Lets talk about Catholic Integralism

[Stella]

I've been involved in online Catholic forums for more than 20 years now and have observed this ideology forming and coalescing by osmosis.

What is Catholic integralism?

“Catholic integralists believe that, “rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion.” Contemporary integralists include Edmund Waldstein, O.Cist. (quoted here), Patrick J. Deneen (Notre Dame), Gladden Pappin (University of Dallas), and Adrian Vermeule (Harvard). The movement has been endorsed in the pages of First Things, Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal, and its online home is a website called The Josias.”

https://uscatholic.org/articles/201910/ ... tegralism/

I came across an article in Jewish sources that also recognises some of the toxic aspects of Catholic integralism that are of continued concern such as reinvigorated antisemitism.

https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/philoso ... ts-and-us/#

What do others think about the idea of a modern Catholic State?

[Doom]

Another way of saying "Integralism" would be "the universal Catholic doctrine from Constantine to the fall of the Papal States in 1870"

Let's not pretend that it is some radical new idea, it isn't, It's the way the Church thought things should be right up until the moment where the traditional Catholic world order collapsed and the ideal no longer became practical"

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion.

Which part of this do you dispute? Is rendering true worship inessential for the common good? If it is essential, then why is it not incumbent on civil authority to promote it?

[Stella]

rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion.

Which part of this do you dispute? Is rendering true worship inessential for the common good? If it is essential, then why is it not incumbent on civil authority to promote it?

It comes down to freedoms. The common good requires recognising freedom as per Dignitatis humanae...

15. The fact is that men of the present day want to be able freely to profess their religion in private and in public. Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(38) The further fact is that forms of government still exist under which, even though freedom of religious worship receives constitutional recognition, the powers of government are engaged in the effort to deter citizens from the profession of religion and to make life very difficult and dangerous for religious communities.

This council greets with joy the first of these two facts as among the signs of the times. With sorrow, however, it denounces the other fact, as only to be deplored. The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident. Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.

[Doom]

Vatican II was the Church's attempt to find a way to deal with the collapse of Christendom, what the council was dealing with was basically "Now that the world has gone FUBAR and it appears that we can no longer achieve our ideal of integralism, how can we deal with that without just staying to hell with it and embracing atheism?"

Vatican II is not the ideal and was never presented as such, it is an attempt to forge a way to keep going in a world that is now actively hostile to the faith. And so ideas like religious freedom and whatnot were set forth as compromises to try to protect the Church in a world that is hostile to it. The Church found it necessary to embrace these ideas that had previously been rejected because it gives us the ability to defend ourselves from attack. If the Church didn't support religious freedom, Western secular governments would have exterminated the Church decades ago but coming out in favor of religious freedom allows the Church to say "Hey you can't attack us, we have religious freedom, which we will also grant to other so that our own freedom can be better protected." This is why the Church found it necessary to defend the religious freedom of non-Catholics because defending the freedom of others is a good way to defend our freedom. "First they came for the Jews" etc. If everyone has freedom, then we do too, if one person doesn't have freedom, then no one does.

But these things are a necessary compromise and not regarded as an absolute in their own right or as the ideal it is not a course to pursue in a world where the traditional idea of Christendom is still a viable concept.


So setting Vatican II and the traditional Catholic idea of Integtalism in opposition is embracing what Benedict XVI denounced as "a hermeneutic of rupture" rather than "a hermeneutic of continuity". The compromise does not negate the ideal, in fact, the reverse the case, compromise is a way to reinforce the ideal.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Which premise do you dispute?

[peregrinator]

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).

[peregrinator]

Vatican II was the Church's attempt to find a way to deal with the collapse of Christendom, what the council was dealing with was basically "Now that the world has gone FUBAR and it appears that we can no longer achieve our ideal of integralism, how can we deal with that without just staying to hell with it and embracing atheism?"

It definitely failed in that since most States that were once Christian are now officially atheist/secular (no difference in practice).

[Doom]

Well, that was already apparent in 1960. Indeed, despite his reputation for ultraconservativism especially among sedevacantists, by the standards of Catholic Europe in 1945 Pius XII was undeniably a liberal. He agreed to the abolition of the monarchy in Italy and its replacement with a democracy, something none of his predecessors would have agreed to. Pius XI hated democracy so much that he embraced fascism as a viable alternative, although he did eventually become disillusioned with Mussolini.

Vatican II wasn't intended to prevent the collapse of Christendom but to deal with the fact that the collapse had already occurred.

[Stella]

Which premise do you dispute?

That all citizens of a State be forced or coerced to worship one way.

[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. Paul Johnson once made what I thought was a profound comment, he said that the Papacy is the only autocracy in Europe which survived the 20th century not only all of its traditional prerogatives intact but was actually stronger at the end of the century than at the beginning. That is actually true. There are still monarchies in Europe of course, they weren't all abolished although most were, but during the 20th century all the monarchies that survived were stripped of their power and reduced to figureheads, the Pope alone still has all his authority.

That is a rather remarkable observation.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Which premise do you dispute?

That all citizens of a State be forced or coerced to worship one way.

That wasn't one of the premises I listed. For the sake of a refresher: "rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion."

Promotion is not the same as coercion, which I likewise oppose.

[peregrinator]

Well it depends on what one means by coercion. Certainly the Church has the authority to coerce her members.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Please read what I say in its context.

[Stella]

Which premise do you dispute?

That all citizens of a State be forced or coerced to worship one way.

That wasn't one of the premises I listed. For the sake of a refresher: "rendering God true worship is essential to [the] common good, and that political authority therefore has the duty of recognizing and promoting the true religion."

Promotion is not the same as coercion, which I likewise oppose.

Even a most benign take on the State promoting one religion as essential to the common good, puts severe limits on the concept of religious freedom. I'm sure the original goal of the Church/State collaboration was intended only to ensure freedom for Christians, but as history shows it's inevitable that the dynamic led to severe restrictions on the worship of others. Claiming that one religious is essential to the common good, by default means limiting freedom of religion.

[Doom]

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.

[peregrinator]

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"

[peregrinator]

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.

[peregrinator]

Please read what I say in its context.

I think I am?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

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.