tion to

Trinity College

Washington, D. C.



Timeless Rights In Modern Times

Commentaries on the N. C. W. C.’s

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

By

Rev. Wilfrid Parsons, S.J.

Rev. John M. Paul, C.S.P.

and the Ethics Committee

Reports of the Ethics Committee

THE CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION FOR
INTERNATIONAL PEACE

1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington 5, D. C.

1948



These Reports of the Ethics Committee of the Cath-

olic Association for International Peace are issued as

studies from that Committee. They were presented to all

members of the Committee for cooperation in their final

form. They were then ordered to be published by the

Executive Council. As the process indicates these studies

are not a statement from the whole Association.

ETHICS COMMITTEE

Chairmen

Rev. Wilfrid Parsons, S.J.

Very Rev. John A. Driscoll, O.P.

Rev. J. C. Bartley, O.S.A.

Rev. A. L. Bouwhuis, S.J.

Rev. J. E. Coffey, S.J.

Rev. Cyprian Emanuel,

O.F.M.

Rev. Gregory Feige

Rt. Rev. Michael J. Grupa

Rev. Ernest Kilzer, O.S.B.

Rt. Rev. Donald A. MacLean

Francis E. McMahon
Rev. Aloysius J. Welsh

Very Rev. James H.

Moynihan

Rev. John Courtney Murray,

S.J.

Rev. Carroll J. Noonan, S.S.

Rev. John M. Paul, C.S.P.

William F. Roemer

Miriam T. Rooney

Rev. John K. Ryan

Rt. Rev. Fulton J. Sheen



COMPARATIVE COMMENTARY 1

By Rev. Wilfrid Parsons, S.J. and the Ethics Committee

ON February 2, 1947, an
international Bill of Rights, elaborated

by a special committee appointed by the National Catholic

Welfare Conference, was published for presentation to the Commission

on Human Rights of the United Nations. This international Bill of

Rights was the latest of a series of similar productions by other

groups, religious and otherwise, loyally responding to the swelling

demand for a Bill of Rights ever since before Dumbarton Oaks and

the San Francisco Conference which adopted the Charter of the

United Nations. A large part of the world has openly expressed the

conviction that if we are to have a real community of peoples, these

peoples must be united on a common agreement of what constitutes

the legitimate position of the human person in the state in which he

lives and of the state which exists in the world. An international

Bill of Rights is the irreducible guarantee of unity, peace, and pros-

perity, law, justice, and tranquillity.

I. The Demand for Human Rights

This demand for such a Bill of Rights really goes back to the

historic meeting of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill on

the Atlantic Ocean on August 14, 1941, when the document called

the Atlantic Charter was given to the world. On the previous Janu-
ary 6, 1941, President Roosevelt had, in his annual message to Con-

gress, promulgated the now-famous Four Freedoms: “freedom of

speech and expression . . . freedom of every person to worship God

in his own way . . . freedom from want . . . freedom from fear. . .

In the Atlantic Charter, only freedom from want and fear were

mentioned, since that document was a political, rather than a philo-

sophical one. But in the Washington Declaration of January 1, 1942,

by which all the nations then at war with Germany, including Russia,

and already called the “United Nations/
7

declared their adhesion

to the Atlantic Charter, in the preamble the following significant

phrase occurred: “Being convinced that complete victory over their

enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence, and re-

ligious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own

lands as well as in other lands . . . (Preamble, TTP, p. 2). This

was the first time on the record that “human rights
77

in the dealings

of the United Nations were mentioned by name.

Nearly two years later, when Cordell Hull made his now historic

1 Report presented at the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Catholic

Association for International Peace, April 6, 1947, Boston.



trip to Moscow, one of the declarations that proceeded from that

meeting, that on Italy significantly, November 1, 1943, contained

these pregnant words: “Freedom of speech, of religious worship, of

political belief, and of public meeting, shall be restored in full

measure to the Italian people.” (TTP, p. 7). This was the first

time in this series of public statements when a concrete statement

of rights was made. The list of four rights was the irreducible mini-

mum of the rights of a free people.

A month later, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston
Churchill met with Marshal Stalin at Teheran in Persia, on December

1, 1942. The declaration that was published after that conference

spoke of those nations “dedicated to the elimination of tyranny and

slavery, oppression and intolerance . . .” (TTP, p. 15). The formula

was just vague enough to mean nothing. But, in its generalities, it

could include everything. The various international meetings on

Food (June 3, 1943), UNRRA (November 9, 1943), Finance at
Bretton Woods (July 22, 1944), and Aviation (December 7, 1944),

perhaps by the nature of the matters discussed, produced nothing

about human rights as such, though they were obviously in the back-

ground and in the members’ minds. Neither, surprisingly enough, did

the Yalta Conference, February 11, 1945, at least in the documents

that were released on that meeting.

Meanwhile, however, at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, the

nations were writing the preliminary draft of an international or-

ganization. By that time pressure was pretty strong to include a bill

of rights in any charter that was adopted. It was explained, however,

that the proper place for this was in the Preamble, and the writing

of that was put off until the actual convention which would write the

Charter. In one place in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, however,

Chapter IX, Sect. A, par. 1, dealing with economic and social co-

operation, these words occur: “With a view to the creation of stability

and wellbeing, . . . the Organization should . .
.
promote respect for

human rights and fundamental freedoms . . .” (TTP, p. 24). This

latter phrase was to have quite a history, as we shall see.

Finally, on June 26, 1945, at San Francisco, the Charter of the

United Nations was completed, and it was then seen that the idea

of human rights loomed very large in it. Paragraph 2 of the Preamble

(whose basic text is said to have been composed by General Jan

Christian Smuts) lists as one of the expressed aims of the United

Nations, “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dig-

nity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and

women and of nations large and small.” A State Department release

at the time termed the reference to the dignity of the human person

“a new departure in the history of international organization.”

[ 4 ]



Again, in Article 13, par. 1, we read: “The General Assembly

shall initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose

of ... b. promoting international cooperation in the economic, social,

cultural, educational, and health fields, and assisting in the realiza-

tion of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without

distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.” The same words

occur again in Article 55, c, where there is question of the specialized

agencies under the Economic and Social Council, and again in Article

68, which provides for setting up commissions “for the protection of

human rights.” Finally, in Article 76, we are told that one of the

basic objectives of the trusteeship system is “. . . c. to encourage

respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all with-

out distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, and to encourage

recognition of the independence of the peoples of the world.”

On June 21, 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights was finally set up, and at its first meeting Mrs. Eleanor

Roosevelt was elected chairman. It has been meeting regularly ever

since at Lake Success writing a definitive International Bill of Rights.

II. The Campaign for Human Rights

All of this copious recognition by the United Nations Charter of

the “human rights and fundamental freedoms” came about as the

result of a long and arduous campaign, conducted mostly by the

religious forces of the nation, ably seconded by Latin American states-

men and a few others. As long ago as April 14, 1941, the Catholic

Association for International Peace published in “America’s Peace

Aims” an international bill of rights, which was widely circulated

thereafter. (Note: The previous year, the International Union of

Social Studies, with headquarters at Louvain, Belgium, had published

its excellent Code of International Ethics

,

which contains most of

the fundamental human rights.) During 1943 and 1944, several

groups had begun the study of a bill of rights and the drive to have

human rights recognized formally by the nations was greatly intensi-

fied.

On October 7, 1943, the “Pattern for Peace” was issued by a

group of Catholics, Protestants and Jews. The second of its seven

points was this: “The dignity of the human person as the image

of God must be set forth in all its essential implications in an inter-

national declaration of rights and be vindicated by the positive action

of national governments and international organization.” This was

followed up on April 5, 1945, by a manifesto entitled “Goals for San

Francisco” from the same group responsible for the writing of the

[5 ]



Pattern for Peace. The ninth of its ten points said: “The Charter

should contain an international bill of rights and provide a commis-

sion or commissions to protect and further the rights and liberties

of the individual and of racial, religious and cultural groups, espe-

cially those uprooted by war or oppression.” The campaign was not

entirely successful, because, apart from the several general mentions

of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Charter, no bill or

list of rights as such was incorporated in that instrument. However,

this much was accomplished: a Commission, as I have said, was

appointed to draw up a bill of rights, which it is expected will be

accepted by the General Assembly and ultimately become a part of

the fundamental law of the United Nations.

That, however, was only the first part of the campaign. A much
more difficult task was to formulate a list of specific rights that would

be acceptable to most of mankind. Thus, in 1943, the American

Law Institute appointed a committee “ representing principal cultures

of the world” (American, Arabic, British, Canadian, Chinese, French,

pre-Nazi German, Italian, Indian, Latin-American, Polish, Soviet

Russian and Spanish) to draft a bill of rights. It did so, after

eighteen months of work, in eighteen articles, in each of which the

right was asserted and then the corresponding duty of the state.

When, however, the draft was presented for adoption it was rejected,

principally because, we are told, of Article 12: “Everyone has the

right to work. The state has a duty to take such measures as may

be necessary to insure reasonable wages, hours, and other conditions

of work.” It was objected that this right could be guaranteed only

by taking over “the whole control of economic life.” And yet there

would be no hope of getting Russia’s acceptance unless some mention

of economic rights and duties are made. (James T. Shotwell, “The

Idea of Human Rights,” Survey Graphic, December, 1946.) The

American Bar Association also appointed a special committee, which

reported on a bill of rights in the meeting of the House of Delegates

in the summer of 1946. This tentative bill was never even published

and work on it was abandoned, in view of the “immense difficulties

of enforcement in the international sphere.” (id., ibid.)

Meanwhile, at the Inter-American Conference on Problems of

War and Peace, which produced the famous Act of Chapultepec,

March 3, 1945, the Inter-American Juridical Committee was in-

structed by resolutions IX and XL to draw up a bill for “the interna-
tional protection of the rights of man.” The Committee of four,

including our own past President, Charles G. Fenwick, set to work

and produced its “Draft Declaration of the International Rights and

Duties of Man” which, with its accompanying report, comprises a

volume of sixty-three pages.

[ 6 ]



Also, nothing daunted by the American failures at the Law In-

stitute and Bar Association, several groups, mostly religious, applied

themselves to a formulation of specific rights. Chief among these

were the American Jewish Committee, the Federal Council of

Churches, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the

National Catholic Welfare Conference, the Twentieth Century Asso-

ciation, the American Federation of Labor, and the Commission to

Study the Organization of Peace. We now have declarations of rights
from all of these bodies. They will be compared here later.

The immediate objective in the realm of diplomacy was to per-

suade the Foreign Ministers of the Big Four, who were preparing the

peace treaties with the ex-belligerent countries, Bulgaria, Hungary,

Italy, Finland, and Rumania, and of course also Austria and Ger-

many, to include in the treaties a specific declaration of the rights

of all inhabitants of those countries. Ultimately, of course, it was

hoped to have it agreed to declare that the domestic observance of

these rights in each country is a matter of international concern. The

first and immediate objective was happily attained, at least in the

first five treaties made. For instance, in the treaty with Italy the

following article appears: “ Italy shall take all measures necessary to

secure to all persons under Italian jurisdiction, without distinction

as to race, sex, language, or religion, the enjoyment of human rights

and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression,

of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and

of public meeting.” With no changes except that of the names of

the respective countries, the identical language occurs in the treaties

with Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania and Finland. (Italy: Part I, sect.

1, art. 15; Bulgaria: Part II, sect. 1, art. 2; Hungary, Part II, sect.

1, art. 2; Rumania: Part II, sect. 1, art. 3; Finland: Part II, sect. 1,

art. 3. Treaties of Peace. Department of State publication 2743,

European series 21.) On March 25, the press carried the news that

Secretary Marshall, during the Moscow conversations, had demanded

that the same clauses be inserted in the treaties with Austria and

Germany. Unfortunately, the peoples of Poland and Jugoslavia, be-

cause they were our allies, are deprived of this protection.

