Problem with Leo XIII is like John Paul II ambiguity leads to problems of semi-Modernism like semi-Arianism see my Was JPII a Kantian: AI Overview Your summary accurately captures the fundamental shifts in early modern political philosophy regarding moral rights and the social contract. John Locke transitioned Francisco Suárez’s theory by disconnecting natural rights from their strict divine foundations and re-grounding them in human self-ownership, labor, and property. Thomas Hobbes took this secularization even further, abandoning natural law entirely to build a theory of the state solely on the basis of individual survival and rational self-interest.Regarding Pope Leo XIII and the concept of liberty, your assessment—consistent with the analysis of scholars like John Rist—correctly highlights the tension between Catholic theology and Enlightenment philosophy.The contrast between Pope Leo XIII's framework and secularized Enlightenment thought can be broken down into these core areas:Rejection of Autonomy: Pope Leo XIII fundamentally opposed the autonomous, secularized liberties espoused by Enlightenment thinkers. While Enlightenment philosophers viewed liberty as a total absence of external constraints (the sovereign right to think, speak, and act as one pleases without absolute moral truth), Leo XIII defined true liberty as the rational ability to freely choose the good.Rejection of "Secularizing Suárez": Some have mistakenly tried to retroactively link Pope Leo XIII’s pragmatic acceptance of varying forms of government (such as his embrace of republics in France) to Enlightenment theories. However, as scholars like Rist point out, Leo XIII did not secularize Suárez. Rather, he utilized Suárez’s and St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophies to argue that civil authority ultimately comes from God, not from a secular, unanchored "social contract" of autonomous wills.Condemnation of "Liberalism": In his 1888 encyclical Libertas, Pope Leo XIII critiqued these "modern liberties". He attacked the Enlightenment assertion that individuals have an absolute right to unlimited freedom of speech, worship, and the press. He argued that separating civil society from divine law inherently leads to moral decline, as rights cannot exist independently of objective moral truths and responsibilities.True Liberty vs. False Liberty: For Leo XIII, to divorce human rights from divine law (as Hobbes and Locke did) degrades freedom into mere license. True human dignity and rights are preserved when reason and liberty are ordered toward their ultimate end, which is union with God, rather than the isolated pursuit of self-interest.For further reading on the intersection of Christian theology, natural law, and modern rights, you can consult John Rist's works, such as Reason and Revelation or What is Truth?, which deal directly with these historical shifts away from the original Christian consensus.

AI Overview

Your summary accurately captures the fundamental shifts in early modern political philosophy regarding moral rights and the social contract. John Locke transitioned Francisco Suárez’s theory by disconnecting natural rights from their strict divine foundations and re-grounding them in human self-ownership, labor, and property. Thomas Hobbes took this secularization even further, abandoning natural law entirely to build a theory of the state solely on the basis of individual survival and rational self-interest. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Regarding Pope Leo XIII and the concept of liberty, your assessment—consistent with the analysis of scholars like John Rist—correctly highlights the tension between Catholic theology and Enlightenment philosophy. [1]

The contrast between Pope Leo XIII's framework and secularized Enlightenment thought can be broken down into these core areas:

• Rejection of Autonomy: Pope Leo XIII fundamentally opposed the autonomous, secularized liberties espoused by Enlightenment thinkers. While Enlightenment philosophers viewed liberty as a total absence of external constraints (the sovereign right to think, speak, and act as one pleases without absolute moral truth), Leo XIII defined true liberty as the rational ability to freely choose the good.
• Rejection of "Secularizing Suárez": Some have mistakenly tried to retroactively link Pope Leo XIII’s pragmatic acceptance of varying forms of government (such as his embrace of republics in France) to Enlightenment theories. However, as scholars like Rist point out, Leo XIII did not secularize Suárez. Rather, he utilized Suárez’s and St. Thomas Aquinas's philosophies to argue that civil authority ultimately comes from God, not from a secular, unanchored "social contract" of autonomous wills.
• Condemnation of "Liberalism": In his 1888 encyclical Libertas, Pope Leo XIII critiqued these "modern liberties". He attacked the Enlightenment assertion that individuals have an absolute right to unlimited freedom of speech, worship, and the press. He argued that separating civil society from divine law inherently leads to moral decline, as rights cannot exist independently of objective moral truths and responsibilities.
• True Liberty vs. False Liberty: For Leo XIII, to divorce human rights from divine law (as Hobbes and Locke did) degrades freedom into mere license. True human dignity and rights are preserved when reason and liberty are ordered toward their ultimate end, which is union with God, rather than the isolated pursuit of self-interest. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

For further reading on the intersection of Christian theology, natural law, and modern rights, you can consult John Rist's works, such as Reason and Revelation or What is Truth?, which deal directly with these historical shifts away from the original Christian consensus. [1, 2]