{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028225806451612902, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0020161290322580645, 'mean_word_length': 4.841176470588235, '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}}
Ockham, the Sanctity of Rights, and the Canonists

Sixty years ago, Brian Tierney addressed the subject of William of Ockham’s political thought vis-à-vis the teachings of earlier canonists. It was a subject that he has returned to several times, and Ockham has remained a focal point in many other articles and books, especially in the last few decades — too many, in fact, to list here conveniently. In that first article, the focus was on the degree to which Ockham’s ecclesiological views, particularly those regarding the deposition of a heretical pope and the “location of unerring authority” in the Church,1 could be considered novel. Tied to this question was the status of Ockham’s relationship to and understanding of canon law. It is the second issue that interests me. Professor Tierney has attracted enough controversy with his publications: I do not mean to add to the list.2 One point that has not been challenged, however, was the conclusion Tierney reached regarding Ockham’s