tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post114325802299673750..comments2024-03-26T12:23:35.307-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: Damon Linker on NeuhausStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1144258334656120782006-04-05T12:32:00.000-05:002006-04-05T12:32:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comment, Prof. Machan. With respec...Thanks for the comment, Prof. Machan. <BR/><BR/>With respect, I think your comment doesn't exonerate Linker. You say, for example, that "whether contraception should or should not be used is not a matter of natural law . . . The supposed wrongfulness of using contraception is at best an inference several steps removed from any purported foundation in natural law."<BR/><BR/>You may be right -- but if you're right, it's only because you have provided a sufficient for doubting either 1) the existence of natural law per se, or 2) the application of natural law in this instance. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that Linker does neither. He does not suggest any reasoning that would indicate that natural law is either non-existent or non-applicable here. <BR/><BR/>Instead, Linker merely suggests that the ban on contraception lacks a basis in natural law because of various "trends" -- i.e., trends in American behavior. To my mind, Linker is simply confused. A proposition of natural law cannot be settled by looking at how many people assent to it at any given time. To the contrary, there are many times and places where people's consciences are "deformed," such that they fail to recognize moral truths. (Again, this is not to say that a ban on contraception is a moral truth; it's to say that the existence of such a moral truth doesn't depend on how many people recognize it, as Linker suggests.)Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1144220120807462232006-04-05T01:55:00.000-05:002006-04-05T01:55:00.000-05:00This idea, that "I gather that Linker is using the...This idea, that "I gather that Linker is using the typical journalist's trick of presenting his own beliefs under the cover of claiming that "many" unidentified people have claimed that, etc., etc." can be challenged by noting that when so many decent, non-perverse people fail to follow a teaching, the credibility of that teaching is put in jeopardy. Certainly, whether contraception should or should not be used is not a matter of natural law--natural law has rather minimal content in most renditions (see Aquinas, for example). The supposed wrongfulness of using contraception is at best an inference several steps removed from any purported foundation in natural law. So Linker isn't open to the charge leveled at him here, namely, that he is confusing widespread non-compliance with a natural law with the doubtfulness of the law itself. For this criticism to hold, first it would have to be shown that what is alleged to be a natural law is in fact such a law. Neuhaus hasn't shown this at all. Linker is merely noting that most Catholics seem to agree and act accordingly. BTW, as a long ago "fallen" catholic, I found Linker's comments on the role of blind faith in the Church's authority aligned with my own reason for leaving the fold. How could anyone with the desire to know comply with such a demand? (When I initially challenged it to my priest mentor, he asked me to read Kempis' Immitation of Christ, which only hastened my departure.)Tiborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11489130839277616022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1143762287468180202006-03-30T17:44:00.000-06:002006-03-30T17:44:00.000-06:00More here:http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp...More here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9603Václav Patrik Šulikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17776897108406930562noreply@blogger.com