Bishop's Schedule: Bishop Robert C. Morlino Saturday, March 20 - Friday, March 26, 2004 Attend National Coalition on Health Care Ministry Meeting and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Administrative Committee Meeting, Washington, D.C. Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:00 a.m. -- Preside and Preach at Celebration of the Eucharist, Fifth Sunday of Lent, St. Raphael Cathedral, Madison 4:00 p.m. -- Preside and Preach at Celebration of the Sacrament of Confirmation, St. Dennis Parish, Madison Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:00 p.m. -- Pastoral Visit to St. Coletta of Wisconsin, Jefferson

Human rights:
Origin, legitimate claims
to particular rights

		Under the Gospel Book + Bishop Robert C. Morlino

Dear Friends,

The argument based on equal protection under the Constitution has been used recently, as was noted in this column last week, to justify a so-called right to gay marriage.

It would seem that this particular use of the word "right," would involve a statement such as the following: "Someone else has something that I really want - therefore I have a right to what it is they already have." Some of the problem of this sort of language can be resolved by making a distinction between equal opportunity and equal rights, to be sure.

But it is worthwhile asking, in this third commentary about the issue of gay marriage, whence do human rights originate? How does one account for the legitimate claim to a particular right?

Rights help one fulfill obligations

Our answer in the natural law tradition has always been that we have a right to that which is necessary to fulfill some particular obligation. Thus we account for our rights or justify our claim to them by pointing to the obligation which we must fulfill for which that particular right is necessary.

For example, we have the right to food and clothing and warmth and basic healthcare because we have an obligation to preserve our human life. Our right to those basic necessities grows out of the obligation that we have toward self-preservation.

". . . there appear to be many claims to rights in our culture and society which arise out of certain confusion -- the confusion of equal rights with equal opportunity, or the confusion which absolutizes individual freedom to the point of divorcing rights from the constellation of obligations which account for them and justify them."

The right to marry for male and female has been long acknowledged as one of the most basic natural rights. In order to have a peaceful society, it is necessary that people find a context for the responsible expression of sexual intimacy. The allegations against Scott Peterson at least point to the reality that sometimes people get killed over adultery. The obligation to live out our instinct for sexual intimacy in a responsible way coupled with our obligation to continue the human race generate the right to marriage.

Marriage has been seen from time immemorial as the context for the responsible expression of sexual intimacy and for the responsible procreation of children with the good prospect for their education, which is an additional obligation that falls upon those who are parents. All of these obligations account for and justify the right to marry. The right to marry in no way includes a right to redefine marriage. That would be another matter all together.

According to this natural law model, then, one might wonder what obligations do we have that would justify the right to a gay marriage. From my own point of view, I cannot envision what such obligations would be. They would not be clearly related or connected to the obligations which justify the right of males to marry females and vice versa. Please keep in mind, we are free to do many things that we have no right to do.

We have rights to things, not persons

In our society in more recent times there has also been a claim that in vitro fertilization is justified because those who are infertile, as tragic as this is, nonetheless have a right to children. Human persons could never have a right to other persons. What obligation do we have that could possibly account for such a right?

Human persons have a right to things - things which are never persons - those things precisely which are necessary for a person to fulfill his or her obligations. A right over property should never be confused with or mistaken for a right to a person.

As was observed in last week's column, husband and wife in their sacred space of sexual intimacy are open to God who gives the gift of children. Children are a gift from God, never a right. Children are always persons, never property.

Claiming rights without justifying them

The language in our country and in our culture of absolute autonomy and absolute freedom unmitigated by responsibility or obligation has become unfortunately all too familiar. The fact that we are free leads us to claim all sorts of rights without accounting for them or justifying them in terms of the appropriate obligation.

We need to observe the natural law about our human rights, which means nothing else but that we must be reasonable when we claim them. The obligations which would generate the right to a gay marriage, as I have observed, are not any which I am able responsibly to articulate. But at the very least our conversation about gay marriage should lead us to a responsible conversation about the obligations which would account for or justify any claimed right to gay marriage.

Consider roots of rights in reason

In closing let me say that there appear to be many claims to rights in our culture and society which arise out of certain confusion - the confusion of equal rights with equal opportunity, or the confusion which absolutizes individual freedom to the point of divorcing rights from the constellation of obligations which account for them and justify them.

I would make no claim to infallibility nor to be the final arbiter myself in this evaluation of various claims to rights. I would lovingly invite everyone to consider with me the roots of rights in reason as opposed to unanchored claims which simply presume an absolute autonomy on the part of the individual.

Thank you very much for reading this. God bless each one of you. Please continue to have a holy Lent - with God's grace I look forward to resuming some instruction and encouragement for myself and for you in that regard in next week's column. Praised be Jesus Christ!