I haven't followed the debate very closely either - it does seem to be quite specifically American - but it's interesting to me that what I've seen never refers to either of the two existing examples of Catholic integralist states from the 20th century West: Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland. Both attempted exactly what the integralists seem to want, which is a state turned to Catholic ends. I live in Ireland, and even today the state and Church are legally intertwined. But the news from both countries is bad: the state corrupted the church and vice versa. Here in Ireland the legacy of Magdalen laundries and a deeply oppressive version of Catholicism, backed up by the heavy hand of the state, has caused a counter-reaction so big that Ireland has become, in the blink of an eye, Europe's most progressive-integralist state instead. Here today we celebrate Pride month loudly and proudly, cheer on abortion, and were the first EU state to legalise gender self-recognition. The Catholic constitution is ritually shredded year on year and nobody but the old respects the Church, or even listens to it. I think the Catholic integralist state destroyed the Irish church. Be careful what you wish for, intellectuals ...
It seems to me that you hit on the key--restoring the virtue of the people. Trying to do that by installing a new operating system into the state, or installing a new type of inherently-virtuous state artificially that will by itself make the people virtuous, is a fool's errand. Any such desirable change will have to happen organically, probably after cataclysm and catastrophe of some sort (using the James Poulos typology of catastrophe-cataclysm-apocalypse, the latter in its sense of unveiling).
I'm a Catholic of the sort who tend to be at least intrigued by Integralism, and I agree with much of what you say. Technocratic Catholicism would share many of the failings of technocratic progressivism, and as you are (I think) mainly against technocracy and not a Catholic, it might be just as bad from your perspective.
Two counterpoints spring to mind, however. Firstly, I think Integralism is one of those things that can be wildly overstated in its presentation while being quite obvious, even unobjectionable, in essence. All Governments have to govern according to some set of principles/values or other - otherwise they simply could not choose between alternative policies. You need some sort of criteria by which one course of action is judged to be preferable to another. All Catholics should surely agree that where possible the government should act according to Catholic principles, at least to the extent that a reasonable consensus can be formed across society which aligns with those principles. In this weaker sense, the West was broadly Integralist until the mid-20th century: governments at least claimed to govern according to widely held Christian principles. In England well into the nineteenth century you could not hold public office, go to university, hold a commission in the army or join a profession unless you were a professed Anglican, so Anglican Integralism is part of our recent history.
Secondly, if the best we can hope for is a choice between different forms of technocracy I suppose a Catholic technocracy would be favourable to a progressive one: I would rather be nudged towards going to church, getting married and having children than away from them. But in a fantasy world in which Catholic integralism became a reality in anything other than the weak form outlined above I would hope that reducing technocracy so as to allow more scope for human flourishing would be one of its primary aims.
Isn't the baleful truth that there is no foreseeable solution to Western Liberalism's 21st c. sickness.... other than to observe that it's current trajectory is like that of Icarus?
I, too, have found Vermeule one of the most perceptive critics of liberalism. But Vermeule was committed to the legitimacy and desirability of the administrative state before he was an integralist. I've found it helpful to read other integralist authors who do not have (or at least do not express) this prior commitment.
Integralists themselves tend to present "integralism" as an alternative to "liberalism," rather than explicitly identifying their own school with one regime-form and contrasting it with another regime-form. So, we might ask: what is the relation between "liberalism" and a specific form of government? It's not nothing; nor is it everything.
Integralism, unlike the classical political philosophers, is not primarily concerned with particular regime-forms. However, like Aristotle, the pre-liberal or integralist tradition of Catholic political thought gives wide latitude to human prudence in determining the proper regime. (See below.) In this respect it is less doctrinaire, and more "classical" or "pre-modern," than modern political philosophy, to say nothing of current ideology. In determining the best regime for a particular community, much depends on what Aristotle calls "presuppositions": the moral character of the population, their traditions, their foibles, their economic situation, their geographic conditions, etc. From what I've read, integralists are as ready to affirm this as Aristotle is. There are monarchies and republics, federations and centralized states, city-states and empires that would embody an integralist society ... and versions of each of these that would contradict them.
