Catholic Theory of Rights

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is there a distinct Catholic theory of rights?

The heritage of rights that we are familir with today is generally credited to some combination of Calvin, the Enlightenment, and the Puritans. Of course, it’s often the case that older Christian/Catholic heritage is not given credit where due.

Church clergy seem, at times, to adopt modern rights language and, at other times, to dispute it. Some of this is a dispute about what are specific rights (e.g. the right to abortion vs. the right to life) but there does often seem to be an undercurrent of resistance to the morality of rights at a deeper level.

So, what’s the story here?

 

[The_Fool]

I’m answering without a hard-copy in front of me, so I hope this helps.

Is there a distinct Catholic theory of rights?

CCC 1956
The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense. . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

The Catechism goes on to explain natural law and the like, and how it affects society and the individual.

undercurrent of resistance to the morality of rights at a deeper level

I don’t quite know what you mean by that unless you mean a reluctance to agree with what people might say regarding the rights of a Catholic in the Church. Sometimes people might demand something from the Church as a right, when it really isn’t a right, it’s a privilege or something akin to that. I was told that Canon Law was written to protect the individual from abuses from a human organization, but it could also be understood as protection for the Church against individuals as well. Considering the Church’s Roman background, discussing Canon Law can get rather wordy and could irritate more than placate. This can make representatives of the Church reluctant to go into details of “rights” with the public, especially in our sue-happy society. Er, did that make sense and answer the questions? I know I am making assumptions regarding some parts, and may have misunderstood others.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense. . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9

The Catechism goes on to explain natural law and the like, and how it affects society and the individual.

Ok, I understand the concept of natural rights. I’m curious, however, about the history of the concept of natural rights. The wiki description mentions the Stoics but then goes right to Locke (enlightenment and protestant).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

I don’t quite know what you mean by that unless you mean a reluctance to agree with what people might say regarding the rights of a Catholic in the Church. Sometimes people might demand something from the Church as a right, when it really isn’t a right, it’s a privilege or something akin to that. I was told that Canon Law was written to protect the individual from abuses from a human organization, but it could also be understood as protection for the Church against individuals as well. Considering the Church’s Roman background, discussing Canon Law can get rather wordy and could irritate more than placate. This can make representatives of the Church reluctant to go into details of “rights” with the public, especially in our sue-happy society. Er, did that make sense and answer the questions? I know I am making assumptions regarding some parts, and may have misunderstood others.

One of the attributes of rights is a corresponding responsibility. Rights, in the sense that is often criticized, consists of people demanding their due, often violently. This stands in contrast to Christ’s counsel to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, giving our cloak to one who demands our shirt, etc.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One of the attributes of rights is a corresponding responsibility. Rights, in the sense that is often criticized, consists of people demanding their due, often violently. This stands in contrast to Christ’s counsel to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, giving our cloak to one who demands our shirt, etc.

Here is a possible point of distinction that could resolve what appears to be a contradiction between the modern concept of rights and Christ’s commands above.

There is, on the one hand, they way the world ought to be, ideally. People ought to respect the rights of others as they are generally defined.

Then there is, on the other hand, the entirely seperate issue of how to redress the violation of rights.

To give a concrete example, people have a right to their property (thou shall’t not steal) but it doesn’t follow that we ought to violently resist a starving man who tries to steal a loaf of bread.

So it’s possible to read Christ’s words as an admonition against hyper-sensitive justice and vengence without reading them as an idictment against rights themselves. This certainly seems like a reasonable interpretation given the Jewish sentiment of the day with respect to the Romans.

Thoughts?

 

[The_Fool]

So it’s possible to read Christ’s words as an admonition against hyper-sensitive justice and vengence without reading them as an idictment against rights themselves. This certainly seems like a reasonable interpretation given the Jewish sentiment of the day with respect to the Romans.

They are an admonition against hypersensitivity and shallow obedience. It has been argued that Christ came to restore the substance of the law when the Old Law seemed to focus on the letter. Does this mean that we should never take Him seriously when he’s quoted? No, it simply means that the literal translation isn’t always the intended meaning. That doesn’t really address rights though.

I’m curious, however, about the history of the concept of natural rights.

