Luigi Giussani and Integralism
Napoleonic candlesticks and crucifix
from the 2018-2019 exhibit Napoleon: Power and Splendor at the Nelson-Atkins Gallery of Art
Was Giussani an Integralist?
TL;DR: Mostly not. Giussani embraced democracy and pluralism. He did, however, see unified Christians as fundamental to a flourishing democracy, rejected relativism, and did not seem to share the repugnance for integralism which Hans Urs von Balthasar had.
As someone who was involved in Communion and Liberation for 20 years, but a reader of Balthasar for 15 years before that, I have a personal interest in this topic. While my research is nowhere near comprehensive, I think that I’ve identified the high points.
What Is Integralism?
In this context, integralism is a Catholic reaction to modern forms of governance, characterized by authoritarianism and anti-pluralism.
Theology and Society recently published a translation of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s essay “Integralismus,” his critique of integralism in the Catholic Church. The translators, Charles Hughes Huff and Anne Carpenter, also published a helpful introduction to the essay: “Against Integralism.” The introduction is very helpful, as it characterizes integralism as a reaction to the French Revolution(s). Integralists aimed to restore the pre-revolution ancien régime whereas the social Catholics sought to bring tradition to bear on emerging economic ills. Balthasar sides with the social Catholics and is against progressive liberalism as aspiring to a similar union of church and state as integralism.”
In the conclusion to “Integralismus,” Balthasar reveals the heart of his concerns:
”The problem remains whether and how these (very diverse) spheres of values can be put in the service of Jesus Christ, who as a ‘lamb’ and not a tiger bore the sin of the world, who proclaimed the teachings of the Father on the pillory of the cross and not on university lecterns, who loved his neighbor in an attitude of service (de-mut) and at ground level (humilis= humusnah), simply and without ‘apostolic tactics’ and essentially without regard for his own integrity, as a ‘Samaritan’ across the enemy border” (emphasis mine).
And he lists as well some common traits of integralism: “traditionalism, monarchism, juridicism and martial spirit, secret societies, politics, and high finance.”
Luigi Giussani
Looking at this list of common traits, Giussani and Communion and Liberation have very little in common with it. To go through the list one by one, Giussani was interested in and appreciated the Second Vatican Council; he favored democracy; opposed formalism and legalism; favored maturity rather than “toughness” or “manliness”; was overall highly transparent; insisted on a clear separation between the movement and political parties; and didn’t show any special interest in recruiting the wealthy and powerful.
When criticized for being an integralist, however, Giussani would get defensive and lean into the charge. In a meeting with the Passionist Fathers in 1975, Giussani proclaimed: “they accuse us of integrism [sic], but this is the most wonderful honor: it is the integrity of the faith!” (Life of Luigi Giussani, 524). Beyond the pun on integrity/ integralism, Giussani responds his critics who would suggest that powerlessness is the correct approach: “but faith doesn’t consider power … therefore, if we are persecuted so much the better! How is it better if we are persecuted? That’s something only an intellectual could say! Because when people are persecuted, the ones who suffer the most are the weakest, the poorest!” (Ibid. 525, ellipsis in original). At this meeting, Cardinal Colombo was a bit more careful in his remarks, saying: “It is not necessary for Christians to make up the majority [in a democracy], but it is necessary that their common action be light, salt, and leaven, certainly not in the view of power, but to serve the entire community” (Ibid. 524). As a Jesuit, Balthasar would regard being persecuted or influential as a matter for Ignatian indifference.
In 1964, Giussani sketched out his vision in more detail. He embraced democracy, which he saw as ultimately Christian, but rejected relativism. He quoted Pius XI: “Democracy will be Christian or it will not be.” Later on the page, he defends a ‘communital presence’ of Christians in democracy:
“A government of the res publica that draws inspiration from the Christian concept of co-existence will have pluralism as its ideal. In other words, the fabric of social life will render possible the existence and development of all efforts of human expression. To realise this pluralistic co-existence implies grave problems: pluralism is an ideal directive for this world. We must, however, commit ourselves to it without fear.
