Neo-integralism: How Catholic hardliners are fighting democracy

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

Question: Professor Patterson, when people talk about right-wing conservative or even right-wing extremist tendencies in the Catholic Church, the term neo-integralism has been used more frequently recently. What is this term all about?

Patterson: The term refers to 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 should not only be responsible for the salvation of souls, but also for the common good of states - and from this they derive the right to impose obligations on secular governments. Their goal is a Catholic-influenced 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 pretty theoretical ...

Patterson: That's true. However, leading representatives of neo-integralism have long since drawn up concrete political programmes. In their book "Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy", Alan Fimister and Thomas Crean write, for example, that a Christian community must exclude the unbaptised from all areas of public life. Only baptised people who profess the Catholic faith could be citizens with full rights. For people of other faiths, this would mean, among other things, no political participation and no freedom of movement. Basically, this would mean a return to the religious ghettos of the Middle Ages. Even baptised Christians such as Protestants or Orthodox Christians would be affected because they are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Question: That is difficult to reconcile with the fundamental values of modern democracies ...

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

Question: What are the spiritual roots of neo-integralism?

Patterson: Neo-integralism is part of a long tradition of Catholic ideas of domination. As early as the Middle Ages, those loyal to the Pope claimed that the Pope was above secular rulers, especially when it came to the appointment of bishops. In the 19th century, ultramontanists demanded a kind of papal monopoly in Catholic states - particularly with regard to education, welfare and public life. Neo-integralism ties in even more directly with the Catholic reactionaries of the 19th and early 20th centuries: Joseph de Maistre, Juan Donoso Cortés or Charles Maurras are still quoted today. Many of these authors were avowed anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists and bitter enemies of democratic movements. Neo-integralists avoid these dark chapters in their history of ideas, but the parallels are obvious.

Question: Which historical role models do neo-integralists specifically orientate themselves on?

Patterson: There are two directions within the movement. One is what I call the "antiquarians". This group is mainly based in the USA, for example around the small Catholic Franciscan University in Steubenville. Their model is medieval France under St Louis IX - a time when church and state were closely intertwined. For this group, modern bureaucracy is the core 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 reorganisation. 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 counts is his policies: expansion of executive power, promotion of traditional families, restriction of 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 or Marion Maréchal in France also find favour 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 world's leading power - because, he argued, family loyalty still existed there. The most important political ally of the neo-integralists, however, is US Vice President J.D. Vance. He is directly associated with thinkers such as Deneen, Vermeule and Pecknold. Vance repeatedly attracts attention with statements that hint at a Catholic-influenced authoritarianism. He stands for 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 there used to be strong families, local communities and vibrant churches. But liberalism itself has destroyed these foundations. What remains is an individualistic, childless society without cohesion. That is why a new order is needed - a Catholic society with clear religious guidelines, organised in an authoritarian way.

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

Patterson: Numerically, the movement is small, but strategically it is highly dangerous. Its aim is not to win majorities in elections. Their aim is to occupy key positions in politics, administration, universities and the church - insidiously, systematically, over the long term. Vermeule, for example, is a professor at Harvard Law School, Deneen at the renowned University of Notre Dame. Many other players 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 take an active part in politics. Today, Vermeule is referring to the targeted entry into administrations, ministries and think tanks in order to reorganise states from within. It is a long-term plan - and that is precisely why it is so dangerous.

Question: Edmund Waldstein is a name that is often heard in connection with neo-integralism. What role does the Cistercian priest from Heiligenkreuz Abbey in Austria play in the movement?

Patterson: Waldstein was the central figure in the emergence of the movement. 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. It was he who first familiarised theologians like Vermeule or publicists like Ahmari with the ideas of neo-integralism. Today, Waldstein appears less publicly, but his influence remains palpable. In the USA in particular, his texts have influenced many young conservatives. His books are also still read in these circles.

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 fellow campaigners, he came into contact with the ideas of neo-integralism through people like Vermeule and Pecknold. In conservative circles, it is considered an open secret that Vance's employees are said to have worked intensively with Waldstein's texts. This results in an indirect but clear network of influence. In short, Waldstein is very important to understanding Vance, especially in his political transformation from a moderate conservative to a Trump-aligned post-liberal.

Due to the 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 is good when institutions set clear boundaries at an early stage. The longer movements like neo-integralism are given free rein, the more difficult it will be to contain their ideas. I personally regret for Waldstein that it had to come to this. At the same time, this is an opportunity for him to break away from these ideologies. Whether he will take this step remains to be seen.

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

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