A Question of Rights
Rights of Catholics Basic to Full Christian Life
By James E. Biechler
"My biggest problem with
you “reformer” types is your constant harping on “rights.” Our whole
society seems obsessed with “rights” and, in my view, this is sick and
essentially selfish. Christians are supposed to be generous and giving,
not insisting on their own rights. How do you in ARCC square this
with the gospel?"
--W.L.B.., St. Charles,
MO
Your question goes to the
heart of the paradoxical standards which permeate the teaching of Jesus.
“If any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as
well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles”
(Matt 5:40-41). Sayings like this certainly seem at variance with
the behavior which characterizes our litigious society. The teaching
of Jesus, including the above saying, almost never focuses on minimums
but nearly always looks toward the maximum, the unlimited.
One of the few sayings which
does not go beyond the minimum is the admonition to “Render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s.” This seems at first glance to be an exception
to cite those countless sayings and parables which direct our behavior
toward open-handedness, generosity, compassion and forgiveness. These,
I’m sure, are at the root of your objection to ARCC’s focus on “rights”
or minimums.
ARCC is with you in believing
that justice and rights are not the main ideals of Christian life.
Though they are not always easy to achieve, they are minimums! Our
goal as an organization is to reach a point in the life of the church at
which there would be no need for the likes of us. We would like to
refocus the vision of the church to the maximalist vision of St. John XXIII!
We don’t expect that to happen tomorrow!
Our problem is not so much
that we should expect injustice because the church is made up of sinners.
Our main concern is that there are governing structures in today’s church
which all but guarantee that people’s rights will not be respected.
We want to call attention to these built-in structures of injustice, reveal
them as antithetical to the gospel, and suggest alternatives that would
make it more likely that the minimum standards of justice would obtain.
If you were on the receiving end of the myriad complaints our ARCC office
receives, you would not have much trouble seeing that our point of view
is not in any way out of line with Gospel values. We see our mission
as a response to the Gospel injunction to serve our neighbor. We
don’t deny that what we accomplish is in the category of “the least.”
That’s the category of justice.
Perhaps your difficulty arises
from your experience that so many litigants in our society are motivated
by greed and self-interest. They seem to be mired in materialism
and focused on money. Those whose cause we espouse in ARCC are decidedly
not in this category. For the most part they are as much idealists
as we are. The injustice done them was not a result of their competition
in the race for money or power but in their attempt to live out the Gospel
teaching that the supreme law of our lives is to be of service to others.
Perhaps some of your discomfort
concerns ARCC’s rather “subversive” agenda. Our idea of a constitution
for the church and our charter of rights do strike some as “revolutionary.”
In a happy coincidence I am writing this on the Fourth of July when “revolution”
and “rights” come prominently to mind. Like the revolutionaries of
1776 who began by recalling their “Creator” who endowed humans with the
“right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” ARCC’s ideas about
rights are rooted in the Gospel as fundamental to Christian well-being.
I’m sure you don’t think
that protecting these rights is a “selfish” pursuit. Without these
rights people in our country would not be able to pursue the broader ideals
of human life. Rights are means not ends. They enable people,
they remove major obstacles to productive and creative human life.
Without freedom of the press, for example, writers could not publish the
truth; without academic freedom in the university, professors would always
be looking over their shoulders in fear of losing their positions should
they teach what is innovative or controversial. You can think of
many more examples.
So, you see, while ARCC’s
current focus is on rights, its more comprehensive and far-reaching goal
is the great ideal of divine truth and love whose pursuit should be unhindered
by obstacles of human origin. It is true that a person can love God
even though the institutional church imposes obstacles to that full expression.
God is not bound by human rules. But since our love of God finds
expression in our love of neighbor, it is our task to facilitate that service
of others as much as we can. When we work to establish the minimal
conditions necessary for that service, it is the divine ideal that we are
striving for, not some narrow personal satisfaction.
Dr. Biechler, an emeritus
professor of religion, is a member of ARCC's board of directors. He also
holds a licentiate in canon law and is a longtime member of the Canon Law
Society of America.
E-mail
Comments to Dr. Biechler |
