The Philosphy of Right - Volume 5
Rights in the Family
Foreword
The preceding four volumes of the English translation of Rosmini's The Philosophy of Right have dealt with the essence of right (vol. 1), individual rights (vol. 2), the principles underlying social right (vol. 3) and the application of these principles to theocratic society (vol. 4). In the present work and the following volume, Rosmini continues to apply these principles to the domestic and civil society, the other two societies necessary for `the perfect organisation of mankind'. The first of these societies is natural to the human race and essential to its well-being; the second is the inevitable consequence of even minimal development as mankind increases in number and improves its native talents.
According to Rosmini, every human right is based upon some fact understood in its perfection. Consequently, the description of right(s) in conjugal society depends to a great extent upon correct comprehension of the nature of marriage. The author's first task, therefore, is to set out a definition of conjugal society based upon a thorough understanding of the union possible to man and woman. The fullness of this union, first at the level of humanity and then according to the characteristics proper to male and female, comprises the object of the mutual promise of self-donation which the spouses make to one another at the beginning of their life together as husband and wife. It is Rosmini's view that from this promise flow all the duties and rights which the couple have in their new society.
The promise itself, although an act requiring freedom on the part of the couple, is not arbitrary; it is not within the power of the spouses to vary the promise, the elements of which are prompted by the human nature of man and woman. Permanence, for example, a self-explanatory element of the fullness of union between man and woman, cannot be gainsaid at will; unicity and fidelity, also selfevident characteristics dependent upon the nature of this total union, equally form part of the marriage promise and cannot be forsaken without damage to rights in one's spouse and neglect to one's own duty.
Permanence, unicity and fidelity in marriage are equal rights and duties in both spouses. Other aspects of the fullness of union between the couple need not be equal. In fact, the specific fullness of union proper to marriage, and far more dependent on spirit than matter, requires the inequality of complementarity between male and female with their different psychology, corporeality and attitudes. Right and duty in marriage will be based on these differences also, and give rise to the kind of disparity which perfects rather than hinders the fullness of union possible to the couple. It is at this point that Rosmini, having already set his face firmly against the moral possibility of divorce, draws further conclusions about married life wholly contrary to attitudes which, nascent in his own day, have gradually become prevalent in Western, post-Christian understanding of marriage.
These conclusions need careful examination, not least because Rosmini offers reasoned arguments to the exaggerated demands of those whose only basis of opinion is either unreasoned reaction to past abuse, or misunderstanding of past situations when present-day economic and educational opportunities were totally unknown and quite impossible.
The same considerations can be applied to the development of conjugal society, which originates with the conception of children. Parental society, in which father, mother and children all have a part to play, gives rise to inalienable rights and duties on the part of spouses and their offspring. As persons, all the members of the family must be considered as ends and respected absolutely; as parents and children, their rights will differ and indeed change as children grow and become more responsible for themselves. Rosmini provides a fascinating description of this change based upon immutable principles which, applied to conditions in various ages, enable us to reach conclusions very different from his own.
| DENIS CLEARY |