FEEDJIT
-
Recent Posts
Blog Stats
- 531,928 hits
-
Join 2,354 other subscribers
Anglicanusenews.blogspot.com
Archives
- June 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
Categories
Top Clicks
Meta
So, what do you think of the Joseph Bottum capitulation?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
Pingback: So, what do you think of the Joseph Bottum capitulation? | Catholic Canada
Should everything that is immoral in the eyes of the Church also be illegal? Heterosexual sodomy? Adultery? The early Puritan communities in America made these acts crimes, along with Sabbath-breaking and blasphemy. Many of these laws stayed on the books until the late 20th C. I am not sure that there is much of a consensus for following their example.
EPMS,
The Catholic Church has long maintained that there are two distinct bodies of doctrine — (1) moral doctrine, derived from the order of the universe by reason alone and thus applicable to all humanity, whether Christian or not commonly called “Natural Law,” and (2) theological doctrine, deduced from divine revelation (scripture and tradition) and thus applicable only to Christians. The origin of Natural Law in classical philosophy begins with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and thus clearly is NOT fundamentally Christian. As an absolute standard of morality deduced by rigorous logic, Natural Law defines what is just and what is evil, and thus constitutes the only viable standard by which to judge the legal system of a society. Quite simply, legislation that does not conform to Natural Law is inherently unjust and therefore evil.
The distinction between moral and theological doctrine is apparent in Catholic teaching in many ways. Perhaps the most common is the customary depiction of the ten commandments divided into two tablets, with the first tablet containing the commandments pertaining to religion and the second tablet containing the commandments pertaining to morality. This distinction is also apparent in the articulation of the dogma commonly called “papal infallibility” in apostolic constitution Pastor aeternus promulgated by the First Vatican Council, which is very careful to say that a document promulgated ex cathedra is “infallible” with respect to both faith and morals. Note the following wording from the last chapter of the document (boldface added).
In the apostolic constitution Dei verbum on divine revelation, the Second Vatican Council was careful to maintain this distinction.
So the answer to your question is that moral doctrine of Natural Law is in fact not only a proper basis for civil legislation, but also an essential basis for civil legislation if a society is to be just.
Norm.
So why is the Church not speaking out for renewed legislation against birth control and heterosexual sodomy and oral sex?
It’s good, appropriate, that you call it capitulation! And having just read also your post above of part of Ms. Scalia’s response, I submit here a link to a very recent article, which gives one the needed perspective to recall why Bottum is wrong, and Ms. Scalia’s criterion is inappropriate:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-revolution-of-the-family-the-marxist-roots-of-homosexualism
It’s crucial to remember that this fight is completely intentional, on the offensive, and constructed from false premises on the part of the left.
It must, however, be very difficult to be a journalist in the environment thus created.