

Neil Gorsuch, the Trump administration’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, is a proponent of natural law. What does that say about Gorsuch and about issues of high interest to faithful Catholics? It says a lot, and what it says is very good.
First, what is natural law?
Natural law affirms that we do what we ought to do according to nature, to our very nature. “What we ought to do is based on what we are,” writes Boston College theologian Peter Kreeft. The natural law, notes Kreeft, is naturally known, by natural human reason and experience. You need not be a religious believer to know the natural law, even if that law (many of us believe) was written into nature by a Creator.
Really, it’s easier to give examples of natural law than a definition. Human sexuality demonstrates natural law so well because it’s so self-evident. For instance, a man and a woman have obviously and observably different but complementary sexual parts that are capable of biological union. A male sperm fertilizes a female egg. That leads to life. That’s how the laws of nature, or nature’s God, has ordained it.
But let’s move away from sexuality. Another violation of natural law is murder: one human life taking another. That’s a violation held by cultures, societies and governments of all times.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1954-1960) states that natural law is “immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history.” It is a “universal rule that binds men,” that is “engraved in the soul of each and every man,” and that is “present in the heart of each man.”
St. Gregory of Nazianzen observed that this “unwritten law of nature” serves as a vital “watchdog of our actions, by way of pricking our consciences and advising and directing us.” It navigates us.
St. Gregory was a Christian, but one need not be a Christian to understand what Thomas Jefferson referred to as “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Pre-Christian figures like Aristotle and Cicero spoke of this eternal law. “True law is right reason in agreement with nature,” stated Cicero. “It is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting.”
Moreover, Cicero asserted, “It is a sin to try to alter this law … and it is impossible to abolish it entirely.” He added that “whoever is disobedient” to the natural law “is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature.”
In this, Cicero would have agreed with the Catechism, which states that even when this law is rejected, “it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man” (1958).
Nonetheless, many in today’s culture aggressively seek to do just that, because they don’t like the dictates of the natural law. If you’re endeavoring to fundamentally transform human nature, especially on issues like marriage, family, sexuality and gender, then the natural law is your chief foe.
For many liberals, this is why natural law is anathema. As a CNN reporter notes of natural law and Neil Gorsuch, because “some philosophers” have “employed natural law to argue against abortion and same-sex marriage, the field has become controversial, especially among liberals.”
Controversial? Well, okay. But it is what it is. Abortion and same-sex “marriage” go against the teachings of natural law. They also go against the teachings of Scripture, the Catechism and the Roman Catholic Church, which upholds natural law.
Thus, if you’re an aggressive secular progressive, one seeking, day in and day out, to redefine human nature, what do you do with natural law?
Some boldly proclaim that “natural law doesn’t exist,” as one of my shocked students heard from her professor in law school.
But if this progressive professor makes that assertion, then the progressive professor must also reject the natural-law-based conclusions of tribunals such as Nuremberg after World War II, when the judges told Nazi officials that regardless of what Hitler’s laws proclaimed, they should have known that what they were doing was wrong. To gas human beings and recycle their corpses into soap and lamp shades is an obvious violation of basic laws of humanity — no excuses.
Or consider slavery and various civil-rights laws. One current libertarian writer states that “the greatest spokesman for natural law in the 20th century was probably Martin Luther King, who denounced segregation not because of its technical complexities, but because it betrayed the natural-law principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
This being the case, most progressives will do with natural law what they do with biblical law and other moral laws — they will pick the applications they like and ignore or reject those they don’t. Or, even more brazenly, they will try to remake the natural law in their own image.
No — sorry; it doesn’t work that way. Nature tells you what to do; you don’t tell nature what to do. Your biology tells you your sex; you don’t get to determine your own sex.
But tell that to modern disciples of the dictatorship of relativism, where everything is deemed re-definable, from one’s gender to whether a human life is even considered a human life.
And that brings us to Neil Gorsuch.
Gorsuch is incredibly well-educated. It’s difficult to find a more credentialed academic pedigree. He studied natural law while earning a Ph.D. at Oxford (he has a J.D. from Harvard) under one of the world’s pre-eminent authorities on natural law, John Finnis. Professor Finnis was Gorsuch’s dissertation adviser. He’s now on faculty at Notre Dame Law School and a professor emeritus at Oxford. Finnis’ best-known work is his Natural Law and Natural Rights.
