{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03142857142857143, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.040229885057471, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On Defining Political Authority as an Act of Judgment: A Discussion of Oliver O'Donovan's The Ways of Judgment (Part I)

Abstract This article develops some critical reflections on a selection of issues raised by Part I of The Ways of Judgment. These issues are: the book's apologetic intention; the role of experience as an authority in Christian ethics; the priority of "judgment" to political institutions, to securing national identity, and to "saving power"; the value and plurality of national identity; the problem and advantage of imperial extension; the need for prudent casuistry to govern the application of the "right to equal treatment"; how judgment, human and divine, can be forgiving; and the secularity of the Church. One of the more important criticisms made in the course of these reflections is that, while "judgment" as the act of fending off wrong may be a basic function of government, it is not the sole, defining one. Government is also properly about the provision of welfare, albeit subject to the principle of subsidiarity