A remarkably narrow-focused view of integralism. While I won't dispute that there have been tussles over the integralist "brand" so-to-say, I think the consensus has clearly landed on any Christian postliberalism being one form or another of integralism.
While I don't want to ascribe a ideology to either the interview or the interviewee, not knowing either of them personally, it's the construction of these false dichotomies, where anti-liberals are presented as uniform and marginal and liberals are seen as diverse and numerous, which is a hallmark of liberalism's propagandic rhetoric.
If anything, the opposite is closer to the truth. Liberalism encourages political (and existential) monoculture [and I mean this literally too: economic liberalism invented such horrors as the ecological genocide that is mass corn and soybean farming, and the cruelty to creation that are factory farmed chickens], while only safely within the arms of truth confessing society does humanity have the freedom to develop an infinite variety integral politics. Equivocating Vermeulerism and integralism, while ignoring the various other integral projects like New Polity or the Tradinistas, among others, is practically caricature.
It's analogous to equating the Republican Party and American "conservatism" with liberalism. Yes, orthodox Rebublicans are liberals, but that's not all liberalism is (the difference here however, is that the caricature liberals apply to integralists, is simply a reflection of uniformity of their own tradition -- Democratics and Republicans are exactly the same; "prove me wrong.")
The Church is called to build the Kingdom of God and sanctify creation. Any appeals to papal or conciliar magisterium which interprets it to the exclusions of this basic revealed truth (as liberalism does), necessarily errs.
Our whole society revolves around precisely nothing because we have for generations had useless heros. We are made to imitate greatness, so we imitate sports players and actors, because nothing is more important than sports or entertainment. Liberal society does not know what greatness is. We need Saints to show the world how to live.
Not a good article. It seems to be mainly focused on the "thoughts" of the amorphous Internet integralist - whatever that is. Of course there are loud people on the Internet who adopt all sorts of views (including of integralism) with varying level of sophistication. But why take this approach at all?
One of the first quotes is "The major figures seem to be primarily online." Then after setting up what I consider to be a few strawmen, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermuile and Gladden Pappin are brought up. These are not no name Internet figures - they're real thinkers. Why not take the opposite approach and start with them so you avoid failing into the strawman trap? That way you're not picking and choosing the arguments you want to dispute from the unlimited menu of internet integralist.
Better yet do the initial interview with one of those guys. Let them summarize their position and then ask Mr. Capizzi his thoughts on it. That would lead to a much more enlightening conversation.
One thing of note. We do not have to believe everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of a pope. That includes their social teaching. Saying this isn't a simple "I make my own rules" thing. It's the teaching of the Church. While we should listen with deference, we don't have to agree.
For the record - I don't have a dog in the integralist fight. I don't really know what exactly I think about it other than that it's interesting. I just think we should have more enlightened discussion of it.
This was an interesting and educational interview, but I note that Dr. Capizzi seems relatively biased against integralism, and I suspect there's more depth to the philosophy than presented here. Why not interview a prominent integralist to get their point of view? Perhaps not Ahmari or Vermeule, who are very hard to separate from the American political context, but instead Waldstein, who is Austrian and thus has the advantage of existing at something of a remove from our contentious political debates. I've read some of his work in the Plough, and he is certainly thoughtful and less prone to inflammatory rhetoric than his American compadres. I think, for the sake of journalistic balance and letting integralists speak on their own terms, it would be worthwhile to have such an interview.
The Pillar has consistently talked about integralism with derision and horror, like it's a boogeyman hiding under JD's bed. But in the post-liberal future, which we are surely entering, can you name a better alternative? Woke fascism? Ethnonationalism? Or is it distasteful to entertain any option other than protesting loudly the passing away of the liberal order? I find this interview with Joseph Capizzi fascinating, because he treats integralism fairly from a negative point of view but in the end cannot actually propose an alternative program aside from anchoring ourselves to the wisdom of Catholic social teaching and not destroying all existing institutions- which most of the integralists named in the article would agree with.
