Replies

I don’t get this, we say that nature argues that sexuality between men and women entails heterosexual marriage. But we’ve obviously trodden all over that good.

If we should not care about the goods of natural creation, should we not equally care about the natural goods involved in human beings?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. There may be some potential for confusion because the word "natural" is used with various meanings, some of them overlapping, some complementary and some even contradictory.

"Natural Law," for instance, involves an in-depth appreciation of what is unique about our rational natures; and a rational nature includes the capacity to alter our environments and even some aspects of ourselves. So you've got an inbuilt paradox there.

Here's a handy example of this paradox in the specialized field of Natural (Moral) Law: contraceptives would violate Natural Law even if they grew on trees; NFP would not violate Natural Law even if it required a computer.

Jonah G. is surely right when he says a kind of pristine --- meaning "pre-human" --- nature is long gone. Everything in the Creation has borne the impact of human influence, some of it benevolent and some of it not. (In the latter category is the impact of Original Sin, if you want to get into that.)

Not sure if these comments of mine are helpful. I hope I have not been too obscure. Let me just say you have to carefully define what you mean by "nature" and "natural" before you talk about it.