The Constitution

[qfnol31]

"2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.

3. [b]It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[/b]"

"29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth."

--Pope Pius XII

This is where it says it falls to reason to listen to the Natural Law, but that that reason is good only so far as it is trained well (by Divine Law).

My argument, though I will concede that Natural Law is a way by which man knows God, must have Divine Law as well.

The argument for the Constitution still stands, in that, by omitting to acknowledge God, it does nothing wrong, for this is just a section of the Natural Law that it chooses not to encompass.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 11 2004, 03:53 AM'] The argument for the Constitution still stands, in that, by omitting to acknowledge God, it does nothing wrong, for this is just a section of the Natural Law that it chooses not to encompass. [/quote]
[quote]Most political laws don't acknowledge God as True. They also don't say anything against Him, which this does not. Again, Human Law cannot encompass all of Natural Law.[/quote]

1) The point is that it doesn't "omit mention of God". It says in the very first amendment that the government CANNOT recognize God (cannot make any law respecting the establishment of religion). If the government cannot make a law respecting any religion, then it is thereby saying it CANNOT say whether God is True or not. To do so is to reject Natural Law, which teaches that God is True.


2) If it speaks on Natural Law at all, God should be the first topic... so the fact that "it can't encompass all of Natural Law" doesn't relieve them from the fact that they touch on Natural Law but omit God, and on top of that, when they do mention Religion, they say that it is unlawful for the State to recognize that God exists, which is against Natural Law.

[Guest Aluigi]

no, the Constitution in fact does not say the gov't' cannot recognize God (unless you buy into ACLU propaganda)

God is mentioned in the Declaration of INdependence as the One who gives people the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness. He's on the money, He's in the Pledge of Allegiance

it is not against the constitution to recognize that God exists, in fact that's an integral point of America recognizing that God gives people certain inalienable rights.

it does not contradict the natural law

it contradicts Divine Revelation by making it illegal to recognize the One True Church of God.

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the freepractice thereof." simply means it cannot declare one religion correct and another religion wrong. without Divine assistance, law cannot know one Religion to be true and another to be wrong.

[CatholicforChrist]

Okay, I have been reading back over the thread. This is a brief assessment of the current questions in the debate:

We can know, from the use of reason alone, that the Catholic Church is the true Church. This is clear from the science of apologetics, the very goal of which is to prove the Church by reason alone.

Further, bringing the Declaration of Independence into the picture is a big mistake because it explicitly contradicts natural law time and time again. The biggest errors of which is the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
There are all kinds of problems here. First of all, he claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are created equal. I guess he had forgotten the beliefs and teachings of every religion and every society from his own all the way back to Adam. No one had ever claimed that all men are equal. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas on the inequality of nature. (prima pars, ques. xlvii, art. Ii; in fact, all of question xlvii is pertinent; see the second link for the entire question)
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104702.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104702.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104700.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104700.htm[/url]


Further, he asserts somehow that the pursuit of happiness is a right! He even says that such a right is unalienable and endowed by God. Anyone with a limited knowledge of Enlightenment history and philosophy is able to tell you that the Enlightenment (not the Middle Ages, not Christendom) is the origin of the idea that man should pursue happiness. Man's happiness is an accident of God's honor. To honor God is pleasing to man, but this is an accident of a different end (honoring God); to make man's happiness an end in itself is poor philosophy at best, and (as is true in this case), heresy at worst.


The Declaration of Independence also asserts that governing authority is derived from the people, not God. "That to secure these rights [the unalienable rights just listed], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." All that needs to be said is: "Heresy!" Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans suffices as evidence against this error.


There are so many more errors in the Declaration of Independence, including the so-called "right" and "duty" of succession from the government that are all equally unnatural and heretical but with which I do not have time to consider.

[qfnol31]

Well, now that I've corrected my thoughts, thanks CC, I forgot what it was I was saying for a while, , I'm going to try to address this for today. If I don't get back to your responses for a week or so, don't worry, I will.

[quote]We can know, from the use of reason alone, that the Catholic Church is the true Church. This is clear from the science of apologetics, the very goal of which is to prove the Church by reason alone.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote]Further, bringing the Declaration of Independence into the picture is a big mistake because it explicitly contradicts natural law time and time again. The biggest errors of which is the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."[/quote]

[quote]There are all kinds of problems here. First of all, he claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are created equal. I guess he had forgotten the beliefs and teachings of every religion and every society from his own all the way back to Adam. No one had ever claimed that all men are equal. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas on the inequality of nature. (prima pars, ques. xlvii, art. Ii; in fact, all of question xlvii is pertinent; see the second link for the entire question)[/quote]

The question I would ask is he saying all men are equal as in, we can't count some men as half or 1/3 or 3/5 of a person or all men are perfectly capable of doing the same things. The first one, though not practiced right, seems the more viable option for I hope Jefferson realized that not all men are as skilled at writing as he is. It should be both self-evident and/or evident through divine revelation that men are created not so that some are 3/5 of a person and others are 5/3 of a person.

