How critical can one be of the Church's use of rights language?

I do not think it can be shown that "rights language" is a part of Sacred Tradition. So will the Magisterium one day issue solemn definitions concerning rights in order to clarify what the Church teaches concerning morality? Bring back the anathemas, some might say. "If anyone deny that a right is..." "If anyone deny that there is a right to..." Such a text would seem bizarre to a traditionalist, but if rights were defined by an ecumenical council or a pope. A traditionalist would have to assent. A long elaboration of rights, like what one would find in a philosophical or theological treatise, would not be necessary, as long as the definitions were clear (and prohibited propositions that contradict Church teaching concerning rights were laid out)?

It still seems to me though that the use of rights language is a temporary concession to our age (and unnecessary). I think it can be described in other ways... Still, while I have been using the blog as a way to reflect and write, is it the appropriate to put such thoughts about the Church's use of rights language out in public? What is required with regards to rights? Religious submission of intellect and will? How "much" dissent is appropriate or permissible?

From the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem:

As examples of doctrines belonging to the third paragraph, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.

Misc:
This website seems very questionable; I was thinking of using its page on the degrees of assent, but that needs to be evaluated.