Gorsuch’s application of natural law was on display in a 2006 book on euthanasia and assisted suicide, published by Princeton University Press. In that book, he wrote that “all human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.” (Amazingly, this line drew the condemnation of pro-abortion Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, during day one of Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings.) It’s a line that could have come right out of the Catechism or an encyclical from Pope John Paul II. It’s a statement any faithful Catholic would love.
For that matter, so is Gorsuch’s statement in support of the Little Sisters of the Poor when the Obama administration tried to force the religious order to pay for abortion drugs. He wrote: “When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for the refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person’s free exercise of religion.”
It is wrong for the state to force a person to violate that person’s conscience. The eternal laws of God supersede the temporal laws of the state.
Here, I’m reminded of a classic affirmation of natural law from Sophocles’ play Antigone, where the protagonist tells the ruler who is repressing her: “I had to choose between your law and God’s law, and no matter how much power you have to enforce your law, it is inconsequential next to God’s. … No mortal, not even you, may annul the laws of God.” (Of course, people who don’t believe in God will not support Antigone’s reasoning.)
In all, this means that Neil Gorsuch’s thinking on issues like human life and religious liberty should be in concert with faithful Catholics, and it should be sympathetic to the rights of those Catholics against a government that tries to coerce them.
Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania.
His forthcoming book is A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century (April 2017).
The ones that are clouding the equal but separate powers are not the Constitutional Originalists (like Scalia was) but the liberal justices who are twisting the Constitution in ways that are making it unrecognizable. There may be some stretches to the Constitution that can be accepted if they respect the original spirit of the Constitution but those justices that view it as an evolving document (without the use of the amendment process) are making it a meaningless document.
We should all thank Harry Reid for lowering the required Senate votes for circuit court lifetime appointments to 51 Senators. Surely Republicans will do the same, especially in light of the fact that Democrats obviously will.
All indicators show that Judge Gorsuch will make a great Supreme Court Justice.
@ Morgan, I don’t claim to be the smartest person but it’s not complicated. Could it be that you don’t want to understand it? The targeting of an innocent life in the unborn child for death by abortion is never morally acceptable. What is so difficult to understand about that ?
Morgan, It doesn’t take a genius to understand the double effect theory. Why can’t you get it????
@ Alexander - I do not disagree with your pro-life position at all. My only concern is that Gorsuch will follow the administration line as extremely as Scalia did, thereby clouding the equal but separate powers. Not for nothing, but we don’t need any more of this cloak-and-dagger stuff that Nunes just pulled off. I think Gorsuch will be an obedient servant, and the “I am my own man,” which he repeated too many times, gives me pause.
The main hope that I have from Gorsuch’s application of Natural Law (theory) is that human life in the womb will be protected at the federal level. Not too long ago the U.S. House passed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act but it failed to pass in the U.S. Senate. It would have for the most part banned abortions at 20 weeks and later because science indisputably shows the unborn child can feel pain. I believe this same bill has been introduced again in one of the House committees. If it ever should become law, I imagine it will be challenged in the courts. If it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, I expect Gorsuch to uphold the law because science and common sense tell us that, at the very least, an unborn child at 20 weeks and later is a human being and deserves the full protection of the law.
Ken, the segment on “Double effect” is so convoluted that I could not tell good from bad. Kill the fetus, kill the mother defies logic. The maze presented to the life threatened pregnant mother would take a Canon lawyer to be her “moral” guide.
I would guess that most endangered mothers with an ectopic pregnancy trying to digest this moral/evil diatribe would simply throw her hands up and rely on her doctor and her conscience.
With all the dirty tricks and delay tactics used by the Democrats and their pals in the liberal media regarding ANYTHING that President Trump attempts to accomplish, each Republican should be too embarrassed to decline the opportunity to confirm Judge Gorsuch by a simple majority.
There is no good reason not to appoint Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Please remember that it is not “Natural Law” but, rather, Natural Law Theory. For it to qualify as a law, it must be demonstrably immutable and constant across all situations. It cannot possess any empirical deniability and, by its nature, reason is fallible. I understand the Catholic perspective (I was once on the “inside”), but if “accompaniment” (AL) and love triumph over application, it seems to me that rejecting variations in the theory is mistaken. Strict adherence to what is here referred to as “Natural Law” has historically led to some serious errors on the part of the Church as it continues to do today. Rigidity about these matters has caused difficult for the pope, as we all know, and has left millions of people out in the cold.