[quote][url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104702.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104702.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104700.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/summa/104700.htm[/url][/quote]

This is a little off topic, but those just seemed to discuss the inequality of the creatures, which would just pertain to the the heirarchy of creatures. The other link I looked at talked about distinctions, which is what I think I'm mentioning here.

[quote]Further, he asserts somehow that the pursuit of happiness is a right! He even says that such a right is unalienable and endowed by God. Anyone with a limited knowledge of Enlightenment history and philosophy is able to tell you that the Enlightenment (not the Middle Ages, not Christendom) is the origin of the idea that man should pursue happiness. Man's happiness is an accident of God's honor. To honor God is pleasing to man, but this is an accident of a different end (honoring God); to make man's happiness an end in itself is poor philosophy at best, and (as is true in this case), heresy at worst.[/quote]

Actually, this is an idea of Aristotle, and is upheld by the Catholic Church today. This one, unlike earlier where I accidentally misquoted and misremembered everything I've been taught , I actually do remember. In Moral Theology, we're very big on talking about how man seeks his happiness, and that is how he participates. This is part of the problem before Vatican II and that's part of what it helped fix, the idea that man is seeking his happiness. This is why we have the Natural Law, for it is what is best for us, and what God knows will truly make us happy in the end:
[quote]To ask about the good, in fact, ultimately means to turn towards God, the fullness of goodness. Jesus shows that the young man's question is really a religious question, and that the goodness that attracts and at the same time obliges man has its source in God, and indeed is God himself. God alone is worthy of being loved "with all one's heart, and with all one's soul, and with all one's mind" (Mt 22:37). He is the source of man's happiness. Jesus brings the question about morally good action back to its religious foundations, to the acknowledgment of God, who alone is goodness, fullness of life, the final end of human activity, and perfect happiness.[/quote]
[quote]In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made "a free self-commitment to God".113 With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses "sanctifying grace", "charity" and "eternal happiness".114 As the Council of Trent teaches, "the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin".[/quote]
[quote]72. The morality of acts is defined by the relationship of man's freedom with the authentic good. This good is established, as the eternal law, by Divine Wisdom which orders every being towards its end: this eternal law is known both by man's natural reason (hence it is "natural law"), and — in an integral and perfect way — by God's supernatural Revelation (hence it is called "divine law"). Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness. The first question in the young man's conversation with Jesus: "What good must I do to have eternal life? " (Mt 19:6) immediately brings out the essential connection between the moral value of an act and man's final end. Jesus, in his reply, confirms the young man's conviction: the performance of good acts, commanded by the One who "alone is good", constitutes the indispensable condition of and path to eternal blessedness: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). Jesus' answer and his reference to the commandments also make it clear that the path to that end is marked by respect for the divine laws which safeguard human good.Only the act in conformity with the good can be a path that leads to life.[/quote]
[quote]In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness.[/quote]

Those were John Paul II. The following came from a book on St. Joseph of Copertino, with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat a few times over from 1918:
[quote]In judging of these expressions it is well to remember taht the Church has repeatedly (Innocent XI, 1687, Innocent XII, 1699) condemned the pretence of an habitual love of God in this life which excludeds the fear of hell and the desire for heaven.[/quote]

If you'd like, I can find you some more on the happiness that man seeks.

[quote]The Declaration of Independence also asserts that governing authority is derived from the people, not God. "That to secure these rights [the unalienable rights just listed], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." All that needs to be said is: "Heresy!" Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans suffices as evidence against this error.[/quote]

Is it possible for this to stand as true along with the fact that the governments get their authority from God? I bet there is a way to reconcile the two arguments legitimately.

[quote]There are so many more errors in the Declaration of Independence, including the so-called "right" and "duty" of succession from the government that are all equally unnatural and heretical but with which I do not have time to consider.[/quote]

If you want, lets go over them sometime. I'll ask my Moral Theology professor about it over the next week or so.


I'm sorry if I caused any scandal by what I've said. I feel bad. My school has taught me, as I wrote in the article I posted above, that it is possible for man to come to reason by Natural Law. I guess my problem is that I don't think we should expect everyone to reason that way, even though it is possible. I think that reason should be accompanied by the Divine Law, and oftentimes Natural Law and Divine Law get so clouded. I wanted to completely separate them, which wasn't wise of me. Anyways, sorry, and thanks.

Let's finish this, please!

Edited November 11, 2004 by qfnol31

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Actually, this is an idea of Aristotle, and is upheld by the Catholic Church today. This one, unlike earlier where I accidentally misquoted and misremembered everything I've been taught , I actually do remember. In Moral Theology, we're very big on talking about how man seeks his happiness, and that is how he participates. This is part of the problem before Vatican II and that's part of what it helped fix, the idea that man is seeking his happiness. This is why we have the Natural Law, for it is what is best for us, and what God knows will truly make us happy in the end[/quote]

1) I think CforC is correct. One's happiness is not a "right". That is the whole idea of temperance. That is the whole idea of penance and mortification. By that logic, you have a right to be a glutton, a fornicator, a drunk, etc., etc.