I take it you mean the thought process behind rights endowed to men rather than the political term “natural rights” which I probably should have been careful of. New Advent talks about Divine Law and the human history of Divine Law:
newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
I want to write more, but I’m late for class.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

They are an admonition against hypersensitivity and shallow obedience. It has been argued that Christ came to restore the substance of the law when the Old Law seemed to focus on the letter. Does this mean that we should never take Him seriously when he’s quoted? No, it simply means that the literal translation isn’t always the intended meaning. That doesn’t really address rights though.

This brings up an issue that I struggle with, namely the idea that there is some substance to the Mosaic command of an eye for an eye or stoning adulterers that the Jews were somehow misapplying. While there was certainly an element of “whitewashed tombs” to the pharisees, I don’t think that metaphor adequately covers Christ’s sermons.

It does seem to me that Christ was revealing something new.

I take it you mean the thought process behind rights endowed to men rather than the political term “natural rights” which I probably should have been careful of. New Advent talks about Divine Law and the human history of Divine Law:
newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
I want to write more, but I’m late for class.

Great info there, add to them this:

newadvent.org/cathen/13055c.htm

(This page nicely explains the relationship between rights and justice.)

And here is a page with some history:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#History_of_rights

I think the above outlines part of what I was seeking. The Catholic view is, roughly, that there is Divine Law (and Natural Law) and that rights are derived from these.

What is less clear, however, is whether the use of the term “rights” (and all it implies) is a modern interpretation, and adoption of protestant ideas, or if Catholics are simply not getting credit for introducing these concepts earlier.

The question might be asked this way: who was first to connect the legal concept of rights (as opposed to laws) to God, morality, and universality? And where is that train of thinking in history?

 

[Greg27]

I think it is more true to say the Church embraced and developed the concept of personal rights in the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, the church slowly (through the appropriation and development of natural, civil and Roman legal ideas) gradually developed a theory of legal rights and obligations and political theory, which was quite complex and rich by the Middle Ages. It has to be acknowledged this development of the law was very positive since it laid the groundwork for the development of the rule of law and constitutional documents like the Magna Carta and the limitation of the absolute power of monarchs. See A. Zimmerman, ‘The Christian Foundations of the Rule of Law in the West:a Legacy of Liberty and Resistance against Tyranny’ creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against and also ‘The Rule of Law as a Culture of Legality’, elaw.murdoch.edu.au/archives/issues/2007/1/eLaw_rule_law_culture_legality.pdf.

The church was initially quite hostile to individual rights, as the Popes of the time associated the agitation for individual rights and freedoms as a seed for social instability and anarchy against the common social good, and that as Catholicism was the only true religion, dissent (as experienced by the schism sparked by the Reformation) expressed by freedom of speech or freedom of conscience in matters of religious belief or morals would be catastrophic. Nevertheless, Popes in the 19th century began to develop social teaching to deal with the problems caused by capitalism, including freedom of association, right to a just wage, and other rights.

The embracement of human rights continued strongly after Vatican II and Pope John Paul II was especially progressive in this area, especially on his condemnation of slavery as intrinsically evil (slavery had been acceptable for the Christian in past centures), his emphasis on the need to get rid of racism, inequality and inhuman working conditions, his positive teachings on the need to protect the integrity of the family as a social unit, and his desire to protect the sacredness of human life.

I am not sure if there is a Catholic theory of human rights as such, though I think in the past 150 years the Church’s Magisterium has developed a social theology that embraces and promotes certain rights (i.e. the right to a just wage, the right to marry, the right to procreate and educate children, the right to religion, the right to follow one’s conscience, etc). I think despite some of the darker aspects of the social theology of the church (such as the crushing of conscientious dissent among theologians like Charles Curran or Hans Kung, the continued ban on contraception, and the hostility often made against homosexual people or advocates for women’s ordination) this development is very positive and good for society as a whole.

Some good books on Catholic social teaching include the works by Charles Curran, John T Noonan Jr and Pope John Paul’s social and family oriented encyclical letters are good expositions of Catholic social rights teaching, but they should also be read in light of Pope John Paul’s ‘Veritas Splendour’ which also sets out the normativity of natural law and its the limitations it places on rights and the obligations definitive laws and moral norms impose on Catholics and the wider human society if a just social order is to be achieved.

 

[tonyrey]

I think it is more true to say the Church embraced and developed the concept of personal rights in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The original basis of the Church’s concept of personal rights is the teaching of Jesus that we are all equal and have the same Father - a fact which put into practice by His revolutionary attitude towards women, children, lepers and Gentiles.

