The more sober of the new integralists admit that they’re not offering a practical program for here-and-now.https://t.co/L0w6FQ8dsj— First Things (@firstthingsmag) May 20, 2020
And that's about it. The first question, which pertains to historical links between integralists and various European political movements and regimes, doesn't address the substance of their arguments. The second, about the link between Obergefell and the Declaration of Independence, does touch upon how the Constitution is to be interpreted, and can't be simply dismissed as the replacement of Leo XIII with Hegel. As for the third question, it's just an appeal to authority, as if an appeal to the private opinions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI but made public by them are sufficient answers to Latin integralism. But that's how one sort of ultramontanist thinks.
Then again, were you expecting a substantive theological critique?
No comments:
Post a Comment