WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) – On May 4, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI spoke to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. He sounded a common theme of his papal Magisterium – that there is a Natural Law which can be known by all men and women through the exercise of reason. He explained that this Natural Law reveals to all men and women the existence of fundamental human rights which are binding upon all Nations and for all time.

"The Church has always affirmed that fundamental rights, above and beyond the different ways in which they are formulated and the different degrees of importance they may have in various cultural contexts, are to be upheld and accorded universal recognition because they are inherent in the very nature of man, who is created in the image and likeness of God. If all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, then they share a common nature that binds them together and calls for universal respect."

Believing in the Natural Law as the source of fundamental human rights is absolutely critical in the light of the current decline of Western civilization. In the U.S. and much of Europe there is a denial of fundamental Human Rights which began with the denial of the foundation of all true human rights, the Right to Life. Rights are goods of the human person – not ethereal concepts floating around somewhere. When there is no human person there can be no rights for him or her to receive as an endowment from our Creator and exercise in civil society.

The Pope told the leaders: "Strictly speaking, these human rights are not truths of faith, even though they are discoverable – and indeed come to full light – in the message of Christ who "reveals man to man himself" (Gaudium et Spes, 22). They receive further confirmation from faith. The Church’s action in promoting human rights is therefore supported by rational reflection, in such a way that these rights can be presented to all people of good will, independently of any religious affiliation they may have."

 

 

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church explains that the legitimate exercise of freedom requires Natural Law as a reference point: "The exercise of freedom implies a reference to a natural moral law, of a universal character, that precedes and unites all rights and duties. The natural law "is nothing other than the light of intellect infused within us by God."

"Thanks to this, we know what must be done and what must be avoided. This light or this law has been given by God to creation". It consists in the participation in his eternal law, which is identified with God himself. This law is called "natural" because the reason that promulgates it is proper to human nature. It is universal; it extends to all people insofar as it is established by reason."  (Compendium #240)

In an Orwellian twist the denial of fundamental human rights now comes couched in counterfeit "rights talk" which substitutes judicially or legislatively manufactured "new-rights" in their place. It uses what Orwell called "newspeak". The most egregious example is labeling an intrinsically evil act, the taking of innocent human life in the womb, a "new-right" to abortion. Abortions do not have rights, human persons do. Every procured abortion takes away a child’s Right to Life. One can never have a "right" take innocent human life. That is the case even if the positive law of a given State declares it to be "legal". Every procured abortion violates the Natural Law Right to Life. 

Another example is the enforcing of a legal equivalency between homosexual relationships and marriage in the civil law. This is done by relabeling opposition to true marriage as supporting a "new-right" to "marriage equivalency". This is a verbal subterfuge, calling  homosexual partnerships what they can never be because they cannot fulfill the ends of marriage.

Those who support marriage as a lifelong committed relationship between one man and one woman are now recast as "opposing marriage rights". In an Orwellian spin, they are accused of excluding people from marrying, being "narrow minded" or trying to push "values" or, even worse "religion", on others. No matter where one stands on other current issues, if you support marriage as marriage you are a bigot in this age of moral relativism.

The oxymoron, "gay marriage" is now normative for the media as they recast efforts to defend and promote marriage as opposing "marriage equality". This effort to force equivalency between homosexual unions and marriage has gained ground through a sophisticated, intelligent, well funded and multi-faceted effort. The goal is clear – the total re-ordering of civil society in a cultural revolution.

They are led by groups with noble sounding names like the "Human Rights Campaign" and "Marriage Equality USA". Both are well funded and dedicated to convincing the public that

there is a "new-right" to not only engage in homosexual sexual practices and live together, which has always existed in societies, but to have that lifestyle given an equivalent legal status to marriage which is then enforced by the police power of the State.

There is a growing misuse of the Police Power to enforce these counterfeit "new-rights" with an iron hand. It is ominous. There is a propaganda effort aimed at those who insist on the existence of a Natural Law. They are dismissed as taking a "religious" position which should be censored, or at least confined to the four walls of a Church. This sophistry is used to confuse people concerning the reasonableness of the Natural Law position.

As we approach the coming Presidential election we must ask where these two candidates stand on human rights and where they think such rights come from. Are they conferred by the government and subject to change? Or, are they endowed by a Creator and inalienable? Here we need to remove beyond the rhetoric and look to their positions. What do these candidates mean when they use the word rights? Are they speaking of true rights or "new-rights".

This has serious implications on how the next person to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will govern on many fronts. One aspect of that governance, one which is not being discussed mush, is the next President’s choice of as many as four future Supreme Court Justices.  There are four Justices who in their seventies, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.

The Anti-Right to Life decisions of Roe and Doe are perennial reminders of why the choice of Supreme Court Justices matters. This is one of the most important aspects of the power of the Presidency. The majority opinion in Roe and Doe reached into what that Court called the "penumbra" of the Constitution and manufactured a "new-right", producing an indefensible judicial holding and unleashing license masquerading as liberty.

By Judicial Fiat the Roe Court "removed" the Right to Life from millions of our fellow human persons and first neighbors in the first home of the womb. They placed the Police Power of the State behind protecting their killers. Roe was grounded in faulty history, relied upon disproven junk "science" and rejected both the Natural Law and the Equal protection Clause of the US Constitution.

The current Supreme Court has marriage, the role of parents in the education of their children, religious and economic liberty – and many other matters which could determine the future of freedom on its docket. This fact alone should bring every Pro-Life, Family and Freedom American to the ballot box on November 6, 2012. ‘New-Rights’ and the Future of Authentic Human Rights Is On the Ballot. Don’t buy the nonsense that this election doesn’t matter. It does – and we are responsible for our choice.