The striking similarity of the human-rights article in these treaties

with the language used by the United Nations Charter will not

escape notice, and the fact that the human rights clause is an integral

part of each treaty gives support to the contention that the other

signatory nations may exact execution of it, even though a violation

of it would take place within the national boundaries of the offending

nation. Each of the treaties, in fact, under the heading of Final

Clauses, contains the machinery for settling “any dispute concerning

the interpretation or execution of the treaty,” and all decisions are

[71



to be made by a simple majority, with the veto power excluded.

Thus has come to fruition a long and arduous struggle. The suc-

cess of the campaign to date is due largely to the religious forces of

this country, which exercised constant pressure through public opinion

to have human rights officially and explicitly recognized in any inter-

national organization. That objective has, as we have seen been

largely attained. What remains to be done is to have the United

Nations Commission on Human Rights adopt a declaration of rights

that will be (1) acceptable to as many nations as possible; (2) as

comprehensive as possible; and (3) capable of being put into execu-

tion. And when that is done, it will require unceasing vigilance on

the part of all right-thinking people to expose all violations of rights

and demand that these be punished.

III. What Human Rights?

When it comes to examining the many different lists which have

been proposed to the U.N. Commission of Human Rights for their

adoption, we find an interesting situation: an almost complete agree-

ment on certain specific rights, which may therefore be called fun-

damental, and a very wide variety of suggestions as to other rights

which do not at present, apparently, have universal acceptance. If we

take the N. C. W. C. Declaration of Human Rights as the basis

of comparison, we can divide all the rights suggested in all the lists

into four categories:

1! Rights which are common to the N. C. W. C. list and to all the

others

;

2. Rights in the N. C. W. C. list, but not in all the others;

3. Rights in the N. C. W. C. list and in none of the others;

4. Rights in the other lists, but not in the N. C. W. C.

1. Rights Common to All the Lists

The following rights which all the lists contain are obviously those

which enlightened opinion everywhere unanimously agrees are im-

prescriptible rights. With the exception of three, as we shall see,

they were already contained in the original American Bill of Rights,

the first ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution proposed in 1789

and adopted as a whole in 1792, and also for the most part in the

French revolutionary Declaration des droits de Vhomme et du citoyen

of August 26, 1789. They are:

freedom of worship and of conscience

freedom of opinion and expression of opinion

freedom from undue search and seizure

right to petition of grievances

[ 8 ]



liberty under the law, including habeas corpus

protection of the law, including jury trial

right of association, including political

right of free assembly, including political

right to education

right to work

right to social security.

The last three listed here—right to education, right to work,
and right to social security—were not thought of by our forefathers.
They are distinctly modern in conception. It is significant, however,

that all the lists examined contain them in one form or another. They

are clearly the result of the thought of a century-and-a-half of

democracy and of practical democratic equality which in 1789 had

not advanced to that of our day. Of these three “new” rights, the

right to work is the most misunderstood and therefore the most con-

troversial. On one extreme, the right to work is construed to exclude

the closed shop and to be the exclusive prerogative of the workman

who will not join a union. On the other extreme, this right is inter-

preted to involve a complete governmental duty to secure full em-

ployment to everybody able and willing to work, even if this involves

complete management by government of the whole economic system.

The N. C. W. C. formula is simple: “The right to work and to

choose one’s occupation” (Art. 13). Perhaps, however, in view of

the controversy, the most acceptable is that of CSOP: “Every person

has the right to receive from the state assistance in the exercise of

his right to work; and the state has the duty to promote stability of

employment, to insure proper conditions of labor, and to fix minimum

standards of just compensation” (Art. 18.) The right to education

is clearly a result of the necessities which the democracies have ex-

perienced of ensuring that their citizens, who have civic respon-

sibilities and duties, should also have the duty of being educated.

The right to social security is similarly a result of the inequalities

and injustices that flow from the modern capitalistic system.

2. Rights in the N . C. W . C. List
,
but not Common To All

Some of these rights thus listed are not immediately evident to

human reason, but are suggested to reason by Divine Revelation.

Others can be discovered by reason, but the Catholic tradition tends

to persuade their acceptance. They are:

right to life and to bodily integrity from the moment of concep-

tion. This is certainly a fundamental right, but in its fullness

is not accepted by all those who admit certain forms of abor-

tion, sterilization, and birth control. CSOP and the Inter-

American Commission have this right partly expressed.

[ 9 ]



right to a religious formation. In essence this is the right to pri-

vate schools, against governmental monopoly of education.

Again, Catholics, are the foremost, though not the only, pro-

tagonists of this right. The AFL and CSOP partly accept this
right.

right of access to a livelihood. Only AJC and the AFL agree in

the formulation of this right, though the latter has not always

agreed in practice in its second part, “by migration if neces-

sary.”

right of private property. This right is omitted by AFL and
CSOP, presumably because of the presence of Socialists in their

membership.

right to a nationality: this right is accepted by the American

Jewish Committee, which develops it rather fully, and by the

Inter-American Committee, which adds to it the right to

renounce one’s nationality as well,

right to a living wage: this right is implied in CSOP’s formula-

tion of the right to work, given above; and also in AFL’s rather

lengthy statement on the rights to organize and to a higher

labor standard.

3. Rights in the N. C. W. C. List
,
and not in Others

In this category are certain rights suggested by Papal Encyclicals

and also most of the rights under the heading of family, state, and

international community. The interest of the N. C. W. C. list in the

Papal Encyclicals is obvious, but the inclusion of a whole list of

rights of the family, of the domestic rights of states, and of states

in the international community, marks a sharp difference between

the N. C. W. C. list and all the other lists. For the N. C. W. C.

list is not only a bill of individual human rights, as are all the others,

but also an international bill of rights in its truest sense, which the

others are not. Only the old CAIP Bill of Rights in America's Peace

Aims had an international viewpoint. The three rights claimed by the

N. C. W. C. list and not by others are:

right to choose a state of life, including the clerical: this is

widely denied in those states which are dominated by an anti-

clerical or totalitarian spirit.

right of collective bargaining: this right, strangely enough is not

explicitly demanded by the AFL.

right to organize by industries and professions, or, as it has been

called, by vocational or occupational groups. It is the right

set out at length in Pius XFs Quadragesimo Anno.

Particularly interesting, however, in the N. C. W. C. list, are the

three lists of what might be called group rights, as distinguished from

[ io]



individual rights. Of the nine listed as family rights, three (Nos.

2, 5, 6) are considered by some others as individual rights and are

grouped by them under the heading of social security, or education.

The domestic rights of states naturally include those of law-

making, judicial process, taxation, eminent domain, education, self-

defense, but also include those of compelling respect for minorities,

emergency powers, control of alien economic groups. They do not,

however, include two which are frequently considered to be rights

of states: the right to make a just war, or of defense against unjust

outside attack; and the right of revolution, or changing the form

of government, by violence if necessary, in case of extreme need.

The thirteen rights of states in the international community are

so many fundamental principles of what we call international law.

If they were everywhere respected, and if respect for them was

guaranteed by the organized international community, the scourge

of war would be eliminated from this world. Several of these rights

are “new” in the sense that they suppose the existence of the United

Nations or of some organized international community (Nos. 1, 4,

5, 6, 8, 12).

4. Rights in Other Lists
,
not Explicitly in the N. C. W. C. List

right to adequate food: the American Law Institute couples this

right with that of proper housing.

right against retroactive laws: this right, however, could be said

to be implied in N. C. W. C. No. 4, “the right to personal

liberty under just law.”

right to participation in government: this right is asserted by the

American Law Institute, American Jewish Committee, and the

Inter-American Committee. It is obviously a prerogative of

every free people, and as a principle was laid down long ago

by St. Thomas Aquinas who, speaking in favor of elective, not

hereditary rulers, said that “all should have some share in

the government” (Summa Theologica, I-II, 105, 1).

right to reasonable conditions of work: this is an obvious corollary

of the right to work, but is developed more fully by more than

one of the lists (CSOP, AFL, ALI).

Several of the lists also go more fully into detail in developing

the right of liberty and protection under the law (CSOP, ALI).

IV. What Are Human Rights?

As we examine this broad picture of what various groups among

us consider to be the rights of man, we can ask ourselves: are all

these rights to be considered equally valid, equally unchanging,

[ li ]



equally natural? To answer this question, we must call to mind

that there is more than one kind of right. It would be a mistake to

say that the only right is the natural right, inherent and inalienable,

and to conclude that, since some of the rights listed here are not of

that kind, they are not rights. It would be an equally disastrous error

to say that since some of these rights are obviously “new” and sub-

ject to change or suspension, therefore all of them are. Yet both

mistakes have been made.

There are certain rights, of course, which are inherent and inalien-

able, being man’s by the natural law. But there are other rights

which are hypothetical and derived; they are not original rights of

man, but they arise because of certain historical, economic or social

conditions. They have some or other inherent right behind them.

And there are still other rights which are direct grants of the state,

given because they are necessary or useful for the common good.

These last, of course, the state can take away when and if the neces-

sity or usefulness of them has disappeared.

Examples of original natural rights are: the right to life (man

is a person)
;

right to freedom of worship (man is a child of God)

;

right of association (man is a social animal). Examples of derived

or hypothetical rights: right of private property; right of nationality;

right to social security. Examples of state-given rights: rights to

certain specific “civil liberties.” If these distinctions were always

clearly made, there would not be, perhaps, such controversies over

rights as sometimes arise.

This confusion over different kinds of rights, however, is not

nearly so alarming as another tendency of fairly recent date by which

outstanding political scientists and legal philosophers, following the

lead of John Dewey and Justice Holmes, deny that the individual

possesses any right at all as against the state which the state may not

take away. In a recent address, “The Higher Law,” Mr. Harold R.

McKinnon of the San Francisco Bar lists a dozen or so questions

from American university professors (he could have added a dozen

more) who teach a doctrine which he rightly terms “the quintessence

of totalitarianism.” Summing up his conclusions from these quota-

tions, he says:

“This teaching denies three essential elements of democracy and

thereby asserts three essential elements of totalitarianism.

“It denies that there is a moral law which is inherent in human

nature and which is therefore immutable and to which all man-made

laws to be valid must conform.

“It denies that by virtue of this law man possesses certain rights

which are inherent and inalienable and therefore superior to the

authority of the state.

[ 12 ]



‘‘It denies that the purpose of government is to secure these

inherent and inalienable rights.

“It asserts that because there are no immutable principles of

human conduct, there is no ultimate standard of conduct and the

lawmaker is responsible to nothing but his own unfettered will.

“It asserts that since there are no natural rights, all man's rights

come to him from the state, and what the state grants, the state may

take away.

“It asserts that since man possesses no natural, inherent rights,

the purpose of government is not to secure those rights but rather

the purpose of man is to serve the state.”

For over fifty years now, this doctrine has been standard teach-

ing in most universities and law schools of the land. This fact no

doubt explains the inability of the American Law Institute and the

American Bar Association to adopt a Bill of Rights to present to the

United Nations. People who do not really believe in human rights

cannot be expected in sincerity to adopt a list of them. On the other

hand, the story I have narrated in this paper of the long struggle to

have these rights recognized and of the success of this campaign

in securing explicit mention of them in the United Nations Charter

and in the peace treaties is one of the most heartening things that

has happened in our time. Hitler and Stalin and our own totalitarians

have created the inevitable revulsion, reaction, and a happy return

to American democratic traditions.

[ 13 |



ANALYTICAL COMMENTARY
By Rev. John M. Paul, C.S.P. and the Ethics Committee

Chapter I. The General Preamble to

A Declaration of Human Rights

I
F a Declaration of Human Rights is to be of the greatest value

to men today, and if we are to have an adequate understanding

of what should be included in such a declaration, it is necessary to

consider briefly what a human right is, whence human rights arise, and

why we have human rights. The General Preamble of N. C. W. C.

