doi: 10.1111/1467-8675.12276 Engaging Post-Secularism: Rethinking Catholic Politics in Italy Tom Bailey and Michael D. Driessen 1. Introduction Although the study of religion and politics has blos- somed over the past decade, the normative debates over the appropriate place of religion in modern democracies have often remain divorced from the study of the actual practices and meanings of religion in these democra- cies. Consequently, many new normative concepts and arguments have not filtered down to the empirical study of religion, while normative debates are often inade- quately informed by an understanding of the empirical realities of contemporary religious practices and beliefs. This article aims to bridge this divide by focusing on the fertile case of political Catholicism in Italy and how it both exemplifies and challenges current empirical and normative theories of religious politics. We begin by reviewing recent “post-secular” normative theories of religious contributions to democratic consensus and the challenge that a “mono-religious” society like Italy appears to pose to these theories (section two). In response to this challenge, we then argue that, empirically, Italy is in fact neither secularizing nor mono-religious, but rather an illuminating exam- ple of what theorists have called a “post-secular” or “post-secularized” democracy. Although many scholars continue to analyze the religious and political landscape in Italy according to the secularization paradigm, we show that this paradigm obscures the most important features and trends of political Catholicism in Italy today (section three). In particular, it obscures the developing activism of the Vatican and other Catholic elites, Italian citizens’ persistent and complex religios- ity, and the vital and plural Catholic politics that both trends have created (section four). We also show that by conceiving of Italian liberal democracy in secularist terms, Catholic elites themselves have failed to articu- late these phenomena adequately, creating significant political stagnation (section five). In this light, we draw lessons for both Italian Catholic politics and post-secular normative theories. Specifically, we argue that a more constructive and pluralist Catholic politics could be articulated by borrowing from these theories, and, indeed, that many Catholic political claims are already articulated in appropriately post-secular ways. But we also show how, although Italy is certainly not a mono-religious society, certain forms of Catholic politics in Italy challenge the sense of democratic con- sensus that these normative theories presuppose. In this respect, we suggest that more qualified and minimal, while nonetheless post-secular, conceptions of liberal democratic politics may be required (section six). 2. Post-Secular Theory and the Italian Challenge The need for consensus in a pluralist society is often supposed to imply that religious claims must be ex- cluded from liberal democratic politics. For it is sup- posed that, if the basic terms of political debate and decision-making are not to be imposed by some citi- zens on others but are rather to be acceptable to all, then these terms must be limited to the secular ones which citizens of all moral and religious persuasions can comprehend, deliberate over, and agree to. 1 Post-secular trends in normative theory, however, question precisely this supposition. Indeed, influential theorists of the need for consensus have given strong reasons to admit religious claims in its pursuit. For ex- ample, J¨ urgen Habermas conceives of democratic de- liberation as the pursuit of an ideal of objective rational justification that supercedes non-rational, pre-modern ways of organizing social life like religion. But he re- laxes this ideal in the face of the complexity of modern social problems and the multiplicity of relevant con- siderations. In particular, he admits particular cultural and ethical considerations, including religions ones, into democratic deliberation. Furthermore — and particu- larly now that he acknowledges the post-secular per- sistence of religious groups and traditions in modern liberal democratic societies — he insists that to require religious citizens to refrain from expressing their reli- gious claims in the informal public sphere would be an unfair burden on them. Moreover, he claims that this would preclude the valuable “learning” and blunting of absolutism that open debate among citizens makes possible. 2 Another influential theorist of consensus in plu- ralist circumstances, John Rawls, also insists that re- ligious claims may contribute to building consensus, rather than undermining it. He envisions citizens agree- ing to shared terms of political justification for their own, different reasons, such that the consensus is “over- lapping” and citizens must explain their different rea- sons to each other (“in due course,” according to his so-called “proviso”). Consequently, like Habermas, he believes that the open expression and dialogue of sec- ular and religious worldviews is necessary for building Constellations Volume 24, No 2, 2017. C  2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.