SOCIAL RIGHT
SPECIAL-SOCIAL RIGHT
Part 2
RIGHT IN DOMESTIC SOCIETY
Introduction
969. The family is a union of individual human beings. Most authors divide it into three interconnected societies: conjugal, parental and seigniorial.
970. I noted that the relationship between bond-servant and master is not a social relationship (cf. Universal Social Right, 24-30). Aristotle, St. Thomas and many others had made the same observation.
971. My intention in repeating the observation is not to exclude this relationship as such, but to exclude it from social Right and assign it to individual Right, where I have already dealt with it.
972. Furthermore, although master and bond-servant live only communally, without forming a society, they are, as human beings, associated in a natural theocratic society and, as Christians, in a supernatural theocratic society (cf. Rights in God's Church, 541, 653, 664-667, 726, 785-788, 800-801).
973. The social bonds which necessarily bind bond-servant and master limit and temper the seigniorial bond between them. Thus, the state of servitude, moderated by the state of larger society, becomes compatible with human dignity (cf. Rights of the Individual, 243-244).
974. The harshness and injustice of servitude lie in the following causes:
1. A partial view, which considers only the seigniorial relationship of
master to bond-servant without simultaneously considering the social
relationship between one human being and another.
This exclusive view provided the logical cause and legal justification for
pagan slavery.
975. 2. Non-recognition, through ignorance, or impious exclusion of a
supernatural relationship which binds all human beings effectively to God in a
sacred, intimate society.
When supernatural society is excluded, the only remaining bond is that of
natural society. It is the weakness of this society that causes harshness and
inhumanity. We see this ever more frequently in the seigniorial relationships
present in regions where Protestantism and schism have hardened human hearts.
976. 3. Sensism, which tends to destroy natural theocratic society by removing from humanity the common possession of truth and moral virtue.
977. Sensism has caused great suffering to the lowest class of society, even amongst Catholics. The upper class, while claiming to help the lower, have so often tried to suppress it.
978. Hence, although the relationship between bond-servant and master, considered abstractly, is unsocial, I do not exclude it from Right. This does not mean that I justify the kind of servitude which is harsh and repugnant to human dignity, nor do I say that the moderation which makes it upright and jural springs from within itself. Any moderation and uprightness in servitude comes from outside, from its co-existence with a society essential to the human race. No human being, whether master or bond-servant, can justifiably opt out from this society or force others to do so. It has as its immovable foundation human intelligence, and as its glorious crown, divine grace.
979. I believe I have dealt sufficiently with the nature, titles and limitations of servitude in individual Right (cf. RI, 128-133, 239-244, 528-863, 1560-1613, 1995-1999) and have further confirmed and defended those limitations in my exposition of theocratic Right [cf. RGC].
980. Nevertheless, in this book on Right in domestic society and in the next book dealing with civil society I will need to refer occasionally to the relationship between bond-servant and master. I will add everything necessary to what has already been said in order to clarify the connection between the social and the seigniorial bond, which are mixed in different ways in the two societies. I will also describe the tremendous struggle that so often flares up between the two bonds.
981. Once the relationship incorrectly called `seigniorial society' is excluded from domestic society, the other two societies remain as the subject of this book, which will be divided into two sections corresponding to the relationship between spouses and the relationship between parents and their children. These two interconnected societies form that body of persons living together known as the `family', and are called, as we said, `conjugal' and `parental' society.(1)
982. In my work I have always tried to keep before my eyes good human nature, carefully separating it from anything wayward. This is more than ever necessary in the section dealing with domestic society. Nature alone, not the siren voices of corruption, must be my faithful guide in the investigation of human rights and duties. The sole purpose and task of the science of family Right is to determine and describe accurately `that which is accepted by many, and by upright persons, and according to nature,' as Michael of Ephesus says.(2)
Notes
(1) The science of Right must not be confused with the science of family government, which we have called `Economy' (cf. Preface to the Works of Moral Philosophy, Principles of Ethics, pp. vi-xvi). Economy teaches how a family is to be governed, guiding it to its perfection; in a word, it is the politics of family. In this science we certainly have to speak about bond-servants who are an animate instrument for such an end. On the other hand, the sole purpose of the science of social Right is to expound the jural duties and the rights of persons composing society. The possible jural relationships of society with persons outside it pertain to individual Right (USR, 1-20).
(2) Ad Nicom.