Thanks Charlie. I always enjoy your contributions. I've seen the ideology espoused in general in Catholic internet circles, but I'm so unscholarly that I didn't know it had a name... 'integralism'. It occurred to me that it was a misguided attempt to force the moral authority of the Church in the face of its diminished status that we frankly brought on ourselves with moral scandal. I found I agree with Dr Capizzi in proposing that the current Magisterium of Benedict and Francis have the better answers for today especially in embracing the spirit of their magisterial documents.
As a couple others have stated, it would be fruitful to have similar interviews with others both inside and outside the “integralist” camp. Also, I’d like to hear what conditions are entailed by an integralist society. Does “true integralism” demand the view that a Christian monarch is the only legitimate form of civil government? Are we morally required to disobey a secular ruling body? I’d like to understand more of the add-ons that advocates say are part of the integralist philosophy.
I haven't read much from integralists, and the last I thought about integralism was back when Fr. Spadaro (of 2+2=5 fame) wrote his rather out-of-touch article on Catholic integralism in the USA, which seemed to conflate political opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. with a push for theocracy. I was left with Spadaro's view of what integralism was, but with no idea of what integralism actually was, besides it being another pejorative some liberals used against conservatives. So, I was interested in this interview.
This article was a start--its tone was fine--but it was heavy on generalities and light on specifics. I hoped to see a critique of concrete examples of policies that integralists favor in this day and age. The article also lacked primary sources...I didn't see much (if any) actual quotes from integralists. Without discussion of concrete examples and primary sources, I'm again thinking that I have someone's idea of what integralism is, but only a vague notion of what integralism actually is.
Maybe the issue is me: I was expecting an in-depth analysis but instead I got an interview, with the lack of detail that might be expected of an interview. In any case, I'd love to see a more in-depth take.
“Look at the energy coming from Pope Francis himself.” A troubling statement when this is offered as a pushback to the topic at hand. And reference to Trump’s election (what, six years ago?) with no reference to [“catholic”] Biden and his “moral” bullying makes me wonder if this is a dated interview. Weighing the merits of integralism ought to reference eternal realities, authentic freedom, and the danger to souls. Perhaps the bishops could lead by reminding us of rightly ordered freedom and the real harm in ignoring it.
Prudential accommodations are always in tension with eternal truths, so in that regard I appreciated the comments about Church history.
Glad to finally see an article tackling integralism here, as I have noted a clear (and imho regrettable) tendency from The Pillar to deride it.
As has been noted by many others, I think the article brings up interesting points but, if I may be allowed a few points of constructive criticism, is lacking in a few ways:
1. The issue of defining « integralism » is a tricky one. Three points on that. First, the term « integralism » has a history, which is rather illuminating as to its intent/content. It seems to appear towards the end of the 19th century as the mantle for Catholics concerned with liberalism’s destructive tendencies with regards to society and the Church, and meant to emphasize its adherents’ faithfulness to the entirety (or integrality) of the Church’s teaching, by opposition to « liberal » Catholics willing to throw away some of it for the sake of political appeasement or « progress ». The term is most famously defended by Felix Sarda y Salvany, Spanish priest of « Liberalism is a Sin » fame - a book, it must be noted, which was praised by the Pope at the time of its publication (see https://thejosias.com/2022/03/02/felix-sarda-y-salvany-on-the-word-integralists/ for an English version of Fr Sarda y Salvany‘s speech in praise of integralism). Second, it would help to give some proper sources on integralism, especially « integralist » sources. The website of reference for this is undoubtedly The Josias, and the definition of integralism is given in three sentences by the leading « integralist » thinker, Fr Edmund Waldstein (http://thejosias.com/2016/10/17/integralism-in-three-sentences/). Third, and as Joe points out in his comment below, Catholic criticism of liberalism as a philosophical theory, political regime and historical reality far exceeds the narrow term of « integralism ». Some of the theologians and scholars who now contribute to the post-liberal journal/website New Polity, such as William Cavanaugh, David Schindler and D. C. Schindler, have been at this for decades and cannot be accused of selective/tendentious reading of the magisterium and tradition, nor of being proponents of one pope versus the other (at any rate I think these criticisms may fairly apply to Thomas Pink, though he is not to my knowledge a self-avowed integralist, but certainly are unfair as regards Adrian Vermeule).
