Comments for The Clarity and Specificity of Thomistic Natural Law at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 24 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 22 May 2013 14:49:02 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13989 Most people in academia are not very naturally intelligent so maybe that's why they hate natural law. But seriously I've noticed that these academics, philosophers especially, are indistinguishable from MBAs. It's the same Darwinistic death match for that number one spot and all the prizes: people caring at all what you have to say, overpaid tenure positions, jet setting with the international elite, etc. It's strange to me how, like with judges, humanity pretends these people are above base human behavior (like attacking something you know nothing about, because you've located it with the one extraordinary skill you have: determining how to gain the most by manufacturing that next exciting and self reassuring intellectual controversy leftist academia is dying for). - Jacob r Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:08:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13979 Ahem. And I quote from Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things, Feb. 2006 "From Ratzinger to Benedict": "Bishops who are assigned to dioceses participate in the direction of the universal Church by governing their own churches well, keeping them in communion with the Church Catholic. The synod of bishops, in Ratzinger's later theology, is no longer seen as a collegial organ or as a council in miniature; it is advisory to the pope as he performs his task. In so doing it makes the voice of the universal Church more clearly audible in the world of our day. A similar shift is apparent in Ratzinger's view of episcopal conferences, which he had earlier characterized as collegial organs with a true theological basis. But by 1986 he says: “We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis; they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.” It is difficult to deny that on episcopal conferences, as on the synod of bishops, the cardinal retracted his earlier positions." And: The Diocese of Lincoln wrote the following on 9/2/2011, "Bishops and Priests", in its Southern Nebraska Register: "In his 1986 book, "The Ratzinger Report", (published by Ignatius Press), the future Pope Benedict XVI spoke to the journalist, Vittorio Messori, at some length about what he saw as certain drawbacks deriving from excessive and exaggerated importance sometimes being attributed to national or regional Bishops’ Conferences and to their undertakings. He said, for instance, "It happens that with some Bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local (Bishops’) conference leads to letting what should remain very personal lapse into anonymity. The group of Bishops united in the conferences depends in their decisions upon other groups, as for example, upon commissions (committees) that have been established to prepare draft proposals. It happens then that the search for agreement between different tendencies and the effort at mediation often yield flattened documents in which decisive positions, where they might be necessary, are weakened." He then gave an example from the 1930’s in his native country of Germany. "Well, the really powerful documents against National Socialism (the Nazi doctrines) were those that came from individual courageous Bishops. The documents of the (Bishops’) Conference, on the contrary, were often rather wan and too weak with respect to what the tragedy called for." As I say, I stand with the pope. - Sue Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:32:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13966 I also meant to remark on the wonderful painting by Gozzoli! Where did you find it? - G.K. Thursday Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:29:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13965 @Sue As a famous guy once said, "there you go again." It's probably of little use to point out that only you bring up the idea of conflating the USCCB with anything. It is not the point of the Catechism passage quoted, nor "Apostolous Suos", nor the Code of Canon Law. It is your own idea, and no-one else's. The USCCB is not the Church, nor is it the College of Bishops. Nor is it anything else but itself. It is a canonical edifice established by the authority of the Code of Canon Law, and given approval by the Pope (that's why Cardinal Dolan has no authority over its existence). "Apostolous Suos" is very clear on the limits of the authority of a Bishops Conference, stipulating that only when it acts unanimously and in agreement with the Pope does it have teaching authority (AS 22). But when it does so, it teaches with authority. If you don't like that Sue, then you don't stand with either the Popes or your Bishop, since they both hold this under Canon Law. Moreover this motu proprio is more than a bureaucratic notice: it has binding force in Canon Law, first and foremost on the Bishops, but also on you as a subject of your Bishop. So go ahead and bash the USCCB, but know that it is canonically established and Papally-approved, and has genuine teaching authority within its narrow limits. I suggest that you have a chat sometime with a canon lawyer to become familiar with the wonderful reality of Roman Catholic Church Law. If you're like most folks, you probably have never even opened the Code, let alone studied it. - ib Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:33:56 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13964 Pope Benedict XVI points out that the phrase "God said" occurs ten times in the creation account in Genesis, and that the Ten Commandments--the Decalogue, the "ten words"--may be considered as an "echo of creation". In other words, they state truths that are built into the human person. I like the classical definition of natural law as the rational person's participation in divine law by which God moves all things toward their appointed end. - George Sim Johnston Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:56:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13963 Great post! - G.K. Thursday Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:48:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13961 Wonderful article defending the natural law. We need more of these. I read Griffith's article in FT 2009, and as I