, Nancy Pelosi, etc.
The “ism” that is probably at the apex of the three or at least equal to the other two, in regards to the current generation, is Individualism. There is and has been a social philosophy, and in some ways a political philosophy, which makes the statement, mythical though it is, that the state of nature of all individuals is isolation, autonomous. Ultimately these individuals magically, somehow, come together to form a/the state. But in his/her very essence the human being is by nature, singular. Both Locke and Hobbes, in support of this philosophy, adhere to that by forming the concept that the state derives its authority horizontally, i.e. from individuals coming together and agreeing that they have the power as individuals to form a state. The problem that arises is obvious. What happens if one of the individuals does not agree to that state at some time or place? Doesn’t agree to the state’s principles? Wants out? Does he or she go form another state just as valid? Marriage, in this case, is a microcosm of that political state. If he doesn’t put the cap back on the toothpaste in the morning, is there validity enough for her to separate and go back to her original state of being—of that a singular entity? So the individual, with all power being derived from that individual, has no relationship other than what he/she “consents to” and therefore any relationship can be ended at the whims of the individual. The individual becomes his/her own god. Contrast that to Christ’s statement to Pilate, “…you have no authority, other than what has been given you….” The authority is vertical now and with many different consequences and implications.
What is the Natural Law? Again, according to Webster, the definition is, “rules of conduct supposedly inherent in the relations between human beings and discoverable by reason; law based upon man’s innate moral sense”. This is our ‘owner’s operating manual’ which was spoken of in the previous essay.
How do we know that humanity has known this from the beginning? Beyond the knowledge of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle writing about the Natural Law there are certain elements of all society and all cultures that adhere to this ‘Natural Law’. Through reason, again, we know that for everything created, there is a creator. Through man’s experience and reason we also know that everything created has a purpose and a function. That function can either work properly or not depending on the adherence to our ‘owner’s manual’, the Natural Law.
Within the past couple of decades or so several new and never seen before societies were discovered in both South America and in the Pacific (This harks back to that Stan Freeberg gag about Columbus showing up on the beach, meeting an Indian chief and telling the chief that he, Christopher Columbus, had discovered him. The chief, a little indignant retorted, ‘what you mean you discover us?…we discover you. ‘How’s that Chief? asked Columbus. ‘….well, we discovered you on beach here. It’s all how you look at it.). These small villages of people were living by a code. Surprising to the sociologists and anthropologists was the factor that each of these small communities were living by what we would consider a moral set of rules, a sort of universal code including the ‘commandment’ of no murder, no stealing, and interestingly enough a contract of marriage. None of these peoples had had any contact previously with the outside world.
What does this mean? That there is a ‘code’ that is somehow imprinted in our very being, that dictates to us, unlike anything in the remainder of the animal kingdom, a sense of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness’? Do we now have an implosion going on where society can no longer recognize this ‘moral code’, a confusion of what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’ within community? Is there no longer an objective understanding of what is truth? Are we somehow today different then times past and suffering under the yoke of ‘moral relativism? And if so where did this philosophy and process come from and is it correct? What has happened to society, the world’s as well as ours, and why?
The breakdown of handing on morality from one generation to the next in regards to the modern era really had its beginnings in the Enlightenment Period of world history. We can trace the beginnings of relativism, secularism and individualism from the end of that period or the 18th century.
Secularism is that ‘ism’ which states there is no Creator, no God, no eternal being or ‘first cause’ according to Aquinas. Going back to the original essay in this series, every effect has a cause. This is self evident. I have encountered people who have argued that there was a time of absolute ‘nothingness’ in space and time. The response to that, through reason, is if there was a time of absolutely nothing then there could never be anything. Something cannot come from nothing.
Relativism purports that all things are relative; that you can’t know anything positively, that there is no objective truth or at least no way to come to objective truth. From there we come to, and more to our point, the concept of legal positivism which states since no one can know what objectively or ultimately is right or wrong then any law which is enacted is valid. Based on this assumption Hans Kelsen put forth the idea that then justice is an irrational ideal. It’s irrational because, according to him, justice cannot be known objectively. In other words, there is no ‘objective truth’. With this concept every two bit dictator, fascist, or group or law making body is correct in whatever law he, she or they put on the books and therefore the pseudo validity and the rise of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, the Politburo, Il Duce, Nancy Pelosi, etc.
The “ism” that is probably at the apex of the three or at least equal to the other two, in regards to the current generation, is Individualism. There is and has been a social philosophy, and in some ways a political philosophy, which makes the statement, mythical though it is, that the state of nature of all individuals is isolation, autonomous. Ultimately these individuals magically, somehow, come together to form a/the state. But in his/her very essence the human being is by nature, singular. Both Locke and Hobbes, in support of this philosophy, adhere to that by forming the concept that the state derives its authority horizontally, i.e. from individuals coming together and agreeing that they have the power as individuals to form a state. The problem that arises is obvious. What happens if one of the individuals does not agree to that state at some time or place? Doesn’t agree to the state’s principles? Wants out? Does he or she go form another state just as valid? Marriage, in this case, is a microcosm of that political state. If he doesn’t put the cap back on the toothpaste in the morning, is there validity enough for her to separate and go back to her original state of being—of that a singular entity? So the individual, with all power being derived from that individual, has no relationship other than what he/she “consents to” and therefore any relationship can be ended at the whims of the individual. The individual becomes his/her own god. Contrast that to Christ’s statement to Pilate, “…you have no authority, other than what has been given you….” The authority is vertical now and with many different consequences and implications.
Monday, November 2, 2009
An Observation on Government 11/2/2009
"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. ... Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the 'new, wonderful good society' which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean 'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'" --Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)