One could imagine a nation with the habits of self-government and widespread Catholic faith instituting and maintaining a regime which, in the scope and purpose of its legislation and in its relation to the Catholic ecclesial hierarchy, embodied integralist principles. Or, one could imagine such a nation that instead embodied liberal principles.
In brief, I don't think there is anything in integralism as such that commits it to the administrative-managerial state.
----
Some examples of Leo XIII, who I think both advocates and critics of integralism would recognize as a prominent figure within the integralist tradition, discussing regime diversity:
“There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage” —Diuturnum Illud (1881) §7
“The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to ensure the general welfare. [...] No one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, if wisely and justly managed, to insure the welfare of the State. [...] In matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful” —Immortale Dei (1885), §4, 36, 47
I would offer the observation that "integralism," historically, is not necessarily tied to the modern administrative state. So there could well be some present-day advocates for integralism whose positions are not subject to the criticism you present (or imply) here.
That being said, to my knowledge, all of the (currently, publicly) prominent integralists do seem to be imagining that existing political institutions could be turned to post-counter-Reformation Catholic ends. I don't find this *necessarily* implausible -- but I say that with a reservation so enormous as to render the admission almost meaningless.
As I've argued elsewhere, "secularism" isn't "secular" -- it is, itself, a religion (let's call it "Modernity"), and the current (progressive, managerial) liberalism is a sect thereof. So certainly, the administrative state *can* inculcate a religion -- it does so with every Gender Unicorn, Earth Day, Pledge of Allegiance, and Fourth of July.
As you see, according to the integralists, the problem is not the form and mode of operation of state institutions, but the ends -- the religion -- at which they are directed. Just re-direct them towards Catholic ends, and all will be well. You doubt this, and indeed, it is easy to find writings of the fathers and doctors of the church, lives of the saints, that would justify your doubt. However, I offer that Vermeule, et al., could justify themselves no less readily (and have done) with other writings, lives, and traditions of Roman Catholicism, which teach that there ought indeed to be some compulsion so as to save souls, that virtue can indeed be taught paternalistically, that adherence to detailed rules and requirements can indeed go a long way towards conforming the recalcitrant (or the simple) to the life of grace. While each individual must take the final steps, they can be marched in formation pretty far along the path. Having been raised Catholic, I am not surprised that some might have this interpretation.
And after all that, the enormous reservation that I mentioned above: who would implement this program? This is what renders present-day integralism risible. The vast majority even of American Catholics don't even adhere to Roman Catholicism; probably the majority don't really know what it entails. Thus the analogy to Leninism is inapt. If U.S. society had been riven with revolutionary movements for decades, and if, at the same time, the leadership and chattering classes viewed strict Christian practice as the wave of the future and the answer to all of our problems, then okay -- maybe a specifically Roman Catholic version of this elite consensus could come out of left field, seize the institutional machinery, and obtain the acquiescence of the population. But none of these conditions hold.
Thanks, Matt, for your excellent post. I'm glad--though not surprised--that it's sparked such a lively and intelligent discussion. You've got a great community of conversation here.
A few commenters have pointed out that one can affirm something like "integralism" (a definitionally slippery beast, to be sure) without endorsing technocratic nudging or the administrative state. This observation is true, of course, but it doesn't suffice to clear "integralists" of the charge of (at least tacitly) taking over a basic assumption of technocracy: the assumption that power is a kind of standing reserve of coercive energy waiting for someone to apply it ("rationally") to achieving the "right" ends.
My point isn't that all self-described "integralists" automatically make this assumption. My point is that it's extremely hard for anyone who has grown up in the modern cave not to make it, because it's part of the intellectual air we modern people breathe.
This leads me to another point that occurred to me yesterday. Before I state this point, let me clear that it's not about the psychology of all "integralists." Rather, it's about a trap the "integralists" (and anyone else) should be eager to avoid if they wish to keep their proposal from being warped by the ontology of power I criticized just now.
