What is the proper role of nationalism in the church?
#1
I know many people are concerned about our border situation and that some American's think we'll be overrun or outsourced to hostile, unchristian, or anti-American nations.

I personally have no problem with "nationalism" as a "liberal" likes to label anything a white person does that goes against their agenda (I say "white" because these are the only people that were supposedly "racist" in the past...a proposition that I feel is dead wrong).

But in America, you also have the so-called "Religious Right" who equate America with God. This seems twisted to me as well. I know it isn't right, mainly because it isn't Catholic. I mean who else in the world says: "Why, that is un-Italian" or that is "un-Russian" as if the very fact of being different than an average Italian or Russian implies ungodliness. Of course, in America, we hear it all the time.

Like many Catholics, I feel capitalist greed is the reason why we have no borders. People wanting power and profit have a nasty habit of becoming one step away from sociopaths. They aren't loyal to anyone but themselves and I know that isn't right either.

So, we have two examples of evil: a narrow minded assumption that only white people can be racist and as such, they have a moral obligation to be overrun due mainly to capitalist greed: be nice...don't protest...or we'll call you "racist". (Of course they are simply greedy, but a guilt complex makes this easier to push, and they know white people (Europeans) were never that racist to begin with so this particular line works very well with them).

But on the other hand, I have my flag waving, "lets get them dirty, mongrel and (loath as they are to admit it), Catholic, "illegal immigrants."  Afterall, "God created America, and anyone who disagrees is against God."

I've heard both of these lines since I was a little boy and they both make me want to puke. The Catholic hierarchy seems in bed with the "liberals" and that is disturbing because I know this liberal moralizing is nothing more than naked Communism and envy against one group of people. They are simply greedy Communists in disguise.

Yet, because of the Holocaust and other things, I can hardly expect the Vatican to say: Jews and Moslems and anyone born in Europe after 1945: Out!!! I'm really in an emotional bind. I find White-Americans who espouse nationalism (=keep America white) and who aren't Catholic or Christian to be one step up from from thugs, yet the specious moralizing of my rich Protestant-turned-Agnostic or Jewish-Atheist Ann Arborites is equally noxious and I trust them about as far as I can throw them.

I want to know if other Catholics struggle with this. When I die, I want my fellow Catholics to say "he was a just person, even if he was a little abrasive at times." I don't blame any one race for this crisis. I know pure greed and egomania when I see it. 

So is being a so-called "white nationalist" un-Catholic? What if you are mainly concerned that the good intentions of Catholics and other Christians is being used for a dark purpose by people who will bring in something much worse than "racism" or nationalism?

Reply
#2
We had a recent thread about nationalism: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...874.0.html

Here are some quotes from that thread which I think are relevant:

"Patriotism -- the stimulus of so many virtues and of so many noble acts of heroism when kept within the bounds of the law of Christ -- becomes merely an occasion, an added incentive to grave injustice when true love of country is debased to the condition of an extreme nationalism, when we forget that all men are our brothers and members of the same great human family, that other nations have an equal right with us both to life and to prosperity, that it is never lawful nor even wise, to dissociate morality from the affairs of practical life, that, in the last analysis, it is "justice which exalteth a nation: but sin maketh nations miserable." (Proverbs xiv, 34)"--Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio)

"In these addresses and in our radio talks, we have condemned severely the ideas of the totalitarian and the imperialistic state, as well as that of exaggerated nationalism. On one hand, in fact they arbitrarily restrict the natural rights of people to migrate or to colonize while on the other hand, they compel entire populations to migrate into other lands, deporting inhabitants against their wills, disgracefully tearing individuals from their families, their homes and their countries."
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm

The poster who gave this quotes, said this: "According to Catholic doctrine, there is a natural right to migrate (cf. Pope Ven. Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana; Pope Bl. John XXIII, Pacem en Terris 25, 106). This right, however, can be regulated or limited based on the needs of the common good. I don't think mainting the numbers of a particular race compared with the numbers of another race in and of itself is sufficient to forbid migration. I do think it can be limited if migration poses a threat to the religious well-being of the country (obviously there are other reasons like crime, etc.). It's easier for one to make the argument for such limitations in a completely Catholic country, but the more pluralistic a country, the more difficult it becomes to make that argument. For example, I'm not sure if Muslims filling in the space and resources left by declining atheists would justify forbidding their migration in and of itself" (SaintSebastian).