2. « One of the key problems with neo-integralism seems to be that its proponents sometimes speak as if power were a stand-alone, neutral thing, which must be ordered to the good… the ontology of power, which can’t exist apart from end-seeking, and which exists only as a hypothetically necessary implication of legitimate authority for the sake of the common good. » I don’t believe any of the people cited by Mr Capizzi as integralists would deny this - in fact I would say it undergirds the entire integralist idea, in a way. I understand the criticism to mean that you can’t just submit any current state (the USA or any other) to the jurisdiction of the Pope and think that you have thus built the City of God on earth. I sort of understand where this is coming from, to the extent integralists do argue for such a hierarchy of power, but it misses the point entirely. No one (at least, no serious integralist thinker - no clue what Twitter folks are saying) is arguing for a coup and Catholic dictatorship in which the benevolent tyrant recognizes the supremacy of the Vatican and its legitimate authority on spiritual matters. No one is saying that simply using the state’s coercive powers for Catholic ends will convert hearts. The point is precisely that power is never neutral, it simply cannot be, because no power is administered randomly - it is only ever used to advance one's own vision of the good. The liberal state, despite its own central claim of neutrality, uses its vast power for implicit but real metaphysical ends - ends that are antagonistic to the Church - and that is precisely why it is illegitimate (one might add structurally illegitimate: liberalism by its nature claims neutrality as regards man’s end, but this is in fact not a « neutral » claim as it supposes either indifference to God or denial of His existence, and thus liberalism is always in essence antagonistic to Christianity - never mind that this fact can be masked by temporal tendencies such as the West’s once-dominant Christian faith; this is really Deneen’s core claim, but he is of course far from the first to make it). Integralists believe that the common good requires by its very nature that the state, when it uses its power (and thus necessarily works to advance its vision fo the good, i.e., its own metaphysical claim), do so in full submission to the only real spiritual authority there is - the Church, led by the Vicar of Christ. In other words, the common good is the attainment of man’s final end, the worship of / union with God, which can only be attained through the guidance of the Church. To say that temporal power must be ordered to the common good is to say that temporal power must be ordered - at every level - to the seeking of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which is to say that no part of society can claim to « isolate » or separate itself from the Church. Practically speaking then, integralists and Catholic post-liberals seek the conversion and baptism of our entire society, so that society can be ordered to God properly. This is achieved not by totalitarianism or dictatorship, but it is in part achieved by the orientation of the temporal power (e.g., the state should say that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, the state should ban abortions, the state should ban commerce on Sundays, and it should do all these things explicitly because they are required for the common good as taught by the Church). I also note that Mr Capizzi’s quote here could be cited approvingly and in extenso by the New Polity folks (though I concede that they have their differences with « integralists »).
There are two observations I would make with this.
1. I am guessing that the term "Integralism" in the way it is used here originated in French articles and publications. The French term for Islamic Fundamentalism is "intégrisme islamique", and was certainly used since the 1980s. The use of "fondamentalisme islamique" is appearing more these days, I suspect due to the increased discourse in English about Islamic Fundamentalism.
2. Dr Capizzi doesn't actually engage with the ideas proposed by the authors. This most striking in the opening part of the interview: "I take their central claim to be that..." Huh? Seriously, this is an argument? Impressions rather than pointing to claims or statements made. It is like appearing before a constitutional court with the argument "It's the vibe of it. It's the Constitution. It's Mabo. It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe and ah, no that's it." While Dr Capaizzi may be correct in his assertions, his arguments certainly can't support them.
3. Then the rest of the arguments are ad hominem with innuendo, even refusing to provide anything more than vague references for something like "US Politics". He then identifies a number of people, with the suggestion that they are politically motivated. The only one of these individuals that I have heard of is Sohrab Ahmari. I read his recent book "The Unbroken Thread", which is very well written and well argued. Unlike the interviewee here, actual arguments are presented rather than sniping.
