Reading Adrian Vermeule’s Integralism Charitably
A Response to Edward Feser
Catholic integralism is a rich political theory prominent on the New Right. It presumes that human beings have a temporal and eternal good. It also claims that the eternal good has more importance, and so should shape our earthly good. Historical integralists have made three claims about human government based on these principles.
God authorizes the nation-state to pursue the temporal common good of its citizens.
God authorizes the Church to pursue the supernatural common good of its citizens. (corporate salvation in Christ)
The Church may sometimes direct Christian states to enforce its spiritual policies against all baptized persons in their domain.
To illustrate, suppose the Church excommunicates a heretic who then refuses to repent. Under integralism, the Church could direct the state to punish the heretic with physical coercion.
Adrian Vermeule is arguably the leader of the new Catholic integralism. He has said, however, little to defend integralism as a political ideal. He has left that to figures like Thomas Pink, Edmund Waldstein, and others. Instead, he focuses on formulating a strategy to reach a point in our political debate where integralism would be viable. And here, he has been enormously influential.
In my recent book, All the Kingdoms of the World, I criticize Vermeule’s strategic writings. I argue that he faces a dilemma: his strategy might lead to integralism, but only by violating Catholic moral teaching. Vermeule must choose between his morals and his agenda. Integralists must either compromise their ethics or abandon their political goals.
There I am clear, however, that Vermeule does not advocate violence or authoritarianism.
On Feser’s Accusation that I Strawman Vermeule
Edward Feser, the great Catholic philosopher, and my undergraduate mentor, makes several claims that make it sound as if I think Vermeule endorses violence and authoritarianism. Feser does note at one point that I say Vermeule does not want coercion. But that leaves the impression that I only say this in passing.
Consider two of Feser’s remarks:
What could be further from the ruthlessly doctrinaire and violent ‘Thomist-Leninist’ revolutionary program Vallier absurdly attributes to Vermeule?
…
The reader might be wondering exactly where Vermeule sets out this extreme, bloodthirsty, and indeed unhinged program for action.
I never impute such things to Vermeule. The reason I made seven claims about Vermeule and violence was to forestall objections like those Feser implies.
As evidence, consider five claims I make in my book, all of which Feser omits:
“Integralism can be put into practice only by methods that most integralists disapprove.” (117)
“Vermeule would not suppress liberalism with violence.” (134)
“Vermeule must insist that his agents follow [Catholic] ethical constraints.” (136)
“I am not saying that integralists relish violence, but I am saying that victory requires violence.” (137)
“Vermeule has publicly declaimed all such [violent] tactics.”* (147)
These passages show that I’m not attributing to Vermeule an “unhinged program for action” or a “ruthlessly doctrinaire and violent ‘Thomist-Leninist revolutionary program.” Feser’s rhetorical flourishes mislead the reader.
Feser also says, “The false impression given by this procedure is that Vermeule has somewhere advocated the harrowing plan Vallier describes.” But given how frequently I claim that Vermeule does not want violence, I’m not giving a false impression. I chose my words carefully and did what I could to place them in obvious parts of the chapter.
At a minimum, these passages should suffice to worry readers about Feser’s review.
I would now like to answer some of Feser’s other criticisms.
Extreme Versions of Integralism?
Feser contends that I critique only the extreme and most coercive version of integralism. Not so. I consider what he calls “soft” and “hard” versions of integralism. The “soft” integralist position holds that integralism is the best form of government but that we should probably never try to reach it. The “hard” integralist position says we can and should pursue integralism here and now. Feser says I argue only against the “hard” integralist position in the book. This is true in chapter 4 but not afterward.
I argue against soft integralism in chapter 5. I say that integralism will destabilize even if we could reach a point in our polity where it would be viable. I also say integralism is unstable regardless of how much coercion it uses. Indeed, I built this point into my model of integralist stability. Destabilization occurs in both low-coercion and high-coercion forms of integralism.
On the Justice Argument
In addition, on the topic of justice, integralists face a dilemma. In my view, they can’t reconcile two claims:
Forcing people into the Church is always unjust.
Forcing people to remain in the Church is often just.
Integralists claim baptism makes forcing people to remain in the Church just. But I argue baptism cannot do this.
Feser claims baptism gives us a new final end, an ultimate aim: union with God. That new end creates obligations in the baptized, apart from their consent. But Feser does not specify to whom the baptized owe their new obligations. Of course, the baptized have obligations to the Church. But that does not explain their obligations to obey an integralist nation-state. Integralists nevertheless claim that baptism makes us subject to both Church and state. Feser does not address that point, even though I discuss it in the book.
A natural response from integralists is that the Church can authorize the state to use civil coercion to help enforce its spiritual policies. In chapter 6, I argue that this cannot occur. The Church lacks the authority to use physical coercion. If so, it cannot give the state authority it does not possess.
I hope this clarifies my position, and I thank Ed Feser for his thoughtful engagement. I look forward to a fruitful dialogue. But I have not misrepresented Vermeule, as I have demonstrated.
For further discussion, see my Substack (to be published Wednesday).
*The word should be “rejects,” an error in the book.