51% of all voting Catholics voted for Trump, many for “change” and many for “pro-life.” We should be vigilant about the person Trump has proposed to replace the rigid textualist Scalia. Catholics got what they voted for partly at the urging of articles like this one. Heaven help us all! Gorsuch has a European doctorate, a DPhil, which is a very different degree from the PhD we grant here. In my estimation, he is no brighter than the rest of the justices who voted for Citizens United and other crazy decisions.
Amen Jim, one of my all time favorite quotes from former Surgeon General C Everett Koop…
“Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarian section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.”
- C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Former U.S. Surgeon-General
Pax et bonum
Ken, Thank you! People like Morgan need detailed explanations. We can only hope that those explanations will change hearts. I can remember as a first grader hearing about a classmate’s father being burned alive while trapped in an overturned gasoline truck. I said to my mother, “Why didn’t they shoot this man to relieve his suffering?” My mother,of course, said we cannot do those kinds of things. She had only an 8th grade education she received as a child in war torn Belgium but she understood something which many educated Catholic politicians seem incapable of understanding. Mom knew the principle of double effect very well! Let’s hope Morgan is able to incorporate it into her values system.
@‘MorganB, a link on the principle of double effect that Jim referenced..
Morgan, I was reminded as a student nurse that the massive dose of dilaudid I was administering had the potential to kill the cancer victim. The intent was to relieve the person’s pain, not to cause death. We have doctors today faced with what are called “Wrongful birth” lawsuits, sometimes costing Doctors many millions of dollars, driving up the price of malpractice insurance and thus the cost of medical care for us all. Link to article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jury-awards-couple-50-million-in-wrongful-birth-lawsuit \
Supported by Democratic politicians, these lawsuits are a vicious attack on the consciences of doctors because they coercively demand formal cooperation with abortion, that is, actively and knowingly assisting in a procured abortion.
As to your other question, Doctors are not going to be prosecuted under any circumstance, regardless of the fate of Roe V Wade, because of their efforts to save the mother result in the unintentional death of the unborn child.
MorganB, Abortion to save the life of the mother is a red herring. Despite your family’s myth, it has been for over 50 years. Beyond that, let us see if you can get your mind around this:
Catholic moral theology has established specific guidelines when using the principle of double effect, including that: the intended action must be good in itself, the bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen but must not be intended, the good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means, the good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result, and acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, that is, when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.
@ MorganB, to answer your questions in order, there are several sitting Justices who although may be well educated feel it’s their duty to legislate from the bench, who view the constitution as a ” living breathing document”. In answer to the other questions, I hope so, I hope so, and I hope so. Where in the world is a mother’s right to terminate her unborn child’s life found in the Constitution? By the way even if Roe is overturned it wouldn’t outlaw abortion, it would leave it up to the individual states the same way that same sex so called ” marriage ” would have been ( voted down in many states via referendum ) if it weren’t for a few activist judges.
The bottom line is that Judge Gorsuch is pro-life, pro-Constitution, pro-religious freedom, and pro-America. Outstanding!
I get a kick out of liberals who try to micro-analyze any Gorsuch court case (without knowing all the facts, by the way) or associate that they disagree with. Look at the BIG PICTURE.
You say… “Gorsuch is incredibly well-educated. It’s difficult to find a more credentialed academic pedigree.” Is that pedigree not apparent in most SCOTUS nominees? Will his smarts be enough to sway the court to over turn Roe? And if the Roberts’ court aligns with Gorsuch will abortions be considered outlawed in any and all cases? And, if the Hippocratic Oath comes into play will a doctor be considered a criminal for saving the mother and not the fetus?
Alexander, Right you are and it’s exactly why Democrats will oppose his appointment to the court. They have fought tooth and nail to keep conscience rights out of healthcare. We heard Diane Feinstein advocate for assisted suicide which is the next challenge to Doctors, Nurses and Pharmacists wishing to live their faith. Year by year we have witnessed morality deteriorating, progressively becoming further and further from what God has intended and the Church teaches. I dropped out of the Democratic Party in the 70’s when I recognized the moral bankruptcy which existed within.
