Integralism: A Manual of Poilitical PhilosophyIntegralism_ A Manual of Poilitical Philos

cf. [Fr. Crean, O.P.'s talk critical of Vatican II's *Dignitatis Humanæ*](http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm) > Political philosophy is therefore a branch of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy in general is the study of man's life, and of the good which strictly befits, or is proportioned to, man's nature: its goal is to show us how to attain this good on earth. Political philosophy, or politics, is the study of man's life insofar as he is united with his fellow men in a way that extends beyond the family. Since, as we shall see, the good that men may obtain by this union is greater than the good which they may obtain by their union in domestic society, which in turn is greater than the good which they may obtain as individual human beings, **politics is** the study of the highest good, proportionate to human nature, which may be obtained on earth **. It is therefore the highest branch of moral philosophy.** St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine are cited frequently and the [24 Thomistic Theses](http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm) and [Cdl. Ottaviani](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004)! Friendship is discussed frequently. Christianity made friendship, "the foundation of every created society" (ref:8.94), possible between men and women (cf. Rader [*Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7813) ). ref:8.62: > Aristotle, [*Nicomachean Ethics* , VIII.9 ["Friendships and Civic Association"]](https://isidore.co/aquinas/Ethics8.htm#9): “In every society there seems to be some sort of justice, and some sort of friendship.” It gets into [ecclesiology](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8873) a bit, too! ref:10.4: "the family is a necessary and not a voluntary society." ref:10.60: > In a *tour de force* of disingenuous rhetoric, Karl Marx (1818-83) in his *Communist Manifesto* (1848), seeks to deflect the reader’s attention from his doctrine of the community of wives while insinuating the very principle by alleging its universality {[ *The Principles of Communism* §21](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#21) "What will be the influence of communist society on the family?": "Community of women [i.e., women as public property] is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it."! }. *De facto* he stands at the head of the modern movement to destroy the natural society of the family through the propagation of sexual immorality climaxing in the stupefying denial of the sexual difference itself. ref:10.143: "(xvii) The family and not the individual citizen is the basic unit of the temporal commonwealth, and hence it is fitting to vest certain offices in families and not merely in individuals." §"Social Units" (ref:10.51) should have been put in the ch. 3 The Family §Theses (ref:10.127): "The individual and not the family is thus the basic unit of ecclesiastical society." (He says this after quoting St. Augustine saying that the world would end if humans ceased procreating.) ref:12.3: "Among fallen men temporal life must be guided not only by *auctoritas* , in the sense of the simple right to govern, but also *potestas* , in the sense of governance with coercion." cites Pope Gelasius's letter [*Duo sunt*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/87361/1787) ([Latin](http://www.monarchieliga.de/index.php?title=Famuli_vestrae_pietatis), [English](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/gelasius1.asp)): Duo sunt quippe, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata pontificium et regalis potestas, in quibus tanto gravius pondus est sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem. Nosti etenim, fili clementissime, quoniam licet præsideas humano generi dignitate, rerum tamen præsulibus divinarum devotus colla submittis atque ab eis causas tuæ salutis expetis, inque sumendis cælestibus sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis subdi te debere cognoscis religionis ordine potius quam præesse. Nosti itaque inter hæc ex illorum te pendere iudicio, non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem. | There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will. ---|--- ch. 5 on the temporal authority and the superiority of the spiritual authority quotes Boniface VIII’s dogmatic bull *Unam sanctam* (ref:12.27)! §"Temporal power is subject to spiritual power" quotes St. Robert Bellarmine (ref:12.20): > When kings and princes come to the Church to be made Christians, they are received with the agreement, either express or tacit, to submit their sceptres to Christ and to promise to preserve and defend the faith of Christ, even under pain of losing their realm. [...] For whoever is not ready to serve Christ, and to lose for His sake whatever he has, is not suitable for the sacrament of baptism. > *Controversiaes* ‘[On the Supreme Pontiff](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=8275), bk. 5, ch. 7: “Quando reges et principes ad Ecclesiam veniunt ut Christiani fiant, recipiuntur cum pacto expresso vel tacito ut sceptra sua subiciant Christo, et polliceantur se Christi fidem servaturos et defensuros sub poena regni perdendi [...] Nam non est idoneus sacramento baptismi qui non est paratus Christo servire, et propter ipsum amittere quidquid habet.” ref:12.77: "'It is more beneficial to the Republic to have a bad prince than to have none.' [St Robert Bellarmine, Controversiae, ‘On the members of the Church’, bk. 3, ch. 4.]" ref:17.5 is on how ( *pace* Taparelli) there is no natural "society of states"; thus, the "United Nations" or "League of Nations" is not natural; cf. PDF pp. 113-16 of [*Essai de doctrine sociale et politique à l’école de saint Thomas d’Aquin*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6809). [St. Thomas on usurpation of temporal power](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=221.msg556#msg556): ch. 5, last § ("Usurpation of temporal power"), EPUB ref:12.73, quotes [*Super Sent.