Category Archives: Natural Law

Legislating Morality

Natural Law

“You cannot legislate morality.”  We have all heard it said at one time or another and hopefully have never said it ourselves.  But in a democratic culture that is plagued by relativism, many people accept this as a given.  For them morality is just a regurgitation of some outdated religious dogma and the role of government is to give the people what they want.  We no longer want puritanical religious dogma in our courthouses and so we need to do away with it.   Our country after all is founded on the principle of a government that is “for the people, by the people.”  So common is this position, that it is instructive for us to look deeper into it so that it can finally be put to rest.

When we speak of “law” what do we mean?  St. Thomas Aquinas defines a law as ““an ordinance of reason made for the common good by the one who has care of the community and is promulgated (made known).”  Based on this definition, we see that law is connected to the (common) good and therefore there is an intrinsic link between law and morality.  The very purpose of law is to prescribe what ought to be done (i.e. morality).  Despite objections to the contrary, we cannot help but to legislate morality.

But what about Martin Luther King’s famous quote that “morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless”?  While on the one hand it is true that morality has to do not just with actions, but inner dispositions, Dr. King ignores a key aspect of law.  Law, because it is viewed as an ordinance of reason has a formative character.  When confronted with a moral question, very often one will look to what is legal with the assumption that legality equates to moral goodness.  The immediate result of the change in the segregation laws that King fought to put in place may have been restraint, but one can see in hindsight that it also changed hearts as well.  In other words, as the Pro-life movement is finding out, it is very hard to change minds and hearts without also changing laws.

One might be tempted to say then, that yes you can legislate morality, but only based on majority rule.  How else could we possibly agree on whose morality we would use?  This eventually leads to the type of soft-despotism that Tocqueville thought a very real possibility in the democracy of the United States because it misunderstands what “self-government” means.  Since the right to self-government proceeds from the Natural Law, the exercise of that right must be in accord with Natural Law.  If Natural Law is sufficiently valid to give this basic right to the people then it must be valid to impose its precepts on this same right.  Whatever rights the people want to exercise must be in accord with Natural Law.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot run away from the natural law by invoking the right to self-government.

Ten Commandments Courthouse

Despite a resistance in recent Supreme Court rulings to refer to anything above the Constitution, it is the natural law that must ultimately be the determination of whether a given action is right or wrong (for a fuller treatment of the natural law and what belongs to it, click here).  In the mind of the Founders, all legislation should proceed and be judged not solely by the Constitution, but by the “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence).  This is a key argument that Martin Luther King Jr. makes in his manifesto against segregation, A Letter from a Birmingham Jail—“An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

But there is a limit on the role that civil law ought to play in legislating morality.  The civil law can only go so far in monitoring actions while morality goes to the inner person.  St. Thomas Aquinas thought that not all vice ought to be outlawed.  Instead he thought only “the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others…”( ST, I-II, q.96, a.2) should be outlawed.  In essence the Angelic Doctor is saying that when a law prescribes acts that are far beyond the virtue of the average person in society then there ought to be no laws against it.  One of the reasons for this is that the law may become a pathway to further vice.  For example, suppose you outlaw contraception and not everyone has the level of virtue to follow the law.  Now you can create a situation where a black market arises and further, more serious crime occurs.

This does not mean that contraception (or some other vice) is a necessary evil and that nothing can be done.  Classically understood, a good government is one that helps make the people morally good.  This is especially true of a democracy which depends on a “moral and religious people” to survive as John Adams said.  While laws may not seek to outlaw all vices, they certainly should not promote them.  Therefore, governmental policies such as Title X that actually supply and pay for contraception should not be in place.  One can tolerate certain vices, but toleration should never lead to promotion because this leads to an implied judgment that the action is good.

In his book We Hold These Truths, Fr. John Courtney Murray makes an astute observation about Americans.  Because of the country’s Puritanical roots, our thinking has often been muddled in our thinking about the relationship between law and morality.  This leads to a fundamental error in our thinking, namely that by beginning with the assumption that whatever is moral ought to be legislated, it is inevitable that one will think that whatever is legislated is moral.  This works well when the country remains tied to its foundation in Natural Law, but once that is severed by moral relativism it leads to mob rule.  Only in returning to our roots in the Natural Law will we become a morally good people.

