Skip to main content

Posts

FM vs. ChatGPT: Rist gives you the historical alarm: Leo XIII represented a significant development in Catholic political vocabulary by making rights much more central. Fortin gives you the philosophical alarm: The danger is that the rights framework can alter the underlying conception of political morality by shifting attention from virtue, justice, and the common good toward individual claims. Villey goes still deeper: The modern subjective “right” may itself be a corruption of the classical meaning of ius. Kraynak then asks whether modern natural-rights language can really be identified with the older Christian tradition merely because Christians supplied some of its historical ingredients. And Manent asks what happens to political community when the individual is conceived primarily as the bearer of rights. So the four critiques converge without being identical. The strongest Fortin-style formulation I would revise my earlier defense of Leo to this: Leo XIII did not simply abandon the classical Catholic understanding of law, virtue, justice, and the common good. His rights language remained substantially subordinated to natural and divine law. But that does not establish that his increasing reliance upon rights represented no conceptual development. Fortin would press the more fundamental question: whether importing rights as a primary category into Catholic political discourse risks shifting the center of gravity from objective justice and human perfection toward individual claims. The historical significance of Leo's language therefore cannot be dismissed merely by pointing out that he continued to affirm duties and natural law.

Yes—but I would sharpen the thesis considerably. The strongest version is not “Leo XIII invented modern rights, therefore Leo XIII caused Francis,” but rather: Leo XIII represents an important development in Catholic social vocabulary in which “rights” became a prominent way of expressing claims grounded in natural law. The theological question is whether that vocabulary remained subordinated to objective law, virtue, duties, the common good, and humanity’s ultimate end—or whether later Catholic discourse could detach “rights” from those foundations and turn them into autonomous claims of individual entitlement. That distinction matters enormously. 1. Leo XIII himself does not appear to make the separation you are worried about When you actually read Leo's Rerum Novarum , his use of “rights” is remarkably embedded in duties, natural law, divine law, justice, family, religion, and charity . For example, immediately after discussing the rights of workers and employers, Leo di...
Recent posts

Love Bytes

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/love-bytes/?1=1& Love Bytes   by Leonard Sax   Books Reviewed       Email Share Print Download Arecent survey of American teens found that 42% of boys aged 13 to 17 are now using A.I.-powered apps to create their own pornography. Thirty-two percent have created “deepfake” porn of girls their own age, then shared those images with others. In my work as a family physician and researcher, I have talked with these boys. One told me it’s almost magical: he speaks his fantasy, and—poof!—20 seconds later, there it is: professional-grade pornography, spun up in an app such as Seedream or Nano Banana. And this boy is 15 years old. He has never kissed a girl. A growing number of boys describe themselves not as heterosexual but as “pornosexual.” In my experience, a significant minority of these young men are virgins. They say that they prefer porn to the real thing. But they have never experienced the real thing. Unfortunately, the e...