According to the Natural Law why is it wrong for infertile people to engage in nonreproductive sex acts? For example, what if a woman is too old to get pregnant, lacks necessary reproductive organs, is in an infertile period of her menstrual cycle, or is already pregnant? What would be wrong with such women engaging in unnatural sex acts with their husbands? How is this contrary to the reproductive end of sex?

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical _Rerum Novarum_ asserts that there is a right to private property. But is this an [absolute right](https://dictionary.justia.com/absolute-right) or only a limited or qualified right based on circumstances under the natural law?

Paul wrote a letter and said that the Gentiles do some things which are godly because they have the law of Christ written on their hearts through their conscience and thoughts. *Romans 2:15* >They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. If the law of Christ is already written in their hearts, why then spread the gospel and not just wait to judge them at the end of the age since they have the knowledge of God in their conscience and thoughts?

Advocates of Natural Law aver that knowledge of Morals are inherent in mankind, and that the "Conscience" in man causes him to adhere to them, with guilt feelings when disobeyed. But are these morals based on, or "flowing from", Absolute Values; or do "mores and folk ways" of a society trump them? And whence the "list" of Absolute Values? How are they discovered? Is God behind the revelation of them...to those who sincerely care to follow them? The influence of the Enlightenment upon the definition and purpose of Natural Law tended to put great confidence in ***human reason***, and conversely, a low evaluation of the Bible (Revealed Law). This led academia to a promotion of an ***autonomous human ethic***. Modernity seems to have accepted this position in academia. But did Reformed Theology put restrictions on the definition and purpose of Natural Law, insisting on a close relationship with the Scriptures (Revealed Law), which referred to ***Absolute Values*** flowing from a Transcendent and Holy God, as the only valid source of Ethics? Is man autonomous, and allowed to swirl around in the ocean of relativistic morals based on the Enlightenment's definition of values/ethics. Or did/does Reformed Theology provide---and insist upon---a North Star of unchanging Absolute Values drawn from a Revealed Law (Scriptures)?

John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitæ* §58 (25 March 1995): >The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder Is this the first magisterial document to call abortion murder?

In the aftermath of the attack on Israel by Hamas, I've been listening to Ben Shapiro saying some things that I would like to know if are in-line with Catholic morality. It doesn't much matter what my opinion on the Israeli response to the attack is, but is the moral tone that Ben Shapiro is setting where he has repeatedly said that people who appear indoctrinated to value what they consider martyrdom over any other good are fundamentally on a different plane and not possible to reason with or treat in any other way than as if they were inhuman in accord with Catholic morality. Or does the Natural Law say that objective morality (i.e. not murdering - which is always wrong according to the Catechism) is accessible to even people who are brought up in a disordered value system?

As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law. The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them. As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

In Gen. 26:5: > Because Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my precepts and commandments, and observed my ceremonies and laws. (Douay Rheims) Abraham knew of the obligation to tithe. Noah knew what "clean animals" meant. Abel seemed to know about sacrificing animals (and firstlings). Joseph seemed to know that adultery was a grievous sin. and so forth... What were these precepts, commandments, ceremonies, and laws alluded to in Gen 26:5?? Were they written down? Are they represented in the *natural law*?

As Christians we are called to study the works of the Lord (Psalms 111:2), but did any of the Early Church Fathers between 50-800 AD, believe in natural laws theology/law? (i.e. that knowledge or theology is based on observed facts and experiences, apart from divine intervention)

It's well known that one can prove the existence of God through the light of natural reason alone (e.g. the Five Ways). However, Divine Revelation would also show this. It is in Divine Revelation that we learn that creation/existence is *good* (Genesis 1:31). Could we also reach that same conclusion (with the same meaning of "good") with the light of natural reason?

I'm listening to [a podcast from Relevant Radio](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5tm0zcjbxgKMe2U1PJtK2s?si=705c13747d0041cd) talking about how many people in the USA think it's OK to assassinate politicians. Wondering what that Natural Law (as interpreted by the Catholic Church) would say about that. Chesterton quipped once that it was distressing to think of how few politicians are hanged these days, but I think he may have said that in jest. Today people seem to take that seriously. Is there any area where assassination is justified? In a war perhaps?

