Just to clarify, Wednesday’s post on the “Age of Francis” was in no way, shape, or form intended to disparage the good work conducted over at Solidarity Hall or to discourage anyone from picking up a copy of their new anthology, Radically Catholic in the Age of Francis. Having now had the chance to get through about half of the book, I can say, without reservation, that it is a very thoughtful collection expressing views which are both interconnected and diverse. A full review of the work is no doubt in order and if time permits I will attempt one. In the meantime, I want to offer some very provisional and rather general thoughts on what the contents appear to be saying about what has come to be known as radical Catholicism and where their thinking converges, and in other points departs, from the new wellspring of Catholic integralism. At this point I am not going to name individual authors and their essays, and I want to stress that radical Catholicism is not monochromatic and there are certainly individual writers who are more or less integralists in their thinking, even if they wouldn’t necessarily define themselves as such.
First, radical Catholicism appears to be very impressed with the so-called new theology that emerged in the 20th Century, specifically the strand associated with the journal Communio. Integralists, historically, have been wary of these developments, though perhaps less so today. Part of that wariness comes from how the Thomistic tradition has been interpreted or, rather, reinterpreted over the past 50 years. Bound to that matter is the question of Scholasticism and whether its alleged “defeat” was actually a defeat or a circumvention.
Second, it’s unclear to what extent radical Catholics acknowledge the social Kingship of Christ and classical natural law. Radical Catholics appear to place a heavy premium on individual action, discourse, and building bridges with secular orientations which do not appear to directly contradict Catholic teaching—these can all be very good things, though integralists would add that they must be oriented by divine and natural law. It is also unclear as well how far radical Catholics are willing to go to interpret a document such as Dignitatis Humanae in harmony with the social tradition that preceded it.
Third, on the complicated question of economics (political economy), radical and integralist Catholics appear to share a good deal of common ground. Both reject modern capitalism, which includes not just so-called “crony capitalism” but also the laissez-faire brand advocated by libertarians, and both believe that a proper economic ordo must be structured by the Church’s social magisterium. Where differences appear to emerge is on the matter of socialism—a fraught category if there ever was one. To what extent should a central authority actively redistribute wealth? What role does subsidiarity play in the restructuring of economies, either local or national? How easily can socialistic models be squared with the magisterium? And so on and so forth.
Fourth, there is a great deal of room for radical and integralist Catholics to clarify their respective attitudes toward democracy. Integralists, to some extent, have been more open about their suspicions toward modern democratic politics and liberal ideology as a whole than radical Catholics. Radical Catholics, too, have expressed misgivings, though they appear to be qualified misgivings that are offered independent of classical political philosophy and the insights added by the great medieval theologians, particularly St. Thomas Aquinas. Other related topics, such as the role of natural law in society and the question of rights, may also reveal further divergences between radical and integralist Catholics.
Last, and very generally, integralist Catholics appear to take a broader view of the Church’s social teaching than radical Catholics. For integralists, the modern social magisterium appears not with the promulgation of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum but with the writings of Pope Pius VI against the French Revolution. At the same time, integralists seek to bolster their thinking with insights drawn from the medieval to the modern period while focusing as well on the sizable body of Catholic social thinking produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is not to say that all radical Catholics live in a bubble or are solely forward-looking in their intellectual orientation, only that they place a greater premium on present categories of thought than integralists do.
April 10, 2015
Thanks for these reflections. It’s good to see this outline of contrasts and common. And I do hope that the “common ground” aspect proves to be the predominant feature as we try to spread our message and connect with folks like yourself.
April 10, 2015
You raise some very helpful distinctions. I think your first distinction between the RadCath. preference for the Nouvelle Theologie on the one hand and the Integralist preference for Thomism/Scholasticism is more of a tendency than a categorical distinction. The Catholic Tradition which forms the basis of integralism spanned several centuries–sometimes Thomistic philosophy was in vogue, other times it was not. Thus the integralist need not be a strict Thomist (although he must necessarily recognize the excellence of this theology). It’s a more open question whether one can by an integralist while adhering to the Nouvelle Theologie (probably not, but I’d like to see someone try it).
