Acton and Pitt were working within a much older tradition about the way in which slavery/despotism corrupts both the master and the slave Here it is not power that corrupts the master, but the power his slaves gain over him: he depends on them, they subvert him in self-defense
Do you think the dangers of giving a sovereign authority over the bishops are indexed to the general danger that the sovereign will be suborned and sink into a morass of informal power? Or do you see the risk as equal for good govt and misgovt?
-
-
I agree (and n.b. the habit of training younger bros for the Church often led to kings who micromanaged theology to an unseemly degree) But the bishops can't claim religious policy as the exclusive domain of their caste; yesterday iirc I compared them to weapons engineers
-
Weapons engineers should be trusted because they know the answer to tough technical questions better than anyone else But you don't let engineers set the military budget, make declarations of war, or anything like that
-
Tweet unavailable
-
There is no way to formalize the delineations; you didn't happen to read the blogposts I did on "formal and informal capacities", did you? Whether a marriage is null is legitimately a religious q. Whether a baby is bastard or legitimate issue is a political/legal q. Inseparable!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.