The (Un)reasonableness of Man

This story about a young Peruvian mother suffering from a debilitating lung illness appeared on the front page of the Washington Post two weeks ago. But I think it’s worth revisiting as it offers a perfect example of the tension between human convention and natural law, between faith and reason that seems to be at the center of many religious and ethnic conflicts in different parts of the world today.

Maribel Perez, a wife and mother of two, has an illness that requires a lung transplant. Lacking in financial support, people around her (doctors, social workers, priests, politicians, and even strangers) rallied on her behalf and raised $60,000 for her treatment. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center agreed to treat her.

But she had a change of heart. She refused treatment, to the surprise and disappointment of those who worked hard to save her. Maribel is a member of Jehovah’s Witness, and her religion forbids blood transfusion. According to the article, “’The religion teaches that blood is sacred, the seat of one's soul, and that in the Bible, God specifically prohibits the consumption of blood, whether by mouth or through veins in a transfusion.’ Many Jehovah's Witnesses carry cards explaining that in an emergency they are not to receive blood and that no medical practitioner will be held liable if they die as a result.”

After much thinking, however, she changed her mind even when that meant expulsion from her church: "”I began to think how much I loved my children, these marvelous gifts from God,’ she explained, gulping for air as tears rolled down her face. ‘God loves. He does not demand that we follow rules. The rules are ours.’ Her heart told her that God wanted her to choose life.”

Here is a perfect example of a believer’s dilemma over whether the human law that he subscribes to is indeed a reflection of the divine law. For how does one know which human laws embody the will of the divine? How does one differentiate between which human rules are mere products of customs and traditions and what God has proclaimed?
For many laws formulated by human beings claiming divine sanctions are unreasonable, cruel, and unjust. Parents refusing medical treatment for their children because their religion does not believe in medical science is one. Stoning a woman to death for wearing pants or for not wearing a veil is another. Preventing girls from getting an education is unjust and unfair. Female circumcision is barbaric. One could go on and on, and the question to ask is how could divine law be spiritually liberating to some and be oppressive to others? And if the voice of God has been erroneously interpreted by human agencies in the laws that they have made, why couldn’t we rebel against them without being subjected to human punishments?

To grasp the divine, we have to rely on our reason. Cicero calls it the natural law which is “right reason,” in accordance with nature. “It has the power of command that summons men to do their duties. At the same time, by its prohibitions it prevents them from doing wrong” [On the Commonwealth]. Cicero also views it as unchangeable and eternal, hence, applicable to all men: “what nation does not love courtesy, kindliness, gratitude, and remembrance of favors bestowed? What people does not hate and despise the haughty, the wicked, the cruel, and the ungrateful?” [Laws].

Thomas, the Christian proponent of natural law, defines it as man’s participation of the eternal law through his reason. It is at work in the order in the universe, in the society of men, and in their dealings with each other.

Since each of us is equipped with reason, we can indeed determine the reasonable from the unreasonable, the just from the unjust, civilization from savagery.