In light of what the Church
has maintained over the centuries, an examination of the relation of the Gospel
of the Family to the experience common to every person can now consider the
many problems highlighted in the responses concerning the question of the
natural law.
In a vast majority of
responses and observations, the concept of natural law today turns out to be,
in different cultural contexts, highly problematic, if not completely
incomprehensible. The expression is understood in a variety of ways, or simply
not understood at all.
Many bishops' conferences, in
many different places, say that, although the spousal aspect of the
relationship between man and woman might be generally accepted as an
experiential reality, this idea is not interpreted according to a universally
given law. Very few responses and observations demonstrated an adequate,
popular understanding of the natural law.
The responses and observations
also show that the adjective “natural” often is understood by people as meaning
“spontaneous” or “what comes naturally.” Today, people tend to place a high
value on personal feelings and emotions, aspects which appear “genuine” and
“fundamental” and, therefore, to be followed “simply according to one’s
nature.”
The underlying anthropological
concepts, on the one hand, look to an autonomy in human freedom which is not
necessarily tied to an objective order in the nature of things, and, on the
other hand, every human being’s aspiration to happiness, which is simply
understood as the realization of personal desires.
Consequently, the natural law
is perceived as an outdated legacy. Today, in not only the West but
increasingly every part of the world, scientific research poses a serious
challenge to the concept of nature. Evolution, biology and neuroscience, when
confronted with the traditional idea of the natural law, conclude that it is
not “scientific.”
Instrumentum Laboris for Synod on the Family, 21-22
Reflection – These paragraphs of the Instrumentum
indeed highlight a major problem in communication of the Church’s moral law
to modern people. Natural law theory is little understood and little accepted
today by many. Even people who have no philosophical training and who couldn’t
tell you what the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of natural law is, reject it.
People who have never studied the history
of moral philosophy will tend towards some incoherent amalgam of the
utilitarianism of Mills, the voluntarism of Sartre or Nietzsche, or the
scientism of Comte. This is a textbook example of how, if you do not have a
conscious philosophy you will have an unconscious one, which will be given to
you by your social and intellectual ‘betters’. Trickle-down economics may or
may not work, but trickle-down philosophy definitely does.
It is beyond the scope of this blog (and,
let’s face it, this blogger) to give a comprehensive teaching on natural law
ethics. The paragraphs above, however, give some idea of the popular
misunderstanding of the word ‘natural’ today, and its consequent incoherence
when set next to the word ‘law’. So let’s at least clear up what the Church,
and the philosophical tradition we draw on, mean by that word.
We have to draw an analogy from the world
of human artifacts. A toaster is a machine invented to make toast. It is in
accord, then, with the nature of the toaster when it is used for that purpose.
If I use a toaster as a paperweight, a murder weapon, or as part of an art
installation, I am not using it for the purpose for which it has been designed.
This may not be morally wrong, as man is the maker, and hence master of the
toaster, and we may repurpose it at will.
Human beings are a divine artifact. What is
‘natural’ for us is not what feels good or what arises in us as a spontaneous
desire. What is natural for us is what is in accord with our nature, with the
purpose for which God has designed us. (Natural law theory is necessarily
theistic, though not necessarily Christian.)
To use an example, the human mind is made
to know the truth of things. Human language is made to communicate that which
is in my mind to your mind. So it is against ‘nature’ to tell lies, even though
we may very much want to and it may feel good to do so.
Human will is made to form intentions and
carry them out. Human language is made to create a community of persons who can
live a coherent and peaceful life together. This means that we express our
intentions to one another and bind ourselves to doing what we have expressed.
It is natural, because of the
structure of human will, human society, and human language, to make vows and to
keep them. So divorce is unnatural and so is adultery.
It is essential to natural law theory that
this ‘purpose’ of human life is in us from our Maker, but that it is knowable
to us by our reason. In other words, it is not just an arbitrary law imposed
from on high that is wholly exterior to us. It is from on high in its origin,
but then again, so are we as creatures of God. So by a process of right reason and reflection, we are able to reason our way to the moral law which is in us by nature.
There is whole anthropology of human
freedom and human dignity that emerges from this and which is utterly vital for
us to grasp. I wrote an
entire book about it, once, which may or may not be helpful. But that’s enough for now, and gives the basic
idea. More on this subject to follow; that’s quite enough for one day.