The trap I have in mind, then, is the (at least tacit) belief that the "temporal" order is inherently secular, inherently devoid of anything sacred, inherently empty of anything pertaining or pointing to the divine.
Once this belief is lodged in the mind, it's hard, if not impossible, to see Godwardness as arising naturally from within the "temporal" order and its affairs. By the same token, it becomes that much easier to think it's the Church's job to supply the missing Godwardness--not by helping to bring it to expression from within the nature of the "temporal" where, ex hypothesi, it has no proper place, but in the only way left in this scenario: by managing or manipulating it into being from the outside.
Within this framework, then, the Church expresses her distinction from political society (and other "temporal" realities) by forcefully introducing Godwardness into it from the outside.
But there is more. For how would the Church do this . . . except by taking advantage of, and so conforming itself to, the same supposedly god-less, supposedly purely secular power that, ex hypothesi, is the only kind available for getting anything done within the "temporal" sphere? But god-less, purely secular power (if it existed) would (in my view) be virtually indistinguishable from the standing reserve of coercive energy I mentioned earlier. By the same token, the Church's attempt to exploit such power for the sake of Godwardness would back her into something very much like trying to play God's technocrat--both to her detriment and to that of the "temporal order" whose integrity she is supposed to love and nurture.
Not surprisingly I really enjoyed this piece (as I enjoy your work generally) and grateful that you are considering political theological matters (just because it’s of personal interest).
I think your point is a reiteration of St. Augustine of Hippo’s point about the libido Dominandi, which is inherent in all of us and affects not only our politics but are individual souls. The reiteration is important because it’s perceived through this side of history where we have a ruling class, who do not want to be entirely perceived as ruling. Rather, want to be seen as doing what is objectively good or specifically stating that we are ruled by law and this ruled by no one. The fact is, as grateful I am for some aspects of liberalism, it only obfuscates the dangers of the libido Dominandi and does not redeem it (naturally, as a Christian, born catholic, I would unlikely ever be able to
Identify a redemption of a human institution outside of Christ’s salvation but I do think the point remains solidly).
Another further interesting point is that it places the integralists in the same position as Slavoj Zizek places his revolutionary tendencies, he’s not interested intellectually about the revolution but what comes on the very next day (he jokes that he would sell his mother to see V for Vendetta 2).
Dear Matt, I find your article, even as a theologian and philosopher who has taken seriously the difference between integralism and "Integration" (Hans Urs von Balthasar) and the "critique of political theology" (Benedict XVI), interesting and sympathetic, and it captures a truly brilliant question: can a integralist theology redeem/use liberalism? Could I publish it under your name in my Italian blog? Thank you, Roberto
I have come to understand that the Christian is to think locally, act locally.
God puts us, I think, where he wants us to be doing Christ's work, so that our mission field is always where we are. Christ's instructions to us did not include grasping for political power.
While I believe we are to take part in elections, we are not to politicize our faith in a vain attempt to force God's kingdom on earth ahead of his schedule. Instead, we work locally where the need is now.
Integralism is just another intellectual justification for control over human society. The auto de fe's of the Inquisition and Savonarola's bonfire of the vanities were derived from the same psychological drives that produced gulags, concentration camps and now woke cancel culture.
I had a conversation with Villanova philo professor re this topic a month or so ago. He argues that we can use the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as a kind of "moral external processing unit" due to the fact that it "results" in human beings living exemplary lives if followed(it is a "machine" which produces saints). This is, or should be, the true push of Integralism...the replacing of the false neutrality of the Liberal "public square"(which eventually resulted in morally chaotic mass self deification) with one where a basic Christian moral framework is the default. Basically a reinstating of that which was taken for granted at the founding...except with less of a Protestant internalism(which is too subjectivist) and, instead ,relying upon the longer standing Catholic vision. https://thecultureoflifepodcast.com/episodes/villanova-philosophy-professor-stephen-napier-part-2
Professor Napier talks about this part in the second half, the first half is about "bodily autonomy" arguments for abortion.
