What is Integralism?
Time for the Best Definition Ever
In this post, I provide a simple definition of integralism that is superior to more familiar ones. It is even better than the three-sentence definition that is most well-known. Here, for the uninitiated:
Catholic Integralism is a tradition of thought that, rejecting the liberal separation of politics from concern with the end of human life, holds that political rule must order man to his final goal. Since, however, man has both a temporal and an eternal end, integralism holds that there are two powers that rule him: a temporal power and a spiritual power. And since man’s temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end, the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power.
This definition is problematic as it defines integralism against liberalism. It uses a distorted account of liberalism too. And it incorporates moral judgments. A better definition avoids these faults. It should also encapsulate what historical figures defended.
What Kind of Thing is Integralism? Ideal, Goodness, Authority
I see integralism as a kind of ideal theory. It is a theory of the best human regime or at least a limit on the set of the best human regimes. But these are all regimes that contain the reality of the Fall. So integralist ideal theory differs from ideal theory in liberal and socialist thought.
Integralism is also a theory of the human good – individual and social. The justification for the integrated church-state is to promote the whole common good. This “dyarchy” advances both parts of the common good--temporal and eternal.
Integralism is also a theory of political authority. God authorizes the church and state to advance the whole good of the human person and the entire common good. Authority comes from God by way of these moral criteria.
Integralism Defined
With that, let’s define integralism with three claims. I use variables to convey that integralism can take a diversity of forms. That said, to be an integralist is to hold the following:
Natural authority: God directs the state to advance the natural common good, G, of a community, C.
Supernatural authority: God directs the church to advance the supernatural common good, S, of all baptized persons in C.
Indirect supernatural sovereignty: to advance S, and only for this reason, the church may mandate state policies, P, backed by civil penalties, E, that advance S directly (i.e., not merely by advancing G) without excessively undermining G or S in some other respect.
The first two conditions are easy to understand. God grants secular rulers the authority to foster the natural common good. The natural common good is essential for earthly flourishing. Further, one can grasp its authority through reason. God also endows ecclesiastical rulers with related authority. Their role is to promote the supernatural common good of the community of the baptized. These common goods, essential for eternal prosperity, come to us through revelation, as well as our knowledge of these goods.
The Indirect Power
The third condition makes integralism unique. Most Christian theologians believe that God empowers the church and the state. Both have divine authority to rule in their own domains. Theologians also agree that the church has a nobler mission than the state. But integralists diverge from even most traditional Catholics in a particular way. They think the church's higher end has implications for political sovereignty. States can threaten the church's mission. The church must accordingly have some authority over them.
The church cannot have total political authority. God grants secular rulers authority directly, including infidel kings. But, for the integralist, God cannot deny all temporal authority to the church. The church is, by God's design, a perfect society. It is a society that, in principle, has no defect. It must therefore have all the powers required to fulfill its mission. That includes the authority to require states to help advance the church's spiritual ends.
The pope and his bishops have what Cardinal Robert Bellarmine called indirect power. I define it as indirect sovereignty in supernatural affairs—indirect supernatural sovereignty. These terms are more precise. Our question concerns authority and not mere power. (Contemporary English has lost the idea of a moral power as an authority.)
The indirect power means that the pope and his bishops can direct state law and policy to some extent. That includes apt forms of punishment. But the church only has such authority on spiritual matters.
Integralist Regimes
Notice that integralism does not stipulate how states should make laws and policies. A society can have an integralist monarchy or an integralist democracy. But dogma largely fixes the legal structure of the church.
I'll add two more points. Ideally, the church will not wield its indirect sovereignty in private. Societies should exercise power in public view. And the church's reasoning should become part of the reason of the public. This power should also respect the rule of both civil and canon law. It should operate in a regular and predictable manner. If so, state constitutions should incorporate indirect sovereignty. Integralism thus implies that an ideal, yet sinful, regime should constitutionalize the church's indirect power.
Centering Cardinal Bellarmine
Second, I've elevated Cardinal Robert Bellarmine's defense of integralism over contemporary figures. Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church and a saint, holds high authority. His writings remain influential within the Catholic Church. He defended integralism in a profound and public manner that influenced political practice. Early 20th-century Catholic theologians recognized Bellarmine's work in political theology. Liberals like John Courtney Murray felt compelled to engage with Bellarmine's thought.
Moreover, today’s leading integralists greatly admire Bellarmine. That includes Thomas Pink, who has published extensively on Bellarmine. Adrian Vermeule too. Vermeule's Twitter handle blends his name with Bellarmine's (@Vermeullarmine).
Some initial thoughts: How does #3 of the redefinition avoid a moral judgment? It includes the word “may,” which seems to be a replacement for “ought,” at least in order for #3 to represent integralism.
Also, the links to Pater Edmund’s “Three Sentences” definition include many historical figures and their thoughts about integralism.
Lastly, I don’t think the rejection of liberalism is a formal part of the definition, but serves a more pedagogical purpose. That is, X is not Y (with which an average reader might be more familiar), but rather, X is Z, and if Z, then not Y follows.
I’m looking forward to the time and opportunity to read your forthcoming book!
As stated, the last sentence of the definition seems wrong because it lacks appropriate qualification; as it stands, it commits a logical fallacy, and perhaps more immediately to the point, its unqualified nature overlooks the fact that many integralists seem to envision a situation in which the relation between the spiritual power and the temporal power is more indirect, the spiritual power taking precedence only when the spiritual ends actually require it. On integralism, the temporal ends and spiritual ends have to be integrated rather than disjoint (which is the most direct thing that makes integralism anti-liberal); the spiritual ends take priority (which is the point on which integralists usually have the loudest gripes against actual liberal societies); but by the very nature of an integralist scheme of government, both the temporal and the spiritual powers have the spiritual ends as ends. The temporal power just has the spiritual ends more indirectly. To hold that the temporal power only has temporal ends would be inconsistent with the whole point of integralism -- it literally would be a rejection of the 'integral' part -- and therefore one cannot immediately conclude that the temporal power is in every way subordinate to the spiritual power on the basis of the superiority of the spiritual ends to the temporal ends. This is a possible form of integralism, but one could also hold that the temporal power may sometimes have superiority where the spiritual ends allow for it to do so, or that the spiritual power only ever has a veto rather than any direct superordination. It's not anti-integralist to hold that the Church can't directly dictate to the State how to regulate traffic, or any number of other standard temporal-power functions.