Stern unbending face of modernism confronts vast right wing conspiracy

 "Hard-hitting power politics under religious guise"

Neo-Integralism: How Catholic hardliners fight democracy

Ave Maria – They despise liberalism and dream of authoritarian Catholic regimes: Neo-Integralists are planning the anti-democratic restructuring of entire states. In an interview, political scientist James M. Patterson talks about the movement, its most important thinker, and his proximity to US Vice President J.D. Vance.

In debates about right-wing conservative or right-wing extremist tendencies in church and politics, Catholic neo-integralism has recently been mentioned more frequently as an important movement within this scene. But what exactly is neo-integralism all about? What are the movement's historical and ideological roots? What political goals does it pursue? And who are its leading representatives and political role models? US political scientist James M. Patterson of the University of Tennessee explains this in an interview with katholisch.de.

Question: Professor Patterson, when right-wing conservative or even right-wing extremist tendencies in the Catholic Church are discussed, the term neo-integralism has been mentioned more frequently recently. What does this term mean?

Patterson: The term describes a radical political theology that aims to re-establish the Catholic Church as the supreme authority over the secular order. Neo-integralists demand that the Church be responsible not only for the salvation of souls, but also for the common good of states – and from this they derive the right to impose duties on secular governments. Their goal is a Catholic-dominated society in which the state actively promotes the "right faith." For neo-integralists, civil peace is only possible if all citizens are Catholic.

Question: That sounds rather theoretical...

Patterson: That's true. But leading representatives of neo-integralism have long since formulated concrete political programs. In their book "Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy," Alan Fimister and Thomas Crean write, for example, that a Christian community must exclude unbaptized people from all areas of public life. 

See Page 20 here. Not quite what they are saying, as far as I can see.

Only baptized people who profess the Catholic faith could be citizens with full rights. For those of other faiths, this would mean, among other things, no political participation and no freedom of movement. Essentially, this would mean a return to the religious ghettos of the Middle Ages. Even baptized Christians, such as Protestants or Orthodox, would be affected because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

See Immortale Dei, On the Christian Constitution of the State by Pope Leo XIII

Question: That's difficult to reconcile with the fundamental values ​​of modern democracies...

Patterson: Exactly. And that's no coincidence. Neo-integralists deliberately oppose the principles of liberal democracies. Representatives such as Patrick Deneen and Chad Pecknold argue that liberalism has broken its promises because it has alienated people from religion, family, and community. Freedom without commitment to truth leads to a society of isolation, solitariness, and disorientation. While Dennen and Pecknold – unlike Fimister and Crean – do not publicly demand discrimination against those of other faiths, they have never decisively rejected their positions.

"The undisputed hero of many neo-integralists is Viktor Orbán. The fact that he is a Protestant hardly bothers them – what matters is his policies: expanding executive power, promoting traditional families, restricting freedom of the press and opposition."— Quote: James Patterson

Question: Where do the intellectual roots of neo-integralism lie?

Patterson: Neo-integralism stands in a long tradition of Catholic ideas of government. Even in the Middle Ages, papal loyalists claimed that the pope stood above secular rulers, especially when it came to the appointment of bishops. In the 19th century, ultra-montanists demanded a kind of papal monopoly in Catholic states—particularly with regard to education, welfare, and public life. Neo-integralism is even more directly linked to the Catholic reactionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries: Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortés, and Charles Maurras are still quoted today. Many of these authors were avowed anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists, and bitter enemies of democratic movements. Neo-integralists may avoid these dark chapters in their intellectual history, but the parallels are obvious.

Pope Pius XI condemned Action française, the movement of which Maurras was the principal ideologist. 

See Taming Action  Action française 1 and Taming Action  Action française 2

See also The Primacy of the Spiritual by the great Catholic writer, Jacques Maritain written in response to the rise of Godless dictatorships in the 1920s and 30s.

Question: What historical models do neo-integralists specifically draw on?

Patterson: There are two currents within the movement. One I call the "Antiquarians." This group is primarily located in the United States, perhaps around the small Catholic Franciscan University in Steubenville. Their model is medieval France under Saint Louis IX—a time when church and state were closely intertwined. For this group, modern bureaucracy is the root of evil. Their dream is a return to personal, hierarchical models of rule—a kind of Catholic feudalism. The second current is politically far more significant: what I call "clerical fascism." Its representatives openly admire the Catholic-influenced dictatorships of the 20th century, for example, Austrofascism under Engelbert Dollfuss, Franco's Spain, or Salazar's Portugal. Authors such as Adrian Vermeule, Gladden Pappin, and Nathan Pinkoski argue that liberal democracy has failed and that the West needs a post-liberal reorganization. Their solution: a strong, barely controlled state that governs in the name of the Catholic faith.