You're not wrong! Directionally correct, for sure. "The scope for meaningful action by citizens has become so constricted that people don’t enjoy real ownership of their world". Thumotic.... Had to look it up. Yup, that's what I want, to make the world safe for thumos/thymos. And, of course, there is Cass Sunstein. He writes too much. He runs circles around people with his intelligent words/thoughts so he can tie them up in knots. He has no soul. Give me Van Morrison - astral journeys, chivalry, quests. On the materialists' side, remember, the Catholics hold tremendous assets, both physical and financial. They may be loosing adherents in western worlds, but the Church knows it needs to protect its wealth, and what better way to do it, than to climb on board the modern administrative state and forge a public/private/religious partnership. Makes sense to me!
A bunch of nonsense from a doomer defeatist. A Theo-Technate is the only way forward towards the Great Catholic Monarch, a Neo-HRE and how to push back the Antichrist yet another generation. Does not matter how miniscule the adherents seem. Remember that a minority defeated Arianism.
Interesting - what did Jesus say about his kingdom? Over and above this, the "technocratic" idea puts the State in the position held by God's saving grace, which strikes me as dangerous sacrilege. It's the Holy Spirit which "nudges" Christians, not some sort of programmed technological automaton, it's the difference between techne and scientia.
I haven't followed the debate very closely either - it does seem to be quite specifically American - but it's interesting to me that what I've seen never refers to either of the two existing examples of Catholic integralist states from the 20th century West: Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland. Both attempted exactly what the integralists seem to want, which is a state turned to Catholic ends. I live in Ireland, and even today the state and Church are legally intertwined. But the news from both countries is bad: the state corrupted the church and vice versa. Here in Ireland the legacy of Magdalen laundries and a deeply oppressive version of Catholicism, backed up by the heavy hand of the state, has caused a counter-reaction so big that Ireland has become, in the blink of an eye, Europe's most progressive-integralist state instead. Here today we celebrate Pride month loudly and proudly, cheer on abortion, and were the first EU state to legalise gender self-recognition. The Catholic constitution is ritually shredded year on year and nobody but the old respects the Church, or even listens to it. I think the Catholic integralist state destroyed the Irish church. Be careful what you wish for, intellectuals ...
This is pretty much precisely right for the Vermeule strains of integralism, and a tight general criticism. There are other strands (e.g., that analyzed by Andrew Willard Jones in "Before Church and State," about the times of Louis IX; https://theworthyhouse.com/2018/12/22/book-review-before-church-and-state-a-study-of-social-order-in-the-sacramental-kingdom-of-st-louis-ix-andrew-willard-jones/). But those suffer from that we are not medieval France.
It seems to me that you hit on the key--restoring the virtue of the people. Trying to do that by installing a new operating system into the state, or installing a new type of inherently-virtuous state artificially that will by itself make the people virtuous, is a fool's errand. Any such desirable change will have to happen organically, probably after cataclysm and catastrophe of some sort (using the James Poulos typology of catastrophe-cataclysm-apocalypse, the latter in its sense of unveiling).
I'm a Catholic of the sort who tend to be at least intrigued by Integralism, and I agree with much of what you say. Technocratic Catholicism would share many of the failings of technocratic progressivism, and as you are (I think) mainly against technocracy and not a Catholic, it might be just as bad from your perspective.
Two counterpoints spring to mind, however. Firstly, I think Integralism is one of those things that can be wildly overstated in its presentation while being quite obvious, even unobjectionable, in essence. All Governments have to govern according to some set of principles/values or other - otherwise they simply could not choose between alternative policies. You need some sort of criteria by which one course of action is judged to be preferable to another. All Catholics should surely agree that where possible the government should act according to Catholic principles, at least to the extent that a reasonable consensus can be formed across society which aligns with those principles. In this weaker sense, the West was broadly Integralist until the mid-20th century: governments at least claimed to govern according to widely held Christian principles. In England well into the nineteenth century you could not hold public office, go to university, hold a commission in the army or join a profession unless you were a professed Anglican, so Anglican Integralism is part of our recent history.