recall it was pretty much eviscerated by the critics (of which Dr. Kainz was one). I did not read the Selmys' artcle since I stopped reading NOR back in the 90s when it had degenerated into a haven for sede-vacantists and others along that line. Has it now become a left-leaning magazine? Gone from one extreme to the other? More's the pity. - G.K. Thursday Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:46:57 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13960 Thank you for referencing Apostolos Suos (AS), but it reads differently when you see it in detail. "His actions are strictly personal, not collegial, even when he has a sense of being in communion." AS II.10 "At the level of particular Churches grouped together by geographic areas (by countries, regions, etc.), the Bishops in charge do not exercise pastoral care jointly with collegial acts equal to those of the College of Bishops." AS II.10 "In fact, only the faithful entrusted to the pastoral care of a particular Bishop are required to accept his judgement given in the name of Christ in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a religious assent of soul." AS II.11 "Nonetheless, this territorially based exercise of the episcopal ministry never takes on the collegial nature proper to the actions of the order of Bishops as such, which alone holds the supreme power over the whole Church. In fact, the relationship between individual Bishops and the College of Bishops is quite different from their relationship to the bodies set up for the above-mentioned joint exercise of certain pastoral tasks." AS II.12 I stand with the Pope and my bishop and fully accept the Church's teachings. It is my understanding that I am not required to conflate USCCB with the Church. - Sue Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:29:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13959 His Eminence Cardinal Dolan cannot "implode" the Bishops Conference in the U.S. He does not have the authority to do that. Here's another quote from John Paul II's moto proprio "Apostolous Sous" for all those who remain ignorant of real Roman Catholic teaching (but are full of their own opinion, as true Protestants): 5. In 1966, Pope Paul VI, by the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Sanctae, called for Episcopal Conferences to be established wherever they did not yet exist; those already existing were to draw up proper statutes; and in cases where it was not possible to establish a Conference, the Bishops in question were to join already existing Episcopal Conferences; Episcopal Conferences comprising several nations or even international Episcopal Conferences could be established.(30) Several years later, in 1973, the Pastoral Directory for Bishops stated once again that “the Episcopal Conference is established as a contemporary means of contributing in a varied and fruitful way to the practice of collegiality. These Conferences admirably help to foster a spirit of communion with the Universal Church and among the different local Churches.(31) Finally, the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by me on January 25, 1983, established specific norms (Canons 447-459) regulating the objectives and the powers of Episcopal Conferences, as well as their erection, membership and functioning. Now get along you shadow-Protestants. Go start your own faith ... Just stop calling yourselves Roman Catholics if you don't really accept the teachings of the RC Church. - Ib Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:55:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13958 Let's just make one thing clear here: In Roman Catholic teaching the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. They alone have authority in the RC Church given to them by Jesus Christ. As the Catechism says: "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (CCC II.I.III.). Here's some facts: the USCCB is in communion with the successor of St Peter. So it is one means that the Bishops have to teach in all of the dioceses within its territory. And it IS authoritative within clearly established limits. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Apostolous Suos, "The Code of Canon Law establishes the fundamental norm in this regard: 'Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the Bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in Conferences of Bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own Bishops with a sense of religious respect (religioso animi obsequio)'.(79) To treat a Bishop (or Bishops) as if they were simply churchy bureaucrats is to adopt a fundamentally Protestant attitude. It is ironic that several commentators on this site, posing as "truest of the true Catholics" adopt the most pedestrian Protestantism much of the time to blast away at the Bishops. They should know that at best they are making what in philosophy is known as a "category mistake" and at worst are acting as vermin, chewing away at the foundations of the Holy Roman Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ and entrusted to the Apostles and their successors. If you don't like the Roman Catholic Church in all its reality, do us a favor: don't play the role of modern-day-Luther, just leave. - ib Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:57:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13957 It is not easy to criticise the Cardinal, it goes very much against the grain. (It is necessary, though I don't advocate insulting him.) That difficulty is what has protected the USCCB over the past many decades - the reluctance of ordinary Catholics to call out fifth column Marxists in USCCB from dismantling the Church in America. (Note I am not saying Cdl Dolan is such a Marxist but he may be an unwitting tool of them in his position as head of USCCB. It would subtract nothing from his ministry to implode USCCB and, simply, bishop his own archdiocese). The tenor of most Al Smith supporters appears no different than those supporting Notre Dame in its honoring of Obama. "Conversion requires engagement" platitudes ring very familiar. Could be lines from a speech by Fr. Hesburgh of Notre Dame (also pres. of Rockefeller Foundation btw) or Cardinal Bernardin, head of bishops' conference from way back. Or are they also to remain above reproach? - Sue Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:01:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13951 Athanasius, could not