* lib. 2 d. 44 q. 2 a. 2](https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp2044.html#7359) ("Utrum Christiani teneantur obedire potestatibus saecularibus, et maxime tyrannis") co.: > The one who seizes dominion by violence does not become truly the superior or lord; and therefore where there is the possibility, one can drive off such dominion, unless perhaps afterwards he is made truly lord either through the consent of the subjects or through the authority of a superior. > qui enim per violentiam dominium surripit non efficitur vere praelatus vel dominus; et ideo cum facultas adest, potest aliquis tale dominium repellere: nisi forte postmodum dominus verus effectus sit vel per consensum subditorum, vel per auctoritatem superioris ref:12.167: "Sixtus V in 1589 bestowed great praise upon the Dominican lay brother Jacques Clement for the tyrannicide of Henry III of France"! ref:13.81 on the [principle of subsidiarity](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=9124): > [*Quadragesimo anno*](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html), 79-80: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. The supreme authority of the republic ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby it will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of this principle of ‘supportive duty’ ( *subsidarii officii* ) so will authority within society be stronger and more effective, and the commonwealth itself more prosperous and glad.” ch. 11 "The Two Swords" fn119 (ref:18.236): "St Thomas affirms that soldiering may be motivated not simply by the safety of the commonwealth, but also by 'the conservation of divine worship'; [STh 2a 2ae 188, 3](https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS188.html#SSQ188A3THEP1) [a religious order may be fittingly established for soldiering ( *militandum* ), not indeed for any worldly purpose, but for the defense of divine worship ( *divini cultus* ) and public safety (publicæ salutis)]." Necessity of the secular arm for attaining spiritual ends: ch. 12 "The Two Cities" (ref:19.18-21) cites St. Augustine's [Epistle 93](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm): 16-17 to Donatist Vincentius. St. Augustine trusted in "Dominican" tactics alone in converting Donatists: "Originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics.", but St. Augustine resorted to "Jesuit" tactics when, as Crean & Fimister write, his "mind was changed by seeing that financial penalties imposed by the Roman laws occasioned sincere and lasting conversions." Thus, the secular arm is necessary, as it was also in the [Albigensian crusade](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=8550). ref:19.12: "Writing to a pagan magistrate who imagined that Christian and non-Christian might be united in the temporal objective of furthering the good of their homeland," something Maritain advocated, "St Augustine rejects this idea" in [Letter 91](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102091.htm).6. ref:19.18 on the use of force/coercion ("Jesuit" approach) can be more effective than argumentation ("Dominican" approach): > When the Catholic emperors desired to assist the Church in her struggle with the Donatists in Africa, the bishop of Hippo wished at first to receive nothing more than protection against the material violence of these schismatics. Preaching alone, he thought, should be used to recall them to unity with the Church. His mind was changed by seeing that financial penalties imposed by the Roman laws occasioned sincere and lasting conversions. Writing to Vincentius, a Donatist who had complained about these laws as contrary to Christian tradition, the bishop of Hippo unfolded his thought at some length [[Epistle 93](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm): 16-17. The whole letter should be read.]: > "We see not a few men here and there, but many cities, once Donatist, now Catholic, vehemently detesting the diabolical schism, and ardently loving the unity of the Church; and these became Catholic under the influence of that fear which is to you so offensive, by the laws of emperors. [...] Originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point. > "For, in the first place, there was set over against my opinion my own town, which, although it was once wholly on the side of Donatus, was brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of the imperial edicts, but which we now see filled with such detestation of your ruinous perversity, that it would scarcely be believed that it had ever been involved in your error. [...] For how many were already, as we assuredly know, willing to be Catholics, being moved by the indisputable plainness of truth, but daily putting off their avowal of this through fear of offending their own party. How many were bound, not by truth – of which you had not the possession – but by the heavy chains of inveterate custom. [...] > "How many supposed the sect of Donatus to be the true Church, merely because ease had made them