Shattering the Delusion

Autism, Natural Law, Virtue, ,

One of the hardest things for people on the Autism Spectrum Disorder is coping with the speed at which the world comes at them.  Hyper-sensitive to stimuli most of us can ignore, they will try to control the world around them by inventing their own explanations of reality.  Our youngest son does this often.  Usually he starts off on the right track, but at a certain point he will go off the rails.  We might indulge him a little, but once he hits a certain point, we have an expression to help bring him back—“you are now orbiting Mars.”  Some may think us cruel for not sharing his delusions, but it is love that refuses to leave him in an alternate reality.  By steadily refusing to join him in his delusions he is better able to cope with the world and his Autism.

There is a similar point to be made regarding people who identify themselves as transgender that unfortunately has been lost amidst the long drawn out debate over which bathrooms they should use.  The Family Policy Institute of Washington state released a video  that quickly went viral.  In this video, they interview a number of University of Washington students about their stance on Transgenderism.  They then try to make a reductio ad absurdum argument when the 5’9 male interviewer asks them whether they would agree that he is a 6’5 Chinese woman.  One gets a sense from the video of the inner struggle of the young men and women because they felt trapped by their own logic to the point that they are willing to agree to the absurd.

Certainly it is entertaining to watch, but what is most disturbing is their reasoning for agreeing with the interviewer—“No, that wouldn’t bother me,” “Um sure, I don’t have a problem with that.”  Put more pointedly, “it doesn’t affect me, so why should I care?”  Herein lies the underlying problem to the whole debate—mass indifference.  If a man wants to say he is a woman, then who am I to judge?  When I detect no harm to myself or those I actually do care about, then why should I object?

Miriam Webster defines a delusion as “a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary.”  Now read the Human Rights Campaign definition of Transgender: “one whose gender identity and/or expression is different from cultural expectations based on the sex they were assigned at birth.” In every other aspect of life, we would label someone delusional who says that their inner belief as “identifying” themselves as one sex when all of the objective biological evidence suggests otherwise.

When confronted with a person who is delusional, you can do one of two things.  You can either shatter the delusion in an effort to bring them back to reality or you can share the delusion with them.  As is the case with my son with Autism, it is much easier to share the delusion with the person than to actually step into their mess and help them sort it out, especially when I see their delusion as presenting no harm to me.

Bathroom Sign

But, can we even begin to imagine the inner turmoil of someone who looks like a boy, but feels like a girl?  Or is it simply easier to help their gender feelings visible?    There is a lot of data (see here and here for two studies) suggesting that something like gender reassignment surgery doesn’t actually make them feel any less conflicted.  The American College of Pediatricians has recently said that Gender Ideology does great harm to children.  In fact individuals who undergo gender reassignment surgery are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population.  When a person realizes that the surgery that everyone said would help doesn’t, they can only conclude one thing—that they are beyond help.

This argument from apathy spreads like wildfire.  We can mutually agree to your delusions provided they don’t cost me that much personally—“to each his own.”  First it was gay marriage.  Now it is transgenders in the bathroom they identify with.  What will be next and when will the insanity stop?  When people are actually willing to stand up and help others wrestle with their brokenness instead of agreeing to embrace it.  When your ideology conflicts with biology, it is your ideology that needs to change.  Anyone who tells you differently is really apathetic.

Christians are often met with contempt as “haters” by LGBT supporters.  Hate in many ways is better than indifference.  In fact, hate is not the opposite of love—indifference is.  To love or hate someone means that they matter in some way.  Even hate recognizes the other as a person.  Apathy says the person does not matter and that they are on the level of a mere thing.  We tolerate things only as long as they do not present a real obstacle to my well-being.  Certainly we should not hate them, but hate is much easier to convert to love and compassion than apathy is.

Often when I confront my son with reality, it is met with hostility and name-calling.  In pointing out an alternate view to his reality, I have become a threat.  I know this, and yet I am willing to help him to come to grips with reality as it is.  Is this easy?  Absolutely not, but it is necessary for his own well-being.  Similarly we need to let those people suffering from gender dysphoria know that we oppose these bathroom bills not just because it opens the door for sexual predators and not just because it can create a great deal of personal confusion and angst for our children when they have to use the bathroom or change in front of a stranger of the opposite sex (even if there is no malice on their part).  We need to let them know we oppose it because we want to help keep them rooted in reality.  The shame they feel in using the bathroom can be good—it can help them recognize their true identity, the one that God gave them and stamped into their very being.  On our part we have to be willing to take the hostility and name calling.  That is the only real way to fight apathy—through self-giving love, which is what they most desperately need anyway.  We are now orbiting Mars, who will bring us back to reality?

