This essay was unsuccessfully submitted to a Catholic website in March 2022. The Twitter accounted cited in the first footnote is currently suspended.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has triggered criticism of what some call “Integralism.“[1] The meaning of the term is thus put into dispute. According to a common source, Integralism is “the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible.”[2] The critics, however, assign motives to Russia which are distinct from the Catholic faith.
The critics therefore must use a different definition of Integralism. It seems they use the definition found among opponents of Integralism generally. These opponents equate Integralism with governmental coercion in religious matters. Hence if Russia’s government is perceived to be both authoritarian and religious, its actions are attributed to Integralism.
There are many examples of the general use. One opponent repeatedly warns about Integralism under titles such as: “The Appeal of Catholic Sharia.”[3] Another asks: “How is the Moral Minuscule Minority going to impose its will on the rest of us, exactly?”[4] There is the usual assertion that the Catholic Church has shown a “growing appreciation of fundamental human rights rooted in the dignity of the human person and the natural law, including religious freedom and freedom from coercion in matters of conscience. The latter was formally enshrined in the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom, ‘Dignitatis [h]umanae.'”[5] There is also the usual charge: “Integralism clearly breaks with Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty and expresses a commitment to the political disenfranchisement (or worse) of women, sexual minorities, and non-Catholics.”[6]
As these examples show, the opponents of Integralism rely on their definition to frame the attack. After placing coercion at the heart of the matter, they respond with liberalism. And frequently enough, they maintain the Church adopted liberalism at the Second Vatican Council.
The attack therefore raises two issues, both of which should be examined to evaluate the opponents’ definition. The first is the use of governmental coercion in religious matters. The second is the state of Catholic teaching on such coercion.
Starting with governmental coercion, one fact appreciated less by theoreticians than by those in practical affairs is the inevitability of it. Governments coerce by definition. Even if coercion could be avoided in a sinless world, it is unavoidable in the fallen world.
If the opponents of Integralism know this, they must believe religious matters are immune from governmental coercion. Governments, however, exercise coercion to prevent or resolve disputes. And religious matters are notoriously open to dispute.
In the United States, for example, how many priests, nuns, and crucifixes may a Catholic school have and still receive state funds?[7] Can members of a native American religion use psychoactive plants in their worship?[8] Can a Catholic parish increase the size of its church in a historical district?[9]
Again, must a Christian baker produce products for a same-sex wedding?[10] Must a Catholic religious order pay for contraceptive services?[11] Must employees accept a vaccine produced with fetal cells obtained by abortion?[12]
All of these questions were addressed by governmental coercion. Under the “case or controversy” requirement of the United States Constitution, courts may consider only those disputes remediable by governmental coercion. The power to order a remedy is a premise of judicial authority.
This means religious matters are already subject to governmental coercion in the United States. Do you believe in jihad? The government disagrees. Do you believe in ritual suicide or human sacrifice? The government disagrees. How about polygamy or polyandry? The government disagrees, at least for now. Do you believe in atheism? The government facially disagrees, confronting you with its official motto, “In God We Trust,” on currency and official buildings.
The rule is the same for all governments. By the nature of things, they cannot entirely avoid coercion in religious matters. Governments therefore have one issue to address—where to draw the line. The teaching of the Catholic Church on that issue is considered next.
The most important aspect of governmental coercion is its source. On behalf of what or whom does the government coerce? Every actor acts of necessity on behalf of something or someone, even if it is it-, him- or herself.
According to Catholic teaching, a government which coerces justly does so on behalf of God. One need not worry here about the Constantinian turn or medieval political theory. One can simply read Scripture:
“Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore—he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.”[13]
The next question is who speaks for God? Once again, Scripture gives the answer. Jesus said:
“[T]hou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”[14]
Jesus gave the same authority to the Apostles as a group.[15] He then directed them to convert the entire world:
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”[16]
The Catholic Church, as is well known, believes herself to bear this authority and mission. She has therefore always told governments their duties and their limits:
“Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man: Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.'”[17]
Such claims to Church authority terrify some people. They prefer a world of religious neutrality where the good life is based on political and economic bargaining. That can work for a while, especially among people who are fundamentally homogenous. Where there are few religious disputes, governments have little to decide. In the long run, however, governments must choose for or against God. Neutrality cannot last in this life because there is none in the next: “There are two Ways: a Way of Life and a Way of Death, and the difference between these two Ways is great.”[18]
This means that absent Church authority governments will, as just stated, “arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny.” This passage from The Catechism of the Catholic Church is amplified by an encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum:
“[O]nce ascribe to human reason the only authority to decide what is true and what is good, and the real distinction between good and evil is destroyed; honor and dishonor differ not in their nature, but in the opinion and judgment of each one; pleasure is the measure of what is lawful; and, given a code of morality which can have little or no power to restrain or quiet the unruly propensities of man, a way is naturally opened to universal corruption. With reference also to public affairs: authority is severed from the true and natural principle whence it derives all its efficacy for the common good; and the law determining what it is right to do and avoid doing is at the mercy of a majority. Now, this is simply a road leading straight to tyranny. The empire of God over man and civil society once repudiated, it follows that religion, as a public institution, can have no claim to exist, and that everything that belongs to religion will be treated with complete indifference. Furthermore, with ambitious designs on sovereignty, tumult and sedition will be common amongst the people; and when duty and conscience cease to appeal to them, there will be nothing to hold them back but force, which of itself alone is powerless to keep their covetousness in check. Of this we have almost daily evidence in the conflict with socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to bring about revolution. It is for those, then, who are capable of forming a just estimate of things to decide whether such doctrines promote that true liberty which alone is worthy of man, or rather, pervert and destroy it.”[19]
Thus while the opponents of Integralism expect the Spanish Inquisition when governments recognize the authority of the Church, they get the New World Order when governments do not. A clever opponent might point out that Pope Francis is promoting the New World Order, but historically popes who sought undue political influence were resisted by Catholic rulers.[20] Without Catholic states, who can mount effective resistance to a political pope?
