Yesterday
we noted that, in refusing to stand for the National Anthem of the United
States, Colin
Rand Kaepernick may have acted in a
socially unjust manner. That is, if he
harmed the common good, he broke the first law of social justice.
To
understand this, we need to know what the common good is: the vast network of
institutions within which people carry out the business of living, principally
the exercise of rights in order to acquire and develop virtue, thereby becoming
more fully human.
 |
| Fr. William J. Ferree, S.M. |
And
what is an “institution”? An institution
is a social tool, a “social habit,” that defines a particular way of doing
something “instituted” so that, in a particular social setting, individuals and
groups act in predictable and expected ways.
In the U.S., people drive on the right side of the street. They shake hands when they meet. They stand for the National Anthem.
Now,
the first law of social justice (at least as analyzed by CESJ co-founder Father
William Ferree) is “That the Common Good Be Kept Inviolate.” (Rev. William Ferree, S.M., Introduction to
Social Justice. New York: Paulist Press,
1948, 34.) This comes from § 57 of Quadragesimo Anno. As Ferree explained,
The first great law .
. . is “that the Common Good of all society be kept inviolate.” The meaning of
this law is that in all private dealings, in all exercise of individual
justice, the Common Good must be a primary object of solicitude. To attack or
to endanger the Common Good in order to attain some private end, no matter how
good or how necessary this latter may be in its own order, is social injustice
and is wrong. The Common Good is not a means for any particular interests; it
is not a bargaining point in any private quarrel whatsoever; it is not a pressure
that one may legitimately exercise to obtain any private ends. It is a good so
great that very frequently private rights — even inviolable private rights — cannot
be exercised until it is safeguarded.
Thus, in a time when the Common
Good of a whole nation is threatened by military attack, every man in it has an
inviolable right to live in his own home with his wife and children — and none
of them who are drafted can do it.
Thus, while Kaepernick
may have legitimate, even grave and serious grievances against the United
States, his method of airing his grievances was socially unjust: he attacked an
institution of the common good — standing for the National Anthem — “in order
to attain some private end” which, “no matter how good or how necessary this .
. . may be in its own order, is social injustice and is wrong.”
 |
| "Time to stanzzzzzzzzzz." |
Admittedly,
in the greater scheme of things, refusing to stand for the National Anthem is,
in and of itself, pretty small stuff. If
Kaepernick had been a spectator in the stands, probably no one would have
thought twice about it. Those around him
would likely have dismissed his failure to stand as a medical condition,
ignorance, or even a failure to register what is going on around him in the
real world.
The
problem is that Kaepernick was a public figure in a public forum, and his
refusal to stand for the National Anthem took on a character beyond that of a
private individual. When King Henry II Plantagenet
petulantly exclaimed, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” he
probably did not even recall saying it a moment later — and he certainly had no
idea that four of his knights would take his words as a royal command to go and
murder Saint Thomas à Becket. Public
persons have to be very careful of
what they say or do in all circumstances, even (or especially) when they think
no one is listening or watching.
Similarly,
Kaepernick’s display of open contempt for the United States — for such it was —
could easily be excused or overlooked in a private person . . . but in that
context, Kaepernick was far from a private person. He was a very public person acting in a very
public manner, and thereby giving an importance to his actions and words that would
be lacking if he were merely a spectator who had paid upwards of $100 to see
the game, instead of someone being paid quite a bit more to play in that game. Others seeing him could easily conclude (as
many evidently have) that showing disrespect for the symbols of a nation is a
legitimate way of airing grievances, regardless how trivial or great.
There
are legitimate means to petition for redress of grievances that Kaepernick did
not bother to use before he did what he did.
Had he exhausted those before carrying out his public act of protest, he
could at least argue that he was morally in the right (although, given the
moral obligation to organize with others under social justice to correct
injustices, that is debatable), but should still have been willing to accept appropriate
punishment for violating an institution of the common good for his private purposes, not to mention the disrespect he showed the spectators who paid money to see a game, not a political statement.
Yes,
Kaepernick absolutely has the liberty to do as he did, but it is that
exaggerated form of liberty that is really license. The proper exercise of liberty someone has
absolutely within the common good necessarily implies limits on that exercise,
and Kaepernick went beyond those limits.
By doing so, he not only showed disrespect for the United States, but
for the common good itself by arrogating it to his personal wants and needs.
#30#