I'll have to blog very quickly and briefly, continuing the Catholic-Protestant mix-up that Rick and I have started.
On my point that, apart from whether Protestantism was a good development, the mere fact of the Reformation ushered in fundamental disagreement: Rick is right that there was dissent before then, but surely the Reformation level of disagreement -- the size, power, and determination of both sides -- marked a fundamental break in Western Europe. The continent had to deal with pluralism of a nature and degree it never had before. Many things stemmed from that, including tyranny in some places (including in England directed at Catholics). But the effects also included a proto-federalism (as in the "whose the rule, his the religion" solution of 1555) and eventually, as it became clear that dissenters were still around in each place, rights of individual conscience. To treat England under Elizabeth and James as the epitome of Protestant arrangements is to pick out the worst case -- the most Erastian (state ruling church) variation -- and overlook what developed later out of Protestantism in England, America, and elsewhere. And by Murray's own account, the degree of religious diversity in (Reformation-influenced) America was at a new level and called for a further limiting of state power.
Second, I acknowledge the important contribution made by the medieval fight for the "freedom of the church" that Murray and others have described. But I think it would be way too easy to say that this was the determinative battle for institutional pluralism and freedom, and pass over the difficulties that the Church had over the next 700 years in acknowledging a similar freedom for any non-civil institution besides itself. We can contextualize the Syllabus of Errors, "error has no rights," and the defenses of monarchy as against democracy --and it's important to do that contextualization -- but even after that's done, I think there remains an undeniable, irreducible sense in which the Church was formally negative for a long time about freedom for institutions other than itself, and sought arrangements in which (to oversimplify) there were not multiple sources of authority, meaning, and power in society, but two sources, civil authorities and the Church. America was quite different, but largely because the American Catholic Church contextualized the Syllabus and those other things practically out of existence.
And for all of America's plank in its own eye with respect to Catholic freedom, it was in early America -- with a largely Protestant rather than Catholic influence at that point -- that the model of a full array of non-state social institutions, with varying religious and non-religious bases, really took shape. Protestantism was not, and is not, incompatible with a thick civil society, as various writers such as the Dutch "sphere sovereignty" Calvinists show. (My comment that Protestantism led directly to all the problems of "unmitigated individualism" was meant as partly tongue in cheek.)
Let me emphasize that I think (and have written) that there's been loads of Protestant triumphalism over the centuries, claiming that Catholicism stood for nothing but ignorance and persecution, and that Protestantism's emphasis on the individual is the key to freedom of all kinds. These claims have been both wrong and dangerous. But recognizing that fact should make one all the less inclined to substitute a Catholic triumphalism, under which the Church's fight for its freedom solved the basic problem, and after that the Protestants messed everything up by enthroning the individual. (I'm not at all saying that Rick goes there; I'm just saying let's be wary about moving in that direction.)
Tom
A few thoughts to add on why the Catholics on the Court now make up a majority and why they're the conservative wing. (Note that one of them is a bit of an accident: Thomas, who converted back to Catholicism after he joined the Court.)
The current position of Catholics in America really begins with Vatican II and the "mainstreaming" of Catholics beginning in the mid to late 1960s. Since then, Democratic presidents have had relatively little chance to appoint justices -- Carter had no opportunity -- and Clinton in his opportunities appointed justices who weren't Catholic (who were Jewish). It's not surprising that conservative presidents would have many more chances to appoint Catholics, because they've had many more chances overall.
Republicans recently have used their opportunities to appoint a lot of Catholics (a disproportionate number), for a couple of reasons. There may be some element of political calculation in it: for example, W Bush using SCT appointments among other things to try to cement conservative Catholics' ties to the Republican party. I don't think that's been a big factor, but it could have played a role. In addition, however, I have a sense that the other component of the conservative religious coalition -- evangelical Protestants -- hasn't yet developed a pool of lawyers/judges with elite educational and professional credentials that's as large as the conservative Catholic pool. Evangelicals are attending Ivy League schools, but they're perhaps a decade behind the Catholics in doing so. (Watch for an incerasing number of evangelicals in the future.) And the clumsy interventions of people such as James Dobson in the Miers nomination may show that some evangelical activist leaders aren't quite ready for prime time yet. Judge Michael McConnell would have been the sterling nominee who happens to be a conservative Protestant (I confess to bias on that matter, as his co-author, former student, and friend).
Tom
