Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. —St. Jerome

Main Menu

Unfortunate Critique of Integralism by a Dominican

Started by Kephapaulos, October 03, 2021, 08:41:31 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Fr. Rooney makes an attempt to critique integralism but is not clear enough I think where with he stands albeit a "perfectionist" position, according to what he says.

Would it not be fine to tax or punish non-Catholics not so much to force them to convert but as really an act of mercy for them to feel in the temporal order the objectively dangerous state of their souls in order to encourage them to willingly come to the light of the truth? I remember a friend of mine in the past saying it is not good that non-Catholics do it, but it is okay if we do it. ;D

Are false ecumenists that afraid of the ire of the world to not positively promote the faith and ask civil authorities to do so? (rhetorical)

I was partly reading comments of the video on Youtube too.

The critique also reminds me of some Dominicans trying to defend evolution with St. Thomas.

Fr. Rooney, O.P. interviewed in the video teaches at a Baptist university, and of course, it can be easy to compromise principles if one is not careful being in an environment that lacks Catholicism.


QuoteWould it not be fine to tax or punish non-Catholics not so much to force them to convert but as really an act of mercy for them to feel in the temporal order the objectively dangerous state of their souls in order to encourage them to willingly come to the light of the truth?
Integralism discusses coercion in the context of "the two swords" (ch. 11):
QuoteThe 1917 Code of Canon Law stated in canon 2214 §1: "The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties." This teaching is maintained in the more recent code. Cf. 1983 Code, canon 1311: "The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce (coercere) offending members of the Christian faithful (christifidelesi) with punitive sanctions (poenaibus sanctionibus)"; also canon 1312§2: "The law can establish [...] expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church." For clerics these sanctions may include a form of imprisonment, such as an order to reside in a monastery; cf. canons 1364 and 1336.
The State would seem to be able to use similar coercion over the unbaptized.

Only baptized Catholics were able to hold political offices in many countries, like Spain right up until Vatican II.


@3:07: Quoting an integralism website:
QuoteIntegralism holds that there are two powers that rule him, a temporal power and a spiritual power, and since man's temporal end is subordinated to his eternal end, the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power.
He claims it's a non sequitur that "the temporal power must be subordinated to the spiritual power".

Quas primas 18:
Quote from: Pius XIAll men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society [...] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ.

@10:43: "The Church is like a moral expert, so the authority of the Church over the State is just as like a moral expert."
Civil and religious authority both come directly from God; cf. On the origin of civil power (Diuturnum) by Pope Leo XIII.

@11:37: "everybody has an obligation to listen to the truth". Yes.

@11:52: "Integralists often say things like: 'God gave all authority to the Church, and the State somehow receives it from the Church because all authority comes from God.'"
No. Integralism ch. 5 "Institution of the temporal authority":
Quote from: Crean & Fimisterinstitution by the spiritual power does not mean that popes and bishops must choose temporal rulers, nor that these rulers must take instruction from the spiritual power in purely temporal matters, that is, ones which do not in themselves require revelation or grace to accomplish, for example, the best manner to build a road or train an army. It means that the temporal power, to exist in a well-ordered manner and to be legitimate simpliciter must be put at the service of the spiritual power, so that it may play its part in bringing men to heaven.
De Regno, I.16: "It pertains to the king's office to promote the good life of the multitude in such a way as to make it suitable for the attainment of heavenly happiness."

After saying the Church has not taught officially taught integralism, he seems to insinuate that in practice it has, when Rooney claims "popes have taken away Jewish children to be baptized [if so, this is contrary to II-II q. 10 a. 12], forced them to attend Catholic preaching" (13:17). What's his historical basis for these claims?

@14:04: "impose a Catholic order". He seems to caricature integralists as "Catholic jihadists"...

QuoteThe whole theory [of integralism] in my opinion is that the the point of human society is to make people good, and the right answers about what will make people good are the answers that the Catholic faith gives; ergo, we we can set up society on the presumption that the Catholic faith is true. [...] I think the people who you're governing should have a say in what what they want their society to be.
But members of society have an obligation to submit to a lawfully constituted authority.

Very befuddled thinking here:
QuoteNot everybody agrees it's part of the natural law [...] that the homosexuality right is immoral. That's a part of Catholic teaching; homosexual actions are immoral on Catholic teaching, and we claim it's part of the natural law; we claim it's objective, it's naturally knowable morality. I don't think that licenses you just to pass a law tomorrow to have the president pass an executive order outlawing gay marriage.
Does he think that because not everyone knows the natural law, it's really not natural law? The State has the obligation to enact and enforce laws commanding/guiding its citizens in the observance of the natural law, only tolerating the evil of their non-observance to avert a greater evil or achieve a greater good (cf. Libertas §33).
Also, there are many naturally knowable truths that can also be known supernaturally, e.g., the existence of God; this doesn't mean the State isn't obliged to recognize His existence.

QuoteThomas Crean said on Twitter and has said before, he thinks something like this: "[Some] Individuals could not know the natural law without the Church [or State?] telling them."
Why's he disagree with that?

@53:11: He claims integralists think "civil government needs to establish the Church". No, it needs to recognize it. Christ established the Church.

@54:22: "They sort of say: 'Error has no rights.'" It is what we say, as ++Lefebvre succinctly said!

@55:09: "We [integralists] can just set the State up to help them [non-Catholics], to tell them the right answers whether or not they want. It's okay because it's good for them."
What's wrong with that?

@58:52: "every way you do it is really coercive to people".
He thinks the State enacting laws to guide/direct its citizens on the path of morality is Pelagian, a "work" that interferes with the operation of grace?
Does he think the Great Commission, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt 28:19), is forced conversion‽
I wonder what his views of the Church's authority over education are. Integralism ch. 6 thesis: "(viii) Even outside Christendom, the temporal power may not establish non-religious schools."

Quas primas 24.
Quote from: Pius XIThe right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them.
Rooney and other liberals / ecumaniacs do exactly this.

I wonder what Rooney thinks of the encyclicals in Popes Against Modern Errors?


Here's the interview of Crean, O.P.:
I like how he begins by saying the credibility of Revelation forms the basis for creating a proper polity. As he wrote in Integralism ch. 1, "Politics, like all moral philosophy, must be instructed by divine revelation."

He seems to think abortion has led to a lack of credibility in the Church and Revelation:
Quote from: Crean, O.P.I think there is a big problem with suppressed guilt in modern society, and I suspect that abortion has a lot to do with that, because the law of God is written on our hearts. People do know that abortion is a crime, and I think the guilt that people live with as a result of that [...] leads to two things: (1) it leads them to be hostile to the law of God, to try to block out the law of God, and that's why in all kinds of ways natural law gets more and more trodden down by civil law and marriage gets repudiated and pornography gets put into the mainstream and so on, a destructive downward spiral; (2) [...] repressed guilt then gets projected onto other people, and people [who] try to defend natural law, defend the law of God, are more and more attacked as haters, as bigots, as extremists, and this is a situation that there is no natural remedy for. The only remedy is the preaching of the Gospel and people believing in the mercy of God. When people believe in the mercy of God, then we can begin to put an end to this this terrible situation.