 

[o_mlly]

Is there a distinct Catholic theory of rights?

The heritage of rights that we are familir with today is generally credited to some combination of Calvin, the Enlightenment, and the Puritans. Of course, it’s often the case that older Christian/Catholic heritage is not given credit where due.

Church clergy seem, at times, to adopt modern rights language and, at other times, to dispute it. Some of this is a dispute about what are specific rights (e.g. the right to abortion vs. the right to life) but there does often seem to be an undercurrent of resistance to the morality of rights at a deeper level.

So, what’s the story here?

In brief, the Catholic theory of human rights is that we have an innate freedom to do good. It follows logically that if we have an obligation to do good to be saved, then we must have the corresponding right.

If you read a claim of a basic human right formulated as “freedom from” then read carefully for it may not be freedom but license that is the issue.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think it is more true to say the Church embraced and developed the concept of personal rights in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Greg, thanks for the very detailed history. This filled several gaps. Do you know of any books that focus on this subject over 2000 years?

The original basis of the Church’s concept of personal rights is the teaching of Jesus that we are all equal and have the same Father - a fact which put into practice by His revolutionary attitude towards women, children, lepers and Gentiles.

While this makes some sense the problem is that you don’t find this demonstrated in the early church (e.g. a discussion of anything resmbling rights). This seems more like a post hoc rationalization.

In brief, the Catholic theory of human rights is that we have an innate freedom to do good. It follows logically that if we have an obligation to do good to be saved, then we must have the corresponding right. If you read a claim of a basic human right formulated as “freedom from” then read carefully for it may not be freedom but license that is the issue.

This is a very interesting distinction which goes toward what I’ve been thinking about the subject. But inferring a right from a duty to be good seems to be contradicted by some of Jesus’ teachings such as to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give to Caesar (an occupying power), etc. You just don’t find Jesus teaching to assert one’s corresponding rights.

 

[o_mlly]

…

This is a very interesting distinction which goes toward what I’ve been thinking about the subject. But inferring a right from a duty to be good seems to be contradicted by some of Jesus’ teachings such as to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, give to Caesar (an occupying power), etc. You just don’t find Jesus teaching to assert one’s corresponding rights.

Is it not good to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, or pay taxes (although Rome occupied Judea, it also provided governance to control the factions within Judaism and alllowed the Jews to practice their faith)? You might think of human rights as follows – my right to do good in response to personal injustice, my right to do good beyond my strict obligations, and my right to do good in response to (partial) public injustice.

Although Father Hehir strays to the edges from time to time, he does give what I think is a good historical perspective on the topic of your thread in the section “The Church and Human Rights” in his remarks in “The Ministry of Human Rights
and Catholic Higher Education” (vincenter.org/96/hehir.html).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is it not good to turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, or pay taxes (although Rome occupied Judea, it also provided governance to control the factions within Judaism and alllowed the Jews to practice their faith)? You might think of human rights as follows – my right to do good in response to personal injustice, my right to do good beyond my strict obligations, and my right to do good in response to (partial) public injustice.

This is certainly an interesting twist on the discussion. But it sounds a lot more like Dirty Harrry or Superman than Jesus. I’m not arguing for pacifism, mind you, just trying to figure out the Catholic theory or rights.

Although Father Hehir strays to the edges from time to time, he does give what I think is a good historical perspective on the topic of your thread in the section “The Church and Human Rights” in his remarks in “The Ministry of Human Rights
and Catholic Higher Education” (vincenter.org/96/hehir.html).

At a quick glance, he seems to start with the founding of the UN. That’s a relatively recent development in the context of Catholic theology. Did I miss something in my quick review of the page?

 

[o_mlly]

This is certainly an interesting twist on the discussion. But it sounds a lot more like Dirty Harrry or Superman than Jesus. I’m not arguing for pacifism, mind you, just trying to figure out the Catholic theory or rights.

At a quick glance, he seems to start with the founding of the UN. That’s a relatively recent development in the context of Catholic theology. Did I miss something in my quick review of the page?

Yes, go to the section I referenced although reading the full text is adviseable, if you’re truly interested.

Never take seriously ideas coming from a man who wears his underwear outside his tights … or a man who just wears tights, for that matter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, go to the section I referenced although reading the full text is adviseable, if you’re truly interested.

That’s still modern history, post UN (though not mentioning the UN there).