Another aspect of the papacy is its historical involvement in direct temporal rule. The opponents of Integralism would presumably be horrified if the Papal States returned, but politics is a practical art. One rationale for the Papal States was the protection they afforded the papacy. People understood that if the popes were not temporal rulers, they would become mere chaplains to the emperors. The Papal States are now gone, and although the emperors are also gone, is not Pope Francis functioning as a chaplain to the globalists? And is not that worse than seeing him struggle with temporal rule?
Indeed, one can only suspect the superb application of Catholic doctrine to practical affairs shown in Libertas praestantissimum and the other encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII, for example Immortale Dei, is attributable in part to his experience as a civil governor in the Papal States.[21] Catholic teaching on Church and State must accurately portray both, and Leo XIII had experience with each. That is no longer the case.
The opponents of Integralism finally seem to believe, along with almost everyone else, that traditional Catholic teaching on governmental coercion in religious matters changed with Dignitatis humanae. This document of the Second Vatican Council does seem to change the traditional doctrine. But it also says it leaves the traditional doctrine “untouched.”[22]
The contradiction just mentioned is not the only one in the document, and in this writer’s opinion such rhetorical failures render Dignitatis humanae meaningless.[23] But nothing stops a reader from selecting certain passages and attributing to the whole the meaning of a part. This method of interpretation does not respect the Second Vatican Council’s choice of literary form—a unified declaration lacking discrete canons and anathemas as used in prior councils—but it is typical.
So, adopting the typical method to better understand the opponents, Dignitatis humanae uses “coercion” eleven times, each in a pejorative sense. The first use and the last summarize the rest:
“A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty.”[24]
“Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free from all manner of coercion in matters religious.”[25]
The progressive tone of these sentences is their most prominent feature. Humans have come to understand themselves in ways not available to prior generations. The current stigmatization of coercion is proper because the times they are a-changin’.
The opponents of Integralism who impute this meaning to Dignitatis humanae must deal with several points. First, they must explain how a government can avoid coercion in religious matters. If they admit coercion will occur, they must explain how a government can maintain religious neutrality over time. If they cannot explain that, they must admit a government will either coerce for or against the Church.
If they admit so much, the questions are: 1) How can a government be expected to coerce for the Church if it does not recognize her? 2) How can the Church retain her liberty if a government coerces against her? The answers to these questions are not favorable to the opponents of Integralism in either the logical or practical realm.
And so things naturally lead to this question: Why do the opponents of Integralism focus so intently on coercion? The definition which began this essay, “the principle that the Catholic faith should be the basis of public law and public policy within civil society, wherever the preponderance of Catholics within that society makes this possible,” is much more hopeful, focusing instead on the liberty of the Church. In other words, will the opponents of Integralism allow Catholics to live as they wish if they ever get the chance?
[1] Benedict Carter, Twitter, February 28, 2022; Daniel Schultz, “Kirill’s Sermon May Be Bad Preaching And Even Worse Theology—But It’s A Top-Notch Rejection of Liberal Democracy,” Religion Dispatches, March 7, 2022; Ed Condon, “Who’s Buying Vigano’s Russkiy-integralism?,” The Pillar, March 8, 2022
[3] John Zmirak, The Stream, April 30, 2021
[4] Robert Verbruggen, “How Many Integralists Can There Possibly Be?,” National Review, April 2, 2020
[5] Kevin Augustyn, “The Integralist Argument is Wrong, Even if You’re Catholic,” Discourse, January 27, 2022
[6] Timothy Troutner, “The New Integralists,” Commonweal, October 28, 2020
[7] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
[8] Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)
[9] City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)
[10] Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Com’m, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018)
[11] Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S.Ct. 2367 (2020)
[12] National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 142 S.Ct. 661 (2022)
[17] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2244, citing Centesimus Annus, 45-46
[19] Libertas praestantissimum (simply “Libertas” on the Vatican website) 16
[20] See, e.g., Brian Tierney, The Crisis of Church & State 1050-1300 (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964)
[21] U. Benigni, “Pope Leo XIII,” The Catholic Encyclopedia
[23] John Andra, “Does Dignitatis Humanae Mean Anything?,” The Remnant, February 22, 2022