too listless, or too conceited, or too sluggish, to take pains to examine Catholic truth! How many would have entered earlier had not the calumnies of slanderers, who declared that we offered something else than we do upon the altar of God, shut them out. How many, believing that it mattered not which party a Christian belonged to, remained in the schism of Donatus only because they had been born in it, and because no one was compelling them to forsake it and pass over into the Catholic Church." Families (not individuals) are the units of civil society, so votes should represent families; ch. 8 §"Suffrage" (ref:15.101): > If civil society is a union of families, then if we desire with St Thomas to have a democratic element within civil society, each family must be represented. If both parents are living, the father represents it within society and thus votes. If he dies, his widow takes his place at the family’s head, and she represents it and votes. If both husband and wife were to vote, the family itself would no longer be represented, and their votes might mutually nullify themselves. Women were able to vote in the Middle Ages (if they were the heads of households). This right was taken away at the French Revolution. ch. 6 fn. 14 (ref:13.65): > We take this Declaration on Religious Liberty to refer to the rights and duties of rulers and citizens under natural law, since it apparently intends to abstract from “the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ”, which doctrine it mentions not to expound but only to declare it left intact ( *Dignitatis humanæ* 1). No, [*Dignitatis Humanæ*](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html) §2 itself says "that the human person has a right to religious freedom" "is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself." The document is not restricting itself to what is naturally knowable or to the civil sphere alone. ([source](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=234.msg732#msg732)) It also mentions "a full survey of the possible orthodox interpretations of *Dignitatis humanæ* " in "T. Crean[, O.P.] and A. Fimister (ed.), [*Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium: Dialogos Institute Collection*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8442), vol. 1 (Dialogos Institute: 2017)." * * * Tripartite division of temporal authority, as in the U.S. government, is Aristotelian: *Integralism* ch. 5, § "Division of temporal authority": > 65 This tripartite division is often attributed to Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755). In fact it is equivalently found in Aristotle’s [*Politics*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7645) IV. 14: “There are, then, three parts in all constitutions (εστι δη τρία μόρια τών πολιτειών πασών). [...] Of these three, one is that which deliberates about common matters (το βουλευόμενον περί τών κοινών); the second concerns the offices (δεύτερον δε το περί τάς άρχάς), what they should be and over what matters they should have authority, and what the manner of choosing them must be; the third is the judiciary (τρίτον δέ τί το δικάζον).” This passage states in effect that a constitution (this appears to be the best translation on this occasion of πολιτεία) must provide for a legislature, a functioning executive and a judicial power. > > 66 A. Ottaviani defines it [ **legislative power** ] as the ‘right of determining in an obligatory manner the things which are necessary and useful for attaining the end of the society’ [ *ius proponendi obligatorio iodo quae necessaria et utilia sunt ad finem societatis assequendum* ]; [*Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004), 4th edition (Rome: Vatican Press, 1954), 43 [PDF p. 25]. > > 67 A. Ottaviani defines it [ **judicial power** ] as ‘the right of declaring and proposing in an obligatory manner which concrete acts of subjects are conformed or contrary to right, and the legitimate effects of this conformity or contrariety’ [ *ius declarandi seu proponendi modo obligatorio, quænam subditorum actiones in concreto sint iuri conformes, quaeque eidem difformes, et effectus legitimos eiusdem, conformitatis aut difformitatis* ]; [*Compendium*](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004), 49 [PDF p. 28]. > 68 Or as the [ **executive power** ] "right of enforcing the application of laws and sentences, of directing persons or of disposing of things, and of removing all obstacles which impede the full possession of the social end" [ *ius urgendi legum sententiarum que applications, dirigendo personas vel disponendi de rebus, atque removendo ommia obstacula quæ finis socialis plenam, assecutionem impediunt* ]; [*ibid.*](https://), 61. The executive power itself may be divided into a power of governance, in regard to persons, and of administration, in regard to things. The power of coercion, which is sometimes mentioned as a third part of the executive power, is therefore rather an aspect of the power of governance. Christ the King has all three of these powers: Pius XI, [*Quas primas*](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html) §14 * * * ref:12.5: Hugh of St. Victor (✝1141) wrote ( *De sacramentis* , [*PL* 176:418](https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs05migngoog/page/n217/mode/2up)): > It belongs to the spiritual power both to institute the earthly power, so that it may exist, and to judge it if it be not good. It was itself instituted by God to be first, and if it should go wrong, it can be judged by God alone, as it is written: *The