Lets talk about Catholic Integralism

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

CCC 1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.

If you believe that the Catholic Faith is true, then it is a virtue to practice it.

[Doom]

One could argue, I think convincingly, that Austria-Hungary was an integralist State under the emperor but still respected religious freedom (e.g. even Orthodox bishops received stipends from the State).

Indeed, but like most Catholic monarchies it collapsed after WWI.

It didn't just "collapse"

When a country loses a major war, which they started, let's just say that it is extremely rare that they suffer absolutely no consequences for it. And let's be clear, the war happened because Austria wanted war. They made a number of ultimatums following the assassination of the Archduke, and Serbia agreed to almost all of them immediately, and yet instead of seeing that as a solid basis for an eventual negotiated settlement, Austria declared war not because war was necessary, but because they held to a militant ideology that war would bring them national glory and they really wanted war.

[Stella]

Religious freedom is a PASTORAL accommodation to the collapse of Christendom.

We are back to the idea of you thinking Vatican II is a Super Council that abrogates everything that came before it, a continuity of rupture.

Vatican II is not a new Trent issuing infallible dogmas, it is a PASTORAL council, not a dogmatic one, as both John XIII and Paul VI affirmed. It made no dogmatic statements, let alone ones that negate previous teachings.

Vatican II is not the last word that vetoes everything that came before, it is not the case that Vatican II eliminates all the other councils from Nicea I to Vaitcan I, it is necessary to find a way to reconcile Vatican II with the FULL history of the Church. It is not the case that nothing the Church said before 1962 counts anymore, which is basically what you are arguing.

I think that it's more likely in the first place, that you're assuming that Catholic theocracy was an infallible dogma rather than a pastoral accommodation to give Christians freedom at a certain time in Christian history. I'm looking at the Church teaching on religious freedom as being a continuation of the Church's 2000 year tradition of social justice and human dignity. No rupture at all in that context.

[Stella]

Claiming that one religious is essential to the common good, by default means limiting freedom of religion.

Well yes, but the common good demands that there be some limits on religious expression.

Agreed insofar as how a practice impacts the common good.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I think that it's more likely in the first place, that you're assuming that Catholic theocracy was an infallible dogma.

I usually let Doom speak for himself (of which he is well capable), but I find this highly unlikely.

[Stella]

CCC 1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.

If you believe that the Catholic Faith is true, then it is a virtue to practice it.

That should be achieved without instituting a State theocracy though. It isn't in the purview of the State to enforce every virtue for every reason. It's end is the common good. Aquinas...

The species of virtues are distinguished by their objects, as explained above (I-II:54:2; I-II:60:1; I-II:62:2). Now all the objects of virtues can be referred either to the private good of an individual, or to the common good of the multitude: thus matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the safety of the state, or for upholding the rights of a friend, and in like manner with the other virtues. But law, as stated above (I-II:90:2) is ordained to the common good. Wherefore there is no virtue whose acts cannot be prescribed by the law. Nevertheless human law does not prescribe concerning all the acts of every virtue: but only in regard to those that are ordainable to the common good—either immediately, as when certain things are done directly for the common good—or mediately, as when a lawgiver prescribes certain things pertaining to good order, whereby the citizens are directed in the upholding of the common good of justice and peace. ST I II 96 3

[Stella]

I think that it's more likely in the first place, that you're assuming that Catholic theocracy was an infallible dogma.

I usually let Doom speak for himself (of which he is well capable), but I find this highly unlikely.

I'd like to understand more of why Doom assumes I think "Vatican II is a Super Council that abrogates everything that came before it, a continuity of rupture." Perhaps you could venture an explanation for that?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Can we discard the word "theocracy," please? It's a loaded word.

No one, I think (hope) is claiming that every item of moral theology should be enshrined in civil law. St. Thomas (and St. Augustine before him, and doubtless many others) realized that this is not feasible or even desirable. Let's ask instead whether a civil government should encourage practice of a specific religion. And if it is better for a person to be Christian than not to be, and if it is better for a person to be Catholic than not to be, then civil government should encourage this for the good of society.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I think that it's more likely in the first place, that you're assuming that Catholic theocracy was an infallible dogma.

I usually let Doom speak for himself (of which he is well capable), but I find this highly unlikely.

I'd like to understand more of why Doom assumes I think "Vatican II is a Super Council that abrogates everything that came before it, a continuity of rupture." Perhaps you could venture an explanation for that?

I will let him speak for himself.

[Stella]

Can we discard the word "theocracy," please? It's a loaded word.

No one, I think (hope) is claiming that every item of moral theology should be enshrined in civil law. St. Thomas (and St. Augustine before him, and doubtless many others) realized that this is not feasible or even desirable. Let's ask instead whether a civil government should encourage practice of a specific religion. And if it is better for a person to be Christian than not to be, and if it is better for a person to be Catholic than not to be, then civil government should encourage this for the good of society.

It’s very obviously impossible that a State authority made up of not just Christians but Jews, Muslims, atheists and other religions, will agree on that principle. So how could it realistically come about that a State would decided to promote the tenets of one religion for everyone?

The integralists most commonly use Louis IX’s France as a proposed template for a State authority. Sure it would work if the Church got the Monarch on side, he/she having sole civil power but that didn’t ensure the common good for all citizens.

Despite his progressive legal reforms, Louis was a staunch Christian and rigorously enforced Catholic orthodoxy. He enacted harsh laws against blasphemy and launched actions against France's Jewish population, including the notorious burning of the Talmud following the Disputation of Paris.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_ ... of%20Paris.

It seems obvious that democracy would have to go for integralism to be realized.

[peregrinator]

Indeed, but like most Catholic monarchies it collapsed after WWI.

It didn't just "collapse"

When a country loses a major war, which they started, let's just say that it is extremely rare that they suffer absolutely no consequences for it. And let's be clear, the war happened because Austria wanted war. They made a number of ultimatums following the assassination of the Archduke, and Serbia agreed to almost all of them immediately, and yet instead of seeing that as a solid basis for an eventual negotiated settlement, Austria declared war not because war was necessary, but because they held to a militant ideology that war would bring them national glory and they really wanted war.

I agree that Austria-Hungary wanted war and they should have have accepted a negotiated settlement with Serbia.

But as I said, the Imperial monarchy, indeed European monarchies in general, didn't simply "collapse" in the wake of WWI.

[peregrinator]

It seems obvious that democracy would have to go for integralism to be realized.

Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself; and if democracy results in governance that is contrary to the common good then it has to be curtailed or eliminated.

[peregrinator]

Please read what I say in its context.

I think I am?

The context is whether people who don't profess the Catholic faith should be forced to do so.

I think coercion is generally used much more broadly than that.