On Radical Religious Alternatives to Liberalism
By Kevin Vallier
A Review by Dwight A. Moody
Constitutional liberalism granting freedom and civil rights to all people and separating church and state is the dominant political model of the West and other parts of the world. But not everybody in the West embraces that political philosophy. Among the dissenters are Roman Catholic scholars who promote what they call integralism. This is an old pattern of governance that recognizes the legitimacy of religion as a major political player and structures the powers of church and state toward a certain balance, with the church holding the upper hand.
This book is a description of this Catholic integralism written by an Orthodox Christian man who teaches political science at a state university in Ohio. Kevin Vallier is not a fan of Catholic integralism, but he is meticulous in describing it, developing its strengths and weakness, and assessing the likelihood of such a system rising to political power in the United States.
Vallier notes that “a new integralists movement is growing in the United States, and its unusual proponents have gained remarkable notoriety” (6). He is referring, secondarily, to British philosopher Thomas Pink, who is “on a spiritual quest to bring renewal to the Roman Catholic Church” (9) described as “the empty husk of Western European Catholicism” (ibid). He is referring chiefly to Adrian Vermeule of Harvard Law School, whom Vallier describes as “one of the world’s leading scholars of administrative law” (15).
Both Pink and Vermeule represent a cohort of Catholic scholars who, one, predict the fall of modern political liberalism and, two, advocate a strategy of “state capture” (15) by Catholic scholars, politicians, and clerics.
It is a sobering and shocking political vision.
Vallier summaries it this way: “God directs the state to advance the natural common good of a community. God directs the church to advance the supernatural common good of all baptized persons (what he sometimes calls heavenly good). To advance this supernatural common good, the church may mandate certain state policies (and penalties). (See 37, box 1.1).
Much of its legitimacy among Catholics turns on the document from the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) known as Dignitatis humane (Of the Dignity of the Human Person, commonly noted as DH). A traditional interpretation of this document grants complete religious freedom to all people and denounces coercion in matters of conscience and belief. But Pink has put forth an alternate reading, one that distinguishes human powers from divine powers and asserts that DH grants people freedom only from human powers. It is silent about the extent of divine powers. Pink claims this leaves the Church great latitude in structuring its relationship to human powers (the state) and populations.
Vallier is not a fan of Catholic Integralism, but because he is a careful scholar (and because he has been commissioned by Oxford University Press to write this book-length description), he is careful to describe it fairly and to present a lengthy rationale for embracing it as a political philosophy. In fact, he spends five chapters reviewing “four intuitive reasons to adopt it” (48).
These four reasons are: the Church practiced integralism for centuries; Christ’s reign “extends to every human institution;” sin corrupts the state and only grace can heal it; and we can only embrace law when our sin has been trumped by an infusion of grace. (See 49ff). It is clear to see that reasons 2-4 are rooted in the theology of the Catholic Church.
Chapter two rehearses the history of Roman Catholic Church and its domination of state powers. This includes, near the end, the rise of political liberalism and, in reaction, the rise of the New Right (such as integralism itself). He concludes, here and later in the book, with the strong evidence of the Church’s repudiation of integralism: Vallier note the official resistance of the Catholic Church to these integralist ideas: “Catholicism has 5,600 bishops from nations and cultures worldwide, and none openly affirms integralism. No pope has embraced integralism since Pius X (in office 1903-1914). The vast majority of Catholic theologians and leaders follow Dignitatis humanae’s standard interpretation” (140, Cf 184).
Chapter three treats the idea of symmetry, namely, that political theory and practice should give equal attention to natural ends and supernatural ends, and that only a philosophy like integralism allows that.
Chapter four takes up transition, namely, how advocates of integralism think the process of seizing and exercising power might actually happen. He asserts that “Those who yearn for a Catholic civilization must capture a liberal state” (124). He then summarizes Vermeule: “a small, devoted cadre can instigate a Catholic-led American counterrevolution against liberalism” (130). In one of the more humorous paragraphs, Vallier notes that integralist spend little time trying to convert their Church to this agenda. “Leading integralists invest little time persuading the hierarchy. They spend hours a day on social media, create paywalled publications, and sell tickets to conferences they headline. Successful political movements lobby politicians and build alliances. Some leading integralists seem to prefer building a loyal fan base” (158).
Chapter five addresses the prospects of social stability before, during, and after integralist efforts to seize control of a nation. He gives particular attention to the issue of coercion of both baptized (Catholic and otherwise) and non-baptized. Chapter six treats the subject of justice with particular attention to baptism: can it be forced? And can the baptized be forced (with penalty) to behave or believe in certain ways? These inevitable outcomes violate basic justice, Vallier claims, and call into question the entire integralist agenda.
Finally, in the Epilogue, Vallier offers his own assessment of what might help integralist succeed; he calls it “integration writ small” (264). By which he means, the establishment and maintenance of small, discrete communities that operate by their own rules, set within the context of larger, more complex societies. He offers the Monastic Republic of Mount Athos—after all, he is a new convert to Orthodoxy! But I could not help thinking of things closer to home, like Amish settlements, or Shaker Village at Pleasant Hill, Kentucky. I think also of Rod Dryer’s book The Benedict Option, that advocated covenanted communities offering clear alternatives to the liberal orthodoxy of American states.
Vallier writes: “Micro-politics can improve liberal order by repairing liberalism’s estrangement from religion” (269). He calls these “charter cities” (275).
At the beginning and at the end, Vallier sheds some light on his own journey, and these I found the most interesting. But of lasting impression to me was the light he threw on how some see the decline of liberalism, how dedicated to a second American revolution are some of these loyal integralists, and how set the Catholic church is in resisting, even repudiating the entire integralist vision.
In conclusion I note this: Catholic integrationist thought is conservative, radically so, but it bears little resemblance to the traditional strand of conservatism in American political culture; the former is high on centralized power and administrative culture, whereas the latter is not. It does, however, parallel the thinking and plotting of Evangelical Dominionism; both operate from a strong religious vision, and both want to take over the political structures of a country (the country, the United States of America). Both pose great dangers to the American experiment of separation of church and state, limited government, and individual freedom.
