210
PARTISAN REVIEW
legitimate spiritual authority, arrogated to itself and in its own
r.ame rights of spiritual interference." (ibid., my italics.)
The gravamen of M. Maritain's disclaimer is not that the
method leads to abuses, for all coercive means of implementing a
good end, since they are employed by creatures of limited wisdom,
lead to abuse. Rather is it that it leads to intolerable abuse. And
why intolerable? Because when the consecrated christian city loses
its authority, the practice may be-and has been-adopted by those
who have usurped that authority. But so long as the
consecrated
city retains its authority, abuses there may be; but intolerable
abuses-never. And suppose there were a way of retaining author·
ity in the consecrational state, so that there would be no danger
that Protestants, absolute monarchs, and
J
acobins would borrow a
leaf from the pages of church history with which to light the fires
of Catholic martyrs? On what ground could M. Maritain condemn
a practice-temporal suppression-which flows from a theory–
the right to save souls from heresy-of which he approves? The
intolerable abuses of which M. Maritain speaks occurred
after
the
ruin of medieval Christendom. Is he prepared to argue that the
ruin of medieval Christendom is the result of its treatment of
heretics? Hardly, for he has previously argued that as a means
of achieving a good end, this treatment of heretics was justified
by the historic context and conditions. But if the ruin of medieval
Christendom is not the result of its treatment of heretics, he is still
owing us an explanation of why he disapproves the practice but not
the theory; at the very least, an indication of the historic condi·
tions under which in the future the' practice may be as unexcep·
tionable as the theory.
Before we conclude this section of our study, we must look a
little more closely at the type of collaboration between Church and
state which M. Maritain proposes for his
secular
christian city. The
spiritual (Catholic) principle is to have a commanding influence
on the life and morals of the community but it must not command
the state to enforce these principles on those-pagans and heretics
-who do not or will not see the truth. Here the familiar scheme
of pluralism operates. But this pluralism, M. Maritain expressly
warns, must not be confused with "theological liberalism." Theo–
logical liberalism is the belief that the commonwealth "should
be
obliged to recognize as licet for each spiritual group the law
