A Clarification on My “You Don’t Have to Grok Natural Law” Shtik

Last updated on: May 31, 2015 at 12:33 pm by Eve Tushnet

A Clarification on My “You Don’t Have to Grok Natural Law” Shtik 2015-05-31T12:33:52-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(I’ll take any excuse to jam both “grok” and “shtik” into the same headline.)

Now and then I find myself saying that you can accept Catholic teaching on [whatever, usually about gay stuff somehow] without being persuaded by or caring much about natural law theory. E.g. in the book I say, “This book is not a theological treatise defending the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality. I admittedly don’t always understand that teaching, and I don’t think you need to understand every single element of a Church teaching in order to assent to its authority in your life. And you certainly don’t need to accept any one school of theology–such as natural law–in order to accept and live by the Catholic ideal of chastity. If you do want to explore the reasoning and scriptural interpretation that shape the Church’s teaching, I’ve included some reading recommendations in appendix one, but you really don’t have to spend a lot of time on this stuff if you don’t want to.” (emphasis added)

A couple people have been confused by this, and that’s my fault. A helpful person on Twitter pointed out that the Catechism uses the term “natural law” to mean something inherent in all people, not a specific theological school. So my using this example is really confusing. Let me clarify here.

When I’ve been using the term “natural law” I’ve been using it to designate a school or style of philosophical/theological argument based on reasoning from first-principle goods to specific moral or political outcomes, in ways which attempt to be accessible to non-Christians.

So think of the sentence, “In this article, Robert P. George offers a natural-law argument against same-sex marriage.” That distinguishes George’s school of argument from e.g. a theology of the body argument. I’d expect George to talk about the purposes of sex and the sex organs, but not to rely on Scripture, whereas I’d expect a theology of the body argument for the same conclusion to invoke Genesis and discuss the “nuptial meaning of the body.”

As you can see, this is different from the Catechism’s use of the term, which is much broader. I completely forgot that the Catechism uses “natural law” (e.g. here) to mean something more like “our desire for God and our recognition that other people are equal to ourselves, which culture can obscure but which nonetheless remain written on our hearts.” In this sense the natural law is real and beautiful: It’s what allows the Spartan, however fleetingly, to recognize himself in the face of the helot–or the American to see the unborn child as someone like herself. It’s what makes humility possible even in cultures that despise humility.

If I’d remembered this I would have used a completely different example–I would have said, e.g., “You don’t have to be an adherent of the theology of the body to accept [Church teaching on marriage, or whatever].”

My sole point in talking about natural law in this way has been to say that you don’t need to be persuaded by any specific school of theology in order to accept the Church’s teaching. So if George’s arguments leave you cold (they leave me icy), that’s fine; you don’t need to reject Church teaching because you haven’t been persuaded by any of the specific arguments you’ve heard for it so far.

It’s a point I think is important to make because there’s an undercurrent in contemporary thought which makes people feel that it’s immoral to accept an ethical claim that you can’t defend or reason to yourself. We live not in a relativistic age but in an intensely moral one, and part of the moral code of our culture is that it’s wrong to accept restrictions on your life (maybe especially your sex life) based on trust of an authority. We’re intensely aware of all the ways trust and authority can be abused, and I obviously think that’s an important thing to remember; but we have no way of talking about the need for trust in the ethical life. (See here and here for more.) And so we end up acting, subconsciously, as if every single person should be able to understand every single issue in the ethical life, from start to finish, and if we can’t reason our own way to an ethical claim it must be wrong. This places unrealistic demands on even the most intelligent person’s intellect.

Moreover, because man is mortal and we only have so much time to spend on ethical claims we dislike even when they’re proposed by authorities we would like to trust, we’ll often hear one okayish argument for an ethical claim and realize that either a) it relies on first principles we’ve already rejected or b) it relies on first principles which are incommensurate with other first principles we hold dear. (This is the After Virtue problem.) And so we not only reject the argument but reject the ethical claim, and feel good about it because we are following our moral code, which tells us we should reject any ethical claim we can’t support by our own reasoning.

This is related to my point in “Beyond Critical Thinking,” that we teach people how to poke holes in arguments or spot contradictions but not when to accept paradox and tension, or when it’s okay to take something on trust. We even make it hard for people to take some time to live in tension; we pressure people to figure out whether they say “yes” or “no” to a specific Church teaching, rather than a) suggesting that this checklist approach is not really Catholic and also b) you know, people need time to sort out how Church teaching relates to their particular lives and struggles.

So when I say “You don’t have to grok natural law” I could really sub in any specific theological school. But I hadn’t realized that using this example was really confusing, and again, that confusion is my fault.

Mackerel-Snapping

it's the luck of the draw it's the natural law it's a joke it's a crime

mackerel-snapping

reason cannot withstand the fall of God

way the hell off-duty

Previous Post

May 31, 2015

From Dinaw Mengestu, "The Beautiful Things That Heaven Bears"

Next Post

May 31, 2015 Where Are the Lady Mountain Goats?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 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 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Solomon Peter Paul Jesus