Exclusive: Stephen Kokx on Integralism, Navigating Enemy Territory, and the Way Forward
Just as individuals are bound to recognize the Catholic religion so too is the state, which is merely a collection of individuals. This is the essence of integralism.
It is an absolute pleasure and privilege to present an interview with the inimitable Stephen Kokx, who of course needs no introduction. As a Catholic journalist par excellence, author, and the man behind the Kokx News Substack and YouTube channel, Stephen has become one of the leading voices in the fight for Catholic truth and orthodoxy. Not only is he tirelessly advancing the Catholic counter‑revolution, but he is also remarkably selfless in his efforts to platform and support other voices in this crucial conversation.
Stephen was kind enough to answer a few questions on a subject dear to both our hearts: Catholic Integralism. By publishing this interview, I hope to stimulate discussion among our audience with the aim of resurrecting this ideal as a practical reality.
Follow Kokx News on YouTube, X, and Substack!
Stephen, you are an advocate of sorts for Catholic Integralism, correct? How would you define it?
Integralism has a long and rich history in the Church. Etymologically, it comes from the word “integral,” meaning whole or complete. While the principles upon which integralism is founded originate with Pope Gelasius and what he taught on the “two swords” theory in the late 400s, it was in the 19th century when the term started to gain popularity.
At that time, the “Integrism” movement in Spain was rising up to oppose the liberalizing and socialist forces seeking to control the country. Counter-Revolutionary Catholics such as Juan Donoso Cortes, Louis Veuillot, and Joseph de Maistre also promoted integralist thinking against the claims of so-called “Enlightenment” philosophers, who erroneously sought to emancipate governments from the duty to recognize the one true religion.
In 1884, Fr. Félix Sardà y Salvany published Liberalism is a Sin to expose the errors of liberal provocateurs as well as the weak-kneed Catholics who wanted to make peace with them. He was merely echoing what Leo XIII taught on Church-State relations. In brief, Leo had said that just as individuals are bound to recognize the Catholic religion so too is the state, which is merely a collection of individuals. This is the essence of integralism.
Integralist and “anti-liberal” clergy featured prominently during the reign of St. Pius X. Msgr. Umberto Begnini founded the Sodalitium Pianum in 1909. It’s founding charter declared that its members were “integral Roman Catholics.” It further described itself as “‘papal,’ ‘clerical,’ anti-modernist, anti-liberal, anti-sectarian… [and] counter-revolutionary.”
Integralist voices appeared in the United States during the middle part of the 20th century when Ed Willock and Carol Robinson founded Integrity magazine in 1946. Fr. Clifford Fenton and Fr. Francis Connell also marched under the integralist banner when they started the American Ecclesiastical Review. On its pages, they thoroughly debunked the arguments of liberal priest Fr. John Courtney Murray. Unfortunately, Murray emerged victorious at the Second Vatican Council when the Council Fathers passed Dignitatis Humanae. Few were probably aware that they had just voted to uncrown Christ as King of nations.
In recent years The Josias website has sought to revive integralist thinking but I would categorize them as “neo-integralists” in that they see Vatican II — Dignitatis Humanae in particular — in continuity with past teaching. What’s more, the “post-liberal” movement also fails to see how the Council was in rupture with previous magisterial declarations. It seems that both of these groups are paranoid over being seen as wanting to restore Christendom.
I would add that that since the Council there has been the emergence of what I would call ecclesial integralism. What do I mean? Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was an ecclesial integralist in that he understood well that one cannot separate the doctrinal teachings of the Church from its other aspects.
Archbishop Viganò touched on this when in a recent interview with me he noted how Bishop Schneider and Cardinal Burke say they support the Latin Mass but they do not defend the doctrine upon which it is built:
“The concept of a peaceful coexistence of two forms of the same Rite is impossible, and it is the result of a de-dogmatization of the Liturgy, which corresponds to a de-liturgization of Doctrine.”