Secondly, if the best we can hope for is a choice between different forms of technocracy I suppose a Catholic technocracy would be favourable to a progressive one: I would rather be nudged towards going to church, getting married and having children than away from them. But in a fantasy world in which Catholic integralism became a reality in anything other than the weak form outlined above I would hope that reducing technocracy so as to allow more scope for human flourishing would be one of its primary aims.
Isn't the baleful truth that there is no foreseeable solution to Western Liberalism's 21st c. sickness.... other than to observe that it's current trajectory is like that of Icarus?
I, too, have found Vermeule one of the most perceptive critics of liberalism. But Vermeule was committed to the legitimacy and desirability of the administrative state before he was an integralist. I've found it helpful to read other integralist authors who do not have (or at least do not express) this prior commitment.
Integralism proposes a particular relation between our temporal and spiritual ends, and the proper relation between the temporal and spiritual powers that rule us: https://thejosias.com/2016/10/17/integralism-in-three-sentences/
Integralists themselves tend to present "integralism" as an alternative to "liberalism," rather than explicitly identifying their own school with one regime-form and contrasting it with another regime-form. So, we might ask: what is the relation between "liberalism" and a specific form of government? It's not nothing; nor is it everything.
Integralism, unlike the classical political philosophers, is not primarily concerned with particular regime-forms. However, like Aristotle, the pre-liberal or integralist tradition of Catholic political thought gives wide latitude to human prudence in determining the proper regime. (See below.) In this respect it is less doctrinaire, and more "classical" or "pre-modern," than modern political philosophy, to say nothing of current ideology. In determining the best regime for a particular community, much depends on what Aristotle calls "presuppositions": the moral character of the population, their traditions, their foibles, their economic situation, their geographic conditions, etc. From what I've read, integralists are as ready to affirm this as Aristotle is. There are monarchies and republics, federations and centralized states, city-states and empires that would embody an integralist society ... and versions of each of these that would contradict them.
One could imagine a nation with the habits of self-government and widespread Catholic faith instituting and maintaining a regime which, in the scope and purpose of its legislation and in its relation to the Catholic ecclesial hierarchy, embodied integralist principles. Or, one could imagine such a nation that instead embodied liberal principles.
In brief, I don't think there is anything in integralism as such that commits it to the administrative-managerial state.
----
Some examples of Leo XIII, who I think both advocates and critics of integralism would recognize as a prominent figure within the integralist tradition, discussing regime diversity:
“There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage” —Diuturnum Illud (1881) §7
“The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to ensure the general welfare. [...] No one of the several forms of government is in itself condemned, inasmuch as none of them contains anything contrary to Catholic doctrine, and all of them are capable, if wisely and justly managed, to insure the welfare of the State. [...] In matters merely political, as, for instance, the best form of government, and this or that system of administration, a difference of opinion is lawful” —Immortale Dei (1885), §4, 36, 47
I would offer the observation that "integralism," historically, is not necessarily tied to the modern administrative state. So there could well be some present-day advocates for integralism whose positions are not subject to the criticism you present (or imply) here.
That being said, to my knowledge, all of the (currently, publicly) prominent integralists do seem to be imagining that existing political institutions could be turned to post-counter-Reformation Catholic ends. I don't find this *necessarily* implausible -- but I say that with a reservation so enormous as to render the admission almost meaningless.
As I've argued elsewhere, "secularism" isn't "secular" -- it is, itself, a religion (let's call it "Modernity"), and the current (progressive, managerial) liberalism is a sect thereof. So certainly, the administrative state *can* inculcate a religion -- it does so with every Gender Unicorn, Earth Day, Pledge of Allegiance, and Fourth of July.
