Find essays by keyword, title, or author name

Rejecting Zmirak’s Rejection of ‘Illiberal Catholicism’

Daniel Schwindt’s article, “Refuting Tocqueville by Way of Tocqueville,” is a fantastic contribution to the swirling discussion of what Lockean liberalism means for modern orthodox Christians. If you’re only skimming, a major takeaway is Schwindt’s claim that Tocqueville’s descriptions far outshine his prescriptions; and that “the preponderance of evidence he piles up against the Lockean state in his descriptive capacity is so overwhelming that, in the few instances where he takes a prescriptive stance, it is far too late for him to be taken seriously.”

On the other hand, there’s John Zmirak’s Tea Party-induced eruption against “illiberal Catholicism,” where we learn things like “Catholicism minus the Enlightenment equals the Inquisition,” and that neo-Marxists and Cardinal Dolan (yes, equally so) are “all BLEEPING crazy.” The conclusion Zmirak offers is that Enlightenment-style “freedoms are the hard-won fruit of centuries of struggle, and many of our [Catholic] ancestors were fighting on the wrong side.” Not an inarguable claim, to be sure, but certainly without any compelling reasons on the part of this author.

What divides Schwindt from Zmirak, I think—aside from tone—is a concern for ordered goods. Schwindt, on the one hand, identifies Tocqueville’s “deviated conception of government as a ‘necessary evil,’ rather than as a divine institution for the benefit of mankind.” Zmirak, on the other hand, unabashedly prioritizes political expediency over orthodoxy, and issues a subsequent injunction against “illiberal” Catholics to shape up or be damned.

Zmirak’s presentation, especially his black legend about the Inquisition, has been heavily criticized. What’s most offensive, though, is his willingness to rearrange a hierarchy of goods, placing wisdom below and subject to prudence. In so doing, Zmirak not only destabilizes the classical intellectual model—leaving any prospect for intelligible orthodoxy shaky at best—but also undermines the moderate endorsement of Enlightenment principles he argues for elsewhere. (Incidentally, Zmirak’s conclusion, here, employs some prescriptive Tocqueville.) If Locke can be accepted conditionally, then wisdom is required to know where and how; yet a reductionist reading that Catholicism sans-Enlightenment is simply oppression and torture forces one’s hand quickly away from anything impractical. The medicine against feudalist “cancer,” to use Zmirak’s analogy, kills indiscriminately. But it comes without a warning label, and we’ve already committed to handing it out.

If the options available to us include either preserving the primacy of wisdom or reducing it to rubble, the choice is easy. Therein lies the truest of freedoms. And although it’s hard to create an exact formula for being a good “illiberal” Catholic—much less to admit that such a term is helpful—at least one knows more or less what he’s solving for.


Readers are invited to discuss essays in argumentative and fraternal charity, and are asked to help build up the community of thought and pursuit of truth that Ethika Politika strives to accomplish, which includes correction when necessary. The editors reserve the right to remove comments that do not meet these criteria and/or do not pertain to the subject of the essay.

  • Alexander S Anderson

    Is the Kingdom of Heaven an option or are we forced to settle for also-rans?

  • Christopher M. Gray

    Mr. Kozinski,

    John Zmirak opposed the 2003 Iraq War. I know that because he commissioned me to write an article against it in THE CATHOLIC REGISTER in 2004. Stop smearing him; he is an honorable man and a better Christian scholar than you are.

    It may amaze you to know that American 18th century republicanism drew very little inspiration from John Locke. Its positive republican liberty came from Florentine and Venetian RCs Machiavelli (yes, he died in the Sacraments), Guicciardini, Giannotti, Paolo Sarpi and their English emulator James Harrington (OCEANA) and his disciples (Trenchard & Gordon; John Toland; Bolingbroke; and Jonathan Swift) discussed in great histories by my mentor John Pocock’s THE MACHIAVELLIAN MOMENT (1975) and his friend Caroline Robbins’ THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COMMONWEALTHMEN (1959). Our negative republican liberty came from the Common Law, Sir Edward Coke, the first Earl of Clarendon’s history, Algernon Sidney, the 1689 Declaration of Rights, and the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers.

    It may also shock you to know that Blessed Pope Innocent XI secretly aided the overthrow of King James II of Great Britain in 1688 because he doubted James’ judgement and bitterly opposed King Louis XIV’s expulsion of the Huguenots in 1685 and Louis’s constant European wars.

    Mr. Kozinksi seems utterly unaware that his ancestral Polish-Lithuanian kingdom was Europe’s center of religious heterodoxy and dissent during the 16th to 18th century. See Norman Davies’ classic GOD’S PLAYGROUND (Columbia UP, 1982.) Mr. Kozinski, like most American ethnic RCs from backward lands, is ignorant of his own ancestral homeland’s religious history. Poland became a center of Judaism because it welcomed Jewish refugees and non-orthodox Christians beginning in the Late Middle Ages. Does Mr. Kozinski also know that Jews, Muslims, and Catholics lived peacefully together in medieval Spain before the 15th century?

    Christopher M. Gray
    An old stock American Catholic whose Scottish ancestors first came to Maryland in 1652.
    Alexandria, VA