Skip to main content

Posts

According to the late political theorist and theologian Father Ernest Fortin, modern liberal democracy—pioneered by thinkers like John Locke—fundamentally redefines and limits classical and Christian notions of social justice and social friendship.Fortin argues that the Lockean liberal framework replaces a thick, moral community ordered toward virtue and a shared "common good" with a minimalist, procedural framework structured around individual rights, self-interest, and civil peace.Under Lockean liberal terms, Fortin views the definitions of these concepts as follows:1. Social Justice as a Procedural "Rule of the Game"In classical and Catholic thought (such as Thomism), social justice is a moral virtue requiring individuals to actively direct their actions toward the holistic common good of the community.According to Fortin's critique of Lockean liberalism:The Effacement of Duties for Rights: Locke shifts the baseline of political community from natural duties to autonomous individual rights (specifically life, liberty, and private property).Procedural Neutrality: Social justice is stripped of its teleological (end-oriented) moral framework. Instead of aiming for moral perfection or spiritual flourishing, justice becomes procedural.The Rules of the Game: Fortin writes that liberalism trades the "rules of life" for the "rules of the game". Social justice in Lockean terms simply means guaranteeing an open, neutral marketplace where individuals can pursue their own separate interests safely without violating the identical rights of others.2. Social Friendship as Minimalist Civic Peace and TolerationIn the pre-modern tradition (such as Aristotelianism), "civic friendship" (politike philia) is the essential bond of a city, where citizens share core moral convictions and care for one another's character.According to Fortin, Locke's philosophy radically thins this concept:Calculated Mutual Benefit: Because Locke's state of nature is driven by self-preservation and the protection of private property, political community is formed out of a calculated social contract rather than an intrinsic, natural desire for moral friendship.Toleration Instead of Friendship: Social friendship is effectively downgraded to civic toleration and peace. Citizens do not need to love one another or share a unified vision of the good life; they merely need to agree not to interfere with each other.Lowering the Moral Horizon: Fortin emphasizes that by lowering the goals of politics from "virtue" to "comfort and security," Locke establishes a system where genuine social friendship is no longer a political requirement. Cohesion is maintained by institutional checks and balances, commercial interdependence, and legal frameworks, rather than shared moral affection.Summary of Fortin's CritiqueFor Fortin, defining social justice and social friendship in Lockean liberal terms results in a paradox. It provides immense practical benefits—such as individual liberty, civil peace, and material comfort. However, it fails to foster a deep attachment to the public good, transforming society into a collection of "unenumbered, self-contained individuals" whose social bonds are transactional rather than transformative.If you are exploring this for a specific paper or project, would you like me to focus more on how Fortin contrasts Locke with Thomas Aquinas, or how this critique applies to modern Catholic Social Teaching?

According to the late political theorist and theologian Father Ernest Fortin , modern liberal democracy—pioneered by thinkers like John Locke —fundamentally redefines and limits classical and Christian notions of social justice and social friendship . [ 1 , 2 ] Fortin argues that the Lockean liberal framework replaces a thick, moral community ordered toward virtue and a shared "common good" with a minimalist, procedural framework structured around individual rights, self-interest, and civil peace. [ 1 , 2 ] Under Lockean liberal terms, Fortin views the definitions of these concepts as follows: 1. Social Justice as a Procedural "Rule of the Game" In classical and Catholic thought (such as Thomism), social justice is a moral virtue requiring individuals to actively direct their actions toward the holistic common good of the community. [ 1 , 2 ] According to Fortin's critique of Lockean liberalism: The Effacement of Duties for Rights: Locke shifts the baseline of...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

From Rerum Novarum to Centesimus Annus: Continuity or Discontinuity? Author: Ernest L. Fortin

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/from-rerum-novarum-to-centesimus-annus-continuity-or-discontinuity-1208 From Rerum Novarum to Centesimus Annus: Continuity or Discontinuity? Author:  Ernest L. Fortin Share FROM RERUM NOVARUM TO CENTESIMUS ANNUS: CONTINUITY OR DISCONTINUITY? Ernest L. Fortin Let me preface my remarks about <Centesimus Annus> with a brief discussion of the famous document whose centenary it commemorates, Pope Leo XIII's <Rerum Novarum>, the grandfather of the great social encyclicals of our century and the one that single-handedly created a new theological discipline now commonly referred to as the "social doctrine" or "social teaching" of the Roman Catholic Church. No doubt, the older Christian tradition had much to say about justice as a social virtue and the proper uses of wealth, but not until the moral problems spawned by the industrial revolution became acute during the latter part of the nineteenth century was the need f...
Post a Comment
Read more

