![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Irritated by something I hear repeated
I am irritated by something I have heard over the last couple days.
The pols and newsies keep talking about the anniversary of "giving women the right to vote" in the USA.
No!
Women always had the right to vote.
Their right to vote was finally recognized.
We must avoid, in discussing human rights and government, falling into the trap of thinking that the state grants rights.
We have rights because our Creator made us in His image and likeness.
They are written into our being.
We grant the state its rights and obligations.
Absolutely right! The reality isn’t that the “state” grants us rights, it’s that too often, the “state” gets in the way of our exercise of those rights that we already have.
Comment by Chironomo — 29 August 2008 @ 12:12 pmI’ve always understood voting to be a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege that can be given, and it can also be taken away.
Comment by John H. — 29 August 2008 @ 12:15 pmWhat does it mean to have a “right” to vote—-in the sense of what is “written into our being”?
Comment by Scott — 29 August 2008 @ 12:16 pmFather,
With due respect, I am not entirely sure if the act of suffrage is a natural right properly speaking, particularly in the universal, modern manner in which the vote is construed. If you posit votign as a “natural right” then it begs the question of what is so magical about the age of eighteen? Why not seventeen, why not ten? I have known well-read 12-year olds who are better informed on current matters than the average voting-age adult. I would posit that voting is not, properly speaking a right, but rather a custom and practical means governed by the constitutional and social definition of the polity. An oligarchy of educated landholders gave us Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, the present “universal” system gave us little more than a series of thieves such as Roosevelt, Wilson, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, etc.
Comment by Tim H — 29 August 2008 @ 12:23 pmI would also contrast your putative “natural” modern Western system against the Papal elections. After all, all adult Catholics do not get to vote on the Pope, and yet this “unnatural” “positivist” system has regularly produced a far superior outcome.
In short, a good message, but poor example. Better would be the 16th amendment and the implication that the state possesses primary and perpetual ownership of all property, with individuals only having temporary and subsidiary ownership of property.
Excellent point, father! I had never thought of that before. Thank you. :)
Comment by Kradcliffe — 29 August 2008 @ 12:24 pmThat is a good point. I think the choice of Sarah Palin will do a lot to make this anniversary remembered!
Comment by Padre Steve — 29 August 2008 @ 12:26 pm“Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in society do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.” – Leo XIII
The authority of the state is derived from God not the people(http://www.americancatholiclawyers.org/encyclical%20-%20notre%20charge.htm). The state cannot violate the natural law and therefore cannot deprive anyone of a natural right but the right to vote is a civil right and not owed to all under natural law (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061881_diuturnum_en.html). It is no doubt commendable to elect one’s rulers through universal franchise as the Angelic Doctor teaches (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm#article1), but it is not required by natural or revealed law. The state does not grant and cannot rescind the right to life of an unborn child but the state can and does grant and rescind the right to vote.
Comment by aelianus — 29 August 2008 @ 12:28 pmWell said, Father.
Comment by Jenny Z — 29 August 2008 @ 12:29 pmVoting is a civil right, not a natural right. It’s not a good example, but the point about the state recognizing, not establishing, natural rights is a good one.
Comment by Breier — 29 August 2008 @ 12:38 pmWell I’m inclined to think a lot of where the U.S. started going wrong is when we granted human beings the right to vote . . . and the right to run for office . . . Joking, kind of.
More seriously, I’m not aware of any principle of Catholic social doctrine that necessarily contradicts a suffrage that is restricted to men, or to land-owning/business-owning men, or to men or women who hold land in feu or noble titles in grant from the sovereign. I don’t believe that even men, let alone women, have an innate “right” to vote, and nothing in social doctrine requires that all states be republics or democracies. In the U.S. suffrage is still restricted to some extent: you have to be a U.S. citizen, and you have to be older than 18, and I believe you can’t be a convicted felon, but otherwise you can participate in elections, even if you’re mentally ill, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Comment by Jordanes — 29 August 2008 @ 12:42 pmWomen have a right from God to vote? Does this mean that every human being
has a right to vote? If so, does that not mean that democracy is the only
natural form of government?
The particular governmental arrangement of the
United States is conventional. Who gets to vote and who does not is a
convention. Women did not have the right to vote in federal elections
prior to the passage of the amendment. Now they do. The properly
constituted authorities changed a convention. Voting is a function of
citizenship, and citizenship in the United States is not something determined
by God. Our officials have decided that “ius soli” prevails here; all
children born on American children are citizens. If Congress wanted to
change that, they could. It is not a matter of acknowledging a divinely-
bestowed right. As the requirements for citizenship are conventional, so
too the requirements for suffrage, which is restricted to citizens, and then
only to a certain class of citizens (non-felons of a certain age who are
properly registered in their home district).
To sum up: life, liberty, and property are not just conventions, as they
Comment by Tobias — 29 August 2008 @ 12:46 pmentail natural rights. Suffrage is a different matter altogether.
“Our officials have decided that “ius soli” prevails here; all
children born on American children are citizens.”
Excuse me, “all children born on American SOIL,” etc.
Jordanes preempted me, by a matter of seconds.
Comment by Tobias — 29 August 2008 @ 12:49 pmVoting is not a natural right. The problem, however, is deeper: when artificial “rights” (to “free” health care and “education”,etc.), are given by the State, i.e., when the State decides it has the obligation of providing something and calls it a right, the very notion of right is under attack. No woman and no man has a “right” to vote. Power does not and cannot come from some made-up “being” called “the People”.
While democracy is not necessarily bad, neither is it natural, especially not in its representative form (voting, Congress, Executive power, checks and balances, etc.).
Rights are not obligations imposed on others, but limits to their actions. I have a right to life; therefore, no one can kill me. If someone kills me, it is an attack against not only myself, but also against God and society. Therefore, the assassin must be judged and, if his guilt is proved, sentenced.
A supposed right to vote, just as a supposed right to “free” “education”, is a completely different animal from a natural right. It i