4. Dr Capizzi also is bringing to this a lot of assumptions. This is betrayed in the phrase "they distort the ontology of power". So there is a canonical understanding of "power" that is beyond all examination of Philosophers? That is an extraordinary claim, which would be difficult to support.
In short, this was a disappointing exposition of a conversation that needs to be had and issues sorted within the Church.
The temptation of the young and disaffected (by contemporary society and their peer group) serious Catholics towards hard-core integralism (Waldstein) or various post-liberal nostrums (the Post-Liberal Order quartet on Substack https://postliberalorder.substack.com/) is, as Prof. Capizzi notes, understandable. Yet it arises from a lack of proper formation in the social doctrine of the Church, something his Institute for Human Ecology is trying to do something about. I would caution the Professor, however, against casual criticism of historical Catholic acceptance of the "American Proposition" (as elucidated by John Courtney Murray). Catholics in general, and the Church in particular, are in far better stead here (even under our current stressful circumstances) than any comparable nation on Earth.
But there also needs to be some firm pushback, in the form of asking the intergralists/post-liberals: What would you have happen? A glimpse of an answer can be found in Gladden Pappin's recent First Things article, "Advancing in Place." There, in criticizing the alleged of most post-IPhone innovation, he offers up the heads of various high-tech enterprises on a charger (KJV):
"Though we must view the project of technological innovation as an integral and irreversible part of modernity, we should still try to resist and replace it in small ways. We should, for instance, consider state actions to limit the destructive “innovations” of modern firms. We might tax online retailers in order to shelter high street retailers. We could shut down Uber in order to forestall its takeover of the taxi market. And we can make social media companies integrate with national laws wherever they operate. Most of the destructively innovative companies rely on bending the rules with new technology and hoping that the legislative process will take a long time to catch up. Unfortunately, they’ve been right. Amazon could be disassembled under antitrust laws, Uber under labor laws, and social media companies six ways to Sunday. At the highest level, we need to orient innovation toward the preservation of national culture and institutions rather than their destruction."
This is economically illiterate Statism (pardon the redundancy), pure and simple. The "taxi market" he seeks to protect is a state-supported franchise. In New York City, before Uber, the limited number of taxi medallions (unchanged, I think, since WW II, much the same as the War's rent controls) were worth in excess of a million dollars -- the actual drivers no more than gig employees in a protected industry. Same goes for the monopoly franchise on taxi services at Dulles Airport here in Washington DC. And what are the "six ways from Sunday" to disassemble social media companies? State censorship? And if so, by whose lights? Donald Trump's? Barack Obama's? Orban's? Putin's? Xi's? As for Amazon, should consumers also be protected against the routinely high markups charged by "high street retailers?"
There are excesses of liberalism that ought to be restrained by law. Pornography for one. Abortion, without need of further explanation. But there also are features of liberalism that need more robust defense, including specifically the right to dissent in the workplace, university, and political life from the oppressions of "woke" ideology, and the right to religious freedom under attack from the destruction of rights of conscience in health care and other essential sectors of economic and social life. But our system gives us the tools to organize under the banner of these God-given rights; this is happening right now across the nation in various ways and, indeed, attracting some "strange bedfellow" coalitions of activists, concerned parents, and other citizens.
To conclude: The United States of America, under its Constitution, is neither a rootless "idea" nor a nation bound by ties of ethnicity (as is the postliberals' current mecca, Hungary -- with a fertility rate, along with Poland's, among the lowest in Europe). The USA is a proposition founded with one foot planted firmly in the Enlightenment, but the other planted equally firmly in the classical traditions of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. We've come off those moorings, the latter more than the former, and it's up to us to return to them. I do not gainsay the difficulties of the task, nor the problem (in theory) of reconciling such disparate philosophical roots. But the effort to stick to those moorings served us -- and the world -- quite well until fairly recently. There is no reason to despair that they cannot serve us well again.
A remarkably narrow-focused view of integralism. While I won't dispute that there have been tussles over the integralist "brand" so-to-say, I think the consensus has clearly landed on any Christian postliberalism being one form or another of integralism.