Declaration of Hitman Rights says, “God, the Creator of the human

race, has charged man with obligations arising from his personal

dignity, from his immortal destiny, and from his relationship as a

social being. These obligations are in reference to the Creator, to

himself, to his family and his fellowmen, to the State and to the

community of States. For the fulfillment of these obligations man

is endowed with certain natural, inalienable rights. These obligations

and rights form the substance of the natural moral law which can

be known by reason.”

What a Human Right Is

A human right may be defined as a moral and inviolable power of
having or doing something or of demanding something from others . 1

Thus one can be said to have a right to life, or a right to get married,

or a right to receive a living wage. A right is an inviolable power
in the sense that it may not be interfered with by others. It is a

moral power in the sense that it is power conferred on one by the

moral law, it exists even though the person who has it may not be

able to defend it by physical force. Violation of one person’s right

by another person is violation of the moral law. If human rights were

not conferred by the moral law we should be obliged to accept the

principle that “might makes right.”

Whence Human Rights Arise

Whence do human rights arise? Here we must distinguish be-

tween natural, inalienable rights and what are called legal or positive

rights. The latter are rights conferred by positive law. Positive law

may be divine, i.e., God’s revealed law or human, i.e., ecclesiastical

1 Cf. John A. Ryan, D.D., The Norm of Morality (Washington, D. C.,

1944) p. 54; Cf. Dom Virgil Michel, O.S.B., Human Rights (Wanderer Prtg.
Co., St. Paul, 1936), p. 19.

[ 14 ]



or civil. The idea has sometimes been proposed that all rights owe

their origin to civil power or to custom. But if only legal rights

such as these existed we would be at the mercy of human authority.

Our life, our liberty could be taken from us whenever the civil ruler

decided it would be to his advantage to change the law granting them

;

or, if the form of government were a democracy and the will of the

people prevailed, our life and our liberty, etc. still would not neces-

sarily be secure. The will of the majority could inflict tyranny on

the minority just the same as a dictator can inflict tyranny on the

people. Custom would not necessarily protect minorities. Evidently

there must be something higher than the mere will of a civil ruler,

will of the majority, or custom to decide the rights to which indi-

vidual persons are entitled. We referred above to rights conferred
by God’s positive or revealed law, but we are not concerned with

them here. We say that all man have natural, inalienable rights
and it is these rights that we are going to discuss now.

Natural rights are inherent in the human person; they belong to

a person because of his very nature. They are inalienable in the

sense that they are beyond the reach of men or governments. Some

are inalienable in the sense that it is morally wrong for the person

himself to renounce them; others may be renounced by the person

himself (e.g., right to private property) but are inalienable in the

sense that they may never, without violation of the moral law, be

taken away by others. Whence arise these rights? The answer is

that they come from God. God confers these natural, inalienable

rights on us.

Need of Considering Life’s Purpose

Why do we have God-given natural human rights? To show this
it will be necessary to answer a further question about the very

purpose of human existence itself. What is the purpose of human life?

If we want to know why we have God-given, natural rights we must

first know what human life is for, why we are in this world. As

a matter of fact we cannot live intelligently at all unless we know

life’s purpose. An intelligent man would never use an instrument

the purpose of which was known to him without first finding out what

the instrument was for; otherwise he might ruin the instrument by

using it for a purpose for which it was never intended at all. A human
life can be ruined in the same way when one does not know what

human life is for; indeed, this is just what has been going on

—

leaders in the world who do not know about or do not reflect upon

life’s purpose have been destroying rights and creating misery and

unhappiness because they have used the lives of men for purposes for

which men were not intended. If a right is a moral power of having,

[ 15 ]



doing or demanding something, we can only determine what in the

nature of things should be the extent of such power and the reason

for it by considering the purpose of life.

Happiness

What is the purpose of human life? If we examine the nature of

man we find that man seeks happiness. Finite goods do not make

man completely happy. The greatest possible combination of goods

of this earth will not satisfy and there is always the fact to be con-

sidered that these goods will one day perish. The intellect of man is

able to conceive of unlimited good and the will of man can desire

every good presented to it by the intellect . 2 The object that will

satisfy man and make man completely happy must be something

that will satisfy the human intellect and will. Yet the possession of

perfect happiness must somewhere in some way be possible because

it would be contrary to the infinite wisdom, goodness and truthfulness

of God that the desire for perfect happiness should be in man with

no way to satisfy it. This tendency would not be in man by nature

if there were no way -by which its satisfaction could be achieved.

Since perfect happiness cannot be found in this world, it must be

found in the next. Since perfect happiness must comprise unlimited

good, perfect happiness consists in the possession of God in eternity . 3

And if man is to reach the goal of perfect happiness for which he is

destined he must prepare during this life for union with God in

eternity. This he does by a right ordering of his free acts here on

earth, i.e., of acts which are the result of a decision of his free will.

The purpose of human life is to act in such a way here as to prepare

for union with God hereafter, where one can obtain perfect happiness.

The Eternal Law or Plan of God

This brings us to another question: How does man rightly order

his acts upon earth? How can it be known which acts will prepare

for happiness in eternity and which will not? The ultimate standard

for determining this is what is called eternal law. Eternal law is the

plan of God for the direction of all things to their end . 4 Just as an

architect would have a plan in his mind for a building to be erected

and a contractor would have a plan for the direction of the work,

so God necessarily had from all eternity a plan for the direction

and governing of all things to the end He had in mind. This plan

2 Cf. John A. Ryan, op. cit., p. 7.
3 Cf. John A. Ryan, op. cit., p. 8.
4 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, la, 2ae, g. 93.

[ 16]



of God for the direction and governing of all things to their ends is

eternal law. Eternal law governs irrational creatures so that they are

directed to their end by physical necessity; but men, who are rational

creatures, having intellect and free will, are governed by eternal law

so that they are directed to their end by moral necessity. Men rightly

order their free acts, men serve God in this world and prepare for

perfect happiness through union with God hereafter by following that

part of the eternal plan of God for the direction of all things to their

end which applies to man's free acts. What this plan is in regard

to man's free acts is evident from the nature of things and is called

the natural moral law.

Rights Are Means to Fulfilling Life’s Purpose

Now since man is destined for everlasting happiness in heaven,

and must prepare for such a destiny by acts here upon earth, he must

have the means to do so. He must have the power of having or doing

certain things or of demanding certain things from others. In other

words, he has rights. If we are going to reach the end or goal of

human life, which is union with God hereafter where we find perfect

happiness, and wdiich we prepare for by carrying out God’s plan

in regard to our free acts, we must have the means. Rights are the

means for this purpose. Hence it must be a part of the eternal plan

of God for the direction of all things to their end, it must be required

by the eternal law of God, or by the natural moral law, that we have

rights to certain things. Rights arise from the eternal plan of God;

this is the sense in which it can be said that God gives us our rights.

Our natural human rights then are bound up with God and with

the eternal law or the natural moral law. The real reason we have

human rights is that God gave them to us; and He gave them to us

because we need them in order to serve Him . 5

Dignity of the Human Person

Man is not a mere animal. He has a soul that is spiritual and

immortal. Everything in this world will come to an end except the

individual human person. Moreover, the human person is master of

himself and of his acts; he is not merely a means to the end of some

other person. He is a person having intrinsic worth and sacredness

because of his destiny and because he has the faculty of reason and

can choose his acts and prepare for the high destiny that awaits

him. Man’s reason enables him to see and make judgments about

ends to be achieved and means to be used for the attainment of

ends; his free will enables him to choose actions according to his

5 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., pp. 22-25.

[ 17]



knowledge. In the exercise and development of these powers of mind,

he is distinguished from the brute animal, he really lives as a man,

as a human person . 6 If he is to be happy, he must be permitted proper

exercise of these faculties. He has rights because of the dignity of

his personality. Proximately, it can be said that the basis for human

rights is the dignity of human personality.

The fact that the Charter of the United Nations states in the

Preamble that one of the purposes is “to reaffirm faith in . . . the

dignity and worth of the human person
’ 7

is a notable contribution to

the cause of recognition of human rights. Human rights will never

be adequately safeguarded however unless men realize why the

dignity and worth of the human person must be respected. The ulti-

mate basis for human dignity is man’s nature and eternal destiny.

The human person who exercises his faculties properly prepares for

happiness by acting in accord with the eternal plan of God. In order

that he exercise his faculties in this way, he needs rights and it is

therefore a requirement of God’s plan that he have them. Hence the

ultimate or remote basis for human rights is God.

Determining Human Rights in Detail

The Declaration of Independence says that all men “are en-

dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among

these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We have a right
to the pursuit of happiness. We have a right, as Pius XI said, to
tend toward our ultimate goal in the path marked out for us by

God . 7 In the pursuit of happiness we have a right to life, a right to

liberty in general. Just how can we determine in detail which rights

are involved in the pursuit of happiness? We can answer this by
considering in more detail what by the nature of things is involved

in serving God, what is included in the eternal plan of God for the

direction of our acts or in the natural moral law. We can discover
this by examining human nature. The nature of anything means

what the thing is, considered as a principle of activity, and com-

prises all the tendencies and powers that it has by which it is

directed to its end. An examination of human nature with its

tendencies to be satisfied and faculties to be exercised, and essential

relations with other beings, will show what the plan of God is for

man in his pursuit of happiness, or in other words what the natural

moral law embraces; it will show therefore which rights are involved

in the pursuit of happiness .
8

6 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., pp. 12-13.

7
7 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Atheistic Communism, n. 27.

8 Cf. John A. Ryan, op. cit., p. 16.

[ 18 1



What the Natural Moral Law Embraces

It is evident from a consideration of human nature that man has

many faculties and tendencies as well as many relations to other

beings. The dignity of the human person, founded in his nature

and destiny, requires that the faculties and tendencies be main-

tained, developed and exercised for the good of the whole person

or whole human nature. One’s life and integrity, both physical and

mental, must be maintained. One’s intellect and will are to be

exercised and developed through education and association with

other persons. The faculties of reason and free will, exercised in the

pursuit of universal truth and universal good, are superior; the

sense faculties which belong to the animal part of human nature have

value in aiding the exercise of reason and will but should be exercised

in such a way as not to hinder the exercise of the latter faculties.

Rights are needed as means to the maintenance, development and

exercise of man’s faculties and tendencies.

Furthermore, man by his nature has relations to God, as Creator;

and he has relations to his fellowmen, as individuals; to his fellow-

men, as grouped together in societies: the family, the State, the com-

munity of States. We can tell what the natural moral law is if we
consider human nature adequately, as shown in the preceding para-

graph, with proper subordination of lower to spiritual faculties and

proper relation of all faculties to the whole person, and then con-

sider human nature in all the above relations. Man’s relations to

God, of course, embrace the general duty of preparing for perfect

happiness with God by observing the entire moral law; and God

endows man with all his inalienable rights for this purpose. But

man’s relation to God also includes the specific duty of giving to

God honor and worship due Him as Creator and Lord; hence one
has a specific inalienable right to worship God.

Man’s relations to his fellowmen as individuals involve various

duties, such as charity, justice, etc. Human nature requires man tc

love his neighbor who has the same nature and needs as himself

and is equally a member of God’s human family destined for hap-

piness with Him. But we are especially concerned here with the fact

that man’s relations to his fellowmen as individuals involve justice

—

the duty of recognizing the rights of his fellowmen. If it is part of

the plan of God that one person develop his personality and prepare

for happiness with God, it is likewise part of the plan of God or

moral law that his fellowmen do likewise—his fellowmen have the
same dignity, nature and destiny as himself. One must recognize

in each of his fellowmen the same fundamental rights he recognizes

in himself. And rights of one person always imply duties in others

to respect those rights; obligations and rights are correlative.

[ 19 ]



But man has relations to his fellowmen not merely as individuals

but as grouped together in societies, too. A society is a moral union
of many to obtain a common end by common means. Man cannot
provide for himself the necessities of life and cannot develop properly

his mental or moral faculties without the aid of society . 9 Man in

society also reflects the perfections of God in a way that would

not be true were man to live alone . 10 Social relations are an essential

part of man’s nature; man has need for membership in societies or

social organizations. He is naturally born into a society, a family.