spiritual judges all things, and is itself judged by none* ([1 Cor. 2[:15]](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=2&l=15-#x)). That the spiritual power is, in regard to its divine institution, both first in time and greater in dignity is clearly declared in the ancient people of the Old Testament, where first of all the priesthood was instituted by God, and afterwards, the royal power was ordained by the priesthood, at the command of God. For this reason, in the Church, the priestly dignity still consecrates the royal power, both sanctifying it by a blessing, and forming it by an act of instituting. * * * Pope Pius XI, [*Divini illiud magistri*](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri.html) distinguishes three necessary societies (ref:16.47): > [...] there are three necessary societies, distinct from one another and yet harmoniously combined by God, into which man is born: two, namely the **family** and **civil society** , belong to the natural order; the third, the **Church** , to the supernatural order. > In the first place comes the family, instituted directly by God for its peculiar purpose, the generation and formation of offspring; for this reason it has priority of nature and therefore of rights over civil society. Nevertheless, the **family is an imperfect society** , since it has not in itself all the means for its own complete development; whereas **civil society is a perfect society** , having in itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the temporal well-being of the community; and so, in this respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre-eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable temporal perfection precisely in civil society. > The third society, into which man is born when through Baptism he reaches the divine life of grace, is the **Church** ; a society of the supernatural order and of universal extent; **a perfect society** , because it has in itself all the means required for its own end, which is the eternal salvation of mankind; hence it is supreme in its own domain. * * * The Dominican lay brother Jacques Clément, O.P. (1567–1589) assassinated King Henry III of France*, and Pope Sixtus V praised him†: > [A] work famous, memorable, and almost incredible, a work not wrought without the special providence and government of the almighty; a Monk hath slain a King, not a painted King, one figured out upon a piece of paper or upon a wall, but the King of France, in the middle of his army, being hedged in with his camp and guard on every side, which indeed is such a work, and so brought about as no man will believe it when it shall be reported, and the posterity perhaps will repute it for a fable. > — *Consistorial address of the Supreme Pontiff Sixtus V in praise of the assassination of King Henry III of France by Br. Jacques Clement OP.* *[ *Dominican Brothers*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7326) ref:29.2 †[ *Integralism*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7822) ref:12.167 * * * cf. [this rebuttal to a critic of integralism](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=253.msg729#msg729) Fr. Crean, O.P., interviews: 1. [Intellectual Conservatism (20 July 2020)](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=253.msg730#msg730) 2. [Vendée Radio (15 July 2021)](https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=234.msg659#msg659) [Religious Liberty](http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm), talk given to the St. John Fisher Society, 5 December 2005 * * * [*Integralism*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7822) ch. 10 "International Relations", ref:17.5: > However, nature by itself does not suffice to justify the concrete unity of the human race. Without the common supernatural end and the common means necessary to attain it, there would be a certain fittingness, all other things being equal, to the unity of the human race in a single juridical order, but no necessity. Hence natural law does not require a ‘society of states’ as a third necessary society, in addition to the family and to the law-governed temporal commonwealth. *pace* [*The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations*](https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=9673) * * * Abstract Integralism is the application to the temporal, political order of the full implications of the revelation of man’s supernatural end in Christ and of the divinely established means by which it is to be attained. These implications are identified by means of the philosophia perennis exemplified in the fundamental principles of St Thomas Aquinas. Since the first principle in moral philosophy is the last end, and man’s last end cannot be known except by revelation, it is only by accepting the role of handmaid of theology that political philosophy can be adequately constituted. Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy is a handbook for those who seek to understand the consequences of this integration of faith and reason for political, economic and individual civic life. It will also serve as a scholastic introduction to political philosophy for those new to the subject. Each chapter finishes with a list of the principal theses proposed. About the Authors Fr Thomas Crean is a friar of the English Province of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). He has published with Ignatius Press and Gracewing, and is a Fellow of the Dialogos Institute. He has taught philosophy and theology in Austria, the United States and Northern Ireland. Alan Paul Fimister is Assistant Professor of Theology at Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, USA and a Fellow of the Dialogos institute. He is the author of *Robert Schuman: Neo-Scholastic Humanism and the Reunification of Europe* (2008) SBN 978-3-86838-226-6 Paperback ISBN 978-3-86838-593-9 eBook ISBN 978-3-86838-594-6 ePDF (for Libraries) ISBN: 978-3-86838-225-9 290 pp Hardcover --- cf. (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm) Fr. Crean, O.P.'s talk critical of Vatican II's Dignitatis Humanæ Political philosophy is therefore a branch of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy in general is the study of man's life, and of the good which strictly befits, or is proportioned to, man's nature: its goal is to show us how to attain this good on earth. Political philosophy, or politics, is the study of man's life insofar as he is united with his fellow men in a way that extends beyond the family. Since, as we shall see, the good that men may obtain by this union is greater than the good which they may obtain by their union in domestic society, which in turn is greater than the good which they may obtain as individual human beings, politics is the study of the highest good, proportionate to human nature, which may be obtained on earth . It is therefore the highest branch of moral philosophy. St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine are cited frequently and the (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/scholastic/24Thomisticpart2.htm) 24 Thomistic Theses and (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004) Cdl. Ottaviani ! Friendship is discussed frequently. Christianity made friendship, "the foundation of every created society" (ref:8.94), possible between men and women (cf. Rader (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7813) Breaking Boundaries: Male/Female Friendship in Early Christian Communities ). ref:8.62: Aristotle, (https://isidore.co/aquinas/Ethics8.htm#9) Nicomachean Ethics , VIII.9 ["Friendships and Civic Association"] : “In every society there seems to be some sort of justice, and some sort of friendship.” It gets into (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8873) ecclesiology a bit, too! ref:10.4: "the family is a necessary and not a voluntary society." ref:10.60: In a tour de force of disingenuous rhetoric, Karl Marx (1818-83) in his Communist Manifesto (1848), seeks to deflect the reader’s attention from his doctrine of the community of wives while insinuating the very principle by alleging its universality { (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm#21) The Principles of Communism §21 "What will be the influence of communist society on the family?": "Community of women [i.e., women as public property] is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it."! } . De facto he stands at the head of the modern movement to destroy the natural society of the family through the propagation of sexual immorality climaxing in the stupefying denial of the sexual difference itself. ref:10.143: "(xvii) The family and not the individual citizen is the basic unit of the temporal commonwealth, and hence it is fitting to vest certain offices in families and not merely in individuals." §"Social Units" (ref:10.51) should have been put in the ch. 3 The Family §Theses (ref:10.127): "The individual and not the family is thus the basic unit of ecclesiastical society." (He says this after quoting St. Augustine saying that the world would end if humans ceased procreating.) ref:12.3: "Among fallen men temporal life must be guided not only by auctoritas , in the sense of the simple right to govern, but also potestas , in the sense of governance with coercion." cites Pope Gelasius's letter (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/87361/1787) Duo sunt ((http://www.monarchieliga.de/index.php?title=Famuli_vestrae_pietatis) Latin , (https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/gelasius1.asp) English ): Duo sunt quippe, imperator auguste, quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, auctoritas sacrata pontificium et regalis potestas, in quibus tanto gravius pondus est sacerdotum, quanto etiam pro ipsis regibus hominum in divino reddituri sunt examine rationem. Nosti etenim, fili clementissime, quoniam licet præsideas humano generi dignitate, rerum tamen præsulibus divinarum devotus colla submittis atque ab eis causas tuæ salutis expetis, inque sumendis cælestibus sacramentis eisque, ut competit, disponendis subdi te debere cognoscis religionis ordine potius quam præesse. Nosti itaque inter hæc ex illorum te pendere iudicio, non illos ad tuam velle redigi voluntatem. There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will. ch. 5 on the temporal authority and the superiority of the spiritual authority quotes Boniface VIII’s dogmatic bull Unam sanctam (ref:12.27)! §"Temporal power is subject to spiritual power" quotes St. Robert Bellarmine (ref:12.20): When kings and princes come to the Church to be made Christians, they are received with the agreement, either express or tacit, to submit their sceptres to Christ and to promise to preserve and defend the faith of Christ, even under pain of losing their realm. [...] For whoever is not ready to serve Christ, and to lose for His sake whatever he has, is not suitable for the sacrament of baptism. Controversiaes ‘(https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=8275) On the Supreme Pontiff , bk. 5, ch. 7: “Quando reges et principes ad Ecclesiam veniunt ut