While I don't want to ascribe a ideology to either the interview or the interviewee, not knowing either of them personally, it's the construction of these false dichotomies, where anti-liberals are presented as uniform and marginal and liberals are seen as diverse and numerous, which is a hallmark of liberalism's propagandic rhetoric.
If anything, the opposite is closer to the truth. Liberalism encourages political (and existential) monoculture [and I mean this literally too: economic liberalism invented such horrors as the ecological genocide that is mass corn and soybean farming, and the cruelty to creation that are factory farmed chickens], while only safely within the arms of truth confessing society does humanity have the freedom to develop an infinite variety integral politics. Equivocating Vermeulerism and integralism, while ignoring the various other integral projects like New Polity or the Tradinistas, among others, is practically caricature.
It's analogous to equating the Republican Party and American "conservatism" with liberalism. Yes, orthodox Rebublicans are liberals, but that's not all liberalism is (the difference here however, is that the caricature liberals apply to integralists, is simply a reflection of uniformity of their own tradition -- Democratics and Republicans are exactly the same; "prove me wrong.")
The Church is called to build the Kingdom of God and sanctify creation. Any appeals to papal or conciliar magisterium which interprets it to the exclusions of this basic revealed truth (as liberalism does), necessarily errs.
Our whole society revolves around precisely nothing because we have for generations had useless heros. We are made to imitate greatness, so we imitate sports players and actors, because nothing is more important than sports or entertainment. Liberal society does not know what greatness is. We need Saints to show the world how to live.
Not a good article. It seems to be mainly focused on the "thoughts" of the amorphous Internet integralist - whatever that is. Of course there are loud people on the Internet who adopt all sorts of views (including of integralism) with varying level of sophistication. But why take this approach at all?
One of the first quotes is "The major figures seem to be primarily online." Then after setting up what I consider to be a few strawmen, Patrick Deneen, Sohrab Ahmari, Adrian Vermuile and Gladden Pappin are brought up. These are not no name Internet figures - they're real thinkers. Why not take the opposite approach and start with them so you avoid failing into the strawman trap? That way you're not picking and choosing the arguments you want to dispute from the unlimited menu of internet integralist.
Better yet do the initial interview with one of those guys. Let them summarize their position and then ask Mr. Capizzi his thoughts on it. That would lead to a much more enlightening conversation.
One thing of note. We do not have to believe everything that comes out of the mouth or the pen of a pope. That includes their social teaching. Saying this isn't a simple "I make my own rules" thing. It's the teaching of the Church. While we should listen with deference, we don't have to agree.
For the record - I don't have a dog in the integralist fight. I don't really know what exactly I think about it other than that it's interesting. I just think we should have more enlightened discussion of it.
This was an interesting and educational interview, but I note that Dr. Capizzi seems relatively biased against integralism, and I suspect there's more depth to the philosophy than presented here. Why not interview a prominent integralist to get their point of view? Perhaps not Ahmari or Vermeule, who are very hard to separate from the American political context, but instead Waldstein, who is Austrian and thus has the advantage of existing at something of a remove from our contentious political debates. I've read some of his work in the Plough, and he is certainly thoughtful and less prone to inflammatory rhetoric than his American compadres. I think, for the sake of journalistic balance and letting integralists speak on their own terms, it would be worthwhile to have such an interview.
The Pillar has consistently talked about integralism with derision and horror, like it's a boogeyman hiding under JD's bed. But in the post-liberal future, which we are surely entering, can you name a better alternative? Woke fascism? Ethnonationalism? Or is it distasteful to entertain any option other than protesting loudly the passing away of the liberal order? I find this interview with Joseph Capizzi fascinating, because he treats integralism fairly from a negative point of view but in the end cannot actually propose an alternative program aside from anchoring ourselves to the wisdom of Catholic social teaching and not destroying all existing institutions- which most of the integralists named in the article would agree with.
I do hope this conversation makes it on this week's podcast.