Moreover, individual persons and families need advantages that can

only be provided by membership in civil society or the State; and

individuals, families and States need advantages that can be derived

from international society. Individuals have rights to the advantages

that can be provided by these various societies and these societies

themselves have rights to whatever is necessary for carrying out their

functions.

Equality of Rights

We can see from the above paragraphs how the natural moral law
is determined in detail from a consideration of man’s nature in its

constitution and essential relations, and how natural rights are

determined in detail by the requirements of man’s personal dignity

in preparing for his destiny of perfect happiness by carrying out the

moral law. It should be emphasized that every human person has

the same fundamental rights since every human person has the

same dignity, the same nature and the same destiny. Every human

being, whether the person be a crippled person in old age, a weak

infant, or an unborn babe, has an inalienable God-given right to life

and the other fundamental inalienable rights since every human

being has an immortal soul, as well as a body, destined for happiness

in eternity .
11 As is said in the N. C. W. C. Declaration

,
“the unity

of the human race under God is not broken by geographical distance

or by diversity of civilization, culture and economy, and the adequate

use of the world’s resources by all peoples is not to be denied because

of these factors. “And weakness resulting from conquest or imperfec-

tion in governmental organization should not be used as pretext to

reject the fundamental rights of man or to impede their legitimate

exercise.”

All human persons have the same fundamental rights, for the

reasons we have given. When rights are determined in the concrete

9 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Christian Constitution of States, n. 3.

10 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Atheistic Communism, n. 29.
11 Cf. George Clune, Christian Social Reorganization (Browne & Nolan,

Dublin, 1940), p. 175.

[ 20 ]



for individual persons, however, there will be differences depending

upon the different duties persons have in their different circumstances

in life. Because of the different circumstances in which persons live,

there will be differences in regard to the need for exercising certain

rights. For instance, the right to collective bargaining in regard to

wages is a right that has special meaning for persons living under

the present economic system. Again, while one man has as much

right as another to the development of personality, it must be

admitted that men differ in their natural aptitudes, inclinations,

capacities and needs. For instance, some persons have greater

capacity for mental development through education than others.

Again, women have, to some extent, different inclinations and dif-

ferent functions in life than men. Hence a general equality of op-

portunity for development of personality would mean certain dif-

ferences in the concrete for different persons .
12

In other words,

natural rights are the same for all men in kind and number, but

among different persons there can be some distinction as regards the

extension of content of these rights .
13

Relative Importance of Different Rights

Sometimes there may be an apparent conflict of natural rights.

For instance, suppose a person is literally starving to death and the

only food he can get is the private property of someone. The starving

person has a natural right to the food he needs to preserve his life;

the property holder has a natural right to property. The conflict is

solved by the fact that the right of the starving man to preserve his

life is a more important, more necessary means for carrying out God’s

plan than the right of the property holder, who is not starving, to

maintain his property .
14 A hierarchy of different rights exists, their

relative importance and value depending upon how necessary they

are as means to enable persons to live in accord with human dignity

and prepare for happiness with God. In the case of rights which are

on the same plane of necessity, rights which are for the benefit of the

community in general take precedence over rights which are for the

benefit of the individual.

Limitation of Rights

From the relative necessity and importance of rights in reference

to the pursuit of happiness, it will be evident how rights are limited.

Our General Preamble says, “At all times, the obligation to respect

12 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., pp. 32-33.

13 Cf. Ryan-Boland, Catholic Principles of Politics, (Macmillan, 1940),

pp. 15-16.

14 Cf. Clune, op. cit., p. 186.

[21 ]



the rights of others operates against the arbitrary use of rights.”

In regard to the rights of fellowmen, rights are limited by the equally

essential or more essential rights of others. But since man has

obligations in regard to the development and exercise of his own

faculties, has relations in regard to God, has relations of charity

and other virtues as well as of justice in regard to his fellowmen as

individuals and as members of society, it is evident man will have no

natural right to do what constitutes violation of any of these relations

or obligations. Rights are for the purpose of enabling man to pursue

happiness by carrying out the plan of God. Rights are therefore

limited by the entire moral law; one has a right to do only what is

morally lawful .
15

Summary

Recognition of the fact that rights come from God and are for

the purpose of preparing for happiness with God by following the

moral law will alone provide an adequate reason for recognition

of human rights. Aside from the fact that rights are conferred by

the moral law, and hence limited by the same, rights would amount

to nothing more than physical force. Aside from recognition of

man’s true purpose and destiny no entirely satisfactory reason can

be given why all men have rights nor why they are inalienable and

why the rights of minorities may not be taken away at the whim

of majority groups. In the system of rights we have explained,

we have a standard for determining which of the different rights of

individuals prevail over others, and for determining when the rights

of the individual prevail and when the rights of society prevail.

The system shows how all human persons have the same fun-

damental natural rights; yet it shows how conflicting claims of

various rights can be reconciled. It provides a standard showing how

different rights are limited by their relative importance in accom-

plishing the purpose for which all rights exist—which is to enable
men to live in accord with human dignity and prepare for eternal

happiness.

Chapter II. The Particular Preambles in

A Declaration of Human Rights

The Declaration of Human Rights is divided into four parts,

considering respectively the rights of the human person, the rights

pertaining to the family, the domestic rights of States and the rights

of States in the international community. These rights arise from

15 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., p. 25; Cf. Ryan-Boland, op., cit., p. 27.

[22 ]



the various needs of the human person in living according to his

dignity and preparing for his eternal destiny; and from the various

needs of societies in accomplishing their purpose, which is to pro-

vide individual human persons with opportunities and things they

need for the development and perfection of personality and pursuit

of happiness—opportunities and things which the persons would not
have without the aid of society. Each of the four parts of the

Declaration is preceded by a special preamble. We shall comment
now on each of these preambles.

The Rights of the Human Person

The Preamble for The Rights of the Human Person says, “The

dignity of man, created in the image of God, obligates him to live

in accordance with law imposed by God. Consequently, he is en-

dowed as an individual and as a member of society with rights

which are inalienable.” Since man has the dignity of being created

to the image and likeness of God with a soul that thinks and wills

and is destined for happiness with God in eternity, he has the duty

of following God's law and for this purpose is endowed with inalien-

able rights. As an individual he is endowed with whatever rights

are needed for proper maintenance, development and exercise of his

faculties, for worship and service of God, and for performing duties

toward his fellowmen. Moreover, man is a social being with a

natural inclination to live in society. He cannot, as we saw in

discussing the General Preamble, develop properly as a human

person without the aid of society. He has a right to membership in

society and a right to the advantages society provides for its mem-

bers. This applies to the family, to the State and to international

society—these are necessary and natural societies; it also applies
to voluntary associations

16
individuals may find it advantageous to

form or enter. We shall discuss in greater detail in a later section
some of the principal fundamental rights of the human person.

The Rights Pertaining to the Family

The Preamble for The Rights Pertaining to the Family reads,

“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society

and is endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights antecedent

to all positive law. The family does not exist for the State, but

on the other hand is not independent.” The family is a necessary

and natural society . 17 The family is necessary if the race is to

16 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 102.

17 Cf. Michael Cronin, D.D., The Science of Ethics (Benziger, 1939), II,

p. 388.

[ 23 ]



continue and children are to be cared for properly. The child is not

in a position to live and develop by itself, but is by the nature of

things dependent on others for many years. The duty of caring for

the child devolves naturally on the parents because the parents are

responsible for the child’s existence and are also supplied by nature

with the tendencies and inclinations which are needed. The proper

care, education and training of the child on the physical, intellectual

and moral level all require tendencies of love and affection and willing-

ness to sacrifice which the parents naturally possess. The members

of the family are bound together by natural impulses of love for one

another; love of parent for child, of child for parent and love of

parents or husband and wife for each other. Hence the family is

a natural society.

The family is the fundamental group unit of society. The family

holds a position that is between the individual and the State .
18 The

family has duties and rights from God by the very nature of things

because it is a natural and necessary society, not an arbitrary institu-

tion established by the free will of men. The family has fundamental

rights which are independent of the State and which have not been

created by any civil constitution. It has rights and duties which are

prior to those of the State and are founded more immediately in the

nature of things. What some of these rights are in detail we shall

see later. The State is based on the family and not vice versa. The

family is a true society, but an imperfect society in the sense that it

is not endowed with all the means necessary for its own end—it is
dependent on the State. It is the natural duty of the State to protect

the family and do what it can to make the full discharge of family

duties possible .
19

It is the duty of the State to protect the natural rights of the

family just as it is the duty of the State to protect the natural rights

of the individual. The family has a right to be free from State inter-

ference in the realization of its end according to the moral law or

plan of God. It is by the nature of things the duty of the family

or the one in authority in the family to promote the welfare of its

own members. In an extraordinary case
,

20
however, where a family

is neglecting the welfare of some of its members, the State can have

the right and the duty to intervene in the affairs of the family in

order to protect the rights of the individual that are not otherwise

being protected. The more essential rights of the individual in this

case take precedence over the right which the family normally has

18 Cf. Clune, op. cit., p. 218.

19 Cf. Clune, op. cit., p .225.
20 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Christian Education of Youth (Five Great

Encyclicals, Paulist Press, p. 49).

[ 24 ]



to be free from State interference in the management of its affairs. It

can likewise be the right and duty of the State to intervene in family

affairs when the family is exercising its function in a way that will

be harmful to the common good or general welfare of all. For in-

stance, if a family fails to give its children the education that is

necessary to equip them for good citizenship, the State can require

that the children receive such education .
21

It is the duty of the

family as a unit of society to do its part in promoting the general

welfare. Where individuals, families and other societies fail in this

regard, it is the duty of the State to promote the common temporal

good.

The Domestic Rights of States

The Preamble for The Domestic Rights of States says, “Political

authority is entrusted by God to nations, which are endowed with

rights and charged with the obligation of establishing justice, of

promoting the general welfare of their citizens and of cooperating

with other nations in furthering the universal welfare of mankind.

”

The Common Temporal Good

Man has a natural tendency toward membership in society be-

yond the society of his own family. Many things are needed in life

and especially for proper development of personality which the

family as a society cannot supply. The State is a necessary require-

ment of man’s nature. The purpose of the State is the promotion of

the common temporal welfare or common temporal good of its mem-

bers. This common good includes the maintenance of order and

peace, the protection of rights, etc., it includes in short the establish-

ment of such common social conditions of life as will best enable

individual members to develop their personalities according to their

abilities and the moral lawr . The common good means all the social

conditions by means of which the human person may be enabled to

follow the moral law and fulfill his destiny .22 The common good

which the State promotes will not necessarily however provide the

same benefits for each of the members. Some individuals and espe-

cially some weaker classes will have greater need of help from civil

society than others, and will benefit more from the advantages or

social conditions the society provides .
23

In exercising its functions,

21 Cf. Pius XI, op. cit.
22 Cf. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 1939,

Philosophy of the State, p. 90.

23 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, The Condition of Labor (New N. C. W. C.

translation, n. 48-52).

[ 25 ]



the State must be mindful of the fact that within its own sphere

the family has authority superior to the State in promoting the

temporal good of its own members. And of course men have the

right to form private voluntary societies for their temporal welfare

too, as long as the societies are not harmful to the rights of others or

the common good.

The Individual and the Rights of the State

Since the State is a natural and necessary society for promoting

the common temporal good of its members, it follows that the State

is endowed by the natural law of God with rights enabling it to fulfill

all its obligations. It has a right and duty to enact just civil laws for

this purpose and enforce their observance. All persons have the

natural moral obligation to obey just laws. All persons have the

moral obligation to do their part in promoting the common temporal

good. This does not mean that man is for the State
;

the State is for

man. But it is the function of the State to promote the common

good of its members, and the State therefore has the right that

members do their part in enabling the State to fulfill its natural

function. The State is not an end in itself, but an instrument for

the welfare of the members, and the common good that the State

secures is not for itself but is ultimately for the individual members.

