In "No to Neo-Integralism" (National Review), James Patterson gives us what we would expect from that bulwark of mainstream Catholic conservatism (economic "neo-liberalism"): a firm rejection of the small but emergent Catholic "New Right" and integralism. A Culture War within Catholic conservatism is engaged! I wish I knew this in detail and depth, but I have followed it enough to have a viewpoint.
1. To start: EVERY political order in fact implements and imposes an underlying metaphysics and religion: a belief in what is real, true, and good. Even when this is unconscious. In that sense, every society is integralist. Our society rejects polygamy and accepts abortion and gay marriage; Sharia law does the opposite. Both are in their opposing ways integralist. Everyone is an integralist of some flavor.
2. What is integralism? It is a reversion to the Catholic political philosophy which prevailed through the middle ages right up to the Vatican Council in 1962: a distinction between Church and state (unlike Sharia law) but the belief that the political order, notwithstanding a certain autonomy, is obliged to serve the common good by supporting the moral-spiritual order as elucidated by the Church.
3.What is liberalism? Patterson rightly begins his essay by attacking Patrick Dineen's pivotal Why Liberalism Failed. I deeply regret that a beautiful word, Liberal, has taken on new meaning in the course of my lifetime. Nevertheless, in the context of this post-liberal debate, liberalism is a bad word: First, the elevation of the isolated, solitary individual as the primary reality. Secondly, a historical narrative in which the freedom of the individual is progressively achieved by release from tradition, religion, authority, and family by the dominance of secular rationalism. Thirdly, this locomotive progression is propelled by a science and technology unrestrained by any moral order. Fourthly, all communal bonds (family, religion, locality tradition, voluntarism, etc.) are dissolved leaving the individual naked in a global market economy and ever-expanding State. Fifthly, this underlying philosophy takes different, even contradictory expressions: the cultural-sexual, libertine individualism of the Left vs. the economic, libertarian individualism of the Right. Lastly, in its various configurations liberalism blends the "Masters of Suspicion" (Marx, Freud, Darwin, Nietzsche, Locke, Friedman, Marcuse, etc.) in a frontal assault on the classical Catholic understanding of the human person, community, family/sexuality/gender, and the Real.
4. Patterson subsumes under the umbrella of "integralism" distinct schools of thought which do not all see themselves in that concept. However, he is basically correct in that all share a novel, hardcore Catholic conservatism and a ferocious animus against liberalism, including the mainstream, fusionist, three-pillared (economic libertarianism, cultural conservatism, and muscular military and foreign policy) "neo-liberal conservatism" of the National Review. It will help to consider different approaches represented in three journals.
The Josias is pure, undiluted, theological integralism edited by a Cistercian monk, Edmund Waldstein. It is narrowly, passionately old-school Catholic, without apologies. It appeals to a very small niche of "weird Catholics" and has no pretensions about broader political impact.
Compact, led by the energetic, talented Sohrab Ahmari, is altogether different: a serious, activist proposal of a conservatism populist both culturally and economically and therefore very Catholic-friendly. It is practical, not academic, and ambitions to reconfigure the Republican Party around the Evangelical-Catholic moral alliance and the economic insecurities of the alienated working class. It is Trumpism-without-Trump. If inflamed by a charismatic leader (J.D. Vance?) it could grab the Republican Party from the wealthy, business class. Small wonder National Review is so negative!
New Polity, out of the Catholic oasis of Franciscan University of Steubenville, is harder to classify. Like the Josias it is academic, not immediately practical. It is headed by medievalist Andrew Willard Jones and largely inspired by decades of work by the John Paul II Institute school of the David Schindlers and Michael Hanby as well as that of John Milbank. I don't think they describe themselves as integralist, but I would describe them as soft integralist. They are as fiercely, deeply Catholic but also draw from John Paul and Benedict, as well as Vatican II, an appreciation for freedom of conscience and pluralism and an aversion to coercion. They do not advocate a confessional state, but a more subtle, nuanced influence of the Church in politics. Patrick Dineen seems to be broadly in their school. They offer no practical politics but their logic would lead to the localism (of the Benedict Option). I recall David L. Schindler (of happy memory) saying "All institutions are fragmented, except the two invented by God himself, the family and the Church."