I think you made a good point about the phrase, "un-American," because the truth is that some very American ideas are false in principle (e.g., freedom of religion, separation of Church and State).

As for only whites having the capacity to be racist, I was fed that crap in college. Basically, racism was redefined as, "Predujice + Power" and because minorities allegedly have no power, nor are they perceived to be in power, they can't be racist. Thus only white people can be racist, even if they don't actually have power. This is where "white privilege" is invoked, which means that white people enjoy everyday privileges - consciously or unconsciously - that other races don't have. Needless to say, I think it's all a bunch of baloney.

I too am disgusted by the belief that God somehow loves America more than any other country, especially when we - or rather, our government - shut Him out of our schools and do our (collective) best to shut Him out of public life as well ("Religion is a taboo subject! Never talk about it!").

I'm not sure I agree with the principle of keeping America white, because Catholics shouldn't care all that much about race. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. What matters is that we keep our cultural heritage, also known as Western Civilization; what's even more important is that we work to make America Catholic and establish the Social Reign of Christ the King. That - Western Civilization - seems to be eroding day by day, and many white people are leading the way in this regard (with the rise of atheism, relativism, and other societal ills).

Again, our main concern should be to promote the Faith, and people of all races are welcome to join the Church of Christ. Spread the Faith and God will take care of the rest.
Reply
#3
"What matters is that we keep our cultural heritage, also known as Western Civilization;"

Hi SouthpawLink. Thank you for the reply, I didn't know this was discussed before. I am alarmed at the answers from the Church. I am also curious as to what you mean by "Western?" In my experience, "Western" means exactly two countries, the USA & the UK, both known for their toleration of Jews and other non-Christians.

I am not so sure this is a good reason to preserve "Western" Civilization, since I notice that both of these nations have been dominated by non-Christians (Freemasons, etc.) from 1776 onward, (for Britain even earlier). Academians always mention this "Western" and I wonder if this is what you meant.

Second, "their is neither Jew nor Greek" seems like a very specious reason to deny nationalism. Imagine if "gay rights" advocates who maintain the facade of "Christian" claimed gay marriage was OK "because there is neither male nor female but we are all one in Christ." I try to explain to them that this does not mean literally, only that we are spiritually all on the same level. Why then does "neither Jew nor Greek" suddenly become literal? Do people forget Paul also said there was neither male nor female?

Third, "people have a right to natural migration" is a strange statement to make unqualified. If by "natural right to migration" the church meant: even when it is against the laws of the land the migrants are migrating to, then I can understand why the Catholic hierarchy is defending illegal immigration to the United States. In other words: their right to "natural migration" trumps the laws of any land. So the natural right of migration is set in stone, equivalent to one of the 10 commandments. Any French person who wants France to remain French is no longer Catholic, and there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Frightening.

Fourth, during the Arian crisis, how many bishops stayed loyal to Rome? Not many. During Henry VIII's apostasy, how many English bishops opposed the new regime? Not many. How many bishops opposed Vatican II: not many. i am beginning to think in these terms: During the Novus Ordo Seclorun 1776, how many bishops stood by common European Catholics in defense of their culture: Not many.

My own take on "natural migration" is this: big money brought white people to N. America (hey natives...it's all natural...relax), and REAL big money is bringing nonwhites to Europe (sprinkle in some genuine hatred for Europeans on the part of Marxist elites in this particular case ). And I somehow doubt that Western Civilization (=USA & UK) will exist without the people who created them, or that France will remain French without the French people, or that Europe will remain European without any Europeans, or that the Catholic Church will function as before without the people who guarded it for 1500 years.

I don't know about other European Catholics, but like our Native American & Sub-Saharan African  predecessors, I feel sold out. The only difference is that Aztecs and Blacks fought and died like men, whereas Europeans will die because the Church tells them they have a moral obligation to be conquered. And all because there are literally neither Greeks nor Jews. Strange.

I need to do some soul searching about how to justify this to myself. 

