Time for the Best Definition Ever
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.
Did Cardinal Bellrmine use the term “integralism,” or is this terminology modern? Who first uses the term integralism to describe this theory?