By Mathew Schmalz
Since his nomination as the Republican candidate for vice president,
focus has intensified on JD Vance’s religious beliefs and how they connect to his politics.
Vance is a convert to Catholicism and seems to have the same policy positions that many American Catholic conservatives hold: opposition to abortion, support for the traditional family, skepticism regarding liberal immigration policies and efforts to combat climate change, and advocacy of economic tariffs.
Some news reports have also referenced Vance’s apparent association with Catholic Integralism, although Vance himself has not addressed the issue publicly.
So, now might be a good time to ask: What is Catholic Integralism?
What is Catholic Integralism?
The basic position of Catholic Integralism is that there are two areas of human life: the spiritual and the temporal, or worldly. Catholic Integralists argue that the spiritual and temporal should be integrated – with the spiritual being the dominant partner. This means that religious values, specifically Christian ones, should guide government policies.
Catholic Integralists disagree about how to achieve this integration between the spiritual and temporal. Some argue that Christians, particularly Catholics, should have advisory roles in government and lead by example. Other Catholic Integralists want a more comprehensive approach to organizing society along Christian principles.
Catholic Integralists share an opposition to liberalism. Generally, liberalism is understood as a political philosophy that supports limits on the government’s authority and constitutional protections for the rights of individuals and minorities. But Catholic Integralists argue that liberalism is incapable of establishing deep forms of human community because it values individualism and liberty above all things.
The irony, from the Catholic Integralist perspective, is that liberalism is not really that liberal. Instead, liberalism demands – and enforces – adherence to a certain set of values, like tolerance and pluralism, that prevents creating a social order in which human beings can realize a larger, God-given meaning for their lives.
Catholic critiques
There are strong criticisms of Catholic Integralism coming from both within the Catholic church and beyond.
The Vatican II document, “Dignitatis Humanae,” affirms that the state should protect religious liberty for all, not only Catholics. This is a position that some Catholic Integralists would find problematic.
Other critics have argued that Catholic Integralism is “unreasonable” and unworkable because society needs to rely on the cooperation of individuals who inevitably have different ideas and values.
Vance and Integralist views
When considering Vance’s current policy commitments, some certainly seem consistent with Catholic Integralist views. For example, Catholic Integralists might justify opposing immigration and migration because they believe that society needs to be more homogeneous in order to have a shared system of values.
Additionally, Vance has recently called to criminalize gender-affirming care for minors. In one sense, Vance is expressing the overall Catholic belief that sex and gender distinctions are willed by God – a point that Pope Francis has also made. But moving to enforce this religious belief by law might reflect a Catholic Integralist position that society must respect “natural law,” or the order of the universe as believed to be established by God.
Right now, Catholic Integralism is of interest to a distinct minority of Catholic academics and political conservatives in the the English-speaking world. But if Vance is elected vice president, it will be interesting to see what happens if he clarifies – or expands – his apparent Catholic Integralist connections.
Mathew Schmalz is Professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Joe D says
Wow, I’m 70 years old, I’ve been a Roman Catholic all my life, and consider myself generally CONSERVATIVE …and I’ve NEVER heard of Catholic Integralism!?!
Other than my personal opposition to abortion (unless the life of the mother is threatened), to my knowledge NO ONE sanctioned by the Church has approved the ideas you have presented of Catholic Integralism.
Although not supportive of Divorce, there is no formal general push within the Catholic Church for “traditional family” formations with the man in charge, and the woman subservient. That is more likely to be found in FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN Churches. My mother worked outside the home, my wife worked outside the home, my daughter works outside the home. They were/are a team, with no one considered “in charge.”
Our church is HIGHLY accepting of ALL people, including immigrants ….I’ve NEVER heard this pro ported anti-immigration stance suggested within the church….actually quite the OPPOSITE has been my experience!
I would consider your sources VERY MUCH on the FRINGE of Catholic beliefs, and not the main stream teachings of the Catholic Church.
As you stated, according to VaticanII documents, the Catholic Church had recommended that the state offer freedom of all to choose a religion. This is what is accepted by MAINSTREAM Catholics
Unfortunately, JD Vance has seemed to be essentially been high jacked by Trump and his entourage. What Vance has been spouting in the press recently is not the beliefs of Mainstream Catholics, and I resent the presentation here as if Catholic Integralism, is the stance of most local AND National Catholic community members.
I would appreciate the BALANCED reporting of a topic like this from FlaglerLive. I don’t consider this report on a FRINGE group within the Catholic Church (despite mentioning that it is a SMALL group within the Church), is BALANCED at all.
Laurel says
Joe D: Thank you for your comment. Since I am not religious, and want nothing to do with organized religion, when I read something like Vance’s view on Catholicism, I have no comparison and I think it dangerous as a whole. I appreciate you setting the record straight.
The little I do know of Jesus has never, ever struck me as a person who was restrictive and against individualism, and certainly not against liberal behavior. I find it hard to believe that he would want only white people in his flock, and women suppressed, and a disregard for immigration as he and his parents were immigrants. I also find it unbelievable that he would want “God’s word” legislated. It confuses me when people want such extreme conformity, and I always attribute this need to a need for control, not love.
