Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Matt Malone, S.J.March 18, 2015

The work of John Courtney Murray, S.J., once an associate editor of this review, continues to dominate political theology in the United States. Most students of Father Murray turn first to We Hold These Truths, Murray’s most accomplished and well-known articulation of his principal thesis: that Catholicism and American democracy are essentially compatible “because the contents of [the American public] consensus—the ethical and political principles drawn from the tradition of natural law—approve themselves to the Catholic intelligence and conscience.”

Father Murray viewed “the fact that the American political community was organized in an era when the tradition of natural law and natural rights was still vigorous” as nothing less than providential. This is because the natural law tradition, according to Murray, is a neutral theo-philosophical language, one in which we are all fluent by virtue of our human nature. Thus the language of natural law should be the lingua franca of political philosophy in a pluralist society.

Yet there have been challenges to Murray’s appropriation of natural law. Jean Porter, for example, has critiqued Murray’s predominantly neo-scholastic reading of natural law. But none other than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, both as pope and as a working theologian, has also commented on the relationship of the natural law tradition to political theology. According to Benedict, we may not need natural law to articulate a doctrine of human rights because “it is, of course, possible for the contemporary consciousness to be content with the inherent obviousness of these values.” Benedict would not deny that there are objective philosophical and moral principles at work in such claims; he just wonders, as a practical matter, whether such principles must be explicit.

But Benedict has also expressed mild skepticism about the general explanatory power of the natural law tradition: “Unfortunately, this instrument has become blunt,” he has said. Benedict believes that when considering the natural law tradition in a political context, one must account for the fact that, among modern thinkers, it is an open question whether “there might exist a rationality of nature and, hence, a rational law for man and for his existence in the world.”

I would add that part of the reason why natural law theory is effectively a “blunt instrument” is that it has been detached from its theological presuppositions in the misguided and vain hope of rendering it more “credible” in the officially agnostic public square. True, Father Murray believed that the natural law is theoretically inseparable from its theological presuppositions. But what Father Murray and his followers failed to appreciate fully is the extent to which natural law theory and its theological presuppositions are truly inseparable in practice. For the natural law to be genuinely intelligible, credible and liveable, then, it must be appropriated in the context of love, in the context of a living relationship with the lawgiver who is loving creator. Without love, the law is reduced to its bare ethical content, which cannot sustain an authentically human calculus.

It is naïve to think that we can devise a common moral framework simply by giving theoretical lip service to the divine. Attempts to apply reason without faith, says Benedict, are also unhistorical, for the state is not self-justifying but receives “its basic [philosophical] support from outside: not from a mere reason that is inadequate in the moral realm, but from a reason that has come to maturity in the historical form of faith.” Accordingly, “the real problem that confronts us today,” writes Benedict, “is reason’s blindness to the entire nonmaterial dimension of reality.”

In other words, it may be time to start looking for a new lingua franca.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Martin Eble
7 years 6 months ago
The language of natural law - “We hold these truths to be self-evident” - became the lingua franca of political philosophy in American society because all the alternatives led to intractable conflict. The 20th century well demonstrated that without natural law to articulate a doctrine of human rights ”the inherent obviousness of these values” was apparently not obvious, assuming the Assyrian genocide, Holodomor, Holocaust, and Pol Pot were any indications. The intellectual backflips and gyrations necessary to formulate a basis for trying war criminals at Nuremberg without acceding to the Soviet formula - “we won” - provide a real-life example of the problems in governance without natural law. Roe v. Wade provides another, with a much larger body count. Benedict is correct in his assessment of natural law’s appeal to the modern mind, but it is hard to find much beyond “Me, me, me!” that does appeal to the modern mind. Any law, not just natural law, to be genuinely intelligible, credible and liveable, must be appropriated in the context of love, in the context of a living relationship with the lawgiver who is loving creator. The founders of our nation recognized that while at the same time proscribing any particular vision of the creator. It is the dismissal of the common good and the creator altogether that creates the problem, not the natural law.
William Rydberg
7 years 6 months ago
Natural law is an approach. The other is to speak out in measured faith. Nothing to be self-conscious about if you are adequately researched and prepared. It's OK to make your apologetics from the Catholic pov. And the benefit here is that the Catholic pov is very rational indeed, for faith is reasonable. Sadly over the past 30 or so years I have observed much unjustified Catholic self-criticism from prominent (my guess also nominal?) Catholics in the public square. I think that I see their perspective, after-all it takes a lot of energy to swim against the metaphorically worldly flow. Not much payback in struggling against post-modernism these days. Catholicism is complex. Thank God for the promise of Jeremiah 31. Let's all agree to pray for whatever Grace we each need...
Martin Eble
7 years 6 months ago
Natural law is an approach based on the observation that things have a purpose, a purpose that can be deduced from observation, and therefore in general terms a Deist can converse with a Catholic with a Jew. We may disagree on our particulars, but we can at least agree that some conclusions can be arrived at. Speaking in the public square from a Catholic point of view alone leaves you open to the charge of sectarianism. Opposing abortion, for example, is equated with forbidding the eating of pork. Yet opposition to abortion can be reasonably based on natural law arguments while kosher laws can only be considered revelation. You can't get far in the public square on revelation.

The latest from america

What is most endearing about “Hocus Pocus 2” is the way that it brings to the fore an aspect of the original film that you don’t often see portrayed today: sisterhood.
Jim McDermottOctober 06, 2022
America interviewed Father Holt at the Church of St. Vincent Ferrer, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, to learn a little more about his life and journey to the priesthood and his secrets to living a fulfilling and happy life.
Ricardo da Silva, S.J.October 06, 2022
A Reflection for the Memorial of Our Lady of the Rosary, by Jill Rice
Jill RiceOctober 06, 2022
In an exclusive interview, Joe Donnelly, U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, discusses his diplomatic work with the Vatican—including on the war in Ukraine—with America associate editor Colleen Dulle.
Colleen DulleOctober 06, 2022