Inalienable or Inviolable rights of Man

[Era Might]

[quote]The concept of "rights" and rights language in general is foreign to historical christianity and is the product of secular enlightenment philosophy.
[/quote]

While I understand your point vis a vis the socio-political history of the modern world, and the consequent framing of values, I don't think that we necessarily have to retreat to a certain Christian response from the 18th and 19th centuries. To draw from John Paul II once more:

[quote]What have the sons and daughters of your nation not done for the cause of knowledge of man by formulating his inalienable rights. We know the place that the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity hold in your culture and in your history. Basically these are Christian ideas.

--1980 Airport Address in France, birthplace of the modern world[/quote]

Joseph Ratzinger had this mind as well when he spoke of the Church's coming-to-terms with the world as it exists today:

[quote]If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text (Gaudium et Spes) as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty, and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. ... Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, [b]an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789[/b]. ... [b]the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789[/b]. In fact, an attitude that was largely pre-revolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone will deny today that the Spanish and Italian Concordat strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. Hardly anyone will deny today that, in the field of education and with respect to the historico-critical method in modern science, anachronisms existed that corresponded closely to this adherence to an obsolete Church-state relationship.[/quote]

Edited November 28, 2005 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

How are you understanding the word "rights"here? As you said there is a tradition of speaking about rights in relation to the virtue of justice.

"Justice is is the moral virtue that consists in the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good."

One must understand that in context of course. I agree with you that our country has indeed taken great freedom with this notion drawing up its own definition of inalienable rights apart from what is true. I cannot see too many arguing with you there. That does not change the fact, however, that man does have certain rights for the two reasons as I mentioned above. That is why I asked if we were discusiny secular practice or otherwise.

If we are speaking from a theological perspective, man would appear to have certain right for he is created in the image and likeness of God, and he is ordered to an eternal end. This is what gives man a right, for man has the right to what may help him attain his ultimate end (beatific vision) and has the right not to be obscured from this.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Era Might & Paphnutius:

I agree with both of you and feel I can no longer play devil's food cake advocate and maintain peace of soul.

It might be interesting however, to dwell upon the discrepancy between pre and post Vatican II teachings on such matters. There are many nuances which as far as I know have yet to be adequately explained.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 27 2005, 07:59 PM']While I understand your point vis a vis the socio-political history of the modern world, and the consequent framing of values, I don't think that we necessarily have to retreat to a certain Christian response from the 18th and 19th centuries. To draw from John Paul II once more:
Joseph Ratzinger had this mind as well when he spoke of the Church's coming-to-terms with the world as it exists today:
[right][snapback]801970[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Where is that Ratzinger quote from? I like it.

[Era Might]

Oops, sorry. "Principles of Catholic Theology", page 381.

I agree that there is generally some confusion when 18th and 19th century Papal responses are cited without adequate historical or theological context. It doesn't help when theologians of all people don't bother with context, and present a one-sided picture of things. I don't imagine the Church will address point-by-point the nuances of her social doctrine, only because she generally doesn't do this, even for revealed doctrine (eg, no formal attempt at reconciling the early exercise of Papal primacy with today). This task usually falls on theologians. Eventually, perhaps a formal clarification will be sought, as is sometimes done (eg, with the PBC).

Edited November 28, 2005 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Nov 27 2005, 08:08 PM']Era Might & Paphnutius:

I agree with both of you and feel I can no longer play devil's food cake advocate and maintain peace of soul.
[/quote]
Now you are just rolling over and playing dead. I understand. One can only immerse oneself into such secular thought for so long.

[quote]It might be interesting however, to dwell upon the discrepancy between pre and post Vatican II teachings on such matters. There are many nuances which as far as I know have yet to be adequately explained.[/quote]That really would be interesting to discuss. I must claim a good amount of ignorance on it though, but would be more than happy to contribute where I can. I would like to point out though that the Church does not live nor develop in a vacuum. She both affects and is affected by the world. So, it is understandable that teachings may be formed in response to a movement that would otherwise seem incoherent, but they should always be read in context

[Cam42]

[quote]HUMAN RIGHTS ARE UNIVERSAL AND INVIOLABLE

VATICAN CITY, DEC 1, 2005 (VIS) - This morning, the Holy Father received members of the International Theological Commission, led for the first time by Archbishop William Joseph Levada who, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is also president of the commission.

In his address, the Holy Father referred to the subjects under discussion in the plenary session, such as the theme of children who die without receiving Baptism, in the context of God's universal plan of salvation, the uniqueness of Christ's mediation and the sacramental nature of the Church, and the theme of natural moral law. This latter subject, he said, "is particularly important for understanding the foundation of those rights that are rooted in the nature of the person and that, as such, derive from the will of God the Creator Himself."

