Clean-up of Throne and Altar: added essays

Those of you who used to be readers of my old blog, Throne and Altar, may be interested to know that I’ve finished my promised clean-up of that site.  This consisted in adding two essays.  Neither is original material.  Both originally appeared in serialized form as posts, but they’ve now been gathered together in a more convenient form.

Principles of Catholic Morality is my survey of the main currents in ethics within the Roman Catholic theological tradition.  It’s 14 pages–long for an internet essay but short for so vast a topic–although most of the sections could be read on their own by a reader interested in one particular thinker.  One main theme is the tension between focus on charity’s erotic and agapic elements, embodied for example in the Thomist and Scotist traditions.  Another theme is the confrontation with modernity and how it drove Thomist ethics in a more communitarian direction.

The Audacity of Natural Law, my series on the nature and justification of natural law ethics, has already appeared on the Orthosphere.  However, the readership tapered off as the series concluded, and only my most dedicated readers seem to have stuck with me to the end.  This is a shame, because my own sense was that the latter parts of that essay were a highlight of my blogging career.  (Of course, bloggers, like artists, are often poor judges of the relative merits of their own works, and I always tend to think that whatever essay I’m working on is my best writing ever.)  The main points:

  • The key feature of natural law is that physical/biological acts and relationships have natural meanings independent of what we intend for them to mean, and that we are morally obliged to respect these meanings.  Until yesterday, all mankind accepted this.  Nevertheless, it is not obviously true and requires justification.
  • The distinction between desires whose satisfaction is a subjective state (pleasure, comfort) and desires whose satisfaction is an objective state of affairs (knowledge, friendship).  Our dignity as persons is our ability to step out of immanence and assume a third-person perspective.  The ordering of our desires toward objective goods dignifies them.  It is degrading to detach a good from its accompanying pleasure and pursue the pleasure alone.
  • Genuine goods show us how to fulfill the commandments to love God, neighbor, and self.  Most civilizations agree on fundamental goods.  These goods are never inherently contradictory, although sometimes we are accidentally prevented from securing them all.  Genuine goods allow us to identify the natural functions, i.e. the purposes, of our natural capabilities.  Thus, there are criteria for distinguishing true from false goods.
  • One could deny that natural meanings are binding, that what “I” mean need not be constrained by what “my body” (i.e. the act by its nature) means, but this is to alienate oneself from one’s body and therefore from one’s fellows, because the body is our mode of presence in the world.  (When someone embraces my body, she embraces me.)
  • Does morality then require us to consciously affirm everything an act naturally means before we can licitly engage it?  This is overly rigorist and is impossible to boot.  Natural meanings (e.g. of sex or filiation) are a form of showing rather than saying.  Like art, they are meaningful, but their meanings cannot be fully captured in propositional form.  That is, natural meanings are supra-rational.  Often we come to understand natural relations like marriage and parentage only by living them, and even then understand them imperfectly.
  • The correct attitude:  a man must decide to mean the totality of what his act naturally means, even though he doesn’t totally understand and can’t fully conceptualize the meaning to which he binds himself.
  • Natural law’s capacity for supra-rational signification, that it allows us to mean more than our minds can formulate, makes physical acts appropriate channels of grace via the sacraments.
  • Natural significations are also supra-personal in that, since they pre-exist us, they bear neither the marks nor the limitations of our private personalities.  They allow us to set aside personal idiosyncracies and speak as Man, allowing more authentic responses to the mysteries of human life.  They connect us to the totality of the human race in a vivid way and help us to “grow out of ourselves”.
  • God Himself (and Jesus Christ, the New Adam) underwrites our natural significations.  The proper response to so great a gift is reverence and conscientious use.

For the arguments for these statements, please see the full essay.

About these ads

12 thoughts on “Clean-up of Throne and Altar: added essays

  1. This is a sort of random question, but I didn’t really know where else to ask this. You’ve mentioned your opinions of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, but I’ve been wondering, what do you think of Taoism?

  2. Bonald,
    I have two remarks to make
    1) Man lives in a moral universe and Natural Law is our participation in the moral universe. Man is rational animal and thus Natural Law is perceived intellectually and then reasoned through.

    The physical/biological facts are just that. Man and woman are complementary but by itself, it does not lead to monogamy. So biological facts only take one to a certain point and talking about them with liberals will not take us far.

    The liberals know the facts; they just interpret them differently.

    2) The CITY as a subject of Natural Law should be very interesting to a Reactionary since it is exactly here the reaction can make a difference.

    The Reaction must recover the ancient definition of the City.

    a) Man is a Political Animal.
    b) The City exists by Nature
    c) The City is Prior to the Individual and the family.

    These points are Natural Law as applied to human society.

    The City is an embodiment of Natural Law since the Law judges man and Justice is the end of City.

    The modern error is essentially lies in the nature of City.

    Moderns reduce City to a herd.
    Animals herd for self-interest and mutual protection.

    But humans live i Cities because they acknowledge the Law.
    And the Law sews up people into a Body.

    So City reflects human rational nature and the modern view reduces man to animals, essentially denying rationality.

    The City is also a community of love and the modern though is love-denying too. Hobbes, Locke, Adam Smith held that man lives in society for
    mutual gain and he loses a part of his natural liberty in doing so.
    But the ancient and Catholic view is that man realizes his liberty fully in a City. As it has been said
    “The freedom is always an exercise of “I” but the freedom comes into being through the “We” through a tradition of political liberty.

    So the Reaction must regain a more holistic view in which the Individual, the Family and the City are all regarded as irreducible.
    The proper understanding safeguards against the opposite dangers of collectivism and libertarianism

    • The physical/biological facts are just that. Man and woman are complementary but by itself, it does not lead to monogamy. So biological facts only take one to a certain point and talking about them with liberals will not take us far.

      With respect to your first sentence, sure it does. The human sexual faculty is naturally ordered toward procreation. The duties attendant on procreation don’t end at the moment of conception but entail, among other things, continued protection of the mother during her pregnancy, provisions for the survival of the child and his/her moral and social instruction, etc. All these necessarily require a continuing commitment beyond the sexual act itself.

      You’re right, though, that talking about biological facts doesn’t get us very far with liberals.

      • Prolonged needs of human infant could conceivably been satisfied through
        a communal model of child-rearing, as liberals prefer.

        Thus monogamy does not necessarily flow from biological facts but is a spiritual fact about us.

  3. Bonald, thank you for organizing these, and the excellent summary. Your dedication to humbly spreading these ideas and connecting them to lived experience is a light unto the confused.

  4. When you have some time in the next couple years, you should gather all your essays, and even some of your better blog posts, and put them into e-book format. Blogs are rather cumbersome things for reading on.

  5. bonald, thank you for the cleanup and thank you for helping us to learn those topics.

    Would it be possible to have these in a single page so I can send it to my Kindle (or other people can send it to the printer)? Many people don’t like to read serious subjects on screen.

    • Hi TMWW and imnobody,

      Thanks for the suggestions on how to make these more accessible. I’m still not sure what the most convenient form(s) are for readers, so suggestions are helpful.

  6. Yes, they work fine. Are there any PDFs? I did not find them.

    Anyway, a single page is even better. A single page can:

    1) Be converted into a PDF with a pree PDF printer like PrimoPDF.
    2) Sent directly to Kindle with free services like Instapaper, SendtoKindle, et.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s