Thanks Charlie. I always enjoy your contributions. I've seen the ideology espoused in general in Catholic internet circles, but I'm so unscholarly that I didn't know it had a name... 'integralism'. It occurred to me that it was a misguided attempt to force the moral authority of the Church in the face of its diminished status that we frankly brought on ourselves with moral scandal. I found I agree with Dr Capizzi in proposing that the current Magisterium of Benedict and Francis have the better answers for today especially in embracing the spirit of their magisterial documents.
As a couple others have stated, it would be fruitful to have similar interviews with others both inside and outside the “integralist” camp. Also, I’d like to hear what conditions are entailed by an integralist society. Does “true integralism” demand the view that a Christian monarch is the only legitimate form of civil government? Are we morally required to disobey a secular ruling body? I’d like to understand more of the add-ons that advocates say are part of the integralist philosophy.
I haven't read much from integralists, and the last I thought about integralism was back when Fr. Spadaro (of 2+2=5 fame) wrote his rather out-of-touch article on Catholic integralism in the USA, which seemed to conflate political opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. with a push for theocracy. I was left with Spadaro's view of what integralism was, but with no idea of what integralism actually was, besides it being another pejorative some liberals used against conservatives. So, I was interested in this interview.
This article was a start--its tone was fine--but it was heavy on generalities and light on specifics. I hoped to see a critique of concrete examples of policies that integralists favor in this day and age. The article also lacked primary sources...I didn't see much (if any) actual quotes from integralists. Without discussion of concrete examples and primary sources, I'm again thinking that I have someone's idea of what integralism is, but only a vague notion of what integralism actually is.
Maybe the issue is me: I was expecting an in-depth analysis but instead I got an interview, with the lack of detail that might be expected of an interview. In any case, I'd love to see a more in-depth take.
“Look at the energy coming from Pope Francis himself.” A troubling statement when this is offered as a pushback to the topic at hand. And reference to Trump’s election (what, six years ago?) with no reference to [“catholic”] Biden and his “moral” bullying makes me wonder if this is a dated interview. Weighing the merits of integralism ought to reference eternal realities, authentic freedom, and the danger to souls. Perhaps the bishops could lead by reminding us of rightly ordered freedom and the real harm in ignoring it.
Prudential accommodations are always in tension with eternal truths, so in that regard I appreciated the comments about Church history.
Glad to finally see an article tackling integralism here, as I have noted a clear (and imho regrettable) tendency from The Pillar to deride it.
As has been noted by many others, I think the article brings up interesting points but, if I may be allowed a few points of constructive criticism, is lacking in a few ways:
1. The issue of defining « integralism » is a tricky one. Three points on that. First, the term « integralism » has a history, which is rather illuminating as to its intent/content. It seems to appear towards the end of the 19th century as the mantle for Catholics concerned with liberalism’s destructive tendencies with regards to society and the Church, and meant to emphasize its adherents’ faithfulness to the entirety (or integrality) of the Church’s teaching, by opposition to « liberal » Catholics willing to throw away some of it for the sake of political appeasement or « progress ». The term is most famously defended by Felix Sarda y Salvany, Spanish priest of « Liberalism is a Sin » fame - a book, it must be noted, which was praised by the Pope at the time of its publication (see https://thejosias.com/2022/03/02/felix-sarda-y-salvany-on-the-word-integralists/ for an English version of Fr Sarda y Salvany‘s speech in praise of integralism). Second, it would help to give some proper sources on integralism, especially « integralist » sources. The website of reference for this is undoubtedly The Josias, and the definition of integralism is given in three sentences by the leading « integralist » thinker, Fr Edmund Waldstein (http://thejosias.com/2016/10/17/integralism-in-three-sentences/). Third, and as Joe points out in his comment below, Catholic criticism of liberalism as a philosophical theory, political regime and historical reality far exceeds the narrow term of « integralism ». Some of the theologians and scholars who now contribute to the post-liberal journal/website New Polity, such as William Cavanaugh, David Schindler and D. C. Schindler, have been at this for decades and cannot be accused of selective/tendentious reading of the magisterium and tradition, nor of being proponents of one pope versus the other (at any rate I think these criticisms may fairly apply to Thomas Pink, though he is not to my knowledge a self-avowed integralist, but certainly are unfair as regards Adrian Vermeule).