On Zika and the Lesser of Two Evils

Contraception, Natural Law, Pope Francis

For most Catholics, Pope Francis and plane-ride interview has become a time ripe for confusion.  His return home to the Vatican from his pastoral visit in Mexico was no different.  A reporter from Spain asked the Holy Father the following question:

Holy Father, for several weeks there’s been a lot of concern in many Latin American countries but also in Europe regarding the Zika virus. The greatest risk would be for pregnant women. There is anguish. Some authorities have proposed abortion, or else to avoiding pregnancy. As regards avoiding pregnancy, on this issue, can the Church take into consideration the concept of “the lesser of two evils?”

And Pope Francis replied that:

Abortion is not the lesser of two evils. It is a crime. It is to throw someone out in order to save another. That’s what the Mafia does. It is a crime, an absolute evil. On the ‘lesser evil,’ avoiding pregnancy, we are speaking in terms of the conflict between the fifth and sixth commandment. Paul VI, a great man, in a difficult situation in Africa, permitted nuns to use contraceptives in cases of rape.

Don’t confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy by itself, with abortion. Abortion is not a theological problem, it is a human problem, it is a medical problem. You kill one person to save another, in the best case scenario. Or to live comfortably, no?  It’s against the Hippocratic oaths doctors must take. It is an evil in and of itself, but it is not a religious evil in the beginning, no, it’s a human evil. Then obviously, as with every human evil, each killing is condemned.

On the other hand, avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil. In certain cases, as in this one, or in the one I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear. I would also urge doctors to do their utmost to find vaccines against these two mosquitoes that carry this disease. This needs to be worked on.

Unfortunately, these “off-the cuff” remarks were picked up by the media and led to headlines like “Pope suggests contraceptives could be used to slow spread of Zika” (CNN), “Zika Shows It’s Time For The Catholic Church To Rethink Its Stance On Birth Control” (Forbes), and “Pope Francis Condones Contraception With Zika Virus” (NPR).  An attempt by Fr. Lombardi, the Vatican Spokesman to clarify the Pope’s comments only served to further muddy the waters:

The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of discernment in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said…the possibility of taking recourse to contraception or condoms in cases of emergency or special situations. He is not saying that this possibility is accepted without discernment, indeed, he said clearly that it can be considered in cases of special urgency.

These flying papal encounters often leave the faithful with an uncomfortable feeling that the question has not been adequately addressed or even incorrectly so.  Thanks be to God that because we have the great gift of Sacred Tradition we can often fill in the ellipsis that the Holy Father tends to insert in his responses.  While I will not be so bold as to speculate what the Holy Father meant, I can confidently offer what he could not mean.

Some preliminary background is necessary for understand a full response to the question.  The question itself really is “Is it permissible to use contraception to combat the effects of the Zika virus on children in the womb?”  In truth, to frame the question in terms of “the lesser of two evils” is to frame it incorrectly.  Nowhere within the Catholic moral tradition has it ever been believed that one may choose between the lesser of two evils.  In the case of two objectively evil actions, neither may be chosen for its own sake.  It may very well be that in choosing a good, we will have to tolerate an evil that is both a “side effect” of our decision and of less moral gravity than the good itself (see here for a discussion of the Principle of Double Effect which governs this idea).

There is also the danger when you speak in terms of evils of seeing the child that is conceived with a birth defect as an evil.  As any parent with a special needs child will emphatically tell you, the child is an inconceivable good, even if the condition that plagues them is an evil.

Pope_Francis_on_papal_flight

If we reframe the question of the goods involved a clear answer emerges that is both consistent with Tradition, Natural Law and even practical sense.  The good to be attained is the avoidance of the birth defects that are (or in truth only “maybe”) associated with the Zika virus.  One of the possible means of attaining this good would be to avoid pregnancy altogether.  Certainly to avoid becoming pregnant with a child who is likely to carry a serious birth defect is among the “grave reasons” for postponing (even indefinitely) pregnancy that Pope Paul VI spoke of in Humanae Vitae.  At this point it is not clear what the chances are of both contracting Zika and having a baby with microcephaly are, but let’s assume that they are significant enough to make it grave.

Pope Francis was clear in his condemnation of abortion as a solution to the issue.  A person is an objective good to which the only adequate response is love as St. John Paul II said.  This means that to do harm to the person so as to avoid their suffering with a birth defect is always a great evil and can never be a moral solution.  St. John Paul II affirmed this by invoking the Church’s charism of Infallibility through the Ordinary Magisterium in Evangelium Vitae saying “I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (EV 62).

