In this paper, I confront Engelhardt’s views—conceptualized as a cohesive moral perspective grounded in a combination of secular and Christian moral requirements—on two fronts. First, I critique his view of the moral demands of justice within a secular pluralistic society by showing how Thomistic natural law theory provides a content-full theory of human flourishing that is rationally articulable and defensible as a canonical vision of the good, even if it is not universally recognized as such. Second, I defend the principles of Roman Catholic social teaching (RCST) against Engelhardt’s objection that it constitutes a watered-down version of the Christian moral vision which opens the door to intolerable moral compromises. While I acknowledge that Engelhardt’s criticism of RCST is well-grounded in certain abusive compromises that have been made by some Catholic healthcare institutions, I contend that such abuses are not endemic to RCST and avoidance of them is practically feasible in contemporary secular pluralistic societies. My primary aim is to show how continued dialogue between Engelhardtian libertarians and more communitarian-inclined RCST proponents may constructively yield a vision of healthcare allocation that ensures succor for the least advantaged within an authentically Christian social ethic.

中文翻译：

---

共同利益的愿景：恩格尔哈特参与天主教社会教学

在本文中，我在两个方面面对恩格尔哈特的观点——被概念化为基于世俗和基督教道德要求的结合的有凝聚力的道德观点。首先，我通过展示托马斯主义的自然法理论如何提供一个内容丰富的人类繁荣理论来批判他关于世俗多元化社会中正义的道德要求的观点，该理论是可以理性地表达和辩护的善的规范愿景，即使它并没有被普遍认可。其次，我捍卫罗马天主教社会教义（RCST）的原则，反对恩格尔哈特的反对意见，即它构成了基督教道德观的淡化版本，为无法容忍的道德妥协打开了大门。虽然我承认 Engelhardt 对 RCST 的批评是基于某些天主教医疗机构做出的某些滥用妥协，但我认为这种滥用并非 RCST 特有的，在当代世俗多元社会中避免它们实际上是可行的。我的主要目的是展示恩格尔哈德派自由主义者和更倾向于社区主义的 RCST 支持者之间的持续对话如何建设性地产生医疗保健分配的愿景，以确保在真正的基督教社会伦理中为最弱势群体提供救助。