As you see, according to the integralists, the problem is not the form and mode of operation of state institutions, but the ends -- the religion -- at which they are directed. Just re-direct them towards Catholic ends, and all will be well. You doubt this, and indeed, it is easy to find writings of the fathers and doctors of the church, lives of the saints, that would justify your doubt. However, I offer that Vermeule, et al., could justify themselves no less readily (and have done) with other writings, lives, and traditions of Roman Catholicism, which teach that there ought indeed to be some compulsion so as to save souls, that virtue can indeed be taught paternalistically, that adherence to detailed rules and requirements can indeed go a long way towards conforming the recalcitrant (or the simple) to the life of grace. While each individual must take the final steps, they can be marched in formation pretty far along the path. Having been raised Catholic, I am not surprised that some might have this interpretation.
And after all that, the enormous reservation that I mentioned above: who would implement this program? This is what renders present-day integralism risible. The vast majority even of American Catholics don't even adhere to Roman Catholicism; probably the majority don't really know what it entails. Thus the analogy to Leninism is inapt. If U.S. society had been riven with revolutionary movements for decades, and if, at the same time, the leadership and chattering classes viewed strict Christian practice as the wave of the future and the answer to all of our problems, then okay -- maybe a specifically Roman Catholic version of this elite consensus could come out of left field, seize the institutional machinery, and obtain the acquiescence of the population. But none of these conditions hold.
Thanks, Matt, for your excellent post. I'm glad--though not surprised--that it's sparked such a lively and intelligent discussion. You've got a great community of conversation here.
A few commenters have pointed out that one can affirm something like "integralism" (a definitionally slippery beast, to be sure) without endorsing technocratic nudging or the administrative state. This observation is true, of course, but it doesn't suffice to clear "integralists" of the charge of (at least tacitly) taking over a basic assumption of technocracy: the assumption that power is a kind of standing reserve of coercive energy waiting for someone to apply it ("rationally") to achieving the "right" ends.
My point isn't that all self-described "integralists" automatically make this assumption. My point is that it's extremely hard for anyone who has grown up in the modern cave not to make it, because it's part of the intellectual air we modern people breathe.
This leads me to another point that occurred to me yesterday. Before I state this point, let me clear that it's not about the psychology of all "integralists." Rather, it's about a trap the "integralists" (and anyone else) should be eager to avoid if they wish to keep their proposal from being warped by the ontology of power I criticized just now.
The trap I have in mind, then, is the (at least tacit) belief that the "temporal" order is inherently secular, inherently devoid of anything sacred, inherently empty of anything pertaining or pointing to the divine.
Once this belief is lodged in the mind, it's hard, if not impossible, to see Godwardness as arising naturally from within the "temporal" order and its affairs. By the same token, it becomes that much easier to think it's the Church's job to supply the missing Godwardness--not by helping to bring it to expression from within the nature of the "temporal" where, ex hypothesi, it has no proper place, but in the only way left in this scenario: by managing or manipulating it into being from the outside.
Within this framework, then, the Church expresses her distinction from political society (and other "temporal" realities) by forcefully introducing Godwardness into it from the outside.
But there is more. For how would the Church do this . . . except by taking advantage of, and so conforming itself to, the same supposedly god-less, supposedly purely secular power that, ex hypothesi, is the only kind available for getting anything done within the "temporal" sphere? But god-less, purely secular power (if it existed) would (in my view) be virtually indistinguishable from the standing reserve of coercive energy I mentioned earlier. By the same token, the Church's attempt to exploit such power for the sake of Godwardness would back her into something very much like trying to play God's technocrat--both to her detriment and to that of the "temporal order" whose integrity she is supposed to love and nurture.
Not surprisingly I really enjoyed this piece (as I enjoy your work generally) and grateful that you are considering political theological matters (just because it’s of personal interest).