I read the article referenced by Will on Mar,25,2017 which expressed a negative opinion of Gorsuch because, in a court case, he came down against Maddin (a truck driver who left his stuck trailer behind because he felt he was freezing to death and needed to find some place to warm-up) who was fired by his company for abandoning his trailer. The court ruled in Maddin’s favor while Gorsuch gave a dissenting opinion. I empathize with Maddin, the truck driver, and the court did rule in his favor; however, as far as U.S. Supreme Court goes, I am more concerned about having a Supreme Court justice that would advance the pro-life cause, will protect freedom of religion and conscience, and will respect the U.S. Constitution. I think Gorsuch will do a good job with these issues.
Here is another opinion of the judge. http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2017/03/24/frozen-detroit-trucker-neil-gorsuch/99590588/
Natural Law, as recorded in the old testament, considers employment by ownership to be one of the normal ways of working. Natural Law gives strict guidance for both the owner and the owned.
The idea that employment by ownership is evil was invented by English industrialists in the 1800s to make THEIR version of employment seem inevitable and “good”. Owned employees (slaves) had lifetime security and family support, so the industrialists had a hard time selling their unprotected and insecure employment.
When you use “natural law” against slavery you are destroying the whole concept. You are creating new law with the pretense that it has always been a “natural right”, just as the Supremes declared that abortion has always been a “right”.
You can’t have it both ways.
Mike - RE: We ought to be careful with the Natural law as members of the prevailing culture. Natural law is not often biblical. It can and will take you odd places, odd places that are based on cultural morays not scripture.
Your examples are not examples of the application (or some result) of natural law, it is examples of societies ignoring it.
Mike Handy post #4 ,you are not understanding Natural Law.
“Posted by Fr William Bauer on Friday, Mar, 24, 2017 11:25 AM (EDT):
I am puzzle by the church which the man attends. It has a woman priestess, it teaches that abortion is good, it teaches that homosexuality is normal.”
Yes, Father, and I am puzzled by what understanding or rather misunderstanding of the natural law could lead Gorsuch to conclude that homosexual marriage is normal and an “unchangeable”
law of the Land.
Fr William, I get it though I don’t quite understand the relevance considering the history of Justice Satomayor.
Those who took the time to vote on Election Day for the President and Senate can know that they played an important role in the nomination of an astute Judge Gorsuch.
Fr. William, Forgive me if I don’t quite get your meaning. I might be a bit slow today- or am I missing something??
Good article! It mentions Cicero quotation: ‘‘true law is right reason in agreement with nature’‘. How not to agree with that?
Same man Cicero, is being quoted as saying in the Roman Senate 58 BC: ‘‘a nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious, but it cannot survive a treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable for he is known by his banner openly. But the traitor moves around freely. He rots the soul of a nation, he infects the body of politics, a murderer is less to fear, than a traitor…’‘
And, ‘‘Jesus reproaches the Scribes and Pharisees, likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing’‘. Both men saying something similar two thousand years apart.
I like what I see so far with Judge Gorsuch, as soon as he star working he will tell us by his deeds, his real self!
God bless America!
Peace to all,
Maria
In many cultures Murder is not outlawed, only the murder of privileged class. In near east Babylon murder of Women, and slaves resulted in a fine. Infants had no protection, and foreigners who were murdered could actually result in the murderer getting a reward.
We ought to be careful with the Natural law as members of the prevailing culture. Natural law is not often biblical. It can and will take you odd places, odd places that are based on cultural morays not scripture.
I am puzzle by the church which the man attends. It has a woman priestess, it teaches that abortion is good, it teaches that homosexuality is normal.
Good article about an admirable man.
The good thing about liberals’ attacks on Judge Gorsuch is that the liberals lose all credibility. Anyone can see that the liberals will attack ANY Trump nominee.
What a nonsense article. Gorsuch is on record in the confirmation hearing for saying that a fetus is not a person according to the law of the land, and that he will uphold the law because it is the law. There nothing there about what’s right or wrong according to the natural law.
Perhaps the real fear of Neil Gorsuch is that if he has an opportunity to pen a dissenting opinion on certain liberal issues, his dissent will be synonymous with shredding the premise to pieces, and possibly result in proving support of it to be folly.
Defining Euthanasia as “mercy” and abortion as “healthcare” pretty demonstrates how far Democrats have distanced themselves from natural law. The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses these circumstances:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.“85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.“87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!“89
The Natural Law is among the best arguments for all people of faith who are trying to protect traditional marriage, human life, the nuclear family, parental rights, and children. After reading this article telling us that Neil Gorsuch has studied and is a proponent of the Natural Law, I am an even more enthusiastic supporter of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.