I think your other distinctions get closer to the heart of the matter. The RadCaths criticize many of the same things as integralists (capitalism, liberalism, etc.). However, their proposed solutions only seem to invoke a relatively vague and generalized understanding of the Church’s tradition. The RadCaths seem to want to reinvent the wheel based on general principles without considering the Church’s concrete and specific statements and positions on a variety of economic and political matters across the centuries. The integralist is willing to admit that the Church’s economic and political prescriptions from the 19th or 17th or 15th centuries might not necessarily be wise today. But the integralist (unlike most RadCaths) is at least willing to consider them.
Another key distinction which I think you touch on in your third point is the significant levelling /egalitarian element among RadCaths. Perhaps this is not wrong per se, but it does mean that RadCaths are often unwilling to consider the Church’s Tradition to extent it emphasized social hierarchy based on a series of duties and responsibilities.
April 10, 2015
I agree with you that integralism need not be Thomistic, or purely Thomistic. I think it would be beneficial if it were not or, rather, kept a wide gaze over the entire field of Catholic theology, East and West. Where Thomism becomes so important to the integralist project is on the level of drawing basic distinctions concerning the social order and articulating a three-dimensional image of the common good. Thomism, or a certain type of Thomism, supplies better tools for this project. And because of its rigor, there is a “natural conservatism” to Thomism which, in these days at least, is of great utility. I also think integralists tend to give a lot of (needful) deference to Leo XIII’s words in Aeterni Patris.
April 10, 2015
” … integralists seek to bolster their thinking with insights drawn from the medieval to the modern period while focusing as well on the sizable body of Catholic social thinking produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”
I infer from this, as a gross oversimplification on my part, that neither movement draws much from the Antique Era? Perhaps they do, in so far as the Fathers overlap with Antiquity?
This jumps to mind because the modern Western social anomie and rootlessness seems akin to certain Ancient conditions. So also truly intercontinental economies, massive polities, constant migration, etc.
I suppose a Scholastic would say that the Medievals already synthesized it all? Or is there a paucity of sources?
Forgive the question if ignorant.
April 10, 2015
I am probably using “medieval” here in too broad of a sense to basically mean the period following the fall of old Rome onward. I certainly don’t discount the Patristic period at all, even if we have to be careful at how we handle earlier theological speculations and inchoate doctrinal formulations. One of the unfortunate legacies created by certain strands of 20th C. theology is this idea that the Church Fathers, particularly the Greek Fathers, provide a way of doing an end-run around the received tradition. Yes, we do need to read the Fathers, but with fresh eyes that are interested in learning what they have to say, not how their words can be used to “build bridges” with (post)modernity.
April 11, 2015
Modestimus,
You’re a hypocrite. You stand speaking on Catholicism as an abstract reality and you refuse to face up the recent clownery of Francis, your Pope, who you’re preaching about submission. Why do you not come back to the reality to explain for us how a pope so tortuous as him can confirm your ideas about a papacy as model of orthodoxy and unity? How does he prove the Catholicism as superior to the Orthodox?
Or is it painful to you? The reality hurts.
April 11, 2015
What? I am sorry, you have obviously confused my blog for a paranoid schizophrenic support board.
April 11, 2015
You may have something there, Primo.
Over the weekend celebrity Orthodox Rod Dreher has been publicly celebrating the pain of his Orthodox reality here (well, sorry, that’s more about a personal project of his he’s promoting than Orthodoxy per se), here, where he makes reference to the fascinating phenomenon of “holiness shifts”,
like building Dodge trucks, I suppose, except out of prayer, and, here, where children can be made to stand in three-hour stretches, albeit without buckets of sand held in their skinny, outstretched arms.
The whole thing sounds more to me like a devotee explaining BDSM without the sex or the safe words, but I’ll confess I’m not wise in the gnosis involved there. Perhaps you could illuminate me.
April 13, 2015
If you have the stomach for it, check out Primo’s blog, where he asserts, among other things, that Jesus was not Jewish.
Ohhhhhhkay.