Excommunication

[Crusading Philologist]

Leo XIII's teaching has been approved by every Pope after him. Go research it and stop dissenting from Church teaching.  The Summa Theologica II-II, q. 58, a. 1 says that justice is "the habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will."  A right by definition is that which is owed to someone. Aquinas spoke of owing people things; speaking of rights merely speaks about it from the "owed" person's perspective. If there are natural duties, there must be rights

You don't even think people have a right to life? Where's your head at?

St. Thomas does not talk about "natural rights" in the sense that liberals do, though. Liberals believe that "individuals" possess rights that inhere in their nature. You won't find this idea in the Summa. Those who supported the ideology of natural rights also never linked rights to duties in the way that St. Thomas did. The way some modern Catholics try to baptize the rights discourse just comes off as silly because it involves trying to find support for an anti-Christian ideology that has no roots in St. Thomas or any other Christian theologian.

[aquinasg]

So Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict all promoted an anti-Christian ideology. I strongly encourage you to consider this websites position then: http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/

I don't know what you mean by rights being in our bodies or souls. If someone has a duty to pay me my wages, than I have a right to them. One entails the other. Its that simple. Liberals promoted rights apart from God and His Church.

[Crusading Philologist]

So Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Vatican II, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict all promoted an anti-Christian ideology. I strongly encourage you to consider this websites position then: http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/

I don't know what you mean by rights being in our bodies or souls. If someone has a duty to pay me my wages, than I have a right to them. One entails the other. Its that simple. Liberals promoted rights apart from God and His Church.

 

The phrase "natural rights" refers to the idea that the individual has certain rights from his nature. For example, Locke thought that all individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property. In this context, right has nothing to do with being owed something as a result of the specific relationship that one has with another, such as being owed wages because you have worked for someone. Instead, it means that the individual, abstracted from all relationships, possess certain rights merely by fact of his human nature.

Anyway, liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology, and natural rights are usually a part of that ideology, so unless you want to say that the Church had been completely wrong about the nature of man and society until a bunch of 18th century deists came along to correct her, I don't see how you can suggest that the Church should now support liberalism. Pope Leo adopted "rights" in order to defend against socialism. This may have been necessary at the time, but now that liberalism has triumphed over socialism, I think we might say that the Church went too far in accepting the language of natural rights.

[PeterII]

Why can't traditionalists get this through their heads: Vatican II didn't say people have a natural right to practice false religions, but a natural right not to be prevented from practicing it within due limits. THere is a complete difference between the two rights. One is a permissive right, the other protective right.

And Leo XIII and all the latter Popes all taught about natural rights, so its binding on us. What is with people on here dissenting from Church teachings? That's private judgment

What don't you get about the fact that false religions don't have a right to be protected?

[aquinasg]

THe Popes didn't merely "go too far" in their emphasis. They specifically taught agin and again that man has those rights. Also, man is social by nature. We are born into society and made for social life. You can't abstract rights from relationships.

Errors don't have a right to be protected, but erring people do, because they need freedom in order to find the truth. Read Vatican II's decree from beginning to end. It prevents a good case from natural law.

[Crusading Philologist]

THe Popes didn't merely "go too far" in their emphasis. They specifically taught agin and again that man has those rights. Also, man is social by nature. We are born into society and made for social life. You can't abstract rights from relationships.

But the idea that man has natural rights is completely opposed to the understanding of man as a social being. Liberal anthropology starts with the "individual," a being abstracted from all context and relationships, and decides that he has various rights without any thought for his place in society.

It seems like your definition of "right" does not mesh with the way in which that term has been understood by liberals. I think one can safely talk about rights to some extent, but an acceptance of natural rights would cross the line in my opinion. The whole concept is based in radical individualism, which has historically been opposed by the Church.

[aquinasg]

Society is nothing else than the aggregate of individuals, who are bound to each other by nature. Natural rights are part of Catholic terminology and doctrine

[Crusading Philologist]

Society is nothing else than the aggregate of individuals, who are bound to each other by nature. Natural rights are part of Catholic terminology and doctrine

The "individual" is a liberal theoretical fiction that does not exist in reality. People exist in complex relationships that cannot just be reduced to an aggregate of individuals. I really do not see how this individualism can be reconciled with truly Catholic social teaching. For example, how can we have any meaningful belief in a common good when we have reduced society to nothing more than a collection of contentless, interchangeable individuals who exist for no other reason than to fulfill their desires? At that point, you have accepted such a nominalist position that it becomes impossible to speak of anything that transcends the individual.

At any rate, I think natural rights have only ever been adopted into Catholic thought as a means of defending property against socialism. The whole intellectual framework that supports natural rights, founded on explicitly anti-Christian premises, has never been accepted into Catholic thought, and without that framework, natural rights become basically meaningless. So, the choice is either to accept liberalism as a whole or to realize that Pope Leo used the rights discourse as a pragmatic tool for defeating socialism and nothing more. Now that socialism has been discredited, it seems like it might be a good idea to emphasize the other side of the spectrum to defend against the abuse of property rights and the dangers of vulgar individualism.

[aquinasg]

"The 'individual' is a liberal theoretical fiction that does not exist in reality."

Um, people exist. They are individuals who live together.

"People exist in complex relationships that cannot just be reduced to an aggregate of individuals."

Aggregate of individuals is all there is; relationships are inside them. You can't point at "society". It's just all of use with our laws and all

"I really do not see how this individualism can be reconciled with truly Catholic social teaching. For example, how can we have any meaningful belief in a common good when we have reduced society to nothing more than a collection of contentless, interchangeable individuals who exist for no other reason than to fulfill their desires?"

You don't except true Catholic social teaching as taught by Pope after Pope (who could it not be infallible via ordinary universal magisterium??) And who is talking about unhappy "interchangeable" people?? That is entirely off topic. You need to seperate these ideas in your mind. The common good is that which is best for the greatest number of individuals in society.

"At any rate, I think natural rights have only ever been adopted into Catholic thought as a means of defending property against socialism."

It doesn't matter about its motive. The Church authoritatively spoke on this. Pius XI said Rerum Novarum  solemnly taught these things.

"realize that Pope Leo used the rights discourse as a pragmatic tool for defeating socialism and nothing more."

That's just a red herring. Leo XIII spoke of PRINCIPLES. Saying people have rights is not a matter of speech or a method.

"Now that socialism has been discredited, it seems like it might be a good idea to emphasize the other side of the spectrum to defend against the abuse of property rights and the dangers of vulgar individualism."

Agreed (but don't forget about Obama  )

[PeterII]

Errors don't have a right to be protected, but erring people do, because they need freedom in order to find the truth. Read Vatican II's decree from beginning to end. It prevents a good case from natural law.

Erring people don't have a right to promulgate their religion.