The moral obligation of individuals to support the State then in

order to enable the State to fulfill its functions is reducible to a moral

obligation of individuals to help provide suitable temporal conditions

for the development of personality and pursuit of happiness for

themselves and for their fellow-men.

Political Authority from God

Political authority in a State comes from God. The political

authority is required by the nature of things in order that the

common good of all be secured; hence political authority comes

from God in the sense that the natural moral law requires it and

God is the author of the natural moral law. Since it is the natural

duty of the State to protect human rights and secure the common

good and not destroy them, and since it is the natural duty of the

members to support the State in this endeavor, there exists in the

very nature of things a standard for showing what the State is

obliged to do and what the State is obliged not to do. A State is not

morally free to allow anarchy and license instead of lawful liberty,

even if the majority of people should so desire; and the majority

are not morally free to become a tyranny and destroy the rights of

[ 26 ]



minorities. Thus the above concept of political authority is a safe-

guard against anarchy on the one hand and tyranny of the majority

on the other.

The Right oj Setj-Government

The Preamble for The Domestic Rights oj States also says, how-

ever, “it is the right of all peoples that are capable of self-government

to organize politically and to function as States upon equal terms

with other States.'’ If it is a requirement of the natural law that

there be a State in order that the common good be secured, it is also

a requirement of the natural law that a capable community have the

right to organize such a State, choose such a form of government

as to them seems most suitable, and designate the ruling authority.

In a community capable of self-government, the common good will

generally not be adequately maintained unless the people have the

right of self-government; and it is the purpose of the .government to

secure the common good.24 There is a strong tendency among those

who are capable to have political freedom, set up their own form of

government and choose their own leaders. Under such circumstances

it is a part of the plan of God or a requirement of the natural moral

law of God that the people have the right of self-government. This

does not mean that the people may do as they please—they must
follow the moral law as to what the government is obliged to do and

what the government is forbidden to do.

In regard to the form of government, the people may select that

form which seems best considering the circumstances of their own

dispositions and customs.25 The right of self-government does not

necessarily imply that there must always be periodic choosing of

representatives, popular elections by secret ballot, etc.; hence the

individual person does not have an inalienable natural right to par-

ticipate in all of these. But it will generally be found among people

who are capable that these are the best means of exercising the right

of self-government both from the standpoint of insuring just gov-

ernment today and from the standpoint of developing individual

initiative and responsibilty more in accord with human dignity. Pius

XII, in his 1944 Christmas Message says, “If . . . we consider the

extent and nature of the sacrifices demanded of all the citizens

especially in our day when the activity of the state is so vast and

decisive, the democratic form of government appears to many as a

postulate of nature imposed by reason itself.”

,

24 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

25 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, On Civil Government

,

n. 7.

[ 27 ]



Functions of the State

The purpose of the State is to secure and promote the common

temporal good of its citizens. This embraces, in the words of the

Preamble above, “the obligation of establishing justice, of promoting

the general welfare of their citizens and of cooperating with other

nations in furthering the universal welfare of mankind.” The State

must establish justice by protecting the rights of all and interfering

with the rights of none. Human rights of individuals and families,

rights to life, property, etc., need to be protected by a police force

or army. The State has the right and duty to make positive laws

for the safeguarding of natural rights. The extent of many natural

rights is determined from the nature of things and it is the business

of the State to protect the rights. In the case of some other natural

rights, such as certain property rights, the extent of the right is not

determined by the nature of things; here it is the function of the

State to determine within the limits of what is clearly required by

the natural laAr, the extent of such rights .
26

It is the duty of the State to promote the general welfare of the

citizens in a positive way; citizens have a right to advantages that

positive promoting of the general welfare will provide them. There

are some functions which the State can perform but which are

beyond the capacities of individuals, families or private societies to

perform adequately. Such functions could pertain, for instance, to

public works, regulations concerning industry, to public charities,

public education, public regulations promoting health, safety, religion

and morality . 27

Subsidiarity

But it is wrong for the State to attempt to promote the general

welfare in any sphere where it can be adequately provided for by

private agencies and societies. It is in accord with the dignity of

human persons, endowed with reason and free will, that they be

allowed their own initiative to do things by themselves where they

can. The State can best perform its functions when this is done.

Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Reconstructing the Social Order

asked that subsidiary organizations in industry be re-established to

perform some of the needed public functions that now must either

be performed by the State or neglected altogether. The principle of

subsidiarity in regard to functions of the State is a principle that is

very frequently overlooked today.

26 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 131.

27 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 128.

[ 28 ]



Requirements of Prudence

The State has the duty to protect natural rights and promote the

general welfare in so far as it can. The maintenance of the overall

general welfare however requires that the State follow the laws of

prudence in promoting the general welfare in particular instances.

For instance, unlimited freedom of speech wall do harm to the com-

mon good and interfere with the rights of others by putting obstacles

in the way of obtaining truth or practicing virtue. It is the duty of

the State to prevent this in so far as it can do so in accordance with

prudence. Nearly all States recognize the duty of suppressing cer-

tain kinds of indecent literature, etc. Theoretically, the State should

repress every exercise of freedom that is harmful to the common

good or that interferes with the rights of others. In practice, in

some cases it is not sufficiently evident whether certain view's being

propagated are erroneous or injurious. The State should not dis-

courage but promote in so far as it can the pursuit of truth and true

learning.

And even in cases where the harmful effect of propagating certain

views is evident, attempts to suppress such propagation in some cases

might open the way to such abuse that more harm would be done

to the common good in the long run than would have resulted if the

State had refrained from acting .28 The common good may sometimes

require the State to guarantee certain liberties (positive or legal

rights) beyond what would be natural or God-given rights. All

natural rights however are limited by the moral law.

The International Community

A State has the obligation of cooperating with other nations in
furthering the universal welfare of mankind. Since peace and other

conditions in international society must exist if the temporal needs

of mankind for the pursuit of happiness are to be adequate, it is the

right as well as the duty of an individual State to cooperate with

other States in regard to this endeavor.

This brings us to the Preamble for the fourth section of the

Declaration
,
the Rights of States in the International Community ,

which reads:

“The human family constitutes an organic unity or a world

society.

“The States of the world have the right and the duty to associate

and to organize in the international community for their common

welfare.

28 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit.
f
336-340.

[ 29 ]



“The indispensable foundation of all peaceful intercourse among

nations and an essential condition of juridical relations among them

are common trust and respect for the plighted word. Treaties and

agreements must not be considered subject to arbitrary unilateral

repudiation.

“Every State has certain fundamental rights in the international

community.”

The International Common Good

Particular States are subject to the natural moral law in their

relations with other States and individuals of other States, just as

individuals and families are subject to the natural moral law in their

relations with other individuals and families .29 Particular States

have natural rights which are to be respected by other States and

individuals of other States; particular States cannot fulfill their

functions in regard to their people unless they have these rights.

And just as there is a common good for an individual State to

secure and promote for its own citizens, so there is an international

common good to be promoted for the benefit of the people of all

States. It consists in maintenance of rights of all States to self-

preservation, freedom, self-development and preservation of peace

and international order. It consists also in promoting economic,

social, cultural progress, etc. of humanity. In extraordinary cases it

can include the protection of rights of individuals and families or

groups in certain States—where such rights are seriously violated and
cannot otherwise be protected.

Organized International Society

There is a common good for the States of the world and for the

people of these States which must be secured and maintained if the

people of the world are to live properly and fulfill their purpose in

life according to the dignity that belongs to them. Particular States

together with the individuals in these States have the duty of doing

their part in promoting the common good of the world society. In the

past it has been found necessary for groups of individuals and fam-

ilies to have an organized State to secure their common good. In

the international community it is also necessary that the States

of the world should organize, in so far as may be possible, for the

securing of the international common good which cannot otherwise

be secured. If States are negligent about organizing the international

29 Cf. Charles O’Donnell, Catholic Association of International Peace, 1941,

The World Society, I, pp. 6-12 and V, pp. 34-47.

[ 30 ]



community, it is not because there is no natural moral law about it;

it is because men of good will in various States have not yet been

able to secure sufficient power and influence and mutual understand-

ing to be able to do it or, in some cases, because men of good will

have not become aware of the natural need or of the moral obligation

in regard to it.

The need for organized world society has been much greater

and compelling in recent years than it was previously. The commer-

cial and industrial revolution have brought the various States and

peoples of the world into close communication with each other so that

living in an unorganized world society today is equivalent to a con-

dition groups of families would have lived in a few centuries ago, had

they had no organized States.

Rights of Organized International Society

The individual States in the world therefore have the right and

the duty to organize so as to secure the international common good.

It is also very important for individual States to realize that just as

individual citizens must surrender some of their freedom of action

when a State is organized, so individual States must surrender some

of their freedom of action when the international society is organized.

Individual States will have obligations to organized international

society which must be fulfilled if organized society is to fulfill its

function and secure the international common good for the individual

States. This means that at least in certain matters the organized

world society will have a certain amount of authority and sovereignty

over individual States. The organized international society must

have rights which will enable it to fulfill its functions: right and

power to establish a world court, to legislate within its competence,

to impose military and economic sanctions, to employ an interna-

tional police force, establish international regulation or control in

regard to atomic energy, etc.

Observance of Treaties

If there is to be any peace and security in international relations,

particular States must especially recognize the natural moral obliga-

tions of observing just agreements and treaties. An important func-
tion of organized international society would be to guarantee the

sincere observances of treaties and provide for their revising and

amending when necessary .30

30 Cf. Pius XII, Christmas Message, 1939.

[ 31 ]



Rights of the Church

We have been discussing the various Societies and the position

they occupy in the nature of things. There is still another Society,

the Church, about which we have said nothing thus far because the

Church is not just a society in the natural order. It is the teaching

of the Catholic Church that her authority comes from God, not by

virtue of the fact that He is the Author of nature, but by divine

revelation, by manifestation of His positive will; that she was

founded directly by Christ as a supernatural society and is entirely

independent of any other society in her own sphere; that she was

made the custodian of Christ’s revelation, was authorized by Christ

to teach in His name in matters pertaining to faith and morals, and

to provide His means of sanctification for men; that as a Society

she can make ecclesiastical laws for the common spiritual good of

the members of the Society. Granted that she was authorized by

God for the end we have just stated, she has a God-given right to

the means necessary to accomplish her end, such as: a right to

teach the religion of Christ and the moral law in every country

of the world, a right to watch over the entire education of her chil-

dren in so far as religion and morality are concerned, a right to

celebrate divine worship and administer Sacraments, a right to build

and possess places of worship, build and conduct institutions, own

property and equipment needed for her work, and prepare and enlist

the services of men needed for her work.

Chapter III. The Rights Enumerated In

A Declaration of Human Rights

Just what principal fundamental human rights does the human

person have? We have seen previously that a human right is a moral
and inviolable power of having or doing something or of demanding

something from others; we have seen that a right is a means to the

development of human personality in accordance with human dignity,

a means to preparing for eternal happiness by following the moral

law. We have said that we can determine which rights are involved
in the pursuit of happiness by consideration of the moral law in

detail, i.e., by consideration of human nature adequately in its con-

stitution, with proper relation of faculties and tendencies to the

whole nature and to each other, and human nature in its essential

relations to God, fellow-men and societies.

[32 ]



Basic Rights

It is evident from such a consideration that the faculties and

tendencies of man must be maintained, developed and exercised for

the good of the whole human nature and that the human person has

a right to whatever is necessary for this. Thus the human person

must have a right to maintenance of life and bodily integrity. He

must have a right to exercise his faculties in the service and worship

of God. Also, he has a right to perform acts of justice, charity and

other virtues in regard to his fellowmen and society. He must have

a right to liberty, education, association—whatever is necessary for
exercise and development of the highest faculties, intellect and will,

in the pursuit of truth and good or happiness. He has a right to

whatever means may be needed to train his passions so they will

contribute to good of higher tendencies and whole human nature.

