qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Is our Constitution founded upon Natural Law? If so, why try to get away from the principles today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyyoimjohnny Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 If our Constitution was founded on Natural Laws, people wouldn't be free to break them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyyoimjohnny Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I mean if the Constitution was founded solely on Natural Law, it has been perverted from it's original purpose. Otherwise abortions, homosexual relations, ect. wouldn't be legal. Sure, sounds harsh. But the constitution allows people to be free to do what they want as long as it functions within human laws; Natural Laws don't seem to be a large part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 The Constitution doesn't allow for those, and I bet the founding fathers would be appalled today. What's wrong with the Constitution is the same thing that's wrong with Vatican II. People try to interpret it based on what they want and not the original intent. By the way, I think there's nothing wrong with Vatican II. And also, all human laws [i]must[/i] follow natural law, otherwise it's unjust and our duty to go against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyyoimjohnny Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Ok. So it's not the constitution, it's the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Qfnol, you say that the same things are wrong with the Constitution as with Vatican II. I agree. You then say that there is nothing wrong with Vatican II. Do you mean that there is also nothing wrong with the Constitution (in and of itself)? If so, this is flawed. The Bill of Rights is included as part of the Constitution because it was the cause that allowed the Constitution to be ratified. There are several errors in just the First Amendment. I choose this one part of the Constitution not because the Articles of the Constitution are acceptable nor because the other Amendments are acceptable but simply because there are so many things in Amendment I alone that are condemned by the Church. The ideas of free religion, free speech, free press, etc, and also the idea that the State shall make no law establishing a religion are all condemned. See the Syllabus of Errors for appropriate condemnations, especially 55, 77, 78, 79, and 80. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 Freedom of speech is better defined in the Second Vatican Council, and was granted to France by the Pope around 1800 A.D. The Constitution is not against the moral law is what I say, and it's true. Religion falls under Divine Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Okay, I was just making sure you didn't think the Constitution in itself was acceptable or compatible with Catholicism because many of its teachings are condemned by the Church as heresy. Also, the Pope gave free speech to France because the country was very anti-Catholic and even more strongly anti-clerical after the French Revolution. This action ensured that Catholicism would have a voice (which, while permitting 'free speech' is better than the alternative). God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 The Constitution is against natural law but not necessarily against moral law, depending what you consider the Constitution to be and what you consider moral law to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 27 2004, 05:33 PM'] The Constitution is against natural law but not necessarily against moral law, depending what you consider the Constitution to be and what you consider moral law to be. [/quote] Where is the Constitution against Natural Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted October 27, 2004 Author Share Posted October 27, 2004 [quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 27 2004, 05:32 PM'] Okay, I was just making sure you didn't think the Constitution in itself was acceptable or compatible with Catholicism because many of its teachings are condemned by the Church as heresy. Also, the Pope gave free speech to France because the country was very anti-Catholic and even more strongly anti-clerical after the French Revolution. This action ensured that Catholicism would have a voice (which, while permitting 'free speech' is better than the alternative). God bless. [/quote] I think that's the exact same for the US Constitution as well. And France actually was given freedom of religion, and because our country is not Catholic, I think this is best for our society as well. We have freedom of speech, but that does not include profanity, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicforChrist Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 The Constitution is against Natural Law because it does not acknowledge God as the Supreme Head of the State. Read Saint Paul's Epistles, especially to the Romans. The fact is that the Church has condemned freedom of religion. It cannot be defended as a good or acceptable system, especially when the system was FOUNDED with so-called separation of Church and State. The Constitution is the very document that instituted this separation. To be soft on the heresies of the Constitution is to fall into the heresy of Americanism. We cannot defend the errors and heresies of America and the modern world. To do so is to fall into the heresy of Modernism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyyoimjohnny Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 It is my understanding that: Men think too much and don't listen to God, who speaks through their hearts. As a result, complications come from man's interpretation. I have a strong aversion to all things political, and techical regarding to law, because I see it as complications from the human thought process. Until a few minutes ago, I regarded the Constitution as one of these complications, opposed to Natural Law and it's beautiful simplicity. More beautifully simple is Divine Law. I'm seeking an opinion here; or perhaps factual evidence. Does the Constitution in any way contradict Divine Law? Or are any contradictions simply more complications? I don't mean to change the subject. But I'm wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now