It is little wonder that judicious men today should be suspicious of “rights,” since their number seems to multiply, and their scope expand, with each passing hour. However, we must be on guard, lest the fabrications of libertines, who seek to ennoble and enshrine their passions by deceptive appeals to justice, drive us to a conception of rights that is cramped and unsuitable to the dignity of man. I fear that such an overreaction is evident in a recent article by Eric Sammons, which criticizes Pope Leo for proposing a right to health.

Before proceeding, we must ask what a “right” is. This question has been studied and contested for thousands of years. Even within the Catholic tradition, it has been variously approached and articulated. Hence, we cannot possibly treat the subject exhaustively. For our purposes, suffice to say that a right is a sort of just entitlement to a good that corresponds to an intrinsic end of human nature.

In the wisdom of God, man is a certain kind of thing: to wit, a rational animal. As a rational animal, he is naturally oriented toward certain goods. These goods he must ordinarily obtain to secure his flourishing and well-being. As such, he has a claim to and upon them; and as he perpetrates injustice if he fails to diligently pursue them, so he suffers injustice if he is denied them by those who are obligated to supply, condition, or facilitate them. Of course, these goods are not of equal value, and some may even be superseded by and sublimated into higher goods. Moreover, they are arranged such that the lesser contribute to the greater, and the instrumental conduce to the ultimate.

Some of the goods to which man is ordered are intellectual goods, pertinent to his rationality and its fulfillment. For instance, to perfect his rationality, man must apprehend the truth, toward which he is naturally directed. Hence, he has a right to the truth. Consequently, he has a right to instrumental goods that advance him toward the same—such as education, especially education in religion. Additionally, since man moves toward the truth iteratively and discursively, through progressive reflection and discussion, he has a right to exercise his reason and express himself rationally without constraint or coercion, except insofar as constraint or coercion helps rather than hinders the apprehension of the truth.

Other goods to which man is ordered are material goods, pertinent to his animality and its fulfillment. For instance, to perfect his animality, man must attain health (i.e., the relative fitness and functioning of the body, consistent with age, state, and circumstance). Indeed, as the intellect is naturally directed toward truth, so the body is naturally directed toward health. Thus, man has a right to health. 

Indeed, as the intellect is naturally directed toward truth, so the body is naturally directed toward health. Thus, man has a right to health. Tweet This

Consequently, he has a right to those instrumental goods that normally facilitate health. Such goods include food and drink, which make the body strong, but also medicine and medical attention (“health care”), which restore the body to strength when it is weakened by injury or ailment or prevent injury and ailment in the first place.

Therefore, it is entirely in keeping with the Catholic view of man to assert, at least in the abstract, that health is a right—and even a universal right—accruing on account of nature rather than the customs or positive enactments of political society. Indeed, to maintain the contrary would subtly undermine the integrity of Catholicism’s philosophical and theological anthropology, which presents man as a rational animal with a vocation that involves integral perfection obtained in and through community. 

Admittedly, the recognition of a right is merely the preliminary step of analysis. As Sammons says, a right implies a correlated obligation. In the case of the right to health, we observe that obligation variously accrues. Who would dispute that parents are bound by justice to take all reasonable steps to guarantee the health of their children? To provide them with food, drink, medicine, and recreation? 

Yet health is ultimately a social reality, in that the health of each implicates the health of every other, and the health of any requires the cooperation of all. Additionally, the provision of those means whereby health may be secured exceeds the competence of the individual or even the family. Therefore, an obligation accrues to society at large to provide for the health of its members: “Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2288). 

This obligation may be apportioned to different organs of society—churches, unions, businesses, benevolent and mutual aid organizations, etc.—in accordance with the determinations of prudence. However, should such institutions fail in their responsibility to adequately secure the right to health, it is the task of the civil power to smartly intervene. For the civil power is established to protect the rights of men—among them the right to health—and, further, to supply those goods that are impossible, or impracticable, to secure apart from the application of political authority.

For the civil power is established to protect the rights of men—among them the right to health—and, further, to supply those goods that are impossible, or impracticable, to secure apart from the application of political authority.Tweet This

Of course, one might fairly inquire as to how far the obligation to respect and realize the right to health extends. Can parents ever give their children junk food? Is the civil power bound to step in if a sick person can obtain decent treatment but not the very best treatment? These are questions of prudential judgment. But they are no different than the difficulties that arise with respect to any other right. 

Surely, men have the right to self-defense. But can they therefore carry every and any sort of weapon? Surely, men have the right to worship God. But can the civil power temporarily forbid religious gatherings in the event of pestilence, invasion, or domestic disturbance? It is one thing to acknowledge a right, another thing to negotiate the exact terms of its recognition and satisfaction.

One can hardly be faulted for looking skeptically at rights (real or supposed), since presently they proliferate so quickly and assume such absurd shape and fantastic proportion. But we must resist the temptation to artificially constrict the true range of rights—especially if we are steeped in the tradition of “negative rights,” which in some regards is foreign to Catholic social doctrine. Likewise, we must not deny that a right exists simply because honoring it might invite abuses or occasion troublesome policy debates. We must do justice to man in his fullness, reverencing his nature in every respect; otherwise, we will disserve the creature and demean the Creator. 

So let us applaud Pope Leo for confirming in principle the right to health (strange though it sounds to American ears). For this right bespeaks nothing other than the natural inclination of the body unto its own perfection, which inclination we must individually and collectively promote and esteem, until it is most excellently vindicated by God on the last day.