Holy Apostles College and Seminary

Defense of the Catholic Church’s Teaching on Natural Law

By
Aby Abraham

PAS 161-4
Professor Steven Schultz, MA

November 29, 2019

 As we reach the completion of two decades in the third millennium, we can see that there

has been a significant surge in anti-religious sentiment. This is most prominent amongst young

people. As recently as the 1980s, 90% of high school seniors identified with a religious group.

Among those born after 1995, the figures are now around 65% and falling. And religious

practice is even more attenuated: only 28% of twelfth graders attended services in 2015, whereas

the number was 40% in 1976. Whereas even twenty years ago, the overwhelming number of

Americans, including youngsters, believed in God, now fully one third of 18 to 24 year olds say

that they don’t believe. This shift away from religion, associated with the modern preoccupation

with individual freedom, has also been joined by an antithetical view towards objective moral

principles.1 Many believe that religious institutions just put up arbitrary moralities based on what

they believe to be divine revelation. Many believe that since you can be a good person without

learning certain moral commands from supposed revelation this means there is no one true

morality. However, Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Treatise on Law evaluated this very dilemma on

how people that have not received explicit revelation can be good.2 He found that even without

revelation there is an objective natural law which can be found through right reason and acted

upon to encourage human flourishing. This principle is what the Church teaches as the law by

which all humans and human civilizations must act for a properly functioning society. Through a

rational process of analyzing the nature of things and evaluating human civilization throughout

history, one can see that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that there is a “natural moral

law...that is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.”3

One may be tempted to believe, as many do, that natural law is just another floating

religious and philosophical theory that has very little application to everyone's life. When

1
hearing the word “philosophical” many jump to extreme theories like “The Matrix” theory of us

all living in a simulation. This causes many to dismiss the very notion of any philosophical moral

theory as a silly mind teaser. Even those that do see moral philosophy and ethics as relevant, tend

to think that since there are so many religions and moral theories, one should just do as they feel

instead of following the indoctrination of any one world-view. However, when evaluating the

hot-button issues of today, one can see the relevancy of a moral code. For example, looking at

the most heated topics of the day like abortion, LGBTQ rights, and economic policy, there are

moral claims being constantly made. All sides of the issue claim that their stance on it is better

than others. There is some claim to moral absolute when one claims something like abortion

must be either permissible by choice or unacceptably murderous. This is where the importance of

Natural Law comes in. There is a clear need and constant application of some sort of moral

absolute in society. However, since we live in a secular state and not everyone adheres to

revelation there must be another standard that all humans can reasonably find and apply to live

justly. Natural Law allows us to use self-evident agreed-upon premises to find the “basic goods.”
4
“Anyone who cares about life and death issues has to care about natural law, one way or the

other.”5

While it may seem like a uniquely Catholic idea that was propagated by Saint Thomas

Aquinas to fit the narrative of the Church’s morality, natural law has much earlier origins. The

theory of natural law actually originates from Aristotle’s idea of goodness as “that which is fit for

its purpose” and the Stoic concept of a universal law of reason that is in agreement with nature.

This is what they believed we commonly refer to as human nature. Aristotle believed that every

object has a specific purpose and function. He believed that the supreme good of every object

2
was to fulfill that purpose and function. He extended this specific purpose to humans as well. For

Aristotle, the supreme good for humans is to live a good life in order to flourish.5 He saw the

final goal of human flourishing as only attainable by acting in accordance with certain laws.

From this base, Aquinas builds a Catholic understanding of Natural Law. To understand why the

Catholic Church is correct in teaching there is a “natural moral law...that is immutable and

permanent throughout the variations of history”6 one must first understand what natural law

really is. In the same way one needs to understand what a chair is to properly claim if there is or

isn’t one present in the room, so does one need to properly understand what natural law actually

is to claim if it is or isn’t present in the world. The fundamental principle behind natural law is

that everything has certain laws built into its nature. “The nature of a rock is such that it will sink

if you throw it into a pond. An automobile will function if you feed it gasoline. If you put sand in

the tank instead, you may be sincere in your belief that the car will run, but you will end up a

pedestrian.”7 While these are all examples of natural law in relation to the physical nature of

things, the same logical process can be used to find moral principles. The same way it is good to

go in accordance with the nature of the car by filling it with gasoline instead of sand, so also are

there moral goods which allow for the proper functioning of the human person. However, there is

a common misunderstanding that since we can find out how to act through reason alone that

must mean there is no God necessary for the moral development of human society. This is quite

the opposite conclusion to the reality that without God it’s ultimate author, natural law falls apart.

