Among the significant contributions of the Second Vatican Council were Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. These two documents articulated the Church’s commitment to religious liberty, human dignity, and a constructive relationship between the Church and democratic society. These texts reflected a departure from pre-conciliar political theology, which often supported Catholic confessional states and governance that subordinated personal freedom to ecclesiastical authority. The Council promoted an approach emphasizing pluralism, dialogue, and the primacy of conscience. In recent years, a growing movement of clerical and lay Catholic leaders have sought to challenge the conciliar vision, advocating for a return to an integralist model where Catholicism exerts direct influence over the state. This movement has gained significant traction in the United States and beyond, often aligning with broader Christian nationalist political projects.
This paper explores how Catholic doctrine, ecclesial structures, and hierarchical leadership have facilitated the rise of Catholic integralism, while observing the American political relationship with Christian Nationalism. While Vatican II aimed to reconcile Catholicism with modern democratic institutions, some aspects of the Church hierarchy have since embraced political movements undermining these commitments. By examining episcopal endorsements of nationalist leaders, theological justifications for authoritarian governance, and recent tensions between Pope Francis and conservative Catholic political figures, this paper argues that Vatican II’s legacy of freedom is now at the center of a significant ideological and theological struggle.
A central factor in the resurgence of Catholic Integralism has been the role of the Catholic hierarchy in lending legitimacy to nationalist and authoritarian political movements. While Dignitatis Humanae affirms religious freedom as a fundamental human right, several Catholics—including clergy—have selectively interpreted or outright rejected this teaching in favor of a more coercive approach to governance. This has been particularly evident in the United States, where certain bishops have aligned themselves with Christian Nationalist rhetoric, advocating for a closer integration of Catholic moral teachings into civil law.
One of the most vocal opponents of Vatican II’s reforms has been Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States. Viganò has consistently called for the “nullification” of Vatican II, arguing that the Council introduced theological and moral errors that have led to a crisis in the Church. His public statements have closely aligned with American nationalist movements, portraying Vatican II’s teachings on religious freedom as a betrayal of traditional Catholic authority. Similarly, former Bishop Joseph Strickland (Texas), has openly endorsed a confessional state model, rejecting the idea that pluralistic democracy is compatible with Catholic doctrine. These figures, among others, have wielded their ecclesiastical authority to promote a vision of Catholicism that conflicts with the Council’s vision.
Internationally, this pattern is also evident. In Hungary, Cardinal Péter Erdő has offered tacit support for Viktor Orbán’s government, which promotes an overtly nationalist and anti-migrant agenda while using Catholic identity as a political instrument. In Brazil, parts of the Catholic hierarchy aligned with former President Jair Bolsonaro, whose administration aimed to incorporate conservative Catholic social teachings into state policy. In these instances, bishops and cardinals have bolstered the notion that Catholicism should be the foundational framework for national governance, undermining Vatican II’s call for the Church to honor religious pluralism and human rights.
JD Vance's vice presidency marks a pivotal moment in mainstreaming Catholic Integralism within American political life. Although Catholic Integralism has long been a theoretical framework debated in academic and ecclesial circles, Vance’s rise to power signifies its growing presence as an active political movement. His embrace of Catholic traditionalism and his support for policies prioritizing religiously motivated restrictions on civil liberties reflect a broader rejection of Vatican II’s teachings concerning freedom and democracy.
Vance’s political philosophy has been shaped by figures such as Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule, a leading advocate for Catholic Integralism. Vermeule argues that liberal democracy is inherently unstable and that a properly ordered state should integrate Catholic moral teachings into its legal framework. This vision closely aligns with Vance’s policy positions, particularly his calls for more vigorous state enforcement of traditional moral norms, his opposition to religious pluralism, and his skepticism toward democratic institutions. His vice presidency will likely empower Catholic leaders seeking to position the Church as the moral authority over civil governance.
A key flashpoint in this ideological conflict was Pope Francis’s recent rebuke of JD Vance regarding his invocation of ordo amoris to justify restrictive immigration policies. Drawing on Augustinian theology, Vance contended that love must be ordered hierarchically—first to family, then to community, and then to nation—before extending to outsiders. This framework was used to justify policies prioritizing national interests over the rights of migrants and refugees. In response, Pope Francis issued a public statement rejecting this interpretation, arguing that Christian love is universal and must transcend national and cultural boundaries. He emphasized that the parable of the Good Samaritan, which serves as a foundational Christian teaching on compassion, directly contradicts the exclusionary logic of ordo amoris as used by nationalist politicians.
This exchange highlights the increasing divide within the Catholic Church regarding the significance of Vatican II’s teachings. While Pope Francis continues to advocate for the Council’s vision of religious freedom, human dignity, and social justice, a faction within the Church—including prominent bishops and political leaders—attempts to undermine these principles. The dispute over Vatican II’s legacy is no longer limited to theological discussions; it now influences global political movements and redefines the Church's role in the modern world.
As Catholic Integralism and Christian Nationalism continue to gain influence, the question of Vatican II’s enduring relevance becomes increasingly urgent. The conciliar vision of freedom, once regarded as a defining achievement of twentieth-century Catholicism, is now threatened by forces within the Church itself. Bishops, cardinals, and lay Catholic leaders who align with authoritarian political movements are actively working to reshape the Church’s relationship with the state, often in direct opposition to Pope Francis’s leadership.
This paper argues that the struggle over Vatican II’s teachings is not just an academic debate, but a defining conflict for the future of Catholicism. By examining episcopal endorsements of nationalist leaders, the political realization of Catholic Integralism through JD Vance’s vice presidency, and the theological disputes surrounding ordo amoris, this study demonstrates how the Catholic hierarchy shapes contemporary political movements that challenge the Council’s vision. As the Church enters new synodal processes and continues to grapple with internal divisions, the outcome of this struggle will determine whether Vatican II’s commitment to freedom and human dignity can withstand the pressures of a resurgent Catholic authoritarianism.
This paper examines the role of Catholic Church doctrine, hierarchical leadership, and episcopal support in the rise of Christian Nationalism and Catholic Integralism, focusing on the current U.S. Presidential Administration. While Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes affirmed the Church’s commitment to religious freedom and human dignity, certain bishops and Catholic leaders have actively worked to undermine Vatican II’s vision by aligning with nationalist movements. Drawing on recent examples from the U.S., Hungary, and Brazil, this paper explores how episcopal endorsements of political leaders have contributed to an authoritarian turn in Catholic engagement with the state. It also highlights Pope Francis’s recent rebuke of JD Vance over ordo amoris, underscoring the tension between Vatican II’s teachings and contemporary Catholic political movements. Ultimately, this paper argues that the struggle over Vatican II’s legacy of freedom shapes the twenty-first century's ecclesial and political landscapes.