5 Comments

Thanks for this write up. The title of the book as well as its anti-integralist argument is reminiscent of the writings of another of our Orthodox friends, Dostoevsky, in his famed Grand Inquisitor chapter of the Brothers Karamazov. As is well known, Dostoevsky was not a fan of the Catholic Church, and primarily because he thought she followed the devil in her earthly accumulation of power, rather than following the way of Christ in rejecting all the kingdoms of the world. This plays out in the drama of the Grand Inquisitor whereby the Church, having succeeded in giving man bread, safety, and fraternity in an earthly kingdom is annoyed by Christ's return because he threatens to upend earthly harmony for the sake of higher spiritual truth. Dostoevsky also seemed convicted that the way of Christ begins with an individual's liberty, and not with institutional coercion. In rejecting earthly abundance and comfort, Christ gave men true freedom.

Dostoevsky was of course wrong about the Catholic Church. And there is some irony in his glossing over Orthodox cooperation with state power... he was certainly an unconventional thinker. But, the themes explored in the Grand Inquisitor and the views explored in Vallier's work seem to have overlap. The primacy of freedom, the suspicion of earthly power, and the spiritual blindness that can result from earthly peace and abundance seem to animate the reaction against traditional thought which derives from Aristotle and Aquinas, and sees no hard break between the spiritual and the material order, which has a more specific understanding of freedom, and which has a broader understanding of the role of the state in seeking the good of man.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your very thoughtful and balanced review.

If I may, let me raise a question about baptism. I'll admit upfront that I've framed my question polemically. I do so not to give offense but to see how far the integralist argument can be pushed.

You write that "Vallier’s justice argument gets to the real core of the issue, unlike most liberal attempts to understand integralism, the argument ultimately still begs the question." In other words, it would not be unjust if a "baptized infant ... to be forced to remain Catholic as an adult."

As an Orthodox Christian and priest, I accept the sacramental validity of baptism in the Catholic Church. To say this means, I recognize that a schismatic [Catholic] priest has celebrated the [Orthodox] Church's sacrament. This means that when a Catholic approaches me about becoming Orthodox he is NOT leaving the Catholic Church but being reconciled to the Orthodox Church in which (even if unknowingly) he has been baptized.

For both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, no one is baptized "Protestant" even if they are raised in the Protestant tradition. Why would an integralist NOT demand that a baptized Christian not conform to the religious identity of the State?

Let's imagine, you as a Catholic live in an Orthodox integralist State (or I as an Orthodox Christian live in a Catholic state), on what grounds would your (or my) religious freedom trump the objective validity of our baptism?

If the infant baptized as a Catholic can justly be required to remain as an adult in the Catholic Church what prevents the State from making a similar demand of validity baptized Orthodox Christians (or Protestants, but let's stick with schism for now)? Or, for that matter, why couldn’t an Orthodox state demand a Catholic adult remain faithful to the [Orthodox] baptism that he received as an infant at the hands of a validly ordained but schismatic priest?

Though I focused here on baptism, the argument is not wholly dissimilar to the objections of some Orthodox Christians to Eastern Catholics. This has especially been a concern raised by the Orthodox Church in Russia for whom the existence of Eastern Catholic communities is not only an affront to the Orthodox Church but a real injustice. In an Orthodox state, would it be just to require them to return to the Orthodox Church?

Again, this is a polemical way of phrasing the issue but, well, it's a comment box and space is limited. At the same time, it is an argument that I think at least some Orthodox Christians would find convincing.

Thank you for your time!

In Christ,

Fr Gregory

Expand full comment

Fr. Gregory,

Thank you for your comment. I think your analysis here is correct strictly speaking. The Church would have the authority to coerce a Protestant or Orthodox to the Catholic Church. HOWEVER, doing so I think would likely be a sin against prudence and charity since I think (especially in a modern context) it would not actually help the person to return to the Catholic Church, but would only serve further to create divisions. We can see this from the numerous times in the last few centuries when there were forced unions on either side of the schism. I think the issue at hand in Vallier's argument is whether it is strictly speaking a violation of justice. The integralist position is that it would not strictly speaking violate justice. I would bring up the distinction we make in the theology of God here between the potentia absoluta (what one has the power to do) and the potentia ordinata (what it is fitting to do). An authority can have a power to do something that it ought not to do.

In Christ,

Gideon

Expand full comment

And, in an Orthodox state, would it be just (if imprudent) to coerce an Catholic to become Orthodox?

Expand full comment

Well from a Catholic perspective, since the Catholic Church is the true Church, it would be unjust to force a Catholic to leave. I think any other perspective would require a sort of neutral view on the relationship between the truth of a religion and the application of justice that integralism would reject.

But it is for precisely this reason (genuine disagreement about the truth of religions) that it would be imprudent to actually implement this aspect of integralism in a society with an established non-Catholic minority. I think the original intention of the teaching had to do with new heresies arising.

Expand full comment