He must have a right to exercise of the reproductive faculty,

with, however, proper subordination of pleasure to the end of the

faculty, and so that the propagation of the race will be promoted

in accordance with the plan of God; this means, promoted under

circumstances where there is proper provision for physical, mental

and moral development and education of children. This will require

and therefore mean a right to marriage and the stable and permanent

institution of the family. Moreover, the human person has a right to

seek and obtain material goods and satisfactions of tendencies of

lower faculties, i.e., food, clothing, housing, medical care, rest, recrea-

tion, etc. to such an extent and in such a way as to contribute to the

welfare of the whole person; this means, so as to contribute to the

development and exercise of the higher faculties of intellect and will,

but not to the point where such seeking would interfere with devel-

opment and exercise of these higher faculties. Finally the human

person has a right to the aid of societies in protecting and securing

his rights.

The most basic or primary rights of the human person, in view of

what we have said, would be: the right to life and bodily integrity;

the right to liberty—including right to serve and worship God, per-
form acts of virtue for fellowmen and societies, and right to ‘education

and association and whatever else is necessary for exercise and de-

velopment of intellect and will and other faculties; the right to

marriage, if one chooses to marry, or, the right to choose and freely

maintain a state of life; the right to such material goods and satis-

factions as are necessary for or contribute to the welfare of the

whole person. The right to serve God or fulfill the moral law is the

most basic of all rights and includes in it all the other rights. It

could also be called the right to the pursuit of happiness.

[ 33 ]



Life and Bodily Integrity

The first right of the human person mentioned in the Declaration

is the right to life and bodily integrity. Since all human persons have

this right, the right is possessed from the moment of conception. The .

right to life and especially to bodily integrity 31 is possessed regard-

less of physical or mental condition, for the same reason. The only

exception to the right to life is the case of one who is being deprived

of his life in just punishment for crime . 32 The criminal can forfeit

his right to his life—it can become necessary that crimes such as his
be punished by deprivation of life in order that the rights of his fel-

lowmen in society to life or something practically equivalent be

secure. As we said in* a previous chapter, the common good takes

precedence over individual good in regard to rights that are on the

same level of importance.

When there is a sufficiently serious reason, however, it is lawful

to perform acts for legitimate ends which incidentally and unavoid-

ably involve the death of innocent men. For instance in a just war

an aviator may drop a bomb intending to destroy a sufficiently

important military objective even though some innocent people are

unavoidably killed. In such a case the death of the innocent is

not directly intended but is merely permitted for a sufficiently serious

reason. It is never lawful to kill innocent people in order to accom-

plish a good end; the end never justifies the means no matter how

good the end may be.

Service and Worship of God

The right to liberty includes the absolute right to serve and

worship God. Since the whole purpose of human life is to serve God

and prepare for happiness with Him hereafter, the paramount im-

portance of the right to serve God is clearly evident. Involved in the

service of God is of course the observance of the entire moral law,

with duties, as we have seen, to self and duties of justice, charity

and other virtues to neighbor and to society.

The right to worship God flows from the fact that man has the

duty to honor and adore God the Creator because of His excellence,

and the duty to manifest submission to God and show recognition

of the Creator’s supreme dominion over him. He has the duty to

do this not only in private but also in public
;

not only in so far as he

is an individual being but also in so far as he is a social being. Hence

he has a right to serve and worship God in private and in public and

31 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Christian Marriage (Five Great Encyclicals,

Paulist Press, pp. 96-97).

32 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 14.

[34]



he has a right to associate with his fellowmen in this activity. The

State, although a necessary organization, is a group of men joined

together socially, and therefore has a duty to God, too. The State

has the duty to acknowledge God as its author, adore and manifest

submission to God and show recognition of God’s dominion.

Religious Formation Through Education and Association

Deriving from the right to serve and worship God is the right to

religious formation through education and association. As a means

toward serving and worshiping God, man has the duty and there-

fore the right to search for the truth about God and His purpose

in regard to man
;
he has a right that he be educated in the truth and

that he not be obstructed by force or false propaganda in his pursuit

of truth about God and the service and worship of God. He has a

right that all his faculties be trained toward not hindering but rather

toward contributng to his efforts to serve God and follow the moral

law. He has a right to help his neighbor in religious formation

through education and association, too. He has a right to assist his

neighbor in regard to the pursuit of truth and in regard to obedience

to the moral law. In the service and worship of God and in the

religious formation of himself and others, he and his associates have

a right to whatever means may be needed-, such as possession of

property and material equipment.

The duty to search for the truth about God and the moral law

implies the duty to accept anything God should reveal about Himself

and put into practice anything God should reveal about His will in

regard to men. Granting that God did make such a revelation, man

has a right to know about it and a right to put its precepts, i.e., the

divine positive law, into practice. He has a right to make use of such

means of sanctifications as God has revealed. The duty to worship

God, by the very nature of things, means a duty to worship God

in such a way as God would want to be worshiped. The manner

of worshiping God is not determined very definitely by the nature

of things. It necessarily includes adoration and prayer and some

external rite to fittingly symbolize man’s dependence on God as a

spiritual, physical and social being .33 Granting that God by revela-

tion has definitely specified how He wants to be worshiped, there is

a duty and therefore a right to find out how God has revealed He

wants to be worshiped, a duty and a right to worship Him in this

way. It is evident then that the right to worship God must, in so far

as it is a God-given right, be in accord with and not in conflict with

what God has revealed.

33 Cf. John Courtney Murray, S.J., “Freedom of Religion,” Theological

Studies

,

June, 1945, p. 265.

[35 ]



Conscience

The moral law requires that every individual follow the judgment

of his conscience concerning religious truth, worship or any other

matter pertaining to the moral law. This is true whether the con-

science be a true conscience or an erroneous conscience; if the indi-

vidual however doubts or suspects that the judgment of his conscience

may be erroneous, the moral law requires that he do what he can

to clear up the doubt. Before God, one does not have a right to

maintain an erroneous conscience; but the State does not have the

right to interfere with the judgment of conscience, even a wilfully

erroneous conscience—this is because it is not the function of the
State to prescribe any internal acts of men. If the judgment of an

erroneous conscience, however, leads to acts that are against the

rights of others or the common good, the State has the right, to be

exercised in accordance with the requirements of prudence, to pro-

scribe such acts. The State can and should for the sake of the overall

common good permit acts harmful to the common good when greater

evils would arise from their proscription.

Personal Liberty

Deriving from the right to liberty in general is the right to

personal liberty under just law. The right to personal liberty em-

braces such things as freedom from physical restraint, freedom in the

exercise of one’s faculties, in the choice of one’s occupation and resi-

dence, freedom from unreasonable interference with one’s privacy or

home . 34 The right to personal liberty is restricted by the whole moral

law, of course. It is restricted by the rights of others and by the

requirements of the general welfare. The right to personal liberty is

violated by slavery 35 and involuntary servitude, as well as by any

kind of physical restraint unjustly imposed. It would be interfered

with by conscription for military service unless this were a necessary

means of protection for the State.

The right to personal liberty is violated by unjust arrest and

imprisonment. A person can be temporarily deprived of personal
liberty by civil law when it is necessary that he be arrested and stand

trial, but the temporary restriction of liberty must not be of any

longer duration nor any greater in extent than is necessary. He can

be temporarily or permanently deprived of liberty when this is neces-

sary as punishment for a crime he committed, but he will retain a right

that he be not subjected to torture or inhuman punishment. He has

34 Cf. Augustine J. Osgniach, O.S.B., The Christian State (Bruce, 1943),

pp. 232-233.

35 Cf. Osgniach, op. cit., p. 201.

[ 36 ]



a right to a fair trial, where all guarantees necessary for his defense

and for a just decision are provided. The laws of civilized nations

have various means of safeguarding the human person against un-

reasonable searches, seizure or arrest and against unfair trials. For

instance, laws provide for search warrants, defense attorneys, trial

by jury, etc. The human person has a legal right to all of these

safeguards where they exist. He would not have a natural right to

them in cases where other equally effective means of insuring a fair

trial or preventing unjust seizure or interference with privacy could

be found. But he does have a natural right to the best means that

civilized nations can provide for protecting his personal liberty.

Education

Deriving from the right to liberty for exercise and development

of one’s faculties is the right to education suitable for the main-

tenance and development of man’s dignity as a human person. This

means he has a right to whatever physical, mental and moral educa-

tion is necessary for leading a moral life and for enabling him to

perform his duties properly as an individual being and as a social

being. He has a further right which should be secured for him in so

far as is possible: the right to education in preparation for whatever

vocation or profession in life may be suited to his abilities .36 The

family has directly from God the right to educate the children, a right

prior to that of civil society. In case of failure on the part of the

family to provide the minimum of necessary education, the State has

the right to see to the education of the child in virtue of its function

to protect the right of the child or secure the general welfare, as we

said in discussing the Preambles. The State should supply needed

opportunities and facilities for education in so far as they would not

otherwise be supplied. We mentioned in discussing the Preambles
the right of the Church in regard to education.

Freedom of Expression

Corresponding to the right of education and deriving from the

right to liberty is the right to freedom of expression of information

and communication in accordance with truth and justice. The right

is involved in the right to perform acts of various virtues toward

fellowmen. Men have a right to propagate prudently those things
which are true and honorable so that others may know about them . 37

Men do not have a natural right to propagate those things which

36 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., p. 35.

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Human Liberty, n. 23.

[37]



are false or
#
propagate truth when it involves violation of the moral

law. The propagation of falsehood causes truth to be obscured and

harmful errors to prevail, obstructing men in their pursuit of hap-

piness. The propagation of the truth itself in certain circumstances

may do harm or lend encouragement to the practice of vice; in some

circumstances it may be a violation of justice. The hurting of some-

one’s reputation without adequate reason is a violation of the natural

right to reputation.

The State has the right and duty to protect freedom of expression

of information and communication, but has the right and duty to

prudently check freedom of expression in so far as it violates the

rights of others and the common good. The argument that in a

contest between truth and falsity, truth will ultimately prevail is

misleading and unpractical. Too much harm is done in the mean-

time
38

as is abundantly evident today from the spread of subversive

Nazi and Communist doctrines in countries where there has been full

freedom to spread such errors. Since in practice however it is easy

to do more harm than good in checking freedom of expression where

harm results, it will be found necessary in practice to allow a con-

siderable amount of freedom which is not in accord with the moral

law and which violates the rights of others and the general welfare,

as we stated in discussing the Preamble for the Rights of States.

Opinion

There is a natural right to freedom of thought and discussion in

regard to what are purely matters of opinon—this right is important
because it is the way in which truth is discovered frequently and

made known . 39 But thinking should have truth and goodness for its

Choice of a State of Life

The right to choose and freely to maintain a state of life

,

married

or single, lay or religious, can be considered
1

,
it seems, also as derived

from the right to liberty. The right to marriage however is listed by

some
,

40
along with life, liberty and property (or material goods) as

one of the four most basic rights. The importance of the right to

marriage and to establish a family should be emphasized. We will
discuss the family rights enumerated in the Declaration later. The

right of the individual to advantages that family life only can provide

38 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 339.
39 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, Human Liberty, n. 23.

object.

40 Cf. Ryan-Boland, op. cit., p. 211; Cf. A. F. C. Beales, The Catholic

Church and International Order (Penguin Books, N. Y., 1942), pp. 140-141.

[38 ]



is sufficiently evident from what we said about the family in dis-

cussing the Preambles in the previous chapter. Because of the

dignity of human persons and the various aptitudes and inclinations

that they have, it is necessary that there be freedom of choice in

regard to a state of life.