The Natural Moral Law is a good way for Christians to understand quite a bit about the nature and purpose of what they're doing and who they are and quite a few of the papal teachings in the last hundred years have been around the nature and purpose of marriage and the relations between the sexes (Castii Canubii, Arcanum divinae sapientiae, Humane Vitae, etc.) , but to my knowledge very few have ventured to give advice about how to get there. What can the Natural Moral Law, which instructs us that marriage is a bond centered around unity and procreation, tell us about how we should conduct ourselves while courting? What should one's expectations be of a suitor and suttee?

I've read a lot of shocking stories lately [from Lifesitenews](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sweden-vaccine-passports-will-probably-be-required-for-shopping-eating-out-travel-meeting-loved-ones) and the like about the age of vaccine passports. I think they just assume that the reader will have an innate revulsion to them and don't go into whether or not a thing is morally justifiable. So for that purpose, I'm asking here. According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the interpreter of the [Natural Moral Law](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm) (which is written on the hearts of all men and women and "expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties"), does a "vaccine passport" comport with human dignity?

The National Catholic Bioethics Center considers what I think is a straw-man argument against people who reject mRNA vaccines on ethical grounds because they're transhumanist. > Myth 1: For vaccines that rely on injecting patients with mRNA, the possi­ble incorporation of these genes into our genetic makeup will fundamentally alter who we are as humans, moving us into a project of Transhumanism, the production of a “Human 2.0,” etc. > > Reply: Any incorporation of new genes into our chromosomes from a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine would be an exceedingly rare occur­rence, if it were to occur at all. It is actually very difficult to get the ge­netic information of mRNA to in­tegrate into our chromosomes, partly because this would mean a reverse directional flow of the so-called Central Dogma of Molecular Biol­ogy: our DNA or chromosomes are read (“transcribed”) to produce mRNA, which is then read (“trans­lated”) to make proteins. Even if the accidental and unintentional incorporation of an mRNA mes­sage into our chromosomes were somehow to occur following vaccination, this would not mean that we were creating “Human 2.0,” since those genetic changes would not be expected to affect our sex cells, and therefore would not be transmitted to the next generation. Vaccinating people with an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19, therefore, does not imply that we are “remaking man” or heading down the path of Transhumanism. > > https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-182-covid-19-vaccine-myths My problem with this statement is that they consider only what is actually happening this year, not the ethics of the abstract idea of mRNA treatments. (i.e., this is what I'd like to ask the Catholic Bioethics center, and I may, but I'll ask here first as a shortcut) So I have two ethical quandaries that I'd like a Catholic Ethics (i.e. Natural Law) answer from. 1. If mRNA vaccines look like they're useful, an obvious better vector than a shot for stopping a disease would be to make mankind resistant chromosomally, does the mRNA vaccine represent a staging area for the efficacy of such a treatment and therefore represent a first step in a slippery slope that we should reject? 2. If mRNA vaccines are not transhumanist in nature, when it is injecting your body with a synthetic mechanism to prevent (not treat) a disease, how is it less transhumanist than replacing your cornea to avoid glaucoma or replacing your prostate to avoid cancer? 3. Why is it important to inform the public that it doesn't affect the genome? Does something have to affect the genome to be "transhuman"? Bionic eyes and nano-bots would not affect the genome either, but they would be transhumanist. How is turning ones body into a protein generating factory by synthetic means, not transhumanist?

This question is mainly about the idea of contact tracing, but in a broader sense, in the Natural Law, as interpreted by the Catholic Church, her doctors, popes, noted philosophers, well-meaning dons, radio personalities, etc... do individuals have a right to privacy and if so, what sort of a right is that? Is it merely a negative right, as in, other people have a duty not to pry into your details or do people have a positive right to keep things to themselves?

If you were to Google "simulated universe" you'll find that major science institutions are starting to hypothesize that the universe is 'very possibly' a 'simulated environment' at the lowest level - where this simulated (_created_) environment supports all needed elements to facilitate true organic existence (they are not claiming that *we* are simulated). One article even went as far as referencing 'the being(s) behind the simulation' (_Creators_) Although these hypotheses vary, I've seen a few different schools that have studied the possibility (such as University of Washington) and are coming to the conclusion that it can even be simulated on a small scale within the near future. My question is whether the Scriptures support such an idea? I've never studied the Word from this angle so I can't say either way. Just to be clear, I know that we and even the universe are not digital simulations - but is there any way that the universe could have not just formed by God's will, but also that the formation is bound *through* God's constant will?