agree with you more. Easy to sit at a keyboard and condemn the President,, condemn (and insult) the Cardinal, condemn the USCCB, condemn the quality of the US episcopate, condemn Vatican II.....Much harder to do what Christ calls us to do: follow him and make disciples. That requires conversion. Conversion requires engagement with adversaries/enemies, prayer for them, hard work and patience. Perhaps discerning the root causes of "circumstantial ignorance." And one can do all of this without compromising faith or principle. It seems to me that Cardinal Dolan is about as faithful as they come. - DS Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:08:30 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13949 Dear Friend: I feel Athanasius" is correct.We can "keep the peace" and still disagree. Jack - Jack,CT Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:20:59 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13948 Thank you Manfred for that article reference. Al Smith IV is a perfect example of why we haven't even started to talk about the intrinsic evil conflicts of Romney. And further proof that USCCB is to be treated as authoritative as the Chinese govt puppet Patriotic Church. - Sue Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:46:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13947 Athanasius: The plot thickens! Jack Fowler of National Review Online asserts that Messrs. Robert Wright, John Zuccotti, Peter Kiernan III and AL SMITH IV, the chairman of the Dinner foundation, are well-heeled supporters of pro-abortion Democratic lawmakers. That clears it up doesn't it? Catholic Charities stand to gain $5 million TONIGHT. Abortion? Infanticide? Aberrosexual marriage? the Archdiocesan lawsuit against HHS? Who remembers? Thank you for your thoughtful comments. - Manfred Thu, 18 Oct 2012 06:29:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13945 Manfred, you are a good person and I enjoy many of your insights. But I believe you are mistaking Cardinal Dolan's invitation to Barack Obama as an implicit approval of his policies. I do not think this is the case. The Al Smith dinner has a tradition of inviting both presidential candidates. Since both will disagree on the issues, inviting both cannot logically imply approval of all positions of both. Anyone familiar with this dinner would not be confused by this, so it is not scandalous. Rather, I believe Cardinal Dolan is trying to keep the lines of communication open so that he can truly dialogue with members of both parties. Didn't our Lord eat dinner with sinners in hopes of enlightening them? Nothing Cardinal Dolan has said or written implies agreement with Obama's radical positions. Quite the opposite. But shouldn't we as Christians care for Obama's soul? You and I can only pray for him, but Cardinal Dolan can use his seat to actually dialogue with him. Will it work? Only God knows. But I believe part of the virtue of hope is for us to try. - Athanasius Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:17:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13944 @Martha Rice Martini: The last seven of the Ten Commandments, as St. Paul says in Romans, are contained in the natural law. But the natural law, as St. Thomas develops the philosophical implications, goes beyond the Decalogue. Arguably the most important natural law for rational beings, as St. Thomas says, is to seek the truth in the theoretical and practical orders. This is adumbrated a bit in the eighth commandment, but Aquinas brings it out more explicitly. - Howard Kainz Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:01:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13943 "Natural law for St. Thomas means obedience to the Ten Commandments" St. Thomas does not posit that the Natural Law is made up merely of the Decalogue. The Ten Commandments are Divine Law, which articulate the content of the Natural Law, but Natural Law, and knowledge of it, does not depend upon the promulgation of these or other specific commands. "This would have been a better piece if Dr Kainz bothered to explain just how those secondary principles follow from the first." Space limits exist even in cyberspace. I imagine one could find this out by reading the book. - Titus Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:42:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13941 Thank you for your scholarship, Howard. Unfortunately, the world has passed sentiments of this nature by. Tonight the Cdl. Abp. of New York/president of the USCCB will host Barack Hussein Obama at the Al Smith Dinner. Pres. Obama stands for abortion, infanticide, aberrosexual marriage and having HHS,led by catholic Sebelius, bully the Catholic Church. In the schizophrenic Church there are some who insist that NO practicing Catholic could vote for him. Yet Cdl Dolan will be there in his Halloween suit (I am sorry, but when he wears scarlet the martyr significance is completely lost) with his arm around Obama cracking jokes and sharing stories with him and Romney. Just another day in the office in a tightly run and expensive presidential campaign just days before the election. Can anyone name an offense that would prohibit a person from being invited to the Dinner? An anti-semitic slur? Use of the "N" word? Use of the "L" word? Public nudity? We are still trying to connect the words "Nature" and "Law"? - Manfred Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:12:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-clarity-and-specificity-of-thomistic-natural-law.html#comment-13940 Here's the problem. Natural law for St. Thomas means obedience to the Ten Commandments and is fairly (and by him, expressly) grounded in Scripture. See Romans 2:14. Natural law as "developed" by moderns like Jacques Maritain (The Rights of Man and Natural Law) means a vast web of entitlement claims against the state. Maritain's understanding was adopted practically wholesale by the United Nations in 1948 (Maritain was one of the drafters of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and subsequently (again, through Maritain's influence) by the Church. See Pacem in Terris. But whether Maritain's "development" of natural law is fairly rooted in St. Thomas (ST I-II 94.2) is a large and unanswered question. What's undeniable is that Maritain's understanding has captured the Church. - Martha Rice Martini Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:29:58 +0100