Reply
#4
In the Medieval eves the equivalent of the nationalism was to belong to one city and to defend the interest of that city against and other city. The Church decision was not to intervene in either side, leave to the sword what belongs to the sword until the Cross rules what belong to the cross (the faith and the overall Christian morality)

In the New age, the nationalism started to mean what the word suggest: defend the interest of one nation against an other nation. French against Germans or England.The Church somewhat preferred the Catholic states against the non Catholic ones, but as moral issue still kept the generic rule: let the sword rule over things which belongs to the sword, and the Cross rule over what belongs to the Cross the faith and overall morality.

In our era things became more complicated. The unjust and unchristian accumulation of the wealth forced millions to leave their countries and invade to the area formerly belonged entirely to other nations. In Europe the problem is with the Muslims, who for decades were imported to serve the citizens, and now start to claim their rights, in the US this is so with the people from Latin America and partly from Asia.

The Catholic opinion should be that since there live here there are part of the country / nation. To claim that only the whites represent the nation either in Europe or in North America is unchristian.  

According to the Christian morality the wealth should be distributed somewhat equally among the countries. We are all the children of God. What should be blame it is the sinfully unequal distribution of the goods, and not the forced consequences.
Reply
#5
(06-24-2010, 10:19 AM)mistman Wrote: "What matters is that we keep our cultural heritage, also known as Western Civilization;"

What really matter that would be the Christian tradition, and that is denied either in Europe and in the US
Reply
#6
(06-24-2010, 10:19 AM)mistman Wrote: "What matters is that we keep our cultural heritage, also known as Western Civilization;"

Hi SouthpawLink. Thank you for the reply, I didn't know this was discussed before. I am alarmed at the answers from the Church. I am also curious as to what you mean by "Western?" In my experience, "Western" means exactly two countries, the USA & the UK, both known for their toleration of Jews and other non-Christians.

I am not so sure this is a good reason to preserve "Western" Civilization, since I notice that both of these nations have been dominated by non-Christians (Freemasons, etc.) from 1776 onward, (for Britain even earlier). Academians always mention this "Western" and I wonder if this is what you meant.

Second, "their is neither Jew nor Greek" seems like a very specious reason to deny nationalism. Imagine if "gay rights" advocates who maintain the facade of "Christian" claimed gay marriage was OK "because there is neither male nor female but we are all one in Christ." I try to explain to them that this does not mean literally, only that we are spiritually all on the same level. Why then does "neither Jew nor Greek" suddenly become literal? Do people forget Paul also said there was neither male nor female?

Third, "people have a right to natural migration" is a strange statement to make unqualified. If by "natural right to migration" the church meant: even when it is against the laws of the land the migrants are migrating to, then I can understand why the Catholic hierarchy is defending illegal immigration to the United States. In other words: their right to "natural migration" trumps the laws of any land. So the natural right of migration is set in stone, equivalent to one of the 10 commandments. Any French person who wants France to remain French is no longer Catholic, and there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Frightening.

Fourth, during the Arian crisis, how many bishops stayed loyal to Rome? Not many. During Henry VIII's apostasy, how many English bishops opposed the new regime? Not many. How many bishops opposed Vatican II: not many. i am beginning to think in these terms: During the Novus Ordo Seclorun 1776, how many bishops stood by common European Catholics in defense of their culture: Not many.

My own take on "natural migration" is this: big money brought white people to N. America (hey natives...it's all natural...relax), and REAL big money is bringing nonwhites to Europe (sprinkle in some genuine hatred for Europeans on the part of Marxist elites in this particular case ). And I somehow doubt that Western Civilization (=USA & UK) will exist without the people who created them, or that France will remain French without the French people, or that Europe will remain European without any Europeans, or that the Catholic Church will function as before without the people who guarded it for 1500 years.

I don't know about other European Catholics, but like our Native American & Sub-Saharan African  predecessors, I feel sold out. The only difference is that Aztecs and Blacks fought and died like men, whereas Europeans will die because the Church tells them they have a moral obligation to be conquered. And all because there are literally neither Greeks nor Jews. Strange.

I need to do some soul searching about how to justify this to myself.

Maybe a term like Western Civilization is too vague. What I mean was that we should try and preserve all that was great about the culture of Catholic Europe, including art (paintings, sculptures, architecture), literature and music. "Western Civilization" actually goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and they certainly had some influence on Christian thought.