The Saintly Pontiff also conceded that there are “differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion” (EV 13) but this does not mean that contraception too does not constitute an objective evil that cannot be chosen as an ends or a means.  In fact we know that Fr. Lombardi’s interpretation what the Pope said is wrong.  Assuming that when he made the distinction between “contraceptives and condoms” he was considering chemical contraception, then this falls into the first category of direct abortion.

According to the PDR (and the package inserts on birth control pills), “[C]ombination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”  The third mechanism that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg (i.e the child) renders the Pill as an abortifacient.  In truth because all three mechanisms are at work, there is no way to know whether pregnancy has been avoided or an abortion has taken place.  Therefore because of their abortifacient nature, chemical contraceptives would not be an option.

What about condoms as a solution?  I have written elsewhere about why any contraceptive measure is always a grave evil, but there is a practical reason why condom usage should not be considered as a solution.  Although it often gets lumped into other “calendar methods” in efficacy studies, Natural Family Planning is at least as effective as most chemical methods and more effective than condom usage (one such study supports this can be found here).  In any regard it is disappointing to say the least that neither the Pope nor his representative mentioned this as an option.  Imagine the power of a response similar to “Yes, there might be reason to avoid pregnancy in the regions afflicted with Zika.  We must get those people trained in NFP and we will have the good of strengthening marriages as well.”

A comment also needs to be made about the exception that the Holy Father mentioned regarding the nuns who were in danger of being raped.  This is a red herring of sorts because there is no moral equivalency here at all.  Birth control as the Church has always taught is related to the conjugal act. By definition this act assumes not only the physical act but also the consent of both parties. Rape may have the same physical act, but lacks the consent. These are fundamentally different things and therefore it is morally licit to do everything that you can to avoid pregnancy after the act (or even during the act). However once pregnancy (i.e fertilization) occurs it is a different thing.

The ability of the Holy Father to act as Universal Pastor of the Church is truly enhanced by the speed at which he is able to travel.  What would be good though is if the Flying Magisterium could be avoided.  While the Pope himself only alluded to “birth control” in his comments, there was no real indication that he was making any distinction between morally licit means and those that are not.  Fr. Lombardi may or may not have accurately conveyed the Pope’s meaning but the fact of the matter is that ambiguity has plagued the papacy of Francis.  While Pope Francis is certainly not the only Papal “victim” of the media in this regard, the questions themselves tend to repeat themselves and truly call for a well thought out and nuanced response.  Let us all pray that when condoms and the next health crisis come up, the Holy Father will act as a clear prophet.

 

 

Happiness and Morality

Freedom, Natural Law

For many people in today’s world, the question as to whether they can live both a moral life and be happy is answered firmly in the negative.  However, if we turn to the beginning of the most famous sermon that Jesus gave, the Sermon on the Mount, and His beatitudes, He gives a different answer.  The Beatitudes are Christ’s definitive answer to the question of happiness.  All of the early Church Fathers and even up until the Middle Ages interpreted them that way.  It was not until around the Fourteenth Century that the question of happiness was set aside and the moral life became marked by obligation.  One of the tasks that John XXIII left for the Council Fathers of Vatican II to do was to make the faith more accessible to the world today.  Concretely, one of the ways to do that is to link the Church’s moral teaching back to the notion of happiness.  We see this expressed in the Catechism when it opens the section on the moral life with a discussion of the concept of happiness.  In doing this, the Church is implicitly making the connection between morality and happiness in an attempt to restore an “ethic of the good” or a “morality of happiness” (see CCC, nos.1716-1719).

In order to reconnect these concepts, we must first point out some obvious truths about humanity that may have been forgotten.  The first is that while each person is unique, we all have the same unchangeable human nature.  Times may change, circumstances may change, but there are certain things about mankind that do not.  For instance, the fact that man has a rational nature means that his actions are willed and proceed from calculation and deliberation.  In other words, man’s actions always have an intended purpose.

If then all human activity is end-oriented and we all have the same human nature then there must be a final or dominant end that governs and gives meaning to all other ends.  The Church, in agreement with many of the ancient philosophers says that this ultimate end is happiness.  St. Augustine said, “we all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated” in recognition of the universality of the desire for happiness.

