tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post263900331880213971..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: The Capture of Natural Law by IdealoguesAndrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-70416602525710855282012-03-04T16:49:49.539-06:002012-03-04T16:49:49.539-06:00Thank you for the article. Yves Simon is now on my...Thank you for the article. Yves Simon is now on my reading list. Perhaps he addresses this point, but since the moral law comes to us a priori, how can we know that we are not begging the question by assuming it is *not* utilitarian in nature? If we begin our moral reasoning by rejecting utilitarianism, then naturally we will object to anything utilitarian as being opposed to the moral law. A mere glance at our culture, however, reveals that there are more than a few people who seem to assume that utilitarianism is a self-evident truth. <br /><br />--Frank HermannAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-6573316750232637832010-07-08T10:27:06.540-05:002010-07-08T10:27:06.540-05:00I think you're right about the American abolit...I think you're right about the American abolitionist movement and its inspiration. But there was a Catholic response to chattel slavery, one which is seen in the likes of St. Thomas and the development or extension of his thought in the likes of Las Casas and the School of Salamanca. Its been some time since I've read Voegelin, but I agree in his assessment that much of modern thought, including rights talk, could be considered gnostic. Naturally, immanentizing the eschaton is not what natural law is about. But sometimes you can get to the same conclusion in two or more different ways. Sometimes you accidentally end up where you wanted to be even though you were on the wrong road (e.g., Mormons do not believe in contraception, but for reasons different from Catholics). But it's important to be headed to the right goal and to be on the right way.Andrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-21544522373851163392010-07-08T08:02:40.183-05:002010-07-08T08:02:40.183-05:00The anti-slavery movement in America has its roots...The anti-slavery movement in America has its roots in New England, the home of the Puritans. The anti-slavery movement began in the most heretical of the Protestant sects, the Unitarians and the Quakers. Methodists also were a key group. That a "truth" can come out of heresy in really abnormal.<br /><br />Thomas Bertonneau, writing at "The Brussels Journal", has a series of articles on Eric Voeglin's thesis that modernity is Gnosticism. In his article "Further Remarks on Eric Voegelin and Gnosticism", Mr. Bertonneau displays Voegelin's idea that Puritanism is really Gnosticism. The anti-slavery movement really comes out of Gnosticism. It is about "immantizing the eschaton". Hardly, natural law.<br /><br />The article is here http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3984W Lindsay Wheelernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-29320116358606474922010-07-07T14:28:53.807-05:002010-07-07T14:28:53.807-05:00We could probably debate all day about how close s...We could probably debate all day about how close serfdom is to slavedom, and the various degrees of slavery, from extreme chattel slavery, or sexual slavery, to more benign forms seen in some ancient societies such as Greece. There are, in fact, modern forms of more subtle slavery; it's just not called that. Is it a difference of degree or a difference of kind? That's a good question. I'd have to think about it. I think the excerpt I found quoted on the blog did not directly reference the natural instituion aspect of it, but I believe I've read it elsewhere in his work. Calhoun was a brilliant statesman and political, despite this particular flaw. And who doesn't have them? How many of us can see past ourselves to our own evil? That's why prophets are hated.Andrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-41710053475816789892010-07-07T11:51:02.509-05:002010-07-07T11:51:02.509-05:00On John C. Calhoun's letter, I did not read wh...On John C. Calhoun's letter, I did not read where he states that the Natural Law defends slavery. I did not find that there. Slavery is a Natural Institution, does not mean it is part of the Natural Law. <br /><br />Righteousness and the caste system is part of the Natural Law that makes up the Natural Order. Christendom had a serf system! It is only a matter of degree between chattel slavery and serfdom. John C. Calhoun is NOT an Ideologue but a defender of the Old Order! <br /><br />Yves Simon is probably too "politically correct". Philosophy defends and uphold the Old Order. It is Ideologues that crash the system. Slavery is part and parcel of the Old Order.WLindsayWheelernoreply@blogger.com