Faith, Power, and Politics: The Unfinished Battle Over Catholic Integralism 03-02-25
Catholic integralism has ignited an intense and ongoing struggle over the role of faith in governance. Is it a long-lost ideal waiting to be revived, or a relic of the past that conflicts with modern Catholic teachings on religious liberty? As scholars and theologians continue to debate its place in the modern world, the battle over Catholic integralism remains far from settled.
What Is Catholic Integralism?
Catholic integralism is a political and theological view that holds that civil society should be ordered according to Catholic moral and social principles. Integralists argue that the state should recognize the Catholic Church as the ultimate authority on moral and spiritual matters, with civil governance subordinated to its teachings. They view modern liberal democracy, with its emphasis on secular governance and religious pluralism, as an obstacle to a just and rightly ordered society.
Historically, this vision was more common, particularly in Catholic monarchies where Church and state were intertwined. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) explicitly condemned the idea that the Church should be separate from the state. However, with the development of Catholic social teaching—especially through Dignitatis Humanae (1965) and other magisterial teachings—the Church has shifted toward emphasizing religious liberty, human dignity, and a proper distinction between Church and state. This development was not a rejection of Catholic tradition but a deepening of the Church’s understanding of human freedom and the role of political authority.
Yet, in recent years, integralism has gained new traction, particularly among those who see liberal democracy as morally bankrupt and secularism as a growing threat to the faith. Some, like legal scholar Adrian Vermeule, propose “common good constitutionalism,” which seeks to reorient the legal order toward moral truth, even if it conflicts with liberal principles of individual rights and religious neutrality.
To integralists, the decline of moral order and the weakening of religious influence in public life signal an urgent crisis. They argue that liberal democracy, rather than being neutral, subtly enforces a secular worldview that erodes faith-based moral structures. For them, the fight for integralism is not just an intellectual exercise but a necessary resistance against what they see as an encroaching moral relativism.
Catholic Teaching on Church and State
To evaluate integralism, we must turn to Catholic doctrine, particularly the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and previous magisterial teachings on religious liberty and the role of the state.
1. The Role of the State in Promoting the Common Good
The Church teaches that civil authority exists to promote the common good—the conditions necessary for individuals and communities to flourish (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1898-1904). Pope Leo XIII, in encyclicals such as Immortale Dei (1885) and Rerum Novarum (1891), affirmed that civil authority should uphold natural law and moral order. However, he also recognized the legitimate autonomy of the state in governance.
Integralists argue that since the common good includes the salvation of souls, the state should align itself with Catholic teachings. However, modern Church teaching clarifies that while the state must respect moral order, it should not impose a single religious belief through coercion.
2. Religious Liberty and Dignitatis Humanae
A major challenge to integralism comes from Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom. It affirms that:
“The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, within due limits.” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2)
This teaching directly contrasts with the integralist vision of a state that privileges the Catholic Church and subordinates political authority to it. The Church recognizes that faith must be freely chosen, not imposed by civil power. This aligns with the Church’s understanding of human dignity—every person must have the freedom to seek the truth and embrace it voluntarily.
Integralists counter by arguing that Dignitatis Humanae should be read in continuity with previous teachings rather than as a radical break. They claim that while religious freedom exists, the state has a duty to promote the true religion. However, this interpretation is problematic, as Vatican II’s teaching builds upon, rather than contradicts, earlier understandings by placing greater emphasis on personal freedom in seeking truth.
3. The Church’s Role in Society
The Church’s role in guiding society remains essential, but not through direct political control. Instead, the Church is called to form consciences and be a moral witness to society. As Pope Benedict XVI stated in Deus Caritas Est:
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time, she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.” (Deus Caritas Est, 28)
Rather than exercising state power, the Church is called to inspire individuals—including those in politics—to enact policies that uphold the dignity of all people.
The Practical Challenge of Governance
Even if one were to hypothetically accept integralism, it faces significant real-world obstacles:
• How would it address the rights of non-Catholics, including religious minorities and secular citizens? • How would it reconcile its vision with the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and federalism? • How would it avoid becoming authoritarian or exclusionary, potentially alienating the very people the Church seeks to evangelize?
A state that enforces Catholic morality risks being perceived as oppressive, which could harm the Church’s evangelical mission. As Pope Francis has emphasized, the Church’s role is to build bridges, not walls, and to engage in dialogue rather than coercion.
The Future of Catholic Integralism: An Unfinished Battle
The battle over Catholic integralism is far from over. While the Church’s magisterium upholds religious liberty and moral persuasion over coercion, integralists continue to challenge these principles, arguing that a true Catholic society requires state alignment with faith. Whether integralism gains traction or fades into history will depend on how the Church, theologians, and political leaders navigate the tension between faith and governance in the years to come.
One thing remains certain: the struggle to define the role of Catholicism in public life is an unfinished battle—one that will continue to shape the Church and society for generations.
“Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22:21)
In the end, the Church’s power is not in political dominance but in the quiet, persistent, and transformative power of the Gospel lived out in the world. As Catholics, we are called not to impose truth, but to illuminate it—living as witnesses of Christ in our families, communities, and nation.
What Is Catholic Integralism?
Catholic integralism is a political and theological view that holds that civil society should be ordered according to Catholic moral and social principles. Integralists argue that the state should recognize the Catholic Church as the ultimate authority on moral and spiritual matters, with civil governance subordinated to its teachings. They view modern liberal democracy, with its emphasis on secular governance and religious pluralism, as an obstacle to a just and rightly ordered society.
Historically, this vision was more common, particularly in Catholic monarchies where Church and state were intertwined. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) explicitly condemned the idea that the Church should be separate from the state. However, with the development of Catholic social teaching—especially through Dignitatis Humanae (1965) and other magisterial teachings—the Church has shifted toward emphasizing religious liberty, human dignity, and a proper distinction between Church and state. This development was not a rejection of Catholic tradition but a deepening of the Church’s understanding of human freedom and the role of political authority.
Yet, in recent years, integralism has gained new traction, particularly among those who see liberal democracy as morally bankrupt and secularism as a growing threat to the faith. Some, like legal scholar Adrian Vermeule, propose “common good constitutionalism,” which seeks to reorient the legal order toward moral truth, even if it conflicts with liberal principles of individual rights and religious neutrality.
To integralists, the decline of moral order and the weakening of religious influence in public life signal an urgent crisis. They argue that liberal democracy, rather than being neutral, subtly enforces a secular worldview that erodes faith-based moral structures. For them, the fight for integralism is not just an intellectual exercise but a necessary resistance against what they see as an encroaching moral relativism.
Catholic Teaching on Church and State
To evaluate integralism, we must turn to Catholic doctrine, particularly the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and previous magisterial teachings on religious liberty and the role of the state.
1. The Role of the State in Promoting the Common Good
The Church teaches that civil authority exists to promote the common good—the conditions necessary for individuals and communities to flourish (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1898-1904). Pope Leo XIII, in encyclicals such as Immortale Dei (1885) and Rerum Novarum (1891), affirmed that civil authority should uphold natural law and moral order. However, he also recognized the legitimate autonomy of the state in governance.
Integralists argue that since the common good includes the salvation of souls, the state should align itself with Catholic teachings. However, modern Church teaching clarifies that while the state must respect moral order, it should not impose a single religious belief through coercion.
2. Religious Liberty and Dignitatis Humanae
A major challenge to integralism comes from Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom. It affirms that:
“The human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, within due limits.” (Dignitatis Humanae, 2)
This teaching directly contrasts with the integralist vision of a state that privileges the Catholic Church and subordinates political authority to it. The Church recognizes that faith must be freely chosen, not imposed by civil power. This aligns with the Church’s understanding of human dignity—every person must have the freedom to seek the truth and embrace it voluntarily.
Integralists counter by arguing that Dignitatis Humanae should be read in continuity with previous teachings rather than as a radical break. They claim that while religious freedom exists, the state has a duty to promote the true religion. However, this interpretation is problematic, as Vatican II’s teaching builds upon, rather than contradicts, earlier understandings by placing greater emphasis on personal freedom in seeking truth.
3. The Church’s Role in Society
The Church’s role in guiding society remains essential, but not through direct political control. Instead, the Church is called to form consciences and be a moral witness to society. As Pope Benedict XVI stated in Deus Caritas Est:
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time, she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.” (Deus Caritas Est, 28)
Rather than exercising state power, the Church is called to inspire individuals—including those in politics—to enact policies that uphold the dignity of all people.
The Practical Challenge of Governance
Even if one were to hypothetically accept integralism, it faces significant real-world obstacles:
• How would it address the rights of non-Catholics, including religious minorities and secular citizens? • How would it reconcile its vision with the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers and federalism? • How would it avoid becoming authoritarian or exclusionary, potentially alienating the very people the Church seeks to evangelize?
A state that enforces Catholic morality risks being perceived as oppressive, which could harm the Church’s evangelical mission. As Pope Francis has emphasized, the Church’s role is to build bridges, not walls, and to engage in dialogue rather than coercion.
The Future of Catholic Integralism: An Unfinished Battle
The battle over Catholic integralism is far from over. While the Church’s magisterium upholds religious liberty and moral persuasion over coercion, integralists continue to challenge these principles, arguing that a true Catholic society requires state alignment with faith. Whether integralism gains traction or fades into history will depend on how the Church, theologians, and political leaders navigate the tension between faith and governance in the years to come.
One thing remains certain: the struggle to define the role of Catholicism in public life is an unfinished battle—one that will continue to shape the Church and society for generations.
“Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22:21)
In the end, the Church’s power is not in political dominance but in the quiet, persistent, and transformative power of the Gospel lived out in the world. As Catholics, we are called not to impose truth, but to illuminate it—living as witnesses of Christ in our families, communities, and nation.