This strikes me as too timid. Fisking sentence by sentence.
"Could “Christian realm” be understood in a way that points to a this-world political reality that neither rejects pluralism nor opens the door to repression?" Of course. "It would have to combine a large number of flourishing Christian communities and institutions with many of the defining components of liberalism." This hints at, but oddly fails to assert, that liberalism (preferably classical) is the best available politics by Christian standards. "But mightn’t that be possible in a society in which the laws, political structures, and cultural conventions reflect a Christian worldview and Christian influence on some deep level." That's not only possible but has been the prevailing situation in the free West for generations. "The structure and rhythm of a society could be non-accidentally harmonious with Christianity in ways that don’t call for secret police or laws against heresy." Why invoke laws against heresy? No one advocates that. Why mention secret police? Did even the Spanish Inquisition do that? This is like saying "I don't beat my wife but..." Unnecessary exculpation raises needless alarm. "If that sounds far-fetched," No, it doesn't. "reflect that most of Western Civilization has effectively been “Christian” in this broad sense. (I realize that not everyone will find that reassuring.)" Who's the "not everyone" here?
Sorry for the relentless nitpicking. I like where this is going substantively, but something about the framing, the implied choice of audience, seems slightly off. I keep stumbling on claims that leave me wondering who the audience could be to whom they're not obvious, and whether they're worth writing for.
It's fine, but maybe just be a little patient. You have to do a little stage-setting in such a case, and from what you're saying here it sounds to me like you haven't engaged much with the various strands of postliberalism, which do absolutely suggest that the state should have a lot more coercive power. Usually the front-line apologists don't get too far in the weeds on constitutional and legal questions but a theorist like Stephen Wolfe (whose Case for Christian Nationalism was discussed seriously in right-wing circles) does explicitly argue for anti-heresy laws and deeper within integralist and postliberal circles there's lots of discussion of those questions. Along with questions like, "Is it okay to forcibly remove Jewish children from their families if they've been secretly baptized as Christians (the Edgaro Mortara case)?" which have received lively discussion in recent years. It wouldn't be crazy at all for a reader to suspect that a Catholic intellectual wanting to revive "Christendom" is in favor of all of that.
As for secret police, no, I don't think anyone almost ever openly advocates for that, and secret police are, as such, basically a modern phenomenon (so, post-Inquisition), but forms of integralism have definitely fed into aggressively authoritarian or fascists government in the modern era, and totalitarian governments lead to things like... secret police. It's a little colorful, sure, but I think relevant to not-insane fears people might have in light of very real strands of Caeseropapism that have gotten real traction in recent years. In short:
"Unnecessary exculpation raises needless alarm."
I think it's pretty necessary.
But see what you think of today's post. It'll be up pretty soon.
This strikes me as too timid. Fisking sentence by sentence.
"Could “Christian realm” be understood in a way that points to a this-world political reality that neither rejects pluralism nor opens the door to repression?" Of course. "It would have to combine a large number of flourishing Christian communities and institutions with many of the defining components of liberalism." This hints at, but oddly fails to assert, that liberalism (preferably classical) is the best available politics by Christian standards. "But mightn’t that be possible in a society in which the laws, political structures, and cultural conventions reflect a Christian worldview and Christian influence on some deep level." That's not only possible but has been the prevailing situation in the free West for generations. "The structure and rhythm of a society could be non-accidentally harmonious with Christianity in ways that don’t call for secret police or laws against heresy." Why invoke laws against heresy? No one advocates that. Why mention secret police? Did even the Spanish Inquisition do that? This is like saying "I don't beat my wife but..." Unnecessary exculpation raises needless alarm. "If that sounds far-fetched," No, it doesn't. "reflect that most of Western Civilization has effectively been “Christian” in this broad sense. (I realize that not everyone will find that reassuring.)" Who's the "not everyone" here?
Sorry for the relentless nitpicking. I like where this is going substantively, but something about the framing, the implied choice of audience, seems slightly off. I keep stumbling on claims that leave me wondering who the audience could be to whom they're not obvious, and whether they're worth writing for.
It's fine, but maybe just be a little patient. You have to do a little stage-setting in such a case, and from what you're saying here it sounds to me like you haven't engaged much with the various strands of postliberalism, which do absolutely suggest that the state should have a lot more coercive power. Usually the front-line apologists don't get too far in the weeds on constitutional and legal questions but a theorist like Stephen Wolfe (whose Case for Christian Nationalism was discussed seriously in right-wing circles) does explicitly argue for anti-heresy laws and deeper within integralist and postliberal circles there's lots of discussion of those questions. Along with questions like, "Is it okay to forcibly remove Jewish children from their families if they've been secretly baptized as Christians (the Edgaro Mortara case)?" which have received lively discussion in recent years. It wouldn't be crazy at all for a reader to suspect that a Catholic intellectual wanting to revive "Christendom" is in favor of all of that.
As for secret police, no, I don't think anyone almost ever openly advocates for that, and secret police are, as such, basically a modern phenomenon (so, post-Inquisition), but forms of integralism have definitely fed into aggressively authoritarian or fascists government in the modern era, and totalitarian governments lead to things like... secret police. It's a little colorful, sure, but I think relevant to not-insane fears people might have in light of very real strands of Caeseropapism that have gotten real traction in recent years. In short:
"Unnecessary exculpation raises needless alarm."
I think it's pretty necessary.
But see what you think of today's post. It'll be up pretty soon.
I certainly will. This is fascinating. And the audio playback worked too.