Debating Integralism

• In Defence of Catholic Integralism, by Thomas Pink. The Public Discourse 08/12/18. "States that do not recognize both natural law and the transformation of law and public reason brought about by the raising of religion to a supernatural good will become confessors of false belief opposed to Christianity, and their great power will turn from supporting Christianity to opposing or even repressing it, especially in relation to its moral teaching."
  
• Integralism and Catholic Doctrine, by Robert T. Miller. The Public Discourse 07/15/18. Catholics today are not required to believe in a Catholic confessional state. If anything, they are required to believe that everyone has a right under the natural law to religious freedom, that the state has no authority in religious matters, and that coercion of religious activity by the state is morally wrong. In short, integralism is contrary to Catholic doctrine.
  
• Can States "Confess" Religious Belief? Should They?, by Christopher O. Tollefsen. 06/05/18. The confessing state exceeds the limits of its authority, either by acting to no good effect, or by acting contrary to good effect. Thus, the confessing state seems inappropriate as a matter not simply of prudence, but of principle.
  
• The Catholic Church, the State, and Liberalism, by Joseph G. Trabbic. The Public Discourse 05/02/18. "According to previous papal teaching, a Catholic confessional state is the ideal, even if in most modern situations it’s not a practical possibility, and prudence would steer us away from it. That teaching continues to be normative for Catholics."