…because he has a much more "optimistic" theology of sin. That is, de Lubac has a naively optimistic understanding of justification through "implicit faith" that leads him to underestimate the extent to which the ’world‘ is under the domination of the devil.— Pater Edmund (@sancrucensis) May 5, 2020
Sunday, May 10, 2020
Integralism, Thomas Pink writes, "involves a rejection of the metaphysical foundations of most current legal and political philosophy." https://t.co/jGwe2SIcnh— Public Discourse (@PublicDiscourse) May 10, 2020
Brilliant new article by @thomaspink1, explaining why integralism matters even nand especially in our curret, secular age: https://t.co/hkf1ncZfDl— Pater Edmund (@sancrucensis) May 10, 2020
Integralism further involves a conception of the church as an authority over religion that replaces the state. The church is a sovereign potestas, with the authority to make laws and enforce these through punishments, just as is the state. Its authority is based not on natural law as is the state’s, but on the revealed law of Christ. Any interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae that denies this conception of the church as potestas over religion runs directly against the interpretation of that declaration given officially at Vatican II by the commission that drafted it. (For more on this, see my “Dignitatis Humanae: continuity after Leo XIII”.)
Latin integralism depends upon and promotes Latin maximalist conceptions of ecclesial authority, especially the authority of the bishop of Rome.
It is tempting to suppose that there are two quite different kinds of state: an integralist state that prioritizes the good of the community, and a liberal state that fosters the autonomy of the individual. But perhaps the better view is that there simply exist states that serve the common good in a way that involves enforcing an ethical consensus.
The questions that should be asked are: what is the common good, what defines a political community, and is any state, integralist or otherwise, able to bring about the common good. Maybe integralists will have a new response to MacIntyre and Cavanaugh--until they do, they theorizing merely serves statism, and at best they serve as controlled opposition, inconsequential and no threat to the status quo.
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.
I was so engaged by Josh Hammer’s thoughtful work that I did an unusually long response — with bonus collateral remarks on some other varieties of originalism https://t.co/1HvKEn7rA1— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) May 10, 2020
“These medieval women mystics are now shadows of a postmodern elite who are geniuses of theory, which if it includes women, seems to have Georges Bataille as its presiding spirit.”— Josh Hochschild (@JoshHochschild) May 6, 2020
Cyril O’Regan seeks to rescue the mystics from the theorists.https://t.co/8hZxpqB2MR