I think your point is a reiteration of St. Augustine of Hippo’s point about the libido Dominandi, which is inherent in all of us and affects not only our politics but are individual souls. The reiteration is important because it’s perceived through this side of history where we have a ruling class, who do not want to be entirely perceived as ruling. Rather, want to be seen as doing what is objectively good or specifically stating that we are ruled by law and this ruled by no one. The fact is, as grateful I am for some aspects of liberalism, it only obfuscates the dangers of the libido Dominandi and does not redeem it (naturally, as a Christian, born catholic, I would unlikely ever be able to
Identify a redemption of a human institution outside of Christ’s salvation but I do think the point remains solidly).
Another further interesting point is that it places the integralists in the same position as Slavoj Zizek places his revolutionary tendencies, he’s not interested intellectually about the revolution but what comes on the very next day (he jokes that he would sell his mother to see V for Vendetta 2).
Again thank you for your work
Dear Matt, I find your article, even as a theologian and philosopher who has taken seriously the difference between integralism and "Integration" (Hans Urs von Balthasar) and the "critique of political theology" (Benedict XVI), interesting and sympathetic, and it captures a truly brilliant question: can a integralist theology redeem/use liberalism? Could I publish it under your name in my Italian blog? Thank you, Roberto
I have come to understand that the Christian is to think locally, act locally.
God puts us, I think, where he wants us to be doing Christ's work, so that our mission field is always where we are. Christ's instructions to us did not include grasping for political power.
While I believe we are to take part in elections, we are not to politicize our faith in a vain attempt to force God's kingdom on earth ahead of his schedule. Instead, we work locally where the need is now.
Integralism is just another intellectual justification for control over human society. The auto de fe's of the Inquisition and Savonarola's bonfire of the vanities were derived from the same psychological drives that produced gulags, concentration camps and now woke cancel culture.
I had a conversation with Villanova philo professor re this topic a month or so ago. He argues that we can use the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as a kind of "moral external processing unit" due to the fact that it "results" in human beings living exemplary lives if followed(it is a "machine" which produces saints). This is, or should be, the true push of Integralism...the replacing of the false neutrality of the Liberal "public square"(which eventually resulted in morally chaotic mass self deification) with one where a basic Christian moral framework is the default. Basically a reinstating of that which was taken for granted at the founding...except with less of a Protestant internalism(which is too subjectivist) and, instead ,relying upon the longer standing Catholic vision. https://thecultureoflifepodcast.com/episodes/villanova-philosophy-professor-stephen-napier-part-2
Professor Napier talks about this part in the second half, the first half is about "bodily autonomy" arguments for abortion.
You're not wrong! Directionally correct, for sure. "The scope for meaningful action by citizens has become so constricted that people don’t enjoy real ownership of their world". Thumotic.... Had to look it up. Yup, that's what I want, to make the world safe for thumos/thymos. And, of course, there is Cass Sunstein. He writes too much. He runs circles around people with his intelligent words/thoughts so he can tie them up in knots. He has no soul. Give me Van Morrison - astral journeys, chivalry, quests. On the materialists' side, remember, the Catholics hold tremendous assets, both physical and financial. They may be loosing adherents in western worlds, but the Church knows it needs to protect its wealth, and what better way to do it, than to climb on board the modern administrative state and forge a public/private/religious partnership. Makes sense to me!
A bunch of nonsense from a doomer defeatist. A Theo-Technate is the only way forward towards the Great Catholic Monarch, a Neo-HRE and how to push back the Antichrist yet another generation. Does not matter how miniscule the adherents seem. Remember that a minority defeated Arianism.
Interesting - what did Jesus say about his kingdom? Over and above this, the "technocratic" idea puts the State in the position held by God's saving grace, which strikes me as dangerous sacrilege. It's the Holy Spirit which "nudges" Christians, not some sort of programmed technological automaton, it's the difference between techne and scientia.
"some Catholics worry about corruption of the Church through such entanglement with state power, on historical grounds that seem fairly compelling"
Indeed; (Catholic) Christianity becoming the state religion of the Roman Empire was a terrible blow to the Church & thus to the faithful.