2) I really am perturbed at hearing how "Vatican II fixed something". It didn't fix anything. Well... maybe the Priests say the Mass slower than they did in the 50s (and yes that is a very good thing), but instead of saying everything and just doing it quickly, now they just leave parts of the Mass out... or use an abbreviated version of what the Church has used as the Canon since the 300s... I suppose the only way to say that Vatican II "fixed" something is to take something that was correct (not saying happiness is a "right"), call it incorrect, and show how Vatican II and the "spirit" of the Council "fixed it" (hence "fixing" what was "wrong"--basically ruining what was right).

[quote]Is it possible for this to stand as true along with the fact that the governments get their authority from God? I bet there is a way to reconcile the two arguments legitimately.[/quote]

This kind of idea (since the Decl. of Ind. says it, therefore, there MUST be some way to reconcile it to the Church) is known as Americanism, a heresy. The point is this: the American system is heretical... that's why there is a thing called the American heresy. Americanists like to quote Pope Pius XII (I think the XII), when he said: "One cannot be a true socialist and at the same time a Catholic" (which is true in the way he meant it--a secular socialist), but they completely neglect how the Popes of the beginning of last century and the end of the 19th century also made the statement: "One cannot be a true American and at the same time a Catholic" (by American meaning one who believes in the American system, not someone who is born in America).

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 11 2004, 01:41 PM'] 1) I think CforC is correct. One's happiness is not a "right". That is the whole idea of temperance. That is the whole idea of penance and mortification. By that logic, you have a right to be a glutton, a fornicator, a drunk, etc., etc. [/quote]
Actually, happiness has a broader sense, but it's hidden. See, happiness only occurs after death, when in union with God, for this is what Aristotle said. It's perfect, and this is what all men want, this perfect happiness in union with God. It's pretty complicated, but let me just assure you that while all men seek this, most men probably don't realize how true happiness (not the fleeting stuff that men think will lead them to true happiness) is only attainable in Heaven.

[quote]2) I really am perturbed at hearing how "Vatican II fixed something". It didn't fix anything. Well... maybe the Priests say the Mass slower than they did in the 50s (and yes that is a very good thing), but instead of saying everything and just doing it quickly, now they just leave parts of the Mass out... or use an abbreviated version of what the Church has used as the Canon since the 300s... I suppose the only way to say that Vatican II "fixed" something is to take something that was correct (not saying happiness is a "right"), call it incorrect, and show how Vatican II and the "spirit" of the Council "fixed it" (hence "fixing" what was "wrong"--basically ruining what was right). [/quote]

Have you read the thread on Vatican II and Participative Theonomy? That's where I get the idea that I proposed. You should read it, it's in this phorum (Debate Table). Heteronomy is wrong.

[quote]This kind of idea (since the Decl. of Ind. says it, therefore, there MUST be some way to reconcile it to the Church) is known as Americanism, a heresy. The point is this: the American system is heretical... that's why there is a thing called the American heresy. Americanists like to quote Pope Pius XII (I think the XII), when he said: "One cannot be a true socialist and at the same time a Catholic" (which is true in the way he meant it--a secular socialist), but they completely neglect how the Popes of the beginning of last century and the end of the 19th century also made the statement: "One cannot be a true American and at the same time a Catholic" (by American meaning one who believes in the American system, not someone who is born in America).[/quote]

I didn't say there has to be, but I bet there is a way in this case to reconcile the two. I'm about Church first, state second always, but in this case I haven't seen a direct conflict.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]Actually, happiness has a broader sense, but it's hidden.  See, happiness only occurs after death, when in union with God, for this is what Aristotle said. It's perfect, and this is what all men want, this perfect happiness in union with God. It's pretty complicated, but let me just assure you that while all men seek this, most men probably don't realize how true happiness (not the fleeting stuff that men think will lead them to true happiness) is only attainable in Heaven.[/quote]

Are you saying THAT is what Jefferson meant... I mean, come on. Remember, he is the one who "re-wrote" the Bible, taking out all the miracles and references to Christ as God...

[qfnol31]

Doesn't matter if he knew where happiness lies, he just knew the one simple fact of life that we all seek happiness.

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 11 2004, 03:50 PM'] Doesn't matter if he knew where happiness lies, he just knew the one simple fact of life that we all seek happiness. [/quote]
No but he was saying is that everyone has a right to temporal pleasure...

[Guest Aluigi]

he just changed John Locke's "property" to "persuit of happiness"

meaning people had the right to own stuff, persuing hapiness in this life. they don't have the right to hapiness, but rather the right to pursue hapiness through hard work and determination. to go get what they want without the gov't' stopping them, so long as what they wanted didn't contradict anyone else's right ot life, liberty, or the persuit of hapiness (property)

[qfnol31]

If that's the case, then it's even more Catholic. Leo XIII thinks that everyone should have private property. (Inclusive idea).