top of page
  • Writer's pictureBradley Poole

An Integralist Responds: Three Answers for Mr. George Weigel

There are relatively few in these United States of America who have heard of Catholic Integralism. For those unfamiliar with the term, a Catholic Integralist is one who believes that the ideal form of government is a Catholic Confessional State, in which, although every citizen is not required to be Catholic, the social and moral doctrine of the Church forms the basis and litmus test for the nation’s laws. Not surprisingly, this position is considered blasphemous to most Americans, even among Catholics.

I was not entirely surprised, therefore, when the esteemed Mr. George Weigel, an academic well known in conservative Catholic circles, wrote a short article for the National Catholic World Report critiquing Catholic Integralism. I have nothing but respect for Mr. Weigel, and for the academic work he has done. Nevertheless, he has proposed three questions for Integralists, and as an Integralist, I feel compelled to respond.


First, Mr. Weigel questions our knowledge of history. Specifically, of the early 20th century, in which some European Catholics, disorientated by the collapse of their traditional societies in the wake of the First World War, endorsed any number of disreputable political movements in the name of building a Catholic Society, including Mussolini’s Fascists, the Nazis, and even Stalin’s Soviet Union. If we were aware of this, Mr. Weigel argues, we would see the folly of trying to install an overtly Catholic Government rather than a secular democracy.


Leaving aside the easily disproven assumption that Integralists have no interest in political history (I suspect Mr. Weigel has never met Sir Charles Coulombe), the argument being presented here appears to be that because Catholics in democracies who wanted the Church’s teaching to influence their society have voted for terrible people, Catholic Integralism cannot be trusted. What, then, are we to make of non-integralist Catholics who vote for terrible people with anti-Catholic views? At this very moment there are Catholics in America endorsing Donald Trump or Joe Biden, and accusing their opposite numbers of being traitors to the Faith. But this is not even an exclusively Catholic problem: people of any worldview have voted for terrible people and embraced horrid ideologies because they desired some good for the nation they lived in.

In short, Catholic Integralists behave like any other human beings in a democratic society, and are just as capable of making bad choices at the ballot box. An astute observation, but hardly an argument against Catholic Integralism.

Mr. Weigel then points out that both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI both repeatedly called for the spread of religiously neutral democracy, in which the Church could operate freely as a moral force in society. I must give respect Mr. Weigel’s integrity on this point: unlike so many of his conservative colleagues, he has not trashed Pope Francis over Amoris Laetitia and Laudato Si. But I wonder what he would say about Pope Gregory XVI’s condemnation of railways, or the law in force in the Papal States until the reign of Pius XI forcing Jews to live in Ghettos and hear Christian sermons.

As in all things, context is important. Both St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI lived under brutal, ideologically driven totalitarian regimes. Given this, it is small wonder that both men were wary of the abuse of state power, especially in matters of life and death. It is hardly surprising that both Pontiffs taught that a state run by a benign anti-Catholic ideology that leaves the Church, and everyone else, alone is preferable to a state run by a violent anti-Catholic ideology that tries to bend the Church to its will (or, failing that, to exterminate it). The same logic drove many in the Spanish Church to side with Franco (who wanted to co-opt them) against the Republicans (who wanted to kill them). But that is a long way from rejecting a society based on Catholic teaching in favor of a liberal democracy whose attitude towards the Church depends entirely on who is in power at any given time.


Finally, Mr. Weigel seeks to argue, contra the Integralist, that the Declaration of Independence (and thus the founding principles of America) have nothing to do with the moral crisis these United States find themselves in today. But while the Declaration of Independence is important to the American meta-narrative, it is not the document on which our laws are based. That would be the Constitution, and I need not look for gay “marriage,” abortion, contraception, or any other anti-religious “rights” in there: the Supreme Court, the final arbitrator of the Constitution’s interpretation, has already done so. Whether the original authors of the constitution intended to put them there is beside the point, since the same Supreme Court is responsible for determining that as well. And if objection to immoral laws does not come from the voters, nor the interpreters of the law, what is left for us? Our only hope would seem to be that the Supreme Court can later change its mind (as in the case of Dread Scott). But that requires voting for a political party that (we hope) will pack the courts with judges who will rule in our favor. Basically, Integralism with extra steps and a large dose of denial.

