Editor’s note: This interview was published earlier this year on the Radical Fidelity Substack.
Riaan Van Zyl: Stephen, you are an advocate for Catholic Integralism, correct? How would you define it?
The Dispatch
Stephen Kokx: Integralism has a long and rich history in the Church. Etymologically, it comes from the word “integral,” meaning whole or complete. While the principles upon which integralism are founded originate with Pope Gelasius and what he taught on the “two swords” theory in the late 400s, it was in the 19th and 20th centuries when the term started to gain popularity.
At that time, the “Integrism” movement in Spain opposed liberal and socialist forces. European Catholics such as Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis Veuillot, and Joseph de Maistre also promoted integralist thinking against the claims of so-called “Enlightenment” philosophers, who erroneously sought to emancipate governments from the duty of recognizing the one true religion.
In 1884, Fr. Félix Sardà y Salvany published Liberalism is a Sin to expose the errors of liberal provocateurs and the weak-kneed Catholics who wanted to make peace with them. He was merely echoing what Leo XIII taught on Church-State relations.
Integralist and “anti-liberal” clergy featured prominently during the reign of St. Pius X. Msgr. Umberto Begnini founded the Sodalitium Pianum in 1909. Its founding charter declared that its members were “integral Roman Catholics” who were also “anti-modernist, anti-liberal … [and] counter-revolutionary.”
Integralist voices appeared in the United States during the middle part of the 20th century when Ed Willock and Carol Robinson founded Integrity in 1946. Fr. Clifford Fenton and Fr. Francis Connell also marched under the integralist banner when they started the American Ecclesiastical Review. On its pages, they thoroughly debunked the arguments of liberal priest Fr. John Courtney Murray.
In recent years The Josias website has sought to revive integralist thinking but I would categorize them as “neo-integralists” in that they see Vatican II — Dignitatis Humanae in particular — in continuity with past teaching. What’s more, the “post-liberal” movement also fails to see how the Council was in rupture with previous magisterial declarations, though its members do seem to understand the dangers liberalism poses politically.
I would add that that since the Council there has been the emergence of what I would call ecclesial integralism. What do I mean? Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was an ecclesial integralist in that he understood well that one cannot separate the doctrinal teachings of the Church from its other aspects.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò touched on this when in a recent interview with me he noted how Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Burke support the Latin Mass but they do not defend the doctrine upon which it is built: “The concept of a peaceful coexistence of two forms of the same Rite is impossible, and it is the result of a de-dogmatization of the Liturgy, which corresponds to a de-liturgization of Doctrine.”
This is absolutely correct and constitutes the main error of Trad Inc., which rejects integralist principles and embraces the faulty arguments of the Liberal Catholics of old who just want to co-exist within the pluralist confines of the Conciliar Church. This is to be expected, however, because they take their cues from the Ecclesia Dei communities, which made an accord with the Vatican unlike Archbishop Lefebvre.
Riaan Van Zyl: Politically, how can one work towards this goal? How do you vote? Along the lines of which criteria?
Stephen Kokx: On a recent episode of Church & State, several panelists told me they plan to abstain from voting in future elections. They maintain that the Republican Party has failed to ensure the long-term common good of the United States by failing to place restrictions on immigration and by supporting H-1B visas, among other policies backed by commercial interest groups. They see the GOP as another front group that doesn’t deserve their vote; it must feel the “pain” of losing elections until it learns to do what is right.
I think there is some strategic value in this. I also think Archbishop Viganò was correct when he told me recently that the institutions in the West are captured and that we cannot do much about it politically at the moment. His words:
“It is a foolish illusion to think that it would somehow be possible to fundamentally reform the institutions of the entire Western world, which are now in the hands of the Synagogue of Satan. Our civilization has reached the terminal stage of a cancer that is eating away at it from within: the rebellion against God inspired and perpetrated by the prince of this world and his servants.”
While I would not fault someone for voting — especially at the local level where there is probably some amount of change that can be made — on a national and international scale, blackmail, intimidation, and other forms of persecution are used to ensure the enemies of Christ maintain their control. As the saying goes: “no matter who you vote for, you always end up with John McCain.”
At the same time, there are ways we can effect change other than voting — talking about taboo topics, popularizing certain arguments, pressuring influencers, and raising general awareness about certain subjects. This approach seems to have resulted in various issues now being openly talked about. I am referring to, among other things, Israel’s long-standing influence over American politics. We can do the same in the Catholic media world as well.
Riaan Van Zyl: Aside from voting, how else can Catholics pursue this philosophy? Should they start political parties that purely have “Catholic aims”? Pressure groups and interest groups with Catholic Integralism as their underlying goal? Any other thoughts?
Stephen Kokx: The great popes of the past always spoke of Catholic Action. St. Pius X and other pre-Vatican II clergy encouraged laity to work with their clergy to defend the Church’s teachings in the public square to “restore all things to Christ.” Unfortunately, the laity are divided on politics these days; many of them vote for pro-abortion and even anti-Catholic lawmakers. This is due to the infiltration that took place after Vatican II in the clerical ranks. Trying to form a single “Catholic Political Party” isn’t realistic, sadly.
Jean Ousset’s book Action — published by IHS Press in 2002 — lays out some practical strategies that I think could be resurrected in these times. He provides valuable insights on how Catholics can be a “creative minority” in the countries they inhabit.
It is important to recall how European Catholics were forced to live during and after World War II. In Poland and elsewhere, the faithful relied on underground seminaries and secret Mass centers. There was no real chance of reclaiming the levers of power. So, too, were Catholics persecuted in 16th and 17th century England. “Priest holes” were invented to protect the clergy from bad actors. Are we not in a similar time?
I suppose the one difference now is that it is not just civil leaders who want to attack faithful Catholics but also those who claim to govern in the name of Christ in His Church. I am thinking here of those who are forced into hotel Masses and resort to purchasing dilapidated buildings just to have an orthodox liturgy.
Riaan Van Zyl: How can Catholics incorporate this into the personal practice of their faith? What does it look like to be an integral Catholic on a personal level?
Stephen Kokx: Again I would like to invoke His Excellency Archbishop Viganò. He told me in a recent interview that it is time for Catholics to form “intentional communities.” He advised them to use their resources to become self-sufficient and to decouple from the economic system that now prevails across the Western world.
I think this is good advice. I also recall something you yourself said on a recent Trad Watch program: namely, that we can and should practice integralism — broadly understood — on a local level while it remains untenable on a larger scale.
I also think we can and must practice ecclesial integralism. This entails the erecting or buying up of abandoned churches and supporting religious who uphold and defend the Catholic faith over and against the errors of the Second Vatican Council.