2. « One of the key problems with neo-integralism seems to be that its proponents sometimes speak as if power were a stand-alone, neutral thing, which must be ordered to the good… the ontology of power, which can’t exist apart from end-seeking, and which exists only as a hypothetically necessary implication of legitimate authority for the sake of the common good. » I don’t believe any of the people cited by Mr Capizzi as integralists would deny this - in fact I would say it undergirds the entire integralist idea, in a way. I understand the criticism to mean that you can’t just submit any current state (the USA or any other) to the jurisdiction of the Pope and think that you have thus built the City of God on earth. I sort of understand where this is coming from, to the extent integralists do argue for such a hierarchy of power, but it misses the point entirely. No one (at least, no serious integralist thinker - no clue what Twitter folks are saying) is arguing for a coup and Catholic dictatorship in which the benevolent tyrant recognizes the supremacy of the Vatican and its legitimate authority on spiritual matters. No one is saying that simply using the state’s coercive powers for Catholic ends will convert hearts. The point is precisely that power is never neutral, it simply cannot be, because no power is administered randomly - it is only ever used to advance one's own vision of the good. The liberal state, despite its own central claim of neutrality, uses its vast power for implicit but real metaphysical ends - ends that are antagonistic to the Church - and that is precisely why it is illegitimate (one might add structurally illegitimate: liberalism by its nature claims neutrality as regards man’s end, but this is in fact not a « neutral » claim as it supposes either indifference to God or denial of His existence, and thus liberalism is always in essence antagonistic to Christianity - never mind that this fact can be masked by temporal tendencies such as the West’s once-dominant Christian faith; this is really Deneen’s core claim, but he is of course far from the first to make it). Integralists believe that the common good requires by its very nature that the state, when it uses its power (and thus necessarily works to advance its vision fo the good, i.e., its own metaphysical claim), do so in full submission to the only real spiritual authority there is - the Church, led by the Vicar of Christ. In other words, the common good is the attainment of man’s final end, the worship of / union with God, which can only be attained through the guidance of the Church. To say that temporal power must be ordered to the common good is to say that temporal power must be ordered - at every level - to the seeking of the Heavenly Jerusalem, which is to say that no part of society can claim to « isolate » or separate itself from the Church. Practically speaking then, integralists and Catholic post-liberals seek the conversion and baptism of our entire society, so that society can be ordered to God properly. This is achieved not by totalitarianism or dictatorship, but it is in part achieved by the orientation of the temporal power (e.g., the state should say that marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman, the state should ban abortions, the state should ban commerce on Sundays, and it should do all these things explicitly because they are required for the common good as taught by the Church). I also note that Mr Capizzi’s quote here could be cited approvingly and in extenso by the New Polity folks (though I concede that they have their differences with « integralists »).
There are two observations I would make with this.
1. I am guessing that the term "Integralism" in the way it is used here originated in French articles and publications. The French term for Islamic Fundamentalism is "intégrisme islamique", and was certainly used since the 1980s. The use of "fondamentalisme islamique" is appearing more these days, I suspect due to the increased discourse in English about Islamic Fundamentalism.
2. Dr Capizzi doesn't actually engage with the ideas proposed by the authors. This most striking in the opening part of the interview: "I take their central claim to be that..." Huh? Seriously, this is an argument? Impressions rather than pointing to claims or statements made. It is like appearing before a constitutional court with the argument "It's the vibe of it. It's the Constitution. It's Mabo. It's justice. It's law. It's the vibe and ah, no that's it." While Dr Capaizzi may be correct in his assertions, his arguments certainly can't support them.
3. Then the rest of the arguments are ad hominem with innuendo, even refusing to provide anything more than vague references for something like "US Politics". He then identifies a number of people, with the suggestion that they are politically motivated. The only one of these individuals that I have heard of is Sohrab Ahmari. I read his recent book "The Unbroken Thread", which is very well written and well argued. Unlike the interviewee here, actual arguments are presented rather than sniping.