When St. Augustine and his philosophical predecessors use the word happiness, they mean something different than we usually do.  To the modern mind, happiness is synonymous with contentment.  It is seen subjectively as a temporary feeling that is dependent upon chance.  That the word happy comes from the Old English word for “chance” is a perfect illustration of this.

Classically understood though, happiness is a translation of the Greek word eudaemonia.  Etymologically, it consists of the word “eu” meaning “morally good”, “daimōn” meaning “spirit” and “ia” meaning “state”.  Immediately it becomes obvious as to the connection between happiness and moral goodness.  As Peter Kreeft says, this definition of happiness is objective in that it does not rely merely on feeling, is a lasting state as a condition of the spirit or soul, and is dependent not on chance but on God’s grace and our own free choice.

moses_rosselli

This definition of happiness captures the intrinsic link between happiness and morality.  But it is not just the word happiness that has been abused.  It’s counterpart—morality—has been distorted as well.  Webster’s dictionary defines it as “a doctrine or system of moral conduct.”  Notice how this seems to refer to a set of rules that reside outside the person.  Instead morality is best understood as the relationship between a human act and the use of man’s nature in fulfilling his final end.  In other words, it intrinsically tied up with what makes us thrive as human beings or what makes us happy.

That morality and happiness are bound is also in the mind of St. Thomas as well.  He says something about sin that only make sense if we keep them together.  He says that “God is offended by us only because we act contrary to our own good.”   Many people view God as the Eternal Killjoy, demanding us to follow His rules.  But as the author of human nature He knows what is best for mankind.  Recalling Augustine’s quote about the innate attraction we all have to the Good, He has given us reason in order to discover those things that make us happy. As Father and not merely Watchmaker, He reminds us of those things that should be done and those that should be avoided through Revelation and the Church.

There is a further implication that can be drawn from the fact that man’s actions proceed from deliberation and that is that his actions are done freely.  As the Angelic Doctor taught us, a correct notion of freedom is important to understanding a morality of happiness.  This idea of freedom  or what is called “freedom for excellence”, is the means by which, exercising both his reason and will, man acts on the natural inclination for truth, for goodness, and for happiness that is part of his nature.  Freedom properly understood then is not primarily the power to do whatever I want, but the power to act according to my nature and according to my true fulfillment.

Once we have a deeper understanding of our own nature, we can see how when we view the moral life through the lens of happiness we can easily move from a rule-centered morality to a virtue-based morality.  Viewed in this fashion the rules no longer seem as arbitrary impositions from the outside, but true prescriptions for human thriving.  This is precisely why the Catechism presents the virtues before it presents the Ten Commandments in its treatment of the moral life.  In maintaining this connection, Christ’s promise that in keeping His commands our joy will be complete is fulfilled. 

Building on Common Ground

Natural Law

In today’s moral climate where issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia are legalized, any opposition to the legality of these issues is viewed as an inherently religious position.  The culture then concludes that since all religious views are to be seen as personal, they should be dismissed as having no place in the public square.  How then do we decide if something is morally right or not?  We could consult the civil law, but that is not always a reliable guide as Martin Luther King pointed out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  We could consult the Church, but certainly not all her teachings are binding on everyone’s consciences (like observing Holy Days of Obligation for example).  However, if we take what is common to man, namely his nature and what is good for him, then we can form a foundation for all laws.  This is the basis for the natural law and this is precisely why the natural law must play a key role in Catholic morality.  Since the demands of the natural law can be known by reason and by all, the Church is able to use it as common ground in discussing the moral demands of the law with the rest of the culture.

Before discussing how natural law can be used as common ground for disseminating Catholic moral teaching, it is important that we lay out precisely what the natural law is.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that there are different expressions of the moral law, all of which are interrelated.  It mentions that there is the eternal law which has its source in God, the natural law, revealed law and finally civil and ecclesiastical law.  If the eternal law and the natural law then are interrelated, we must begin by defining what is meant by the eternal law.  Eternal law is the intelligence of God as it is manifested in everything which He has created.

How are the eternal law and natural law related?  The natural law, according to Aquinas, is “nothing other than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”  In other words, the natural law is simply the eternal law applied to human moral actions.  Not only is it addressed to rational creatures but it must be viewed as being addressed to creatures who are also free.  In this way it is different from physical laws. In a certain sense, physical laws are mechanical in that they are always “obeyed” while one can choose to obey the natural law or not.