5. Constitution and the Founding. Patterson argues that integralism conflates liberalism with constitutional republicanism. My reading: the Founding and Constitution are not rejected, but criticized as flawed in that they partially (not completely) draw upon Enlightenment and liberal thought and therefore are not in themselves an adequate foundation for society. Catholics have never shared the Evangelical (eg. Hillsdale College) veneration for the Founding as a sacred event. We do not forget the Masonic, anti-Papist prejudices of almost all of our founders. Surely there is no thought here of getting rid of rule of law, due process, democracy, balance of powers and the rest. Rather, Adrian Vermule has suggested we move beyond "originalism" as an overly narrow constitutional approach toward a "common good" viewpoint. I would agree that a just society must lean upon a moral-metaphysical order, beyond the empowerment of the competent individual. We do need a more profound, comprehensive constitution.
6. Strong State and Labor Unions. Integralist Vermule and Compact's Ahmari surprisingly agree on the value of a strong state and unions and here they directly contradict accepted conservative wisdom. This is a return to the New Deal: worker-friendly and embracive of the direction of Catholic thought in morality (conservative) and economics (critical of the unrestrained market). It is not clear to me that the third school, New Polity, is on board with this.
7. Isolationist Foreign Policy. The view here is critical of the Pax Americana as largely liberal, materialistic, technocratic, imperialist and over-extended. J.D. Vance, for example, opposes the bi-partisan American support for the Ukraine. This is, in my opinion, the greatest error in these emerging schools of thought.
8. The Jews. Patterson gives attention to the Jews and the infamous Mortara incident recalled by Fr. Cessario in First Things 2018. A Jewish boy living in the Papal States was given an emergency baptism by a Catholic housekeeper; his family declined to raise him Catholic; he was taken by the Vatican and raised Catholic. Eventually, he ended up as a happy Catholic priest. For the contemporary mind this is an obscene violation of family rights and religious freedom. To the Catholic mind of 1850 this was saving his soul. My own view is that we need not defend or condemn such an act done in such a different context. The Vatican was surely doing what they thought was right. Were I talking with a Jew I would acknowledge wrong-doing and ask forgiveness for that and an entire history of such violence. In any case, Patterson's concern for the Jews is welcome.
9. Fascist? Patterson finishes his article by arguing a strong affinity of integralism for fascism and authoritarianism. This reminded me of a personal anecdote. Just two months before the Russian invasion of the Ukraine my own pastor returned from a priests conference where he was troubled by Ralph Martin (a favorite of mine) who repeatedly quoted Putin on the moral decline of the West. I am sure that Martin's intention was not to endorse Putin but to reinforce the critique of Western decadence. Nevertheless, this raises very good questions. Is the new Catholic Right flirting with fascism and authoritarianism? This question must be faced honestly. Politics is a messy business; alliances and cooperation with unsavory players are unavoidable. It is also true that liberals configure any offense to the sovereignty of the competent individual as fascist as less discriminating conservatives have often dismissed everything on the Left as "communism." For sure the movement beyond liberalism is a path with many dangers.
10. Impractical? Perhaps the strongest argument against integralism is its impracticality. It is a realistic possibility in very few, Catholic-majority countries (Poland, Philippines). Our country is about 25% Catholic but most are not serious in their Catholic beliefs. Surely no more than 5% of our population could even consider a Catholic nation. Pluralism and secularism define Western civilization.
This argument is cogent, but not dispositive. In working toward the Good, all of us...even and especially in the face of intractable resistance...are moving towards an ideal, however distant and difficult. Therefore, we need always to have in mind the Good we seek. Furthermore, Vermule pointed out recently that history presents many unanticipated twists and oftentimes they are triggered by zealous minorities. He asked: Who anticipated the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Empire? The victory of Donald Trump? The sudden, overwhelming shift in opinion on gay marriage? The rise of the trans-movement? We do well to resist premature capitulation to "so-called-reality" and persist in our deepest values.
Lastly, notes toward a Catholic-inspired, ecumenical Constitution. David L. Schindler about 15 years ago in NYC highlighted three propositions from Pope Benedict as constitutive of a just social order:
First, respect for every human life, however small or incompetent.
Second, reverence for the traditional family and the understanding of sex and gender supporting it.
Third, protection of religious freedom and the sense of the Transcendent.
What we find here is not a Catholic confessionalism, but the outline of a good social order that would be welcomed by many non-Catholics. We see here he gives high priority to freedom of conscience, which is one of the challenges to the emergent integralism
I myself would add others: solidarity with the poor, suffering, marginalized; a subsidiarity that favors the small and limits the cancerous growth of state and market; restraints on technology and social media; the strengthening of international networks that protect peace and endangered minorities.
With the evident, even catastrophic collapse of both our political parties, this is an exiting time to be Catholic and interested in the political order.
No comments:
Post a Comment