Is it a sin against charity to confirm a transsexual lifestyle by using pronouns (such as *she* to address a transwoman) that the church says is an offense against the Natural Law?

Here is a related question but they are not the same https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6702/do-miracles-violate-the-laws-of-physics Looking at most miracles in the bible, they can be explained based on what we already understand (physics, chemistry, etc) and sometimes they were even explained in the bible. Like in the case of God parting the red sea, the east/west wind had to be strong to drive the water apart and made the children of God passed. There are others like that. But there are 2 miracles that are difficult for me to explain. - The Shunamite widow pouring out oil from nowhere (2 Kings 4) - Here is an analyses have read but not satisfied: http://www.jba.gr/Articles/nkjv_jbajuly97.htm - Jesus feeding 4000/5000 from food that did not exist I know God is omnipotent and can do all things, ***but in the case of the Red Sea, we learned how He did it.*** My question is, when Jesus had 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish, how does breaking them increase them till they could feed 5000 people (I know it's a miracle) I am even more concerned about the Shunamite woman. Having a jar of oil, and pouring into several jars and could have continue if there were more to fill. How did the oil keep pouring when there was a finite amount inside (diluted with water - I don't think so)

St. Thomas Aquinas's seminal work the _Summa Theologica_ was an attempt to catalog all the theological arguments ever conceived. Much of the reasoning is rooted in the Natural Law and it's what Catholics believe today. It's the reason we've got such strong opinions on abortion, birth control, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" and more even though private interpretation of the Bible could potentially lead one to believe otherwise. What I wonder, is how much of a common ground is the Natural Law (specifically as it relates to the _Summa_) and how did the reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc.) decide whether or not to accept it?

Lots of people seem to be jumping on the [/thanosdidnothingwrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/thanosdidnothingwrong) bandwagon, and I need some Catholic Church, Natural Law arguments to prove unequivocally that he did do something very wrong, even if the writers of the next Avengers movie never bother to articulate it in those terms. Please respond to the following 5 objections:

Whether Thanos did anything wrong

>! When Thanos disintegrated half sentient beings in the Universe. Objection 1 - It would seem that Thanos did nothing morally wrong in the course of Avengers Infinity War because all his actions were geared toward the greater good. His desired ends were merely the universal application of a successful method of societal reconfiguration. The mere platitude that it is never OK to do evil so that good may come about (aka the ends don't justify the means) is insufficient to explain the evil Thanos sought to wreak upon the universe. Generally when one considers ends, they are finite, not universal ends. Thanos' goal was a final good. One that wouldn't necessarily need to be repeated. After Thanos accomplished his goal, his desire was to "watch the sun set on a grateful universe". >! when he dropped Gamora off the cliff to get the soul stone. Objection 2 - Furthermore, what he did he clearly did out of love, as the universe showed him. He believes he sacrificed everything (i.e. Q: "what did it cost you?"; A: "Everything") to save the Universe - not unlike Our Blessed Lord. >! When killing off entire worlds and populations and leaving half alive Objection 3 - Others say that because his method was random, it was not eugenical. Eugenics is a morally reprehensible method of selecting which sentient lifeforms should live because the question whether one lives or dies is based on criteria that doesn't take into account the dignity of everyone's immortal soul; it only considers a person's worth. >! When talking to young Gamora about his reasoning for his actions. Objection 4 - The philosopher says "All things in Moderation", and Thanos woulds say that sounds "Perfectly Balanced". The universe was in trouble and needed a moderator to step in and save it. >! When he killed Loki and Gamora Objection 5 - Those who Thanos did kill, by himself and not randomly, and not as a part of his quest for balance, were killed out of self-defense or as a punishment for treason. Just war theory says that it is ethical to kill out of self-defense and it capital punishment is licit when it is necessary to preserve the moral order. Since his society of one would be harmed by those who ardently sought to assassinate him, he was justified in a those killings.