How is that hurtful? I certainly know little about natural law theory in general, let alone its history; can you explain (with examples, not just assertions) where the problem is - perhaps in non-Catholic natural law?
Well I'm not Kreuzritter, but I think the problem is that natural law theory simply isn't "Christian". I'd say it's closer to Pelagianism. The Christian belief found in St. Augustine and I think St. Paul is basically that it is impossible for a man to be righteous except through grace. Natural law theory says the opposite: anyone can be righteous, with or without grace, if only he follows the correct line of reasoning. Some well-intentioned Catholics such as St. Thomas believed that natural law theory was not incompatible with the Christian notion of grace. But the fact of the matter is that it sets a dangerous precedent. It's no longer about allowing grace to transform us and God to act through us, but it's now more about trying to attain the knowledge of good and evil and become like Gods ourselves. This same attitude leads to people coming up with seemingly-rational arguments in favour of homosexuality, since you can "reason" your way to just about anything. But just because it seems reasonable, that doesn't mean it's true.
But I personally believe that scientific knowledge of ethics is impossible anyway. God alone knows good from evil, and all of our moral knowledge has come to us only through revelation and illumination. Natural law theory might work as an apologetic argument, in defense of truth, but it's certainly not the source of anyone's moral knowledge.
Righteousness = supernatural (above nature)
Natural Law = well, natural
Therefore, to adhere to natural law is not to be righteous of itself. Ergo, it is not anymore Pelagian to do so than a dog feeding her pups is a corporal work of mercy. That nature can be raised by grace, and thus naturally good/natural things subsumed by higher things, does not mean nature raised itself.
The problem with misunderstanding this comes from two places:
1) Theologically - Augustine never really got over Manichean doctrine. While I will not dispute that he is the Doctor of Grace, his former heresy absolutely informed his vigorous, even overboard, defense of grace.
2) Anthropologically - A misunderstanding of man and his nature as created by God, though wounded at the fall.
The former informs the latter, as we see in the writings of men like Augustine, Calvin, etc.
ETA: It is imperative that people STOP conflating Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It is also very important to adhere to the definitions of those heresies lest one make a false argument.
Pelagianism - man can be saved without grace
Semi-Pelagianism - man will be given grace for doing all which he can (essentially command grace to be given by an act of the free will prior to grace being given).
If any system posits a grace first model, it is not Semi-Pelagian. And yes, that means even when it contradicts the Calvinist heresy of which Augustine is responsible due to his rhetorical hyperbole.
Recent Posts
