Commenter Kevin Jones writes,
Rights language is such a blunt instrument. Isn't there a better way of phrasing the just regulation of such a natural fact of human life?
Well, rights is what we are stuck with right now, for better or for worse. Many people take the structure of "rights" so much for granted that they can't imagine things being framed any other way. Some are even appalled upon considering that "rights" as such were not a part of philosophy of law until relatively recently. They are either offended at the assumed backwardness earlier ages or they use it to argue out of context, as by saying "well, the right to X didn't exist in the medieval period so how can the Church insist on it now?"
I wonder if the "rights-only" scheme didn't come as a reaction toward obligation-type justice (as in, instead of everyone having a "right to life," everyone had the obligation not to kill).
But I digress. What about the old Roman concept of officium? The way this was explained to me by my Latin prof, the Romans never thought of "rights" in isolation. Any privilege or dignity always came with corresponding duties or responsibilities. Not that they always lived up to this, but this was the way it was supposed to work. I think you can see this dynamic at work in the way a lot of things work in the Church. Because it reflects something about reality, it was very natural for the Church to pick up the Roman formulation of it. Think of the Divine Office, or the priesthood, or any other vocation in the Church - marriage included. Or think of Uncle Ben in Spiderman.
Comments