1. I don’t understand how integralism could even plausibly defined as a “lifestyle choice.” As a personal conviction, surely, but a “lifestyle” is precisely that: a manner of living one’s own life that is individually chosen and accomplished. Integralism might be the former, insofar as one might individually arrive at an integralist position, but it manifestly cannot be the latter (that is, individually accomplished), since it is a position as regards society as a whole, and a position contrasted with individualism.

    Such an assessment rather seems assume liberalism and individualism as a framework for understanding anything and everything. But doing so does not single integralism out any more than any other position that finds itself in conflict with liberalism, be it socialism or fascism or tribalism. One starts by noting the current ascendancy of liberalism, notes how this must color any reaction to or engagement with it, and then concludes to the ascendancy of liberalism.

  2. But marching orders can change, especially in light of the reality that the Council has, by and large, failed to deliver on many of its arguably naïve promises. The optimism of the 1960s is deteriorating quicker than the minds of those men in the Church who still think she is in the midst of a “New Springtime” informed by a “Second Pentecost.”

    I think the Church will only start to regain a better footing once the US no longer the dominate world power.

Comments are closed.