Question: Which current politicians serve as role models for the neo-integralists?

Patterson: The undisputed hero of many neo-integralists is Viktor Orbán. The fact that he is a Protestant hardly bothers them – what matters is his policies: expanding executive power, promoting traditional families, and restricting press freedom and opposition. Authors such as Pappin, Pecknold, and Sohrab Ahmari regularly praise him. Right-wing populist politicians such as Matteo Salvini in Italy and Marion Maréchal in France also resonate with them. The attitude of some neo-integralists towards the People's Republic of China is also particularly significant. Adrian Vermeule, for example, admires the Chinese government for its effective use of state power. Ahmari once wrote on X that he had "found peace" with China becoming the leading world power – because, he argued, familial loyalty still exists there. The most important political ally of the neo-integralists, however, is US Vice President J.D. Vance. He moves in the immediate circle of thinkers such as Deneen, Vermeule, and Pecknold. Vance repeatedly attracts attention with statements that reveal a Catholic-influenced authoritarianism. He represents a new right in the USA that no longer thinks in a classically conservative way, but in a radically post-liberal way.

Question: How do neo-integralists assess the state of Western democracies?

Patterson: For them, liberalism is dead. They argue that liberal democracies were only possible because of the past, strong families, local communities, and vibrant churches. But liberalism itself has destroyed these foundations. What remains is an individualistic, child-poor, cohesive society. Therefore, a new order is needed – a Catholic-influenced society with clear religious principles, organized in an authoritarian manner.

Question: How great is the danger posed by neo-integralism?

Patterson: Numerically, the movement is small, but strategically it is highly dangerous. Its goal is not to win majorities in elections. Its goal is to occupy key positions in politics, administration, universities, and the church – insidiously, long-term, and systematically. Vermeule, for example, is a professor at Harvard Law School, and Deneen at the renowned University of Notre Dame. Many other actors are active at Catholic universities. Vermeule likes to speak of a "new ralliement" – in reference to Pope Leo XIII, who in the 19th century called on Catholics in France to actively participate in politics. Today, Vermeule means the targeted entry into administrations, ministries, and think tanks in order to restructure states from within. It is a long-term plan – and precisely for that reason so dangerous.

Question: A name that is often heard in connection with neo-integralism is Edmund Waldstein. What role does the Cistercian priest from the Austrian monastery of Heiligenkreuz play in the movement?

Patterson: Waldstein was the central figure in the movement's emergence. Without him, neo-integralism would not exist in its current form. With his online project "The Josias" and his contributions to conservative Catholic media, he became an intellectual leader. He was the one who first introduced theologians like Vermeule and publicists like Ahmari to the ideas of neo-integralism. Today, Waldstein appears less publicly, but his influence remains noticeable. Especially in the USA, his writings have influenced many young conservatives. His books are still read in these circles.

"The Church must clearly name and condemn neo-integralism. Pope Francis already did so in 2019 when he called it a "plague." — Quote: James Patterson

Question: According to media reports, Waldstein was also a source of inspiration for J.D. Vance. What do you know about this?

Patterson: Vance moved in the same online debate spaces as Waldstein and his associates, and he came into contact with the ideas of neo-integralism through people like Vermeule and Pecknold. In conservative circles, it is an open secret that Vance's associates are said to have studied Waldstein's texts intensively. This creates an indirect but clear network of influence. In short, Waldstein is very important for understanding Vance, especially in his political transformation from a moderate conservative to a pro-Trump post-liberal.

Due to media reports about Father Waldstein, the University of Innsbruck recently recommended that he not submit his habilitation thesis to the university. How do you assess this process?

Patterson: In my view, it's good for institutions to set clear boundaries early on. The longer movements like neo-integralism are allowed free rein, the more difficult it becomes to contain their ideas. I personally regret that things had to come to this. At the same time, this is an opportunity for Waldstein to distance himself from these ideologies. Whether he will take this step remains to be seen.

Question: How should the Catholic Church respond to neo-integralism?

Patterson: The Church must clearly name and condemn neo-integralism. Pope Francis already did this in 2019 when he called integralism a "plague." Democratic states must also be vigilant. However, banning such groups could be counterproductive because it makes them seem more appealing. It is much more important to expose the manipulative promises of this ideology: It is not about protecting faith, but about tough power politics under the guise of religion.

Source