“Integralism” is perhaps not used as much in these USA as it is in Europe. This term is a dog whistle. In somewhat broad terms, it can be used generically for the position that one’s religious beliefs should dictate their politics and social involvement. However, “integralism” developed in a specific context of conflict between Catholicism and modernity in Europe. In France and Italy, the haters of Catholic tradition often refer to anyone who wants traditional worship as being “intégriste”. It is flung like an insult. For a quick and fascinating lesson on “integralism”, and what Spadaro is calling conservative Americans, head over to the Wikipedia article. HERE Wiki is perfect as a source, but it gives you a rapid entry point.
The Holy See’s newspaper, the increasingly irrelevant L’Osservatore Romano, reprinted the anti-American attack with the title: “Ecumenism of Hate”
Again, this term “integralism” is a dog whistle: the troops are being called up to launch their own campaign of intolerant repression of anyone who might stand in the way of their agenda.
According to that Wiki article Father Z linked to, “Integrism” or “Integralism” can refer to “religious extremism.” It also says, “Integrists taught that all social and political action ought to be based on the Catholic Faith. They rejected the separation of church and state, arguing that Catholicism should be the proclaimed religion of the state.”
Both definitions seem to apply in Spadaro’s article. Personally, I do believe that “all social and political action ought to be based on the Catholic Faith.” And although I’m fine with the basic form of government we have in the United States, I would not object to a Catholic monarchy. This makes me an extremist? I don’t understand.
This definition also seems to blow Spadaro’s theory of an evangelical-Catholic alliance out of the proverbial water. How many evangelicals do you know who want a Catholic monarchy? Or even a government filled to the brim with Catholic elected officials?
It’s all very confusing.