I wonder about the distinction you draw between (1) individual integralists who aren’t a threat to Jewish people and (2) an integralist regime which is a threat to Jewish people. I don’t see how this distinction marks a “world of difference.” It seems to be saying that individual integralists aren’t a threat to Jewish people because the regime they want to create will never come about. How would this be different from saying individual neo-Nazis are not a threat to Jewish people because they’ll never succeed in creating the kind of regime they want? To be clear, I’m not saying integralists are neo-Nazis (although they may very well be fascists); I’m saying a distinction between what integralists intend and what they can realistically achieve is not relevant for evaluating integralism. Indeed, I think from the point of view of Catholic moral theology, the character of an agent’s intention (the object of the act) is extremely relevant, usually decisive, in arriving at the correct moral evaluation.
Kevin, I hope you do not mind my using your comment section to ask seminar questions.
On p. 34, you write that Integralists assert 3 rights to rule. It strikes me that they parallel those of a Leninist party. For example: 1) The government of the People's Republic rules Chinese citizens. 2) The CCP rules Communist Party members. 3) The CCP rules the PRC government. Am I missing something?
Kevin, I applaud this.
An unrelated question. I am in Ch 1 of All the Kingdoms. You mention that early on, there was a group of "left integralists" who had, I assume, a different view of the common good. What happened to them? Can you supply some names/links to their writings? Thanks.