Christiani fiant, recipiuntur cum pacto expresso vel tacito ut sceptra sua subiciant Christo, et polliceantur se Christi fidem servaturos et defensuros sub poena regni perdendi [...] Nam non est idoneus sacramento baptismi qui non est paratus Christo servire, et propter ipsum amittere quidquid habet.” ref:12.77: "'It is more beneficial to the Republic to have a bad prince than to have none.' [St Robert Bellarmine, Controversiae, ‘On the members of the Church’, bk. 3, ch. 4.]" ref:17.5 is on how ( pace Taparelli) there is no natural "society of states"; thus, the "United Nations" or "League of Nations" is not natural. (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=221.msg556#msg556) St. Thomas on usurpation of temporal power : ch. 5, last § ("Usurpation of temporal power"), EPUB ref:12.73, quotes (https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp2044.html#7359) Super Sent. lib. 2 d. 44 q. 2 a. 2 ("Utrum Christiani teneantur obedire potestatibus saecularibus, et maxime tyrannis") co.: The one who seizes dominion by violence does not become truly the superior or lord; and therefore where there is the possibility, one can drive off such dominion, unless perhaps afterwards he is made truly lord either through the consent of the subjects or through the authority of a superior. qui enim per violentiam dominium surripit non efficitur vere praelatus vel dominus; et ideo cum facultas adest, potest aliquis tale dominium repellere: nisi forte postmodum dominus verus effectus sit vel per consensum subditorum, vel per auctoritatem superioris ref:12.167: "Sixtus V in 1589 bestowed great praise upon the Dominican lay brother Jacques Clement for the tyrannicide of Henry III of France"! ch. 11 "The Two Swords" fn119 (ref:18.236): "St Thomas affirms that soldiering may be motivated not simply by the safety of the commonwealth, but also by 'the conservation of divine worship'; (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS188.html#SSQ188A3THEP1) STh 2a 2ae 188, 3 [ a religious order may be fittingly established for soldiering ( militandum ), not indeed for any worldly purpose, but for the defense of divine worship ( divini cultus ) and public safety (publicæ salutis)]." Necessity of the secular arm for attaining spiritual ends: ch. 12 "The Two Cities" (ref:19.18-21) cites St. Augustine's (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102093.htm) Epistle 93 : 16-17 to Donatist Vincentius. St. Augustine trusted in "Dominican" tactics alone in converting Donatists: "Originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics.", but St. Augustine resorted to "Jesuit" tactics when, as Crean & Fimister write, his "mind was changed by seeing that financial penalties imposed by the Roman laws occasioned sincere and lasting conversions." Thus, the secular arm is necessary, as it was also in the (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=8550) Albigensian crusade . ref:19.12: "Writing to a pagan magistrate who imagined that Christian and non-Christian might be united in the temporal objective of furthering the good of their homeland," something Maritain advocated, "St Augustine rejects this idea" in (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102091.htm) Letter 91 .6. Families (not individuals) are the units of civil society, so votes should represent families; ch. 8 §"Suffrage" (ref:15.101): If civil society is a union of families, then if we desire with St Thomas to have a democratic element within civil society, each family must be represented. If both parents are living, the father represents it within society and thus votes. If he dies, his widow takes his place at the family’s head, and she represents it and votes. If both husband and wife were to vote, the family itself would no longer be represented, and their votes might mutually nullify themselves. Women were able to vote in the Middle Ages (if they were the heads of households). This right was taken away at the French Revolution. ch. 6 fn. 14 (ref:13.65): We take this Declaration on Religious Liberty to refer to the rights and duties of rulers and citizens under natural law, since it apparently intends to abstract from “the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ”, which doctrine it mentions not to expound but only to declare it left intact ( Dignitatis humanæ 1). No, (https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html) Dignitatis Humanæ §2 itself says "that the human person has a right to religious freedom " "is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself." The document is not restricting itself to what is naturally knowable or to the civil sphere alone. ((https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=234.msg732#msg732) source ) It also mentions "a full survey of the possible orthodox interpretations of Dignitatis humanæ " in "T. Crean[, O.P.] and A. Fimister (ed.), (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8442) Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium: Dialogos Institute Collection , vol. 1 (Dialogos Institute: 2017)." Tripartite division of temporal authority, as in the U.S. government, is Aristotelian: Integralism ch. 5, § "Division of temporal authority": 65 This tripartite division is often attributed to Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755). In fact it is equivalently found in Aristotle’s (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7645) Politics IV. 14: “There are, then, three parts in all constitutions (εστι δη τρία μόρια τών πολιτειών πασών). [...] Of these three, one is that which deliberates about common matters (το βουλευόμενον περί τών κοινών); the second concerns the offices (δεύτερον δε το περί τάς άρχάς), what they should be and over what matters they should have authority, and what the manner of choosing them must be; the third is the judiciary (τρίτον δέ τί το δικάζον).” This passage states in effect that a constitution (this appears to be the best translation on this occasion of πολιτεία) must provide for a legislature, a functioning executive and a judicial power. 