THREE REASONS WHY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE IMPORTANT IN THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

 

INTRODUCTION

In the briefing paper which was the result of a research carried out by the Center for Reproductive Rights in October 2011, while trying to defend the position that women have a right to decide what happens to their body as regards abortion, stated that “International law guarantees women the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.[1]” While we seek to present some of the very many reasons why human rights are so vital in the church’s teachings, it is also important we understand that not only the church, but also the secular society, upholds the right of every human person. Although, this latter sometimes tends towards a dangerous humanism, the point remains that every human possesses an indispensable and fundamental right to life, association, religion, expression and so on.

Very quickly, when we speak of human rights, we refer to those rights that accrue to a person ordinarily and naturally simply because he or she is a human being endowed with the capacities of reason and freedom like every other human species. In other words, these are rights which every human person carries about from birth until the cessation of life. And because these rights are so fundamental and woven with the very being of man, they cannot be tampered with by any human agency because even God, in his omnipotence, respects those rights. Now, because these rights are so crucial to every human institution, the church makes use of them in certain teachings. In what follows, we want to highlight some of the reasons why these human rights play a vital role in the teaching of the church

ARGUMENT FROM THE EQUALITY OF PERSONS.

The first article under the universal declaration of human rights states: “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.[2]” The catholic church believes and vehemently defends the fact that all men are from the same creator of all things, they are born through the same natural process and are thus of equal dignity and possess equal rights. If men are made by the same God who is infinitely impartial in all things, if men are given equal limbs and abilities of reason and freedom at birth which they exercise as they grow, it follows logically that they are endowed with an equal amount of dignity and rights. If men thus are freely bestowed with an equal dignity and right by a fundamental gift of God, no one deserves to be oppressed, neither does anyone merit a golden treatment.

It is based on this fact of the equality of all men that the church pushes forth her teaching on the heated pro-life or anti-abortion doctrine. The church teaches that from the very moment of coitus, once there is a contact between the egg and sperm, conception has taken place. Now, because the embryo thus formed, would one day mature into a full-fledged human, it must be accorded the same respect and dignity which human persons possess. And so, the church would teach that abortion, in all its shades and under whatever circumstance, is tantamount to murder and is thus a mortal sin clearly frown on by the church.[3]

 

ARGUMENT FROM KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Kant in his second categorical imperative avers: “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.[4]” The quote from Kant above alleges that every human person must be seen as an end in himself or herself. No human person by reason of his individuality is to be used as a means towards the attainment of a different end other than him or herself. Every human person has an intrinsic worth. A worth that naturally contradicts the idea that human persons could actually be manipulated or used as things to attain a different end. Drawing from the argument which Kant presents, and which the church has always held, the church vehemently stands against all forms of scientific manipulation on the intrinsic genetic make-up and nature of man.

And so, because of the inherent worth which every human possesses, the church absolutely holds that acts such as stem cell research, Invitro fertilization, cloning, genetic mutilation and engineering and the like greatly does damage to the personhood of man and woman. Clearly, because these scientific prodigies, aim at making use of the human person as a tool to the attainment of a result which gives credibility to the scientific method, they do a great harm to the human person as an end in himself.[5]

ARGUMENT FROM ADHERENCE TO POSITIVE LAWS

Thomas Aquinas it was who gave us the classical definition of law as the ordinance of reason promulgated by the one who has the competence to do so, directed towards the common good. The church is the only moral person in the world. From his definition, we see three indispensable characters of what may be called law. Our concern lies with the last, namely ‘directed towards the common good.’ The question has arisen a number of times, and in fact has been experienced by some persons as it is been experienced in this corner of the globe. In situations whereby the government of a nation deliberately makes laws which are in the obvious not directed towards the common good, are the followers bound to obey? Or again, in situations where the government who is meant to protect the lives and properties of its citizens becomes the very perpetrators of terrorism upon the lives of the citizens, what then should the citizens do. Are they to keep mute and let themselves to be cruelly killed by their so-called government?

To the first question, Aquinas holds that we are not bound to obey a cruel government. The positive laws the government makes, in no ways binds us given that in the real sense, it is no law at all, because the common good of the people is not sought. To the second query, the church teaches that because of the fundamental right to life which all humans possess, in the face of terrorism, whether by individuals or government, we must resort to self-defence. The church would go further to teach that in such a situation as self-defence, the principle of double effect holds sway.

The aim of self-defense, is to disarm the offender and preserve the life of the victim. This is the intended aim. But in order to achieve this aim, an unintended result, such as causing harm or injury to the offender could result. While the first is the intention of self-preservation, the second is the unintended result. This is the principle of double effect. And in a situation wherein the unintended result eventually leads to the death of the offender, the church acquits the one who sought to preserve his or her life from murder. In order words, one who so acts to preserve his life from an aggressor, but ends up killing the aggressor, has not committed murder, given that the resultant death was not an intentional killing.[6]

CONCLUSION

In the above presentation, we tried to argue from diverge areas both philosophical, natural and scientific why the rights of persons must be protected and promoted at all costs. Numerous reasons abound why the church holds on to certain doctrines which border on human life because the church is an institution, deals with human persons. And if it deals with humans, it is only logical that she bases her teachings on prerogatives and rights that accrue to the human person. Her obligation as the harbinger of truth in the world, is thus to stamp without remorse, the eternal truths about how men and women ought to be treated by reason of their likeness to God their creator.

---

[1] Center for Reproductive Rights | www.reproductiverights.org

[2] Universal Declaration of Human rights.

[3] Austin Flannery, Vatican Council II Volume 2, Declaration on Procured Abortion: Quaestio de abortu (Mumbai: St. Paul, 1982): 466-468

[4] William Lawhead: The Voyage of Discovery; A historical Introduction to Philosophy fourth edition (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2015): 373. 

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church revised edition, (Ibadan: St. Pauls) no. 2297

[6] Catechism of the Catholic Church revised edition, (Ibadan: St. Pauls) nos. 2263-2267

FRIAR EMMANUEL IGBOEKWULUSI, OFM Cap.