4. Dr Capizzi also is bringing to this a lot of assumptions. This is betrayed in the phrase "they distort the ontology of power". So there is a canonical understanding of "power" that is beyond all examination of Philosophers? That is an extraordinary claim, which would be difficult to support.
In short, this was a disappointing exposition of a conversation that needs to be had and issues sorted within the Church.
It seems to me that Patriarch Kirill is a walking reason why integralism is a bad idea.
The temptation of the young and disaffected (by contemporary society and their peer group) serious Catholics towards hard-core integralism (Waldstein) or various post-liberal nostrums (the Post-Liberal Order quartet on Substack https://postliberalorder.substack.com/) is, as Prof. Capizzi notes, understandable. Yet it arises from a lack of proper formation in the social doctrine of the Church, something his Institute for Human Ecology is trying to do something about. I would caution the Professor, however, against casual criticism of historical Catholic acceptance of the "American Proposition" (as elucidated by John Courtney Murray). Catholics in general, and the Church in particular, are in far better stead here (even under our current stressful circumstances) than any comparable nation on Earth.
But there also needs to be some firm pushback, in the form of asking the intergralists/post-liberals: What would you have happen? A glimpse of an answer can be found in Gladden Pappin's recent First Things article, "Advancing in Place." There, in criticizing the alleged of most post-IPhone innovation, he offers up the heads of various high-tech enterprises on a charger (KJV):
"Though we must view the project of technological innovation as an integral and irreversible part of modernity, we should still try to resist and replace it in small ways. We should, for instance, consider state actions to limit the destructive “innovations” of modern firms. We might tax online retailers in order to shelter high street retailers. We could shut down Uber in order to forestall its takeover of the taxi market. And we can make social media companies integrate with national laws wherever they operate. Most of the destructively innovative companies rely on bending the rules with new technology and hoping that the legislative process will take a long time to catch up. Unfortunately, they’ve been right. Amazon could be disassembled under antitrust laws, Uber under labor laws, and social media companies six ways to Sunday. At the highest level, we need to orient innovation toward the preservation of national culture and institutions rather than their destruction."
This is economically illiterate Statism (pardon the redundancy), pure and simple. The "taxi market" he seeks to protect is a state-supported franchise. In New York City, before Uber, the limited number of taxi medallions (unchanged, I think, since WW II, much the same as the War's rent controls) were worth in excess of a million dollars -- the actual drivers no more than gig employees in a protected industry. Same goes for the monopoly franchise on taxi services at Dulles Airport here in Washington DC. And what are the "six ways from Sunday" to disassemble social media companies? State censorship? And if so, by whose lights? Donald Trump's? Barack Obama's? Orban's? Putin's? Xi's? As for Amazon, should consumers also be protected against the routinely high markups charged by "high street retailers?"
There are excesses of liberalism that ought to be restrained by law. Pornography for one. Abortion, without need of further explanation. But there also are features of liberalism that need more robust defense, including specifically the right to dissent in the workplace, university, and political life from the oppressions of "woke" ideology, and the right to religious freedom under attack from the destruction of rights of conscience in health care and other essential sectors of economic and social life. But our system gives us the tools to organize under the banner of these God-given rights; this is happening right now across the nation in various ways and, indeed, attracting some "strange bedfellow" coalitions of activists, concerned parents, and other citizens.
To conclude: The United States of America, under its Constitution, is neither a rootless "idea" nor a nation bound by ties of ethnicity (as is the postliberals' current mecca, Hungary -- with a fertility rate, along with Poland's, among the lowest in Europe). The USA is a proposition founded with one foot planted firmly in the Enlightenment, but the other planted equally firmly in the classical traditions of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. We've come off those moorings, the latter more than the former, and it's up to us to return to them. I do not gainsay the difficulties of the task, nor the problem (in theory) of reconciling such disparate philosophical roots. But the effort to stick to those moorings served us -- and the world -- quite well until fairly recently. There is no reason to despair that they cannot serve us well again.