66 A. Ottaviani defines it [ legislative power ] as the ‘ right of determining in an obligatory manner the things which are necessary and useful for attaining the end of the society ’ [ ius proponendi obligatorio iodo quae necessaria et utilia sunt ad finem societatis assequendum ]; (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004) Compendium Iuris Publici Ecclesiastici , 4th edition (Rome: Vatican Press, 1954), 43 [PDF p. 25]. 67 A. Ottaviani defines it [ judicial power ] as ‘ the right of declaring and proposing in an obligatory manner which concrete acts of subjects are conformed or contrary to right, and the legitimate effects of this conformity or contrariety ’ [ ius declarandi seu proponendi modo obligatorio, quænam subditorum actiones in concreto sint iuri conformes, quaeque eidem difformes, et effectus legitimos eiusdem, conformitatis aut difformitatis ]; (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=8004) Compendium , 49 [PDF p. 28]. 68 Or as the [ executive power ] " right of enforcing the application of laws and sentences, of directing persons or of disposing of things, and of removing all obstacles which impede the full possession of the social end " [ ius urgendi legum sententiarum que applications, dirigendo personas vel disponendi de rebus, atque removendo ommia obstacula quæ finis socialis plenam, assecutionem impediunt ]; (https://) ibid. , 61. The executive power itself may be divided into a power of governance, in regard to persons, and of administration, in regard to things. The power of coercion, which is sometimes mentioned as a third part of the executive power, is therefore rather an aspect of the power of governance. Christ the King has all three of these powers: Pius XI, (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas.html) Quas primas §14 cf. (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=253.msg729#msg729) this rebuttal to a critic of integralism Fr. Crean, O.P., interviews: (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=253.msg730#msg730) Intellectual Conservatism (20 July 2020) (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=234.msg659#msg659) V endée Radio (15 July 2021) (http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/religious-liberty.htm) Religious Liberty , talk given to the St. John Fisher Society, 5 December 2005 Abstract Integralism is the application to the temporal, political order of the full implications of the revelation of man’s supernatural end in Christ and of the divinely established means by which it is to be attained. These implications are identified by means of the philosophia perennis exemplified in the fundamental principles of St Thomas Aquinas. Since the first principle in moral philosophy is the last end, and man’s last end cannot be known except by revelation, it is only by accepting the role of handmaid of theology that political philosophy can be adequately constituted. Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy is a handbook for those who seek to understand the consequences of this integration of faith and reason for political, economic and individual civic life. It will also serve as a scholastic introduction to political philosophy for those new to the subject. Each chapter finishes with a list of the principal theses proposed. About the Authors Fr Thomas Crean is a friar of the English Province of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans). He has published with Ignatius Press and Gracewing, and is a Fellow of the Dialogos Institute. He has taught philosophy and theology in Austria, the United States and Northern Ireland. Alan Paul Fimister is Assistant Professor of Theology at Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, USA and a Fellow of the Dialogos institute. He is the author of Robert Schuman: Neo-Scholastic Humanism and the Reunification of Europe (2008) SBN 978-3-86838-226-6 Paperback ISBN 978-3-86838-593-9 eBook ISBN 978-3-86838-594-6 ePDF (for Libraries) ISBN: 978-3-86838-225-9 290 pp Hardcover Philosophy,General,Political science,Political Economy,Religion,Theology "Integralism is the application to the temporal, political order of the full implications of the revelation of man's supernatural end in Christ and of the divinely established means by which it is to be attained. These implications are identified by means of the philosophia perennis exemplified in the fundamental principles of St Thomas Aquinas. Since the first principle in moral philosophy is the last end, and man's last end cannot be known except by revelation, it is only by accepting the role of handmaid of theology that political philosophy can be adequately constituted. Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy is a handbook for those who seek to understand the consequences of this integration of faith and reason for political, economic and individual civic life. It will also serve as a scholastic introduction to political philosophy for those new to the subject. Each chapter finishes with a list of the principal theses proposed."--Quatrième de couverture