Skip to main content

Posts

Eugene J. Roesch's 1963 book, The Totalitarian Threat: The Fruition of Modern Individualism, as Seen in Hobbes and Rousseau, argues that modern totalitarianism is not a rejection of early liberal individualism, but its logical outcome. Father Ernest Fortin similarly critiques modern rights-based social justice, seeing it as a departure from classical natural law.From Hobbes Individualism to Rousseau’s General WillRoesch connects the two thinkers through the evolution of the social contract:Hobbes's Atomized Individual: Thomas Hobbes starts with isolated, self-interested individuals in a state of nature driven by fear and competition. To survive, they surrender all individual power to an absolute sovereign.Rousseau’s Collective Subject: Jean-Jacques Rousseau tries to preserve individual freedom through the general will. However, Roesch argues that Rousseau demands a total surrender of the individual to the collective community.The Totalitarian Pivot: Because the collective body defines the general will—and dissent is treated as mere error against that collective—Rousseau's radical autonomy morphs seamlessly into absolute state control, effectively realizing the totalitarian threat latent in Hobbes's Leviathan.Connection to Fr. Ernest Fortin’s View on Social JusticeFather Ernest Fortin’s critique of modern political thought parallels Roesch's concerns from a classical/Augustinian perspective:The Invention of Rights: Fortin argued that modern human rights and contemporary social justice theories originate with Hobbes and the modern project. They discard the classical and medieval view that humans have a natural, God-given moral end (telos).Procedural Justice vs. Virtue: Modern social justice, rooted in this individualist lineage, focuses on legal mechanics and the redistribution or assertion of individual claims rather than the cultivation of human virtue and the true common good.The Secular Erosion: Fortin viewed modern rights talk as unstable—frequently collapsing either into hyper-individualism or into a collective tyranny where the state defines what is "just" for everyone, echoing the exact trajectory Roesch maps from Hobbes to Rousseau.

Eugene J. Roesch 's 1963 book, The Totalitarian Threat: The Fruition of Modern Individualism, as Seen in Hobbes and Rousseau , argues that modern totalitarianism is not a rejection of early liberal individualism, but its logical outcome. Father Ernest Fortin similarly critiques modern rights-based social justice, seeing it as a departure from classical natural law. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] From Hobbes Individualism to Rousseau’s General Will Roesch connects the two thinkers through the evolution of the social contract: Hobbes's Atomized Individual: Thomas Hobbes starts with isolated, self-interested individuals in a state of nature driven by fear and competition. To survive, they surrender all individual power to an absolute sovereign. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Rousseau’s Collective Subject: Jean-Jacques Rousseau tries to preserve individual freedom through the general will . However, Roesch argues that Rousseau demands a total surrender of the individual to the collective community. [ 1 , 2 ] Th...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Father Ernest Fortin’s critique of human rights—heavily influenced by political philosopher Leo Strauss—is a cornerstone of his work. His core argument is that modern "human rights" are conceptually flawed and fundamentally incompatible with classical and Christian natural law.Rather than seeing human rights as a natural evolution of medieval theology, Fortin argues that they represent a radical, dangerous break from it. His critique is detailed extensively in his third volume of collected essays, Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good.

Father Ernest Fortin ’s critique of human rights—heavily influenced by political philosopher Leo Strauss —is a cornerstone of his work. His core argument is that modern "human rights" are conceptually flawed and fundamentally incompatible with classical and Christian natural law . [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Rather than seeing human rights as a natural evolution of medieval theology, Fortin argues that they represent a radical, dangerous break from it. His critique is detailed extensively in his third volume of collected essays, Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] 1. The Radical Shift: Duties vs. Rights Fortin notes that ancient and medieval thought focused on duties , while modern thought prioritizes rights . [ 1 , 2 ] Premodern View (Natural Law): Human beings are defined by their obligations to God, family, and the community. Justice means giving others what they are due based on objective moral order. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Modern View (Human Rights): Initiated by Th...
Post a Comment
Read more

What Truths Do We Hold? A Response to Questions and Critics – Catholic World Report Two caveats: 1. I rarely read the comments section in CWR or any other magazine for which I write. They are almost never helpful, and life is short. 2. It is important to note that Mr. Olson disagrees with some aspects of my essay. But he also understands that my arguments are not foreign to robust Catholic theological debate.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/06/24/what-truths-do-we-hold-a-response-to-questions-and-critics/  
Post a Comment
Read more

Rather than rehearse the arguments, I refer the reader to Fr. Ernest L. Fortin’s classic essays, “On the Presumed Medieval Origin of Individual Rights” and “The New Rights Theory and the Natural Law.” One can believe in natural law or natural rights. One cannot believe in both, any more than one can believe in square circles or married bachelors.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/06/24/what-truths-do-we-hold-a-response-to-questions-and-critics/   Rather than rehearse the arguments, I refer the reader to Fr. Ernest L. Fortin’s classic essays, “ On the Presumed Medieval Origin of Individual Rights ” and “T he New Rights Theory and the Natural Law .” One can believe in natural law or natural rights. One cannot believe in both, any more than one can believe in square circles or married bachelors.
Post a Comment
Read more

Father Ernest Fortin’s critique of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) is a direct application of his broader skepticism toward modern human rights. Influenced by the political philosopher Leo Strauss, Fortin did not view the Council as an outright heresy (like some radical traditionalists), but rather as an intellectual miscalculation. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] His central argument was that Vatican II—in its desire to open a dialogue with the modern world—uncritically adopted secular Enlightenment philosophies, resulting in documents that were intellectually confused and pastorally naive. Fortin was highly critical of how the "Spirit of Vatican II" took over the post-conciliar Church. Because the actual Council documents were compromise texts—blending traditional theology with modern liberal vocabulary—they were inherently ambiguous.

Google AI: Father Ernest Fortin ’s critique of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) is a direct application of his broader skepticism toward modern human rights. Influenced by the political philosopher Leo Strauss, Fortin did not view the Council as an outright heresy (like some radical traditionalists), but rather as an intellectual miscalculation . [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] His central argument was that Vatican II—in its desire to open a dialogue with the modern world—uncritically adopted secular Enlightenment philosophies, resulting in documents that were intellectually confused and pastorally naive. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] 1. The Naive Optimism of Gaudium et Spes Fortin reserved his sharpest academic critiques for Gaudium et Spes (The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World) . [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] The "Progress" Myth: Fortin argued that the document bought into a deeply un-Christian, 1960s secular optimism regarding technological, social, and moral progress. [ 1 ] Ignor...
Post a Comment
Read more