“As a matter of fact, there is no natural-law doctrine of any importance which has not an

essentially religious character.” 8 The claim of Natural Law Theory is not that morality is

“naturally” present in us as somehow evolutionary put there by material nature, but rather that

3
God instilled into our nature certain directions so that we could use the gift of human reason to

understand “what must be done and what must be avoided.”9 Saint Thomas Aquinas broke these

instilled directions down into five basic inclinations from which we derive whether an action is

good: “To seek the good,including his highest good, which is eternal happiness with God, To

preserve himself in existence, To preserve the species (by uniting sexually), to live in community

with others, to use his intellect and will-that is, to know the truth and to make his own

decisions.”10 Based on these fundamental inclinations we use deductive reasoning to find

whether an action should be done. Essentially the natural law is a reasonably knowable code of

conduct that is the objective standard by which both individuals and states should judge their

own conduct.

One of the main premises of natural law is that man is a social creature meant to thrive in

union with a larger society. Popular Enlightenment jurisprudence “regards society as composed

of autonomous individuals who are related to others not by nature but only insofar as they

consent to be related.”11 When this position is broken down it essentially means that the general

purpose of law is to protect the rights of individuals. These rights can be decided upon by the

people of that society to see what most individuals see as the protection of their rights outside of

any greater relation with the greater society. Aquinas proposes an opposing view in a natural law

that is not coming from the interests of individuals but rather a common good.12 “The first

principle in practical matters, which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end: and the

last end of human life is bliss or happiness...Consequently the law must needs regard principally

the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to

perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must properly regard the

4
relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore [Aristotle] … says that we call those legal matters

“just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness… for the body politic:” since the

state is a perfect community.”13 Law in its proper order cannot simply be structured for the

private benefit of one individual or group. It also can’t simply benefit the current society to the

detriment of generations to come or vice versa.14 Saint Thomas Aquinas contrasts the individual

utilitarian view saying “Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore laws should

take account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the

community of the state is comprised of many persons, and its good is procured by many actions;

nor is it established to endure for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens

succeeding one another.”15 One must understand the principle of serving the common good to

understand why things like just war and the death penalty can be justifed even if there is the

ending of a human life involved. A common objection to natural law is that if it is strictly

follwed then actions like the death penalty would be impermissable. However this comes from a

lack of understanding of the fact that the natural law is not simply for the individuals in society

but rather for the common good. So if anything is in contradiction with the common good, an

appropriate action against this would not be a violation of natural law but actually a proper use of

it. Saint Thomas actually defends the death penalty with natural law arguing “Moreover, the

common good is better than the particular good of one person. So, the particular good should be

removed in order to preserve the common good. But the life of certain pestiferous men is an

impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore certain men

must be removed by death from the society of men”16 While the death penalty itself needs further

investigation to be justifed, the logic behind why it is permissable can clear up the misconception

5
about inconsistency in natural law. Once the natural law theory itself is properly understood, it

becomes more apparent where it has been present throughout the diverse history of human

civilization.

Various civilizations have used natural law to make judgement on vital issues of the time.

Whether it be theft, murder, or slavery, in every case natural law demands a higher accountablity

than the state law itself, or human law as Aquinas refered to it. We see that with slavery, many

abolitionists appealed to the natural law. One of the most prominent adversaries of American

slavery, Frederick Douglas, sought to expose the objective evils of slavery by logically referring

to the natural rights afforded to African Americans. He argued that there is an objective principle

which even the founding fathers entitled into the constitution. This principle is that all human

beings have certain unalienable rights that ought to be protected by the government, not given.

He argued that the government does not give these rights because they are already present within

the nature of a human being. From this natural law principle he continued that since African

Americans are clearly human beings, they ought to be afforded these same unalienable rights.

Continueing with the issue of slavery Abraham Lincoln faced a tough opposition when it came to

the principles behind law in America. In his debates with Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln

faced a tough moral question comparable to the modern day day issue of legal abortion. Douglas

argued that the expansion of slavery into the western states should be a neutral legal question. He

argued since different people have different opinions on it, they should be allowed to decide for

themselves. He argued that it would be wrong for the government to take a definitive stance on

this and the repercussions would be civil war; which he ended up being right about. Lincoln

rebutted this argument saying that the government has a duty to take a definitive stance on

6
certain issues that are in objective violation of the moral law. This led to great tragedy with the

many lives that were lost in the Civil War. Yet today, most would agree that Lincoln took the

objectively just stance. This was an appeal to natural law outside of the confines of human law at

the time or the interests of certain individuals. We can see this appeal as recently as the aftermath

of the horrors of the twentieth century. The Nazis killed around twenty million people during

World War Two as part of their murderous campaign against those who they saw as unwanted.