For me, this suppressive, anti-individualism is anti-spiritual.
Joseph Barand says
He fits right in with the largest group of Pedifiles in the world. The Catholic Church should be disbanded and it’s spoils should be distributed to the needy. I ask one simple question, he you ever seen, met a Priest who was normal. Parents use to put their “weird” children into seminaries and convents because of shame, nolonger because the world has changed and now accepts this form of behavior. Has the church ever reformed it’s self, no they simply continue to cover it up. The Catholic Church is the main reason for the growth of the Evangelist movement, but they are not much different.
Joe D says
For Joseph Barand:
REALLY? Your exposure to the REAL Catholic Church (not the MEDIA portrayal) has been EXTREMELY limited, and not REALITY based!
I have met and worked as a volunteer next to priests in my lifetime who have been some of the FINEST, and most FAITHFUL men I have seen. I would like to see MARRIED priests, and I’m open to the consideration of WOMEN priests, like the Anglican and some Episcopal churches do.
Your GENERALIZATION that parents send “weird” children to Seminaries and Convents out of SHAME is ludicrous (although the church has generations ago abandoned the practice of accepting applicants after the 8th grade…it now MOSTLY high school or college). You are basing your information on occurrences from 300-400 years ago (give me a break) And if you want to compare CATHOLIC religious practices to other religions, SOME religions STILL KILL their daughters (not their SONS, however) if they were raped, sexually active, or become pregnant outside of marriage. But THAT’S not “weird” at all?
The Catholic Church is the largest religious provider of humanitarian, social assistance and 3rd world educational services throughout the WORLD REGARDLESS of their religion, if I’m not mistaken (I’m OPEN to CORRECTION).
So if you consider YOURSELF MORALLY SUPERIOR, I would suggest reviewing the Bible passage, where the ancient Jews were going to stone to death a local prostitute…until Jesus reportedly bent down and wrote the accusers’ sins in the dirt. He then stood up asking, “Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone.”…they all walked away.
Judge not, lest you be judged….as the saying goes.
Mondexian Mama says
The framers of our Constitution understood all too well how religion could be used as a political weapon, and wisely expressed maintaining a wall between church and state. Yes, the Church has done so much for humanitarian causes, but it was also responsible for such barbaric lunacy as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and more recently the Rwandan genocide in the 1990’s. One has no further to look than the Middle East to see how religion can be used as a divisive and destructive force. A politician using religion as a campaign tool is not worthy of holding any office of authority. We are NOT a Christian nation, but a nation that allows Christians, Jews, Islamists, etc. to practice their faiths peacefully. Even Atheists are welcome.
That said, a women’s decision on abortion is best left to her, her partner, and her doctor. It’s not your decision, mind your own business.
Ed P says
Why don’t people address the pervasive racial disparity in abortions? There seems to be clear statistical evidence that Black children have not had, and do not have even today, an equal opportunity to survive until birth. Black women have been experiencing abortion rates at nearly 3.5 that of white women for the last 3 decades. It needs to be pointed out that some high density population states do not report racial breakdowns, and California submits no data to the CDC.
It’s estimated over 63 million abortions have occurred in US since 1973. Or about the total population of California and Florida. Or to see it in another analogy, there are only about 25 countries out of about 235 that have populations greater than 63 million, 210 countries have fewer people.
Those numbers may be staggering, don’t tell the whole story, nor do they dictate elimination of abortions. They simply expose a problem, nothing more.
Laurel says
“Catholic belief that sex and gender distinctions are willed by God – a point that Pope Francis has also made.”
If the far right is so damned sure that there are only two genders, man and woman, will someone on the far right please explain to me why men have nipples?
I’ll wait, and I’ll ask again.
Ed P says
Embryo development in early stage is culprit
Remember the mantra
“Follow the science”
Laurel says
Ed P: Oh, I understand what happens during embryo development, I just wonder how those who do not understand it rationalize the existence of nipples on males. Not to mention, how after menopause, women get whiskers on their chins, and men get “man boobs” that are often larger than a woman’s.
Yes, science knows why.
Actually, for some, I think there is no rationalization. I think there is no thought whatsoever.
So I’ll continue to wait for the answer from those who are so sure that there are only two genders, and no range in between.
Ed P says
Laurel,
Not sure where you are headed but:
The two words “sex” and “gender” are used interchangeably but have very different meanings.
Sex refers to the different biological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc
While gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men and understood to be how one identifies.
Science suggests 2 sexes, while societies claim almost infinite genders, seemingly ever expanding.
Of course there are sexual mutations and ambiguities in nature allowing someone to argue the number of sexes beyond 2, but that is not the norm.
Common sense should allow everyone to define a woman or a man. Without being labeled any or al of the 8 defined sexuality related phobias.
Laurel says
“Catholic belief that sex and gender distinctions are willed by God – a point that Pope Francis has also made.”
If the far right is so damned sure that there are only two genders, man and woman, will someone on the far right please explain to me why men have nipples?
I’ll wait, and I’ll ask again.