Right of Association

The right to liberty includes the right of association and peaceable

assembly. We saw in our commentary on the particular Preambles,
that the human person needs society, has a natural inclination for

society and has a right to the advantages society provides for its

members. We also saw in discussing the principle of subsidiarity
that it was wrong for the State to do for individuals what individuals

could do for themselves just as well by their united efforts; we saw

that it was in accord with the dignity of human persons that they do

these things for themselves where they could. Human persons have

an inclination and a right to unite their efforts in peaceable assembly

or in private associations for their mutual benefit, just as they have

an inclination and a right to unite their efforts necessarily in the

formation of a State .
41 The State has the right however to pro-

hibit private associations and assemblies of persons in so far as their

objectives or activities violate the rights of others or are harmful to

the general welfare.

Equal Protection of Just Law

Individuals have the right to petition the government for redress

of grievances when their rights are being interfered with or are not

being properly protected by the government. This follows from the

very fact that they have rights and that it is the duty of the govern-

ment to protect these rights.

The individual has a right to necessary protection by the State

in regard to all the various rights we have discussed and any other

rights he may have. Since all persons have these same fundamental

rights, persons have the right to the equal protection of just law,

regardless of sex, nationality, color or creed. Every person, by virtue

of the fact that he is a person, is entitled to equal protection of just

law in regard to his rights. Of course some groups and classes will

benefit by protection more than others because some are weaker

and more in need of protection than others. No discrimination may
be shown by the State in the protecting of rights because of sex,

nationality, -etc. In other words, no discrimination may be shown

41 Cf. Leo XIII. Encyclical, The Condition of Labor (New N. C. W. C.
translation, n. 72).

[ 39 ]



because of who a person is .42 Of course, certain persons may forfeit

certain rights, such as the right to life or personal liberty, in punish-

ment for crime they have committed.

Men are by nature members of a certain race, color or sex. It

must be a part of the plan of God that they belong to their respective

races, colors or sexes. It is evident then why, if all persons have the

same fundamental rights, they have by the nature of things the

right to equal protection of just law regardless of these differences.

The creed to which a person adheres differs from the race, color or

sex he belongs to in the sense that adherence to a creed is a matter of

judgment of the intellect and is a matter concerning which free will

can play a part. The judgment can be true or erroneous, in some

cases it can even be wilfully erroneous. We discussed in preceding
paragraphs rights and duties in regard to worship of God, religious

formation and conscience, freedom of expression and opinion. Bear-

ing in mind what was said there, one must nevertheless say that in

protecting the real rights of a person the State must not show dis-

crimination because of different persons’ creeds. Since all persons

have the same fundamental rights, all have these rights to life, per-

sonal liberty, etc. regardless of creed—unless some are deprived
of a right, such as personal liberty, because of some crime they

have committed.

Nationality

The Declaration says that the human person has the right to a

nationality. In so far as a nationality is identical with a State, it is

evident that everyone has a right to be a subject of some State

—

otherwise he could not obtain certain advantages he needs which

only membership in civil society can provide for him. This also

implies the right to change one’s nationality. But a nationality

need not be identical with a State. A nationality can be a large
community or a minority group within a State, usually with a com-

mon ancestry, possessing such a large number of common character-

stics and interests that it tends toward a distinct political life .43 Such

communities or groups have a right to maintain their traits and

characteristics against assimilation, a right to preserve their national

languages and their cultural distinctness through education, litera-

ture and other means, 44 They have a right to preserve their religious

practice, in accord of course with what we said above about con-

science, religious formation and right to worship God. They have a

right to preserve anything in their culture so long as such preserva-

42 Cf. John Courtney Murray, S J., op. cit., p. 276.

43 Cf. Michael Cronin, op. cit., II, pp. 508-9.

44 Cf. Beales, op. cit., pp. 157-158.

[40]



tion does not involve violation of the moral law. The State may not

interfere unless they do something that is harmful to the common

good or the rights of others. A national group however does not

necessarily have the right to secede just because it is capable of main-

taining itself .
45 The common good of all takes priority over the

common good of a national group in regard to matters of equal

importance.

Economic Rights

The rights we have discussed thus far in this chapter might be

referred to as civil rights. The rights we are now going to discuss can

be classified as economic rights.

A basic economic right, derived ultimately from the right to life,

is a right to material goods as a means of livelihood. Deriving from

this right are other economic rights. The first one we will mention

is the right of access to the means of livelihood, by migration when

necessary. All persons have a right to such material necessities of life

and living conditions as will support life fully and provide against

future contingencies, such as sickness and old age. They have a

right to obtain them for‘ themselves in whatever way is, within the

limits of the moral law, best suited to their character and abilities.

If people do not have in their own land sufficient room for a decent

livelihood, they have a right to acquire residence in another country

where there is room .46 States having superfluous room are bound

to make it available for migrants in so far as this will not interfere

with the reasonable requirements of public order and economic wel-

fare .
47 The earth was intended for all.

The right to obtain material goods for oneself, in accord with

human dignity, implies the right to work. The duty to perfect one’s

abilities, contribute to social welfare and avoid idleness also implies

the right to work .48 One also has a right to choose one's occupation,

for it is repugnant to human dignity that one not be free to choose,

as far as possible, that legitimate occupation which best fits his

inclinations and talents .49 One should also have the maximum

amount of opportunity for self-expression in regard to his work.

Furthermore, one has a right to such kind of work as will allow

him the leisure, rest and legitimate recreation he needs to live as a

human person.

45 Cf. Beales, op. cit., p. 160.

46 Cf. Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., “Demands of a Just Peace from the

Ethical Standpoint,” Catholic University Bulletin, March, 1946.
47 Cf. John Eppstein, Defend These Human Rights (America Press, 1947)„

p. 29.

48 Cf. Virgil Michel, op. cit., pp. 42-45.

49 Cf. Osgniach, op. cit., p. 234.

[41 ]



The right to material goods involves the right to property in

goods required for man’s immediate needs, such as food, clothing,

shelter, etc. But one also has a right to private property in means

of production. While the exercise of this latter right is not so essen-

tial that a particular individual may not renounce the right for a

sufficient reason, it is a requirement of the dignity of the human

person endowed with reason that he have a right to ownership, use

and disposal of productive property. Thus he can plan ahead for

himself and for his family without being dependent on the State or

others .
50 As an institution in society the private property system

is morally necessary for economic prosperity and especially for safe-

guarding the legitimate liberties of all the people against tyranny.

The laws of the State should favor as many as possible becoming

owners of productive property .
51

It is especially important to note

in connection with the right to private property however that there

are grave duties towards others in regard to the use of it, and that

the right is subject to the rights of others and to limitation in the

interest of the general welfare.

The right to work for a livelihood implies, under modern eco-

nomic conditions where men work for a wage to earn their living,

the right to a living wage. It is the worker’s duty to maintain his

life decently and if he works for a living he must therefore demand

a living wage. If he is forced to accept less, he is the victim of in-

justice .
52

It is beneath the dignity of a normal, adult worker who

works for a living that his pay should have to be supplemented with

help from others in order that he may have a decent living. The

right to a living wage implies the right to use legitimate means to

secure such a wage. Workers therefore have a right to collective

bargaining through labor unions. Labor unions have a right to exist

and function in virtue of the right of association which we have

explained already.

In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity in regard to the

functions of the State, the right of association also involves another

economic right: the right to associate by industries and professions

to obtain economic justice and the general welfare. Just as a

subordinate geographical area within a State has a common good

of its own to be secured by a local government, so a particular group,

such as the members of a profession or all those engaged in a certain

industry, have a common good to be attained by organized effort .
53

50 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, The Condition of Labor, op. cit., n. 12.

51 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, The Condition of Labor, op. cit., n. 65.

52 Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical, The Condition of Labor, op. cit., n. 63.

53 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Reconstructing the Social Order (New N. C. W. C.

translation, n. 83).

[42 ]



It is evident that a local civil government should aim to provide such

common good or social conditions as will best enable citizens in that

geographical area to develop their personalities according to their

abilities and thus follow the moral law. Such an organization in

industry, organized on an industrial rather than a geographical

basis, could provide a remedy for the evils of laissez jaire competition

“by maintaining standards of fairness with regard to wages, hours,

prices and business practices,” 54 while at the same time avoiding

bureaucratic State control—the State w’ould be enabled to confine
itself to “directing, watching, urging, restraining’’

55
conduct in eco-

nomic life for the common good of all. Vocational groups of this kind

would enable those who are willing to work for the common good

and follow the moral law in industry to do so without being crushed

by unscrupulous competitors.

Duty of Society and State

Finally, the human person has the right to assistance from society
,

if necessary from the State , in distress of person or family. This fol-

lows from all that we have said about the nature and purpose of

society in providing men with advantages they need which they

cannot obtain adequately for themselves; and it follows from what

we said about the State promoting the general welfare in so far as

it cannot be adequately provided for by private or subordinate

societies. The State has the duty to protect all rights and make

adequate provision for the securing of such rights (e.g. economic

rights) as otherwise could not be secured .
56

Rights Pertaining to the Family

We have already enumerated among the rights of the human
person the right of marriage. This means the right to marry

,
to estab-

lish a home and beget children. The plan of God for the multiplica-

tion and proper education of the human race cannot be adequately

carried out without this right as we have seen previously. Of course,

there is a duty not to marry without physical or moral capacity or

until one is in position to discharge the obligations of family life .
57

The right to marriage and to a home has been violated in recent

54 Social Action Dept., N. C. W. C., Organized Social Justice, p. 10.

55 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Reconstructing the Social Order, op. cit., n. 80.

56 “If, therefore, any injury has been done to or threatens either the com-

mon good or the interests of individual groups, which injury cannot in any
other way be repaired or prevented, it is necessary for public authority to
intervene.”—Leo XIII, op. cit., n. 52.

57 Cf. Jacques LeClercq., Marriage and the Family (Pustet, 1941), p. 50.

[43]



years in Europe by separation of families, uprooting of populations,

adoption of slave labor, etc. The right to immunity from search and

trespass without sufficient reason, discussed above under the subject

of personal liberty, especially applies to the home. The family has a

right to live its -own life without interference except in so far as

it interferes with the rights of its own members or with the public

good.

Deriving from the right to marry, establish a home and beget

children is the right to economic security sufficient for the stability

and independence of the family. This means that the economic

rights we discussed above as belonging to the human person as an

individual likewise belong to him as head of a family. The right of

migration may be a necessary means of providing vital space for the

family .
58 The head of the family needs the right to work to obtain

a living for his family. He has the right to own private productive

property in order to provide for the present and future needs of his

family, thus preventing the family from being dependent on the

State in this regard. His right to a living wage becomes, under

modern economic conditions, a right to a living wage for the support

of himself and his family—it is an intolerable abuse for mothers to be
forced to work outside the home, thus neglecting their children,

because of the insufficiency of the father's income .
59 Another eco-

nomic right needed by the family is the right to housing adapted to

the needs and functions of family life. This is necessary for both

physical and moral welfare of the family.

A most fundamental and important right of the family is, of
course, the right to educate the children. The family has the right

to make complete provision for the education of the children in so

far as it is able to do so. The State, in virtue of its right to protect

the rights of children and the general welfare, has the right to insist

that education of children be up to a reasonable standard, but

otherwise it has no right to interfere with the family in education

of children. The family especially has the right to provide for the

religious and moral education of its members according to the law

of God. The State may provide certain civic education for all ages

and classes, provided it is true education in accord with the moral law.

The State should provide assistance for families, when necessary,

in the education of the children and should supplement the work of

families when this falls short of what is needed, by its own schools . 60

The family has a right to assistance

,

through community services,

in the education and care of the children. It has the right to the

58 Cf. Eppstein, op. cit., p. 31.

59 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Reconstructing the Social Order.

60 Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical, Christian Education of Youth.

[44]



protection oj maternity; a right to maintain, if necessary by public

protection and assistance, adequate standards of child welfare within

the family circle; a right to protection against immoral conditions in

the community. Especially harmful to the family are immoral places

of amusement and recreation, immoral literature and propaganda

which belittles marriage and its obligations. The State has the duty

to make provisions for the securing of such family rights as could

not otherwise be secured.

