tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post3437627065031524340..comments2024-02-26T19:22:15.069-06:00Comments on Lex Christianorum: The Analogy of Law: From Law to LawAndrew M. Greenwellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-71238094740850010972010-07-14T16:56:19.152-05:002010-07-14T16:56:19.152-05:00I cannot see where I suggested that man can abroga...I cannot see where I suggested that man can abrogate either the "laws of nature" or the "natural law" with his free will or reason. He can disobey them, but not abrogate them. A man can jump off a cliff. A man can commit adultery. In either event, he has not abrogated, but only disobeyed or ignored the law to his detriment.<br /><br />The Church has made an extended effort to teach about the natural law. I'm not sure the Church has competence in matters of the "law of nature," strictly so called, unless they also happen to impginge upon the "natural law." For example, it teaches on the proper ends and proper use of sex and procreation, matters which are, from a physical standpoint, clearly within the "law of nature," but, with respect to man, also involve the "natural law," since they have a moral component attached to them.<br /><br />I don't think I have ever taken the position that brute creation and rational creation (i.e., man) don't participate in the Logos or Ratio Ordinis. The Eternal Law covers all creation, the brute creation in accordance with their end, the rational creation in accordance with its end. The brute creation and the rational creation, at least insofar as matter is involved, share in the "law of nature." But the rational creation has, in addition to the "law of nature," and not in contradiction to it, the "natural law," which is specific to the rational nature and free will. Brute animals have no need of the "natural law," as they have no reason and no free will. On the other hand, man must act consonant with the "laws of nature" since, like animals, he shares their animal nature. But he also has need of law over his unique characteristics: free will and reason. It is sort of like a Texan. A Texan is subject to the laws of his State. But he is also subject to the laws of the United States. Many is a dual citizen: a citizen under the laws of nature and a citizen under the natural law. He operates under two "jurisdictions," or if not two "jurisdictions," two bodies of laws.<br /><br />The word "law" as used in "eternal law," in "natural law," and in the "law of nature," is not univocal. Nor is the term used equivocally. The term is used analogically. Therefore, there is overlap, but there is also distinction. To some extent, Simon will address this issue.<br /><br />Tell me: do the angels have to obey the "law of nature"? I should think not, since they have no material existence. Similarly, that part of man that is material is subject to the "laws of nature," but that part which is spiritual, like the angels, is subject to another order, another law, to wit, the "natural law." <br /><br />But nothing, nothing would suggest that the "natural law" abrogates the "law of nature," as that would suggest contradiction in the Divine Legislator, which is incompatible with the very nature of God.<br /><br />I should think, on the issue of race or tribe, that we are dealing with an area of overlap between "law of nature" and "natural law." Man's social nature is a given. Man's familial nature is a given. Man's communal nature is a given. Historically, the commune and the race and tribe were homogenous. The Greeks were all Greeks. The Persians were all Persians. The Mongols all Mongols. The Turks all Turks. The heterogeneity we have modernly was atypical. Perhaps the first time you saw it in any organized way was in the late Roman Empire. <br /><br />So are we condemned to live only among our race and tribe? Isn't Christianity meant to overcome, without necessarily ignoring, all such divisions of race and tribe? Are we dealing with grace superadded to nature?Andrew M. Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242573723573203387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8585732092994259978.post-1431694685838309972010-07-14T13:55:07.234-05:002010-07-14T13:55:07.234-05:00I disagree with your reply in "Potpourri of t...I disagree with your reply in "Potpourri of the Natural Law". Can man with his free will abrogate the Laws of Nature? Is it not the duty of the Catholic Church to promulgate the Laws of Nature---and why hasn't it done so? Shouldn't the shepard teach the flock? <br /><br />If what I see in the this post and all the ones connected to Yves Simon, he is constantly refering and using the Laws of Nature but I see no specific recognition of that fact.<br /><br />Are humans herd animals? Did not Aristotle say that man is a social animal? Then, what is free will about that? Does man choose to be a herd animal or not? When Socrates applies the maxim and Law of Nature "Birds of a feather flock together" to humans in the Republic, what does this have to do with Free will? Is this not the Logos, i.e. Reason? And should not humans obey this impulse because it is Reason? <br /><br />See, is not the Natural Law, when you say "Semantics is everything", well the term "Lex Naturalis" is a Roman word, term, idea, but not Greek! The Greek word is Logos. So in your reply that the Laws of Nature, which is the Logos, only applies to brute animals and to material creation but not to the free will and things that use reason? If Logos is the Greek work meaning Reason, why the contradiction and hatred toward, or compartmentalization of the Laws of Nature which is Logos, Reason?<br /><br />Does not God in his being incorporate the whole of the Logos? Then, why this false dichotomy?<br /><br />If Yves Simon is using the "Laws of Nature" in his proofs of the natural moral law----what book did Yves Simon read to find out the Laws of Nature? What and where did any Catholic write and promulgate the Laws of Nature?<br /><br />Are not Human beings subject to the Laws of Nature or are Human beings above the Laws of Nature and are they important to know and if they are, why doesn't the Catholic encyclopaedia have an article on them? <br /><br />If Aristotle writing "All things are either in Authority or in Subjection" is that not true of both the Brute animal world, Insect world and in the Human Sphere? Can Human "reason" and free will break this Law of Nature? Why are Catholic Hierarchy preaching egalitarianism and attacking "racism" and racialism for?<br /><br />Are we not despite have our "free will" subject to the Laws of Nature? Are we not supposed to be like the birds and flock together by the feather and are we not supposed to have authority and be subjected, are we not to have a aristocracy and hierarchy in society? Are we not to have segregation by race? <br /><br />Did God give us Free Will to disobey the Laws of Nature? I can't see where Animals or humans are under seperate laws. Is not human reasoning right now abrogating the Laws of Nature? Must not the "free will" of man be obedient to the Laws of Nature?WLindsayWheelernoreply@blogger.com