Even if one concedes that St. Thomas means what I say he means when he claims that we all know the moral basics, it might be argued that his claim is simply wrong. Let us consider a few of the most likely objections.
Mondays are reserved for questions from readers, especially students.
Question:
If people have been raised to consider bad behavior morally acceptable, how can they ever come to recognize that it isn’t?
Reply:
Nearly everyone is asking what the decision to call sodomitical unions marriages will mean for adults. Is polygamy next? Group marriage? Persecution of those who disagree? Certainly, all that and more.
But why are so few asking what the decision will mean for children? Aren’t children the point?
Gay militants have been working on the assumption that the reason they suffer is that people disapprove of their behavior. If only the law would endorse their desires, they would feel better.
Now the law endorses their desires. The pity of it is that they won’t feel better. When the elation of victory wears off, they will feel like they did before.
Some weeks ago I absent-mindedly scheduled this student question and answer for today, without reflecting on the case schedule of the Supreme Court. The timing has been fortuitous.
Question:
Does natural law theory include an account of when one may disobey unjust human laws? If so, when would it be permissible?
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
