{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025571273122959738, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003264417845484222, 'mean_word_length': 5.150501672240803, '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}}
The Habsburg Empire: A New History by Pieter M. Judson (review)

of confessional allegiance,” the civic functions of baptism usually prevailed (63). As such, baptisms of both Protestant and Catholics could be performed inside a nominally Catholic parish church by Catholic clergy. The same could be said of marriage in terms of its importance as an induction into the civic community. What was important was not the underlying confessional meaning of the ritual, but the public celebration itself. It was not that the laity did not understand—though there were some early instances of confusion as well—but rather that they understood differently than theologians. The rite had a social function and that took precedence over its creedal function. Luebke finds the same with Protestant burials as they demanded that their dead be given a proper burial in the Catholic parish churchyard not because it was Catholic, but rather due to civic honor’s demand that their dead be laid to rest in the churchyard. Rite of passage rituals like baptism, marriage, and burial contrast with rites of community like communion. With communion, the connections between doctrine and ritual were more difficult to avoid. And yet, accommodation took place. According to visitation records from the early 1570s, many parish priests offered communion according to the preference of the particular parishioner, either singly or in both kinds. Of course, these “regimes of religious coexistence,” to use Luebke’s term, broke down over time and disappeared entirely as the conflict of the Thirty Years’ War upset the confessional harmony within the territory. By the mid-seventeenth century, confessionalization won. Yet, Luebke’s book provides a valuable insight into the complexities of confessional pluralism. David Freeman, University of Missouri-Kansas City