This is absolutely correct and constitutes the main error of Trad Inc., which rejects integralist principles and embraces the faulty arguments of the Liberal Catholics of old. This is to be expected, however, because they take their cues from the Ecclesia Dei communities, which made an accord with the Conciliar Church — unlike Archbishop Lefebvre.
Specifically politically, how can one work towards this goal? How do you vote? Along the lines of which criteria?
On a recent episode of Church & State, several panelists told me they plan to abstain from voting in future elections. They maintain that the Republican Party has failed to ensure the long-term common good of the United States by failing to place restrictions on immigration and by supporting H-1B visas, among other policies backed by commercial interest groups. They see the GOP as another front group that doesn’t deserve their vote; it must feel the “pain” of losing elections until it learns to do what is right.
I think there is some strategic value in this. I also think Archbishop Viganò was correct when he told me recently that the institutions in the West are captured and that we cannot do much about it politically at the moment. His words:
“It is a foolish illusion to think that it would somehow be possible to fundamentally reform the institutions of the entire Western world, which are now in the hands of the Synagogue of Satan. Our civilization has reached the terminal stage of a cancer that is eating away at it from within: the rebellion against God inspired and perpetrated by the prince of this world and his servants.”
While I would not fault someone for voting — indeed, at least on a local level there is probably some amount of change that can be effected — on the national and international level blackmail, intimidation, and other forms of persecution (as evidenced by the Epstein files) are used to ensure the enemies of Christ maintain their control. As the saying goes: “no matter who you vote for, you always end up with John McCain.”
At the same time, I am inspired by the fact that previously taboo subjects are now being openly criticized. I am referring to, among other things, Israel’s long-standing influence over American politics and the re-orientation of the food pyramid under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Both of these are positive developments.
Still on the political level, aside from voting, how else can Catholics pursue this philosophy? Should they start political parties that purely have “Catholic aims”? Pressure groups and interest groups with Catholic Integralism as their underlying goal? Any other thoughts?
The great popes of the past always spoke of Catholic Action. St. Pius X and other pre-Vatican II clergy encouraged laity to work with their clergy to defend the Church’s teachings in the public square to “restore all things to Christ.” Unfortunately, the laity are divided on politics these days; many of them vote for pro-abortion and even anti-Catholic lawmakers. This is due to the infiltration that took place after Vatican II in the clerical ranks. Trying to form a single “Catholic Political Party” isn’t realistic, sadly.
Jean Ousset’s book Action — published by IHS Press in 2002 — lays out some practical strategies that I think could be resurrected in these times. He provides valuable insights on how Catholics can be a “creative minority” in the countries they inhabit.
It is important to recall how European Catholics were forced to live during and after World War II. In Poland and elsewhere, the faithful had to rely on underground seminaries and secret Mass centers. There was no real chance of reclaiming the government at the time. So, too, were Catholics persecuted in 16th and 17th century England. “Priest holes” were invented to protect the clergy from bad actors. Are we not in a similar time?
I suppose the one difference now is that it is not just civil leaders who want to attack the faithful but also those who claim to govern in the name of Christ in His Church. I am thinking here of Traditionalists who are forced into hotel Masses and resort to purchasing dilapidated buildings just to have an orthodox liturgy.
How can Catholics incorporate this into the personal practice of their faith? What does it look like to be an integral Catholic on a personal level?
Again, I would like to invoke His Excellency Archbishop Viganò. He told me in a recent interview that it is time for Traditional Catholics to form “intentional communities.” He advised them to use their resources to become self-sufficient and to decouple from the economic system that now prevails across the Western world.
I think this is good advice. I also recall something you yourself said on a recent Trad Watch program: namely, that we can and should practice integralism — broadly understood — on a local level while it remains untenable on a larger scale.
I also think we can and must practice ecclesial integralism. This entails the building or buying up of churches and welcoming priests who uphold and defend the Traditional Catholic doctrines over and above the errors of the Second Vatican Council.