Eastern Orthodoxy as Evidence for Catholic Integralism

I’m in the odd position of being a liberal and an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Eastern Orthodoxy is the least liberal of the strands of Christian thought, and indeed is the Christian Church friendliest to monarchy and a heavy mixing of church and state. In my attempts to engage Catholic integralism as both a Christian and a liberal, I have often reflected on what we might call Orthodox integralism, a view that the state should recognize the truth of the Christian faith as taught by the Orthodox Church, not the Catholic Church, and that the church and state should cooperate, but through national patriarchs rather than the Pope. It’s a different model of church-state governance than the integralist model, but it arguably predates the integralist model by several centuries. It was the Byzantine Emperors who called the original ecumenical councils, not the Roman Pontiffs. Popes in the first millennium seldom had the power they did after the schism and the subsequent Gregorian Reforms, which considerably increased papal power, as the Pope became the leader of an increasingly distinctive Latin Christendom without other historical patriarchal thrones as competing centers of ecclesiastical power. So if Christians really want to mix church and state again, there are different kinds of integration.

On top of this, I now think Catholics integralists must pay some respects to Orthodox integralism, not only because of the Orthodox model’s prominence in Church tradition, but because Catholics, including integralists, tend to think that the Orthodox have valid sacraments, especially a true Eucharist and valid confession. Orthodox priests are validly ordained, even if the orders are not “licit” because Orthodox priests are not in submission to the Pope (and indeed, tend to regard the Pope as a heresiarch). In contrast to Protestants, then, Catholics think the Orthodox have the means of grace.

Here’s a novel implication of the Catholic integralist position: when Orthodox mix church and state, they are capable of establishing a “graced” nation-state, even if the mixture of church and state is sub-optimal from a Catholic point of view. Remember that a key feature of integralism is that only a graced state can exercise the coercive power of the state in such a way as to help a society recognize the content of the natural moral law, which should help to stabilize such a regime based on an ongoing agreement about what the natural law requires.

This suggests that we can evaluate the integralist prediction that graced states more effectively coordinate (impose?) agreement on a Christian moral code than liberal states by looking at the history of Orthodox integralist regimes, the prime case being Russia, but also Greece, Romania, etc. Now, it is critical to remember that the Soviets ruthlessly oppressed and murdered Orthodox Christians for decades, so they are a Church still reemerging from one of the most monstrous captivities in the history of Christianity. But it is notable that people in Orthodox countries are often more socially conservative, and so more in line with natural law as integralists see it, than people in Roman Catholic countries, and in some ways prouder of it. Russia is an integralist state. It prioritizes the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin is a member and has used state funds to build tens of thousands of churches and monasteries and has supported a massive growth in the number of Orthodox seminaries and priests. Indeed, he is arguably one of the most successful integralist rulers in history. He is a bloody, murderous dictator, but so was Justinian and most of the Byzantine Emperors that Church tradition sometimes lauds.

So I think the Catholic integralist must say that the Russian state is a partially graced state. It is imperfectly graced because it is not in submission to the Pope, but it is graced because the Russian Orthodox Church has valid sacraments, and is united with the Russian state in a way that American Catholic integralists can only dream of.

This suggests to me that the “successes” of Orthodox states in maintaining traditional Christian moral views on social issues should be seen as partial evidence in favor of integralism. Orthodox integralist states are highly imperfect, but they are graced all the same, and so we can get a sense for how integralism might work by looking at those states.

Perhaps, then, Catholic integralists should look upon the Putin regime with some fondness, and even tout its religious successes.

Does this make Catholic integralism more or less plausible? I’ll let you decide.

1 Comment

  • Mark Posted August 4, 2020 1:47 pm

    I’d be interested to know where you’ve found justification for your classical liberalism in Orthodoxy.

    For myself, I think if you combine the pre-Constantinian skepticism of state power with the love for Aquinas you find in Gannadios Scholarios, then you can see the developments of the Spanish Scholastics as something some Orthodox would have gladly embraced.

    I’ve found George Kalantzis’s “Caesar and the Lamb,” and Marcus Plested’s “Orthodox Readings of Aquinas” quite helpful here.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009YW6Q4O/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    https://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Readings-Paradigms-Historical-Systematic/dp/0199650659

    Orthodox can also claim Gregory of Nyssa as having been one of the first (the first?) people in history to categorically condemn slavery rather than tolerate it.

    These were minority views to be sure, but they can nevertheless be found in the history of the Church. Some might consider my weird fusion heterodox to say the least, but that’s fine. There was a minority of scary smart individuals in seminary that genuinely believed the only truly Orthodox government was a monarchy. We simply disagreed.

    Even if we lived in a David Friedman/Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist world, I think the prayers for “civil authorities” in the liturgy would simply apply to the private judges, etc. We would still have “governing authorities” even if we didn’t have a state.

    If you make your Orthodoxy part of your political reflections at all, I’m sure the folks over at Public Orthodoxy would be happy to have a different voice on political theory there. A dialogue with Aristotle Papanikolaou would be interesting.

Add Comment

Leave a Reply to Mark Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *