Public Discourse:
Philosophy, Politics, Religion and the Public Square by Thomas Pink
Integralism further involves a conception of the church as an authority
over religion that replaces the state. The church is a sovereign potestas,
with the authority to make laws and enforce these through punishments,
just as is the state. Its authority is based not on natural law as is
the state’s, but on the revealed law of Christ. Any interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae that denies this conception of the church as potestas
over religion runs directly against the interpretation of that
declaration given officially at Vatican II by the commission that
drafted it. (For more on this, see my “Dignitatis Humanae: continuity after Leo XIII”.)
Latin integralism depends upon and promotes Latin maximalist conceptions of ecclesial authority, especially the authority of the bishop of Rome.
It is tempting to suppose that there are two quite different kinds of
state: an integralist state that prioritizes the good of the community,
and a liberal state that fosters the autonomy of the individual. But
perhaps the better view is that there simply exist states that serve the
common good in a way that involves enforcing an ethical consensus.
The questions that should be asked are: what is the common good, what defines a political community, and is any state, integralist or otherwise, able to bring about the common good. Maybe integralists will have a new response to MacIntyre and Cavanaugh--until they do, they theorizing merely serves statism, and at best they serve as controlled opposition, inconsequential and no threat to the status quo.