It was mentioned above that the natural law is an extrinsic principle in which man actively participates in the eternal law.  Despite being an intrinsic part of human nature that man can discover the natural law, it still remains the task of practical reason to do so.  The “something” that it discovers are the foundational precepts of the natural law.

As we begin to uncover these precepts, we find that they follow from a set of inclinations that flow directly from human nature.  With the precepts of the natural law then being grounded in these inclinations we can see how the natural law can be used to teach Catholic moral thought to non-Catholics.  It is not without coincidence that each of these precepts also is closely related to the commandments given in the Decalogue.  This is why you will (or at least would have at one point) find the Ten Commandments in many court buildings in the US.  This was not just because the US was a Christian country but because the Decalogue summarizes the just demands of the natural law as well.

Ten_Commandments_marker_in_front_of_Dixie_County_Courthouse

The first of the fundamental inclinations is the natural inclination to the good.  Man by his very nature seeks the good.  This attraction of the good is universally expressed then in the first precept of the natural law: Good is to be done and evil avoided.  This primary precept of the natural law sums up the entire Ten Commandments and is succinctly summarized by Jesus when He says that we are to love God and neighbor.

The second inclination is to preserve one’s being.  What this means practically is that life, and all that promotes life (like food, clothing, shelter, etc.), is to be preserved.  This inclination is expressed in the fifth commandment which says “Thou shall not kill”.

Thirdly, there is the inclination to propagation and education of children.  Man has not only the power to transmit life through the exercise of their sexuality but an inclination as well.  This seems to be the inclination that our generation has the most trouble regulating.  But like all inclinations, it must be regulated if it is to develop properly.  So important is this precept that three of the Ten Commandments address it; the fourth which is ordered toward respect for one’s parents; the sixth which links sexuality with marriage; the ninth which forbids lust.

Because man is not only a material being, but a spiritual one as well, the inclination to know the truth also forms a the fourth foundation for the precepts of the natural law.  The Decalogue again protects this inclination so that it might flourish in the eighth commandment “Thou shall not bear false witness”.

Finally the fifth inclination is the inclination to life in society.  This inclination forms the foundation for the seemingly innate demands of justice.  Anyone who has spent time with young children recognizes immediately that this inclination is present because they often say that something is not fair.

Despite inevitable difference in opinions as to precisely what constitutes a good, nevertheless the natural law can be used to form a common foundation and basic criteria for moral action.  For this reason, Catholics must continue to address human actions in light of natural law in order to share common ground with non-Catholics.

Let’s look at a few so-called “Catholic teachings.” First there is contraception.  While it has been labeled as a “Catholic belief” it is really a teaching based on the Natural Law.  There is a more detailed argument about this in this article, but all one needs to do is look at the five inclinations that I mentioned above.  Because contraception harms the good of marriage and procreation it is contrary to the natural law.

In fact, once we establish the four human goods connected to the five inclinations (namely life, marriage and procreation, society and truth) we can evaluate every law as either good or bad in relation to whether it harms one or more of these goods or not.  A second example will help further clarify a little further.  What about something like euthanasia?  Again, we check the inclinations and we find that it harms both the good of life (voluntary) and society (involuntary).  Involuntary euthanasia harms society because the most vulnerable are wiped out, destroying the trust that is absolutely necessary for any society to remain intact.  This is why St. John Paul II addressed euthanasia very specifically in Evangelium Vitae as belonging to the natural law saying, “I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (EV, 65).

As a very important aside, I should mention this also addresses the question as to whether something like the Church’s teaching against contraception is an infallible teaching.  The argument goes something like this, “well the Pope has never declared ex-cathedra that contraception is wrong so I am free to follow my own conscience.”  Not only does this represent a misunderstanding about when the charism of infallibility is exercised, but no Pope will ever make an ex-Cathedra statement about something that can be known by human reason.  Ex-Cathedra doctrines are reserved for what is considered divinely revealed only.  This seems to be a great source of confusion for many Catholics and mostly ends up being a red herring for following the Church’s moral teachings.  When he was Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Faith, then-Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this—a commentary very much worth reading.

The point is that we need to stop labeling our positions against abortion, euthanasia and contraception as beliefs.  We should not be saying “I believe contraception is wrong” but instead “I know contraception is wrong.”  We can know certain moral precepts infallibly without the Church declaring it so (even if she does as a service to us in many instances).

There is also the evangelical aspects that come with this.  Because the Church alone has preserved the natural law tradition, she can provide a great service to mankind by proclaiming once again these teachings with confidence as binding upon all men as the only path to true freedom.