The Rights of States

The domestic rights of States and the rights of States in the

international community listed in the Declaration will be sufficiently

evident from what we said in discussing Preambles and from what

w’as said about the State in connection with discussion of rights of

the human person and of the family. The State has a right to what-

ever is necessary to enable it to carry on its functions.

Conclusion

Human rights are based on the dignity of human personality and

human dignity is based on man’s nature and eternal destiny. Human

rights come from God, are inalienable, and are for the purpose of

following the moral law as a preparation for happiness with God

in eternity. These facts and the various implications we have seen

in this commentary on the N. C. W. C. Declaration of Human Rights

can be demonstrated by reason. As a matter of fact however these

rights have been properly and fully understood in the past only

where Christian teaching has prevailed. They have been most

violated in recent years in places where Christian teaching has been

most rejected. This is not an accident. Pius XI well said, “ Christian

teaching alone, in its majestic integrity, can give full meaning and

compelling motive to the demand for human rights and liberties

because it alone gives worth and dignity to human personality. In

consequence of his high conception of the nature and gifts of man,

the Catholic is necessarily the champion of true human rights and

the defender of true human liberties.” 61

61 Cf. Letter of Pius XI to American Hierarchy, 1939, quoted in foreword to

Better Men for Better Times, The Commission on American Citizenship, Cath-
olic University of America.

[45 ]



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

The American Philosophy of Law. By F. P. LeBuffe, S.J., and J. V. de P.

Hayes, Crusader Press, N. Y. 1947. 418 pages.

Better Men for Better Times. By The Commission on American Citizenship,
Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C., 1943. 125 pages.

The Catholic Church and International Order. By A. F. C. Beales, Penguin

Books, N. Y., 1942. Especially Chapter VII on rights of man. 192 pages.

Catholic Principles of Politics. By John A. Ryan and Francis J. Boland,

Macmillan, N. Y., 1940. Especially Chapters II, VII, VIII, X, XVI, XXIII.

366 pages.

Christian Social Reorganization. By Rev. George Clune, Ph.D., Browne and

Nolan, Dublin, 1940. Especially Chapters X and XI on rights of the
human person and rights of the family. 524 pages.

The Christian State. By A. J. Osgniach, O.S.B., Bruce, Milwaukee, 1943.

Especially Chapters VI to X inclusive. 356 pages.

A Code of International Ethics. Catholic Social Guild, Oxford, 1945. 144

pages.

Distributive Justice. By John A. Ryan, D.D., Macmillan, N. Y., 1942. Espe-
cially Chapters IV and X on right of property and right to living wage.
357 pages.

A Dynamic World Order. By Donald A. MacLean, Ph.D., Bruce, Milwaukee,

1945. 235 pages.

Freedom Through Education. By John D. Redden and Francis A. Ryan,
Bruce, Milwaukee, 1944, 204 pages. (Discusses the “Four Freedoms.”)

The Judgment of the Nations. By Christopher Dawson, Sheed and Ward,
N. Y., 1942. Especially Chapter V. 222 pages.

Marriage and the Family. By Dr. Jacques LeClercq, Pustet, N. Y., 1941. 395
pages.

The Philosophy of the State. Charles A. Hart, Editor, Proceedings of the

American Catholic Philosophical Association, Catholic University of Amer-

ica, Washington, D. C., 1939.

The Rights of Man and Natural Law. By Jacques Maritain, Scribner’s, N. Y.,
1943. 118 pages.

The Science of Ethics. Michael Cronin, D.D., Benziger, N. Y., Vol. I, 1930 and

Vol. II, 1939.

[ 46 ]



Security
,
Freedom and Happiness. Andrew Gordon, S.J., Catholic Social Guild,

Oxford, 1944. 222 pages.

Weapons for Peace. By Thomas P. Neill, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1945. 234 pages.

Which Way, Democracy

?

By Wilfrid Parsons, S.J., Macmillan, N. Y., 1939.

295 pages.

A World To Reconstruct. By Guido Gonella, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1944. (A

commentary on peace statements of Pope Pius XII. Appendix contains

Christmas Message of 1942, where Pius XII discusses dignity and rights

of human person.) 335 pages.

Pamphlets

America's Peace Aims. A Committee Report, The Catholic Association for
International Peace, Washington, D. C., 1941.

Bishops' Statement on International Order. Issued 1944 by Catholic Bishops

of U. S. National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C.

The Christian Constitution of States. Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII,

Paulist Press, New York.

1944 Christmas Message of Pope Pius XII. National Catholic Welfare Con-

ference, Washington, D, C.

On Civil Government. Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Paulist Press,

N. Y.

The Condition of Labor. Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, New Translation,
National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C.

A Declaration of Rights. Statement Drafted by a Committee Appointed by
the National Catholic Welfare Conference and Submitted to the Human
Rights Commission of the United Nations. National Catholic Welfare

Conference, Washington, D. C. (The Declaration on which this pamphlet

is a commentary.)

Defend These Human Rights. By John Eppstein, America Press, N. Y., 1947.

Family Rights. By Rev. Edgar Schmiedeler, O.S.B., Paulist Press, N. Y., 1948.

Five Great Encyclicals. (“The Condition of Labor,” “Christian Education of

Youth,” “Christian Marriage,” “Reconstructing the Social Order,” “Atheistic

Communism.”) Paulist Press, N. Y.

Human Liberty. Encyclical Letter of Pope Leo XIII, Paulist Press, N. Y.

Human Rights. By Dom Virgil Michel, O.S.B., St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville,
Minn., 1936.

International Ethics. Rt. Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D., and Ethics Committee,

The Catholic Association for International Peace, Washington, D. C.

The Norm of Morality. Defined and Applied to Particular Actions. By Rt.

Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D., Washington, D. C., 1944.

[ 47 ]



The Obligation of Catholics to Promote Peace and The Rights of Peoples.

Rt. Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D., Francis E. McMahon and Committees of the
Catholic Association for International Peace, Washington, D. C., 1940.

(<

One World”—What Do Catholics Want? By John Eppstein, Institute of
Social Order, St. Louis, Mo., 1946.

Organized Social Justice. An Economic Program for the U. S. applying Pius

XI’s Great Encyclical on Social Life, 133 Signers. Social Action Depart-

ment, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C.

The Pattern for Peace and The Papal Peace Program. By Rev. John Courtney

Murray, S.J., and The Ethics Committee, Catholic Association for Interna-

tional Peace, Washington, D. C., 1944. (Contains copy of pattern for

peace issued simultaneously by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders

in 1943.)

A Peace Agenda for the United Nations. A Report of the Post-War World
Committee, The Catholic Association for International Peace, Washington,

D. C., 1943. (Contains copy of Atlantic Charter.)

Reaffirmation of Fundamental Principles of International Law. Reprint from

Bulletin of the Pan American Union, December, 1944. By Charles G.

Fenwick.

Reconstructing the Social Order. Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI, New

Translation, National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D. C.

Secularism’s Attack on World Order. By Rev. John LaFarge, S.J., Committee

Report, The Catholic Association for International Peace, Washington,

D. C., 1944.

The Theory of the State. By Dom Virgil Michel, O.S.B., St. John’s Abbey,
Collegeville, Minn., 1936.

The World Society. A Joint Report, 1941. The Catholic Association for Inter-

national Peace, Washington, D. C.

Articles in Periodicals

“Aquinas and Some American Freedoms.” By Ignatius Smith, O.P., in The

New Scholasticism, April, 1947.

“Demands of a Just Peace from the Ethical Standpoint.” By Francis J. Con-

nell, C.SS.R., Catholic University Bulletin, March, 1946.

“Freedom of Religion.” By John Courtney Murray, S.J., Theological Studies,

June, 1945.

[ 48 ]



T
HE Catholic Association for International Peace is a
membership organization. Its object is to further, in

accord with the teachings of the Church, the “Peace of Christ

in the Kingdom of Christ,” through the preparation and

distribution of studies applying Christian teaching to inter-

national life.

It was organized in a series of meetings during 1926 and

1927— the first following the Eucharistic Congress in
Chicago, the second in Cleveland that fall to form an or-

ganizing committee, and the third during Easter week, 1927,

in Washington, when the permanent organization was es-

tablished.

The Association works through the preparation of Com-

mittee reports. Following careful preparation, these are

discussed both publicly and privately in order to secure able

revision. They are then published by the organization.

Questions involving moral judgments are submitted to the

Committee on Ethics.

The Association solicits especially the membership and

co-operation of those whose experience and studies are such

that they can take part in the preparation of Committee

reports.

Many of the reports contain study outlines to facilitate
personal use and for Study Clubs in universities, colleges,

and lay organizations.

Annual and regional conferences are held.

The committees of the Association since the beginning
of the war have placed emphasis on studies for post-war

international organization and action.

A junior branch of the Association was composed of
students in International Relations Clubs in more than a

hundred Catholic colleges and in Catholic clubs of secular

universities. The separate clubs were united in geograph-
ical federations known as Catholic Student Peace Federa-
tions and received the co-operation and assistance of the

parent organization. These Student Peace Federations have

formed the nucleus of the more recently organized Interna-

tional Relations Commission of the National Federation of

Catholic College Students, in relation to which the Catholic

Association for International Peace stands in an advisory

and consultative capacity.



PUBLICATIONS OF THE C. A. I. P.

Pamphlet Series: 15e a single copy; 10% discount on orders from $1.50 to $7.50;

20% on orders over $7.50.

No. 1—International Ethics *
No. 2—Latin America and the United States * f
No. 3—Causes of War, and Security, Old and New f
No. 4—Haiti, Past and Present f
No. 5—Francis de Vitoria, Founder of International Law t
No. 6—American Agriculture and International Affairs * f
No. 7—Puerto Rico and the United States t
No. 8—Europe and the United States * f
No. 9—The Ethics of War t
No. 10—National Attitudes in Children t
No. 11—Tariffs ond World Peace *

No. 1 2—Manchuria—The Problem in the Far East *
No. 13—International Economic Life * f
No. 1 4—The Church ond Peace Efforts * f
No. 1 5—War and Peace in St. Augustine's "De Civitate Dei"
No. 16—Peace Education in Catholic Schools
No. 17—Peace Action of Benedict XV
No. 18—Relations Between France and Italy
No. 19—Catholic Organization for Peace in Europe
No. 20—The United States and the Dominican Republic t
No. 21—An Introduction to Mexico *
No. 22—A Papal Peace Mosaic (1878-1936) t
No. 23—Arbitration and the World Court *
No. 24—Agriculture and International Life 0
No. 25—Patriotism, Nationalism, and the Brotherhood of Man * f
No. 26—The Church ond the Jews * t
No. 27—The Obligation of Catholics to Promote Peace, and the Rights of

Peoples
0

No. 28—America's Peace Aims f
No. 29—The World Society
No. 30—The Morality of Conscientious Objection to War °
No. 31—Transition from Wor to Peace 0 and Retributive Justice After

the War
No. 32—A Peace Agenda for the United Nations
No. 33—A Papal Peace Mosaic (1878-1944)
No. 34—The Pattern for Peace and the Papal Peace Program
No. 35—The Catholic Revivol in Mexico 0
No. 36—The United Nations Charter
No. 37—Catholic Life in the West Indies 0
No. 38—Peace in the Atomic Age **

s

No. 39—Symposium on Africa
No. 40—The Marshall Plan
No. 41—Timeless Rights in Modern Times

MISCELLANEOUS SERIES

Appeals for Peace of Pope Benedict XV and Pope XI (1917 and
1930) 10c

Suggested Readings in Ibero-American History lc

Inter-Credal Cooperation
f

10c

Secularism's Attack on World Order 5c

Preserving Peace on Four Fronts

Catholics ond Jews—A Study in Human Relations 30c
Monthly News Letter (October-June ) per year $1.00

* Study Outline Appended. t Out of print.