One Thomas Responds to Another

Both would claim to be disciples of St. Thomas.

Recent Discussions of Religious Liberty--Storck's response to Pink https://t.co/7i0N9Fdsdh

— The Josias (@josias_rex) June 3, 2021

Douglas Farrow on Bishop Schneider's and Archbishop Viganò's Objections Regarding Vatican II

Dethroning Christ? The error at the root of the Viganò controversy (Part I)

Part 2

Farrow seems to admit this much:

Now, surely there is nothing wrong with a document promulgated in a political context being on its way to a political rather than an evangelical end, so long as that end is understood to be proximate rather than ultimate. There’s the rub, however. For the Abu Dhabi Declaration seems to be evangelically deficient in a way no political aim can justify. Its call to “come together in the vast space of spiritual, human and shared social values,” and to do so in such as way as to avoid “unproductive discussions,” might reasonably be taken to rule out the very thing Paul was doing on Mars Hill!

But Farrow cannot get beyond the parameters set by Latin ecclesiology, taken by Latins to be dogma:

When we keep this in mind, we can see more easily that to give the answer we ought to give, the answer we must give if we do not intend to be schismatic – the answer that Vatican II was indeed an authentic ecumenical council, engaged in the work of God and of the magisterium of the Church under God – is not to commit ourselves to the untenable notion that its fathers were uniformly faithful or that its documents, despite the flaws of their authors, were themselves essentially flawless.

As a Latin he must accept the claim by Rome that Vatican II is an ecumenical council. Because he must accept that, he must uphold the hermeneutic of continuity, much as Benedict XVI. Part 2 is better in so far as he responds to certain misconceptions (held by some Latin integralists and Latin traditionalists) regarding nature of the Kingship of Christ.

Joseph Komonchak Provides Some Early Texts by John Courtney Murray

The Early Work of John Courtney Murray via Michael Moreland

A Free Political Theology Course

I am co-teaching the below course this summer with an old and dear friend for St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry. I am really looking forward to it. It can be taken for credit or audited for free. Check it out if you're interested. It's online/synchronous. pic.twitter.com/WMqYCXqZY4

— Taylor Patrick O'Neill (@thomaesplendor) June 19, 2020

The Authority to Punish Heresy and Apostasy

Integralism as Christian Default by Kevin Vallier

It’s a sign of the times when ⁦@kvallier⁩ argues that “Christian political theologians now must either work within an integralist framework or explain why not.” (Not to say I agree with all of the analysis here, by any means). https://t.co/MIy4TRM9PU

— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 20, 2020

Vallier:

Religious coercion has some limits, but it can be used to punish heresy and apostasy, and to ensure that Catholicism is the religion of the state.

Nowhere in the Kerygma or Tradition is political authority vested with the authority to punish heresy and apostasy. So why should we accept the claim that the political authority

It is not up to critics of integralism to show this claim is wrong when it is not a principle but a conclusion that must be given a demonstration/proof/derivation by its defenders. Repeating Aquinas or Augustine on this point could be one response, but Latin integralists must acknowledge the possibility that their arguments are flawed.

Act-consequentialism and integralism are plainly quite different normative theories. They are elegant approaches to ethics and political theory respectively because they make the good the sole normative master conception in a straightforward way. So much so, that one might even think that they’re the default normative theories.

I think that work on act-consequentialism has shown why it is axiologically mistaken. But I don’t think we yet have an account of why integralist axiology is mistaken if we take the truth of Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, for granted.

Latin integralism can hardly be said to be the "default" even for Roman Catholics when it doesn't have a place on the hierarchy of truths. I don't know how Vallier is able to make this claim, as if it were somehow self-evident.

Violence Necessary to Maintain Orthodoxy?

Alan Fimister and Andrew Willard Jones discuss the reasons for a seeming rise in the amount of violence necessary to maintain orthodoxy in the High Middle Ages. https://t.co/untg1qd3gX

— The Josias (@josias_rex) May 10, 2020

Making any act of heresy tantamount to treason is a papocaesarist's dream.

Locke Manuscript

St. John's College

The Origin of Religious Freedom

First Things: Rethinking the History of Religious Freedom by Robert Louis Wilken

Any account of the rise of religious freedom must give a large place to the intellectual contributions of Christian thinkers.

Dr. Robert Louis Wilken on Religious Liberty

"The Religious Roots of Religious Liberty": player.fm and soundcloud

Should This Be Called [Roman] Catholic Integralism?

In Defence of Catholic Integralism by Thomas Pink

Is it necessarily bound up with acceptance of the modern nation-state?

John Courtney Murray

MoJ: Georgetown Conference on the 50th Anniversary of Murray's Death

Fr. Brian Mullady Answers Questions on Vatican 2

HPR