A Catholic Look at Enlightenment Political Philosophy

To many, the Enlightenment marked a shift from old, stale ways of thinking inspired by the ancient Greeks and their outdated ideas to a new, anthropocentric political system where freedom was finally able to reach its rightful place at the pinnacle of the ideal society. 

It is true that the Enlightenment spawned a new era of political philosophy, one which saw the rise of classical liberalism (not to be confused with the modern strand of progressivism which calls itself “liberalism,” but is very often opposed to the basic liberties for which true liberalism stands) as the predominant political theory. 

The notion that this was a tremendous leap forward is not entirely accurate. There was a paradigm shift in the realm of political philosophy, and some of the ideas being brought to the fore were positive. However, rather than expanding its scope to include the good ideas from the political philosophy of the past while allowing notions of freedom to interact with those preconceptions, the new political philosophy instead rejected the past entirely, much to its detriment.

It is important to recognize what was actually new about the political theories of the Enlightenment. Certainly, the novelty was not to be found in the ideas of freedom and democracy, both of which had been discussed by Aristotle and Plato long before and practiced before the Christian era even began. What was so new was the belief that freedom was the ideal and the goal of society, rather than the common good, as older philosophers had professed.

From a Catholic perspective, this dramatic shift was in many ways a positive one. After all, Catholics believe that every individual has equal dignity and value and that the use of government to restrict the freedoms of individuals becomes unjust when such natural human functions as speech, religious practice, and rational self-determination are included among those restricted rights. 

The problem with the new theory of liberalism is to be found in its understanding of liberty as the end, rather than the means, of society. The value of liberty in a society is precisely the way in which it orders all individuals toward true flourishing by allowing them to make decisions for the good. Thus, liberalism could have served as a mere corrective to many of the classical notions that society ought to mandate certain moral behaviors in order to direct people to what is right; after all, can I truly be said to be a morally flourishing human being if I have no other choice but to be so? 

However, liberalism eventually eliminated the notion of the common good as the end of society, instead taking license as the ultimate end, the existence of the state being directed towards the protection of certain liberties for their own sake rather than for the sake of the individual’s ability to make moral decisions. 

From whence came this great flaw? It was rooted in the very methodology employed by the great “social contract theorists” of liberalism, namely Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

These three thinkers all began their theories with an investigation into the “state of nature,” i.e. the way humans operated and would have continued to operate independent of external influences. The problem is that, as Charles Journet writes, “a state of pure nature, one in which God ex hypothesi had abandoned man to the sole resources of the activities of his mind and will, has never existed. From the earliest times, God willed to bring to the knowledge of men things far in excess of the requirements of any nature that ever was or ever could be created. He revealed to them the depths of His divine life, the secret of His eternity…He will have all men to be saved, and to come to knowledge of the truth.” 

In other words, the question of what man left to his own devices would be like is irrelevant. God has never left man to his own devices. From the beginning, He has been in communication with Adam, giving him instructions and directing him towards a moral life.

Thus, the classic liberal theories of the state of nature seek to answer the wrong question, as do modern attempts to establish similar liberal ideas (such as John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”); instead, they ought to ask, “In what direction has God perpetually guided the crown jewel of His creation, and how can we establish societies that actualize His precepts such that they lead people towards salvation?”

Of course, we must avoid the opposite, the aforementioned error of forcing morality upon people with an iron fist. Such an approach cannot truly change the hearts of men; this is why the Church does not allow involuntary baptisms. Instead, we must spread Catholic religious and moral truths in society, and prioritize a government that gives us the freedom to do just that, confident that given the opportunity to be heard, God’s immutable truth will win out.