With respect to Mr. Weigel, the argument that we should not (not cannot) discard the Constitution in favor of a Catholic Confessional State is not a political argument, but a moral, and therefore, religious argument. For American Catholic Integralism is not the argument that we must put a state religion where none exists, but that Catholicism must replace the state religion that already exists, and has since the nation’s founding.


One might object that these United States have no state religion. While it is true that America does not have a state church in the style of the Church of England, we do have a civic religion (with its own Wikipedia page, even!). How else are we to explain the reverence paid to the Founding Fathers and their Holy Writ, including a painting in the rotunda of the Capital Building showing George Washington ascending into heaven (titled The Apotheosis of Washington)? How do we explain our need to spread our “freedom” across the world by force, whether to Central Europe under Woodrow Wilson or to the Middle East under George W. Bush? How do we explain the accusations that something is “Un-American” made with the same fervor and anger that our Catholic forefathers denounced something as heretical? Small wonder that G.K. Chesterton referred to America as “A Nation with the soul of a church.” We need not look far to see what the object of this civic religion is: it is that the American Government is Sacred.

Instead of the Church of England, our civic religion might be likened to Shintoism, the native religion of Japan. Shinto has its own pantheon of gods and goddesses, but it is light on theology and philosophy. Its sole dogmas seem to be reverence for the Emperor and the preservation of the Japanese way of life. This kind of doctrinal flexibility allowed all sorts of conflicting forms and philosophies of government to rule Japan over the centuries: direct rule by the Emperor, Military Government under the Shogun, German-style Constitutional Monarchy, Imperialism, and, in the present day, Pacifism.


Consider also an example the Founding Fathers were familiar with: Roman Paganism. While much more comfortable with absorbing outside influences (including the entire Greek Pantheon) ancient Roman religion possessed the same ideological flexibility as Shintoism. The Roman gods endorsed, in succession, Absolute Monarchy, Republicanism, the Principate of the Caesars, and finally Absolute Monarchy again under Diocletian. Conveniently, there was never any disagreement between the rulers of these successive governments and the gods they “served.”


This is the type of civic religion that America has: a navel-gazing, self-obsessed faith that sees things in terms of Red, White and Blue or wrong, and leaves the discernment of which is which solely up to the State and it black-robed pontiffs. That said State allows and even encourages us to vote is no comfort, not when the entire media complex ensures that we are told non-stop what we must believe and which party we belong in. And if we do not like either option, we are hopelessly outnumbered and may as well give up.


Mr. Weigel ends his article by wondering aloud whether the proponents of Catholic Integralism are compromising the Church’s public witness by “misrepresenting Catholic social doctrine.” With all due respect to Mr. Weigel, I would argue that the current arrangement, in which the Church must abide by the rules of a civic religion she does not subscribe to, is causing the real damage to the Church’s witness. For by this we have effectively surrendered, admitting that the values of the Constitution are superior to the teachings of the Church, and that we have no part to play but as timid advisor to the rich and powerful who can do whatever is politically convenient for them. For this is how our rulers (elected or otherwise) have used the American civic religion in the past. It was perfectly America to endorse White Supremacy before it was American to condemn it. It was perfectly American to enslave non-whites before it was American to free them. And whatever previous generations may have thought of them, gay marriage, contraception, abortion, and all manner of perverse “rights” are now as American as apple pie. Appeals to the historical character of the American past does not help much when the meaning of “American” can be changed so easily.


Far better to seek to convert this nation and its institutions to the Catholic Faith, the Faith that does not change with the fads of the age. After all, if everyone else is out to change America to suit their ideology, why can we not bring ourselves to do the same? Though we Catholic Integralists are out of the mainstream, that is no reason to despair. Consider the American Revolutionaries, the Civil Rights Movement, or the rioters at Stonewall. All of these started as minority movements, with no clear plan for the future, and yet, through sheer persistence, their vision has, for the most part, become reality. Why can Catholic Integralists not do the same?


Therefore I invite Mr. Weigel to join us. We are quite as American, and as Catholic, as he is.

116 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page