The following section does at least go back before the UN:

Beginning with the Pontificate of Pius XII, at the time of World War II, there was a shift in Catholic teaching corresponding to what happened with the founding of the United Nations. This shift commenced with Pope Pius XII and has continued until the present in the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Pius XII’s first move in this direction was partly the result of the experience of totalitarianism.

It all seems to suggest that the Catholic Church is playing a game of catchup on the rights debate.

 

[tonyrey]

While this makes some sense the problem is that you don’t find this demonstrated in the early church (e.g. a discussion of anything resembling rights). This seems more like a post hoc rationalization.

In the early Church when society was far less complex than today there was no need to discuss all the implications of a fundamental truth which is at the very core of the teaching of Christ. The roles of men, women and children were clearly defined within a relatively simple mode of life without modern transport, communications, finance, commerce, technology and administration.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In the early Church when society was far less complex than today there was no need to discuss all the implications of a fundamental truth which is at the very core of the teaching of Christ. The roles of men, women and children were clearly defined within a relatively simple mode of life without modern transport, communications, finance, commerce, technology and administration.

So the question then becomes this: Is the popular view that the (modern) concept of rights was invented by Protestants and refined by deists during the Enlightenment and that the Catholic Church is a relative latecomer to the intellectual party?

 

[o_mlly]

That’s still modern history, post UN (though not mentioning the UN there).

The following section does at least go back before the UN:

Beginning with the Pontificate of Pius XII, at the time of World War II, there was a shift in Catholic teaching corresponding to what happened with the founding of the United Nations. This shift commenced with Pope Pius XII and has continued until the present in the teachings of Pope John Paul II. Pius XII’s first move in this direction was partly the result of the experience of totalitarianism.

It all seems to suggest that the Catholic Church is playing a game of catchup on the rights debate.

Bubba, I take it you are not serious about your own thread so I will dismiss myself from further posts

, "In the democratic revolutions of the 18th century and the social contract theorists of the 16th through 18th centuries, we can discern the foundations of the conceptual design of the contemporary theory of human rights. "

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Bubba, I take it you are not serious about your own thread so I will dismiss myself from further posts

I’m not sure why you would conclude that.

, "In the democratic revolutions of the 18th century and the social contract theorists of the 16th through 18th centuries, we can discern the foundations of the conceptual design of the contemporary theory of human rights. "

That reference to history is consistent with the view that the concept of rights is a protestant/enlightenment development.

 

[tonyrey]

So the question then becomes this: Is the popular view that the (modern) concept of rights was invented by Protestants and refined by deists during the Enlightenment and that the Catholic Church is a relative latecomer to the intellectual party?

Which rights are you thinking of in particular? The Church has condemned slavery, for instance, many times in the past and, as Greg has pointed out, developed a theory of legal rights which was the basis of the rule of law and documents like the Magna Carta.

Article 1 of the UN Declaration states that all human beings are** free**, equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of **brotherhood **- which presupposes the Christian teaching that we are all members of the same family created by God and not merely animals without objective rights which exist for no reason or purpose.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Which rights are you thinking of in particular? The Church has condemned slavery, for instance, many times in the past and, as Greg has pointed out, developed a theory of legal rights which was the basis of the rule of law and documents like the Magna Carta.

If I search on the history of rights I find no credit given, whatsoever, to Catholic teaching. Credit generally begins with Calvin and proceeds to the Enlightenment, as previously discussed. I don’t always trust such histories but I can’t seem to find any contradicting evidence.

I’ve also heard that Catholicism eradicated slavery soon after Constantine but even there I find little support. The New Advent entry (newadvent.org/cathen/06058c.htm) doesn’t seem to give the Church much credit there.

It’s difficult to find any Catholic teaching on anything we might call “rights” (as opposed to duties) until relatively recently (i.e. post WWII).

Article 1 of the UN Declaration states that all human beings are** free**, equal in dignity and rights, endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of **brotherhood **- which presupposes the Christian teaching that we are all members of the same family created by God and not merely animals without objective rights which exist for no reason or purpose.

Virtually all of that can be true without reference to the concept of rights, much less to a distinctly Catholic theory of rights. If this is such a straightforward deduction, why did it take 1900 years to figure out?

One of the earliest references I find to the Catholic Church and rights is that the Catholic Church was opposed to the idea fearing it may become a justification of regicide. When did the Church teach that serfs had equal rights to lords?