One remark that some lecturers in the Hillsdale series have made is that trying to violate natural law is a little like trying to violate the law of gravity. One rough proof of this assertion would be the erosion of human happiness that's resulted from the experiment of the last two generations in de-emphasizing natural-law marriage and its role in child rearing. It is simply a truism that a child raised in a two-parent household has a much greater chance of success in later life, and staying married is a much surer guarantee of staying out of poverty for that child's parents. This is natural law in action, and it's difficult to see how this should be controversial.
There's a very common cultural shorthand for what happens when you try to violate the law of gravity: the cartoon figure who runs off the edge of a cliff, continues in the air for a few feet, then looks downward in surprise, and drops. If we draw a metaphorical parallel between natural law and the law of gravity, something like the same thing happens when you try to violate natural law: you run a few feet off the edge of the cliff, look down in surprise, and suddenly drop.
Regardless of the eventual disposition of the current legal cases surrounding St Mary of the Angels, it's hard for me to avoid thinking that the ACA, its bishops and prebendaries, the parish dissidents, and their retainers, have been trying to violate natural law. Included in natural law would be prohibitions against lying, cheating, stealing, and bullying -- you can try to get away with these things, but it never quite works out, and in the end you look down and drop.
My wife and I were both a little surprised and distressed to see the change in William H. Lancaster, whom we saw two years ago during the 2012 trial of the St Mary's unlawful detainer motion against the parish dissidents. Mr Lancaster has not aged well. He does not seem to spend as much money as he earlier did on getting his hair tended, his voice was unsteady, and he committed a major gaffe with the appellate justices that cannot have done him or his case well: when one justice asked him a question, he interrupted the justice and didn't allow him to finish the question. This drew a rebuke from the presiding judge on the panel. (This guy is a senior litigator and former partner in a prestige firm, and he doesn't know how to defer to a judge???)
My wife speculated that Mr Lancaster was nervous, since he was going up against a panel of judges who may not have thought well of his case in the first place. After all, Lancaster's and the ACA's position is basically that if God is the first cause, then everything is an ecclesiastical issue, and no court can get involved in anything. Smoke and mirrors -- I have a feeling this already hadn't flown with the judges, although I'm just a lay observer. Both Mr Lancaster and Damon Anastasia were present for the oral arguments in this rinky-dink case -- one wonders what other clients these guys have, if any, and how much, or whether, the ACA and the parish dissidents are paying them.
Eventually natural law is going to catch up with all these people.