(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent, a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics).Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights":1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights"Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion.Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussian position that "natural human rights" are a modern, artificial invention distinct from classical or medieval Christian thought. In books like Human Rights, Virtue and the Common Good, Fortin argued that modern human rights language strips society of the classical pursuit of virtue and the common good, replacing them with radical, atomized individual claims.The Application: Therefore, Fortin would not blame Carlson for failing to appeal to "human rights." From a Fortin perspective, progressives who base their anti-Zionism on universal human rights are building their critique on shifting sand—an abstract, modern construct that lacks true moral and philosophical anchoring.2. The Critique of Carlson: A Degradation of True Patriotism into Pagan NationalismWhile Fortin would reject the left's "human rights" framework, he would be equally, if not more, critical of Tucker Carlson’s isolationist nationalism. Fortin’s study of St. Augustine’s City of God provides the exact weapon for this critique:The "Transpolitical" Citizen: Fortin noted that Augustine viewed Christianity as fundamentally "transpolitical." Christians must be loyal, patriotic citizens of their earthly home, but they must always identify their true homeland with the Heavenly City.Carlson’s Pagan Error: Carlson’s "America First" isolationism borders on what Fortin would consider a return to pagan civic religion, where the preservation, comfort, and material wealth of the specific political regime (the nation) become the highest moral good. By opposing alliances or interventions purely because they "don't benefit the American working class," Carlson reduces foreign policy to a transactional, materialist calculation. Fortin would argue that this completely discards the Christian duty toward a transcendent justice that looks beyond one's own borders.3. The Manent Connection: The Problem of the Nation-StateIf we introduce Pierre Manent’s philosophy into this, the critique becomes even sharper:The Necessity of the Nation: Manent argues that the nation-state is the only political form capable of sustaining actual human democracy and agency; global "human rights" bodies have no real political teeth. In this sense, Manent might sympathize with Carlson's desire to protect the American political community from over-extended globalism.The Crisis of Zionism: However, Manent also notes that Israel is the ultimate, hyper-concentrated expression of a nation-state. For Carlson to retreat into an "America First" nationalism while aggressively disparaging Israeli nationalism reveals a deep philosophical contradiction. Carlson praises the concept of borders, ethno-cultural cohesion, and sovereign survival for the West, yet attacks Israel for doing the exact same thing within its own borders.Summary: The Dual CritiqueA Fortin-Manent perspective alters the debate entirely:Against the Left: They would argue that criticizing Carlson for lacking a "human rights" focus is useless, because abstract human rights talk is a hollow modern substitute for true classical virtue.Against Carlson: They would argue that Carlson’s isolationism is not "Christian," but a form of secular, materialist tribalism. By stripping foreign policy of any transcendent moral obligation to the wider world and viewing everything through a lens of strict national self-interest, Carlson succumbs to the very modernity he claims to fight.

(Note: "Manet" in this philosophical context most likely refers to Pierre Manent , a towering French political philosopher and student of Raymond Aron who writes extensively on the nation-state and the crisis of modern liberalism. Looking at the situation through a Fortin-Manent framework yields a fascinating critique of both Carlson and his left-wing critics). Here is how a Fortin (and Manent) framework breaks down, reshapes, and ultimately critiques the assertion that "Carlson's anti-Zionism is flawed because it is rooted in isolationist nationalism rather than human rights" : 1. The Critique of the Left-Wing Alternative: The Myth of "Human Rights" Left-wing critics attack Carlson for failing to base his anti-Zionism on a universal "human rights" framework. A Fortin-Manent analysis would argue that the left-wing critics are operating on a flawed, uniquely modern illusion. Fortin's View on Rights: Fr. Fortin famously held the Straussi...
Post a Comment
Read more