[b]He went on: "Prior to any positive law emanated by States, such rights are universal, [u]inviolable and inalienable,[/u] and must be recognized as such by everyone, especially by the civil authorities who are called to promote them and guarantee that they are respected. Although in modern culture, the concept of 'human nature' seems to have been lost, the fact remains that human rights cannot be understood without presupposing that man, in his very being, is the bearer of values and norms that must be rediscovered and reaffirmed, not invented and imposed in a subjective and arbitrary manner."[/b]

At this point, said Benedict XVI, "dialogue with the world of the laity is very important. It must be made very clear that negating an ontological foundation of the essential values of human life, inevitably leads to positivism and makes law dependent on the trends of thought dominant in a society; thus rendering law an instrument of power, rather than subordinating power to the law."

The Holy Father then remarked on the importance of the "statute" and methods of Catholic theology. On this subject, he highlighted the fact that "the theologian's work must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living Magisterium of the Church. To consider theology as a private concern of the theologian is to misunderstand its very nature. Only within the ecclesial community, in communion with the legitimate pastors of the Church does theological work have meaning. Such work certainly calls for scientific competence, but also and above all for the spirit of faith and humility of one who knows that the real and living God, subject of his reflections, infinitely surpasses human capacities."

"At this point it may be asked," said the Pope: "Is theology thus defined still a science that conforms to our reason? Yes. Reason, science, and thinking in communion with the Church are not only not mutually exclusive, but complement one another. The Holy Spirit introduces the Church to the fullness of truth, the Church is at the service of truth and guides people by educating in truth."[/quote]

Go figure. This speaks directly to my position in the first post of this thread.

[argent_paladin]

[quote]Gaudium et Spes condemns “whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself…They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.”  [/quote]

I think the interesting question is, what does it mean for the right to life to be inviolate if one can justly execute a criminal, shoot an enemy soldier, defend yourself with lethal force against an aggressor? Or the right to liberty if we may incarcerate? How does being shot and killed when trying to escape the police not violate a person's inviolate rights?

[argent_paladin]

Whether there are rights which are inalienable and inviolate?
Objection 1. It would seem that the right to life is not truly inviolate. For one is permitted to kill in self-defense, the state may kill a criminal, a soldier may kill an enemy soldier. It would seem that, by their actions, these classes of people have forfeited their right to life.

Objection 2. Further, it would seem that the right to liberty is not inviolate. One may incarcerate a criminal, parents may restrict the movement of their children, governments may justly enforce their borders. Laws may be made to regulate human behavior, even those behaviors that are not intrinsically immoral, such as speeding. Laws may also be made to prevent harm inflicted on the self or protect morals. These all seem to restrict, and therefore violate, liberty.

On the contrary, Benedict XVI says, " "Prior to any positive law emanated by States, such rights are universal, inviolable and inalienable, and must be recognized as such by everyone, especially by the civil authorities who are called to promote them and guarantee that they are respected."

I answer that...
How would you answer?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Dec 1 2005, 03:47 PM']I think the interesting question is, what does it mean for the right to life to be inviolate if one can justly execute a criminal, shoot an enemy soldier, defend yourself with lethal force against an aggressor? Or the right to liberty if we may incarcerate? How does being shot and killed when trying to escape the police not violate a person's inviolate rights?
[right][snapback]807300[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's kind of what I was saying earlier when I was suggesting (for the sake of discussion) that the concept of "inalienable rights" is false because even the most fundamental rights are relative to circumstances and capable of being forfeited or violated morally. I think that when rights are seen as originating in man there will always be a problem. The basis of "rights" in Catholic tradition as I see it, is the fact that God is our ultimate end, this is lost in "natural" rights thinking.

So the problem to my mind, is that the post-concilliar articulation of Catholic morality has in large part shifted from the authentic natural law paradigm to essentially a natural rights paradigm which has different foundations and lacks an intrinsically teleological character. It is more humanist than theological, and seems rather based on secular ideals than Catholic tradition and faith.

Just a thought for what its worth. I'm far from an expert on the matter.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 04:39 PM'] The basis of "rights" in Catholic tradition as I see it, is the fact that God is our ultimate end, this is lost in "natural" rights thinking.
[/quote]
Isnt that what I said?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 1 2005, 05:37 PM']Isnt that what I said?
[right][snapback]807461[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
aww I'm sorry.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 1 2005, 05:39 PM']aww I'm sorry. 
[right][snapback]807464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It is okay. I was just giving you a hard time. Plus it was a few days ago and we have too short attention spans these days. : I agree with you on this though.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 1 2005, 05:41 PM']It is okay. I was just giving you a hard time. Plus it was a few days ago and we have too short attention spans these days.  :  I agree with you on this though.
[right][snapback]807468[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
teehee. I'm glad we agree. that's cool.

now we can band against the infidel.

[Paphnutius]

The whole problem if you deny God (or even the beatific vision) as the basis of man's rights what do you have left as the norm?

The only thing left would be the state itself and that is never bueno. Essentially you would have to accept its norms and this would be the beginning of totalitarianism
philosophy.