Pluralism, inasmuch as it tends to affirm all particular free experiences in all their authenticity, is decidedly against a concept of democracy and openness that is espoused by a certain mentality prevalent among us. Relativists, whatever kind of relativism they live, […] tend to be called democratic; consequently anyone who affirms an absolute is identified as antidemocratic (intolerant, dogmatic). This mentality, or any compromise with it, leads to the attempt to define as ‘open- spirited’ those who are ready to ‘put aside what divides us and look only at what unites us,’ accepting a ‘setting aside of ideologies’ ( a ‘de-ideologization’) laden with ambiguities.
In particular it is remarkable to see how such a position tends to deprive the Christian presence in the environment and society of its unique meaning, to empty the Christian presence of the content of its communion, to dissipate the very essence of its mission. Above all we can easily observe that the first essential denied to Christians in the name of this false democracy is their communital presence in society: every manifestation of that essential fact, for which the Christian lives and acts in communion and obedience and therefore hierarchical communion, will be condemned as narrowness, integralism, or even clerical dictatorship.”
(The Journey to Truth Is an Experience, 130, line breaks added).
This understanding of democracy is close to that of Pius XI’s Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio and its vision of democracy:
“The Church does not desire, neither ought she to desire, to mix up without a just cause in the direction of purely civil affairs. On the other hand, she cannot permit or tolerate that the state use the pretext of certain laws of unjust regulations to do injury to the rights of an order superior to that of the state, to interfere with the constitution given the Church by Christ, or to violate the rights of God Himself over civil society” (#65, emphasis added).
In contrast, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council’s declaration on freedom of religion, while highlighting the importance of “the higher rights of God,” clearly rejects the imposition of truth by force:
Jesus “acknowledged the power of government and its rights, when He commanded that tribute be given to Caesar: but He gave clear warning that the higher rights of God are to be kept inviolate: ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's’ (Matt. 22:21). In the end, when He completed on the cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for men, He brought His revelation to completion. For He bore witness to the truth, but He refused to impose the truth by force on those who spoke against it. Not by force of blows does His rule assert its claims. It is established by witnessing to the truth and by hearing the truth, and it extends its dominion by the love whereby Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws all men to Himself.”
(#11, footnotes removed)
While I agree with Giussani that the Christian communion is hierarchical, I would stress that it is also synodal and rooted in the common vocation of baptism.
In my estimation, Giussani and CL are not what most would call integralists. Giussani advocated for Christians to be a presence in society, and a vigorous one (even somewhat pugilistic) at that. I don’t think, however, that Giussani appreciated the radical depths of Balthasar’s emphasis on kenosis and the via crucis of Jesus as the only authentic way forward for the Church. Because he didn’t grapple with the interior spirit of integralism as something inimical to Christ, Giussani was less vigilant against its glamour. This opened the door to temptation with regard to US funding and for CL going forward it invites the problem of getting entangled with culture war issues, especially when sponsored by bishops or by financial benefactors.
Finally, I’d like to conclude with a reminder from Balthasar:
“Since the integralists are not a sect, but fellow Christians in the same Catholic church, their scope can be only roughly delimited in subtle shadings from the center to the periphery. Who among us has never succumbed to the temptation to enforce spiritual matters by worldly means? […] These are only indications that something which threatens us all is possible, is sustainable within Christianity. We are in solidarity with what we criticize.”
(“Integralismus,” emphasis & ellipsis mine)
Update 2/20/2023: In his article Religious Awareness and Modern Man (translation published in Communio: International Catholic Review Volume XXV Number One, Spring 1998, page 104-140. A speech Giussani gave at some European universities and originally published as a supplement to 30 Giorni), Giussani (drawing on a 1955 speech by Henri Daniel-Rops) traces the modern attitude as a rationalism dividing God from human problems, which arose in the (Italian) Renaissance, and “after the French Revolution, through political force.” With the impact on the young people Giussani worked with, 1968 must have felt something like a resurgence of the French Revolution.