For me the frequently heard reference to “natural law” is problematic in the discussions of human behavior and the appropriate societal limits on such behavior. The phrase is used without qualification and seemingly with the presumption that it is as clear as the proverbial “nose on my face” to all readers or listeners. If the phrase is qualified by the adjective Judeo-Christian, then the concept is severely limited. If the caveat “guided by reason and faith” is added, it is similarly limited. When one asks for clarification or elaboration, the response is often an ad hominem attack.

Here is an example that speaks to the adolescent logician, who continues to reside within me. In a recent search of some of literature on natural law, a particular author noted that St. Thomas Aquinas had determined that polygamy was consistent with natural law theory, but polyandry was not. (I am sorry that I don’t have the full citation.) This may be why I have never seen a reference to Aquinas in defense of any of the marriage amendments that are making the rounds in various states.

Where does this leave us? Natural law is supposedly not subject to change or modification over time. Was St. Thomas in error? If so, what other errors have not yet been corrected and continue to be passed off as natural law, moral imperatives, and the sole legitimate basis for civil codes?

My sense is that the entire physical world is evolutionary. It follows, that out of a sense of humility (acknowledging the limitations of our own species' genius), we need to view the whole of human intellectual activity as evolutionary or developmental. The proper human stance is to remain studiously open to such development, i.e. change. We don’t always get it right or make the best choice the first go-a-round, but we have the responsibility to keep on looking.