They didn’t even spare women or children. Of these twenty million, at least six million were

killed simply for the fact that they were Jewish. The ideology used to kill the handicapped and

others that didn’t seem to fit the model of human perfection, was a sort of moral darwinism or a

“survival of the fittest''. This is oftentimes mixed up with its direct contradiction in natural law.

In natural law a person’s genetics, culture, or education does not determine good and evil. Rather

it is the standard by which every culture and person can be judged. Ironically the same popular

culture that holds Hitler to be the epitome of evil, often clings to moral relativism which if

consistently held, would keep Hitler and Mother Teresa on equal moral grounds. Fortunately, the

prosecutors of Nazi war criminals during the Nurenburg trials did not hold to this relativist view

but rather appeals to the demands of natural law. The Nazis tried to justify their actions by saying

that they just did what was legal and what they were commanded to do. The prosecutors held

however that no human law even put forward by the government of Germany could override the

principles of natural law. Following this is the only way they were able to be convicted despite

the technical legality behind what they did.

By understanding the proper definition of natural law and its logic one can analyze

different situations in history to see if it exists and how it is applied. Clearly, in some of the most

7
recent cases of legal controversy, an appeal to natural law was necessary. This shows why the

Catholic Church is correct in teaching that there is a “natural moral law...that is immutable and

permanent throughout the variations of history.”17

8
 Endnotes

1
Twenge, J. M. (2018). IGen: why todays super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious,
more tolerant, less happy -- and completely unprepared for adulthood*: *and what that means
for the rest of us. New York: Atria International.

2
Thomas. 1969. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on law: (Summa theologica, questions 90-97) ; with
an introduction. Chicago, Ill: H. Regnery.

3
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic
Conference, 2000)

4
Thomas. 1969. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on law: (Summa theologica, questions 90-97) ; with
an introduction. Chicago, Ill: H. Regnery.

5
Rice, Charles E. 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

6
1992, Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics: Books I, II, and VIII, M.J. Woods (trans.), Second edition,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.

7
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic
Conference, 2000)

8
Thomas. 1969. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on law: (Summa theologica, questions 90-97) ; with
an introduction. Chicago, Ill: H. Regnery.

9
Kelsen, H. (1949). The Natural-Law Doctrine Before the Tribunal of Science. Western
Political Quarterly, 2(4), 481–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591294900200401

10
V.S., no. 12, quoting Aquinas, In Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Cecem Legis Praecepta.

11
Rice, Charles E. 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

12
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic
Conference, 2000)

9
13
Summa Theologiae, I, II, Q.90 art.2

14
Rice, Charles E. 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It. San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

15
S.T, I, II, Q.96 art.1

16
Summa Contrigentelis

17
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic
Conference, 2000)

10
 Bibliography

Aristotle's Eudemian Ethics: Books I, II, and VIII, M.J. Woods (trans.), Second edition,
Oxford: Clarendon Press 1992.

Brogaard, Berit. 2012. “Moral Relativism and Moral Expressivism.” Southern Journal of
Philosophy 50 (4): 538–56. doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00141.x.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic
Conference, 2000), 1954-1960.

Lewis, C. S. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperOne, 2001.

-----. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

-----. The Screwtape Letters. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.

Kelsen, H. (1949). The Natural-Law Doctrine Before the Tribunal of Science. Western
Political Quarterly, 2(4), 481–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591294900200401

Manent, Pierre. 2018. “Natural Law and Human Motives.” Modern Age 60 (1): 33–44.
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127918150&authtype=co
okie,cpid&custid=s9245834&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Rice, Charles. 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It, Revised
Edition. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.

Summa Contrigentelis

Summa Theologiae, I, II, Q.90 art.2

Thomas. 1969. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on law: (Summa theologica, questions 90-97) ; with
an introduction. Chicago, Ill: H. Regnery.

Twenge, J. M. (2018). IGen: why todays super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious,
more tolerant, less happy -- and completely unprepared for adulthood*: *and what that means
for the rest of us. New York: Atria International.

11
V.S., no. 12, quoting Aquinas, In Duo Praecepta Caritatis et in Cecem Legis Praecepta.

12