When I said that, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile," I meant that in the sense that it ultimately doesn't matter what race one belongs to. You seem to equate nationalism with being white, whereas I do not. Nationalism, as I understand it, refers to our desire to preserve our culture (at least that which is good about it) as well as our nation's interests. Gay rights advocates are wrong because they have no moral ground to stand on, as homosexual acts are sinful and should not be condoned by society. St. Paul was saying that regardless of your state in life - or your race/ethnicity - we are all one in Christ and should be virtuous towards one another. His words could not even remotely be used by gay rights advocates to support their sinful behavior/lifestyles.

As for the right of migration, I quoted SaintSebastian, who said, "This right, however, can be regulated or limited based on the needs of the common good. I don't think mainting the numbers of a particular race compared with the numbers of another race in and of itself is sufficient to forbid migration. I do think it can be limited if migration poses a threat to the religious well-being of the country (obviously there are other reasons like crime, etc.)." So no, the right to migration is not unqualified. I think you may be making a mountain out of a molehill.

"The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this" (Pope Pius XII, Letter to the American Bishops, 24 December 1948).

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm

Neither does the pope say that the right to migration is unqualified to the point that the State cannot do anything to restrict it.

And the reason why white Catholics are starting to be outnumbered in Europe (slowly but surely... correct me if I'm wrong) and why we're losing our "majority" here in America is because we're contracepting and aborting ourselves out of existence. And also because we've assimilated so much - "Freedom of religion!" - that many of us have forgotten our mandate to convert others to the true Faith. Each day Europe looks more and more like a pale shadow of its former self (from what I've read on here). There are those in the Church who probably don't feel all that bad about this, but traditional Catholic teaching condemns much of what is accepted today.
Reply
#7
It should be kept to a minimum as it is a threat to the universatality of the Church, but there can be minor concessions in order to keep Catholic Nationalists Catholic.
Reply
#8
(06-24-2010, 12:08 PM)KC91 Wrote: It should be kept to a minimum as it is a threat to the universatality of the Church, but there can be minor concessions in order to keep Catholic Nationalists Catholic.

According to the traditional beliefs the (medieval eves) the heavenly and eternal things (including the morals as the means toward the heaven) belong to the Church (Cross) and the worldly things (including the nations) belong to the worldly power. (sword) On that view: the worldly power has the right to sustain/defend herself, and for that the national unity and serving the self interest is necessary. If there was conflict, even bloody conflict, the Church blessed both sides, claiming that the judgment (whose side is right) belongs to God
Reply
#9
Nationalist ideologies must promote Catholicism as an essential tenet, such as the Vaterländische Front of 1930s Austria. Nationalist ideologies that fail to do so shoot themselves in the feet and in the end will come to nothing. It's what many Americans don't get these days; God doesn't bless America because America doesn't bless God. I suppose I can chalk some of the blame up to Protestantism and the idea that mere faith in Christ is enough to win His entire and unswerving blessing without any sort of conversion of life on our part, though I've seen plenty of liberal Catholics with such a viewpoint. No wonder America's culture is in the shape it's in.

Everyone should read Dollfuss: an Austrian Patriot for a good example of how a proper nationalist ideology is supposed to be shaped. The only nationalist ideologies that we in the West are ever taught about are the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascist party; we are never taught anything about other nationalist movements because many others did not go to such foolish extremes as the aforementioned, and did a better job of rooting Catholicism into their nationalist platform. People might be led to believe that being Catholic means more than supporting illegal immigration and voting for Democrats - can't have that.
Reply
#10
(06-25-2010, 06:27 AM)glgas Wrote: If there was conflict, even bloody conflict, the Church blessed both sides, claiming that the judgment (whose side is right) belongs to God

Sorry, glgas, but the medieval Church was *very* involved in politics.  For instance, when William the Conqueror invaded England to claim the throne, he carried with him a papal banner indicating the support of the papacy.  This is hardly "blessing both sides. "

I will agree, however, that the medieval Church was more concerned with Christian unity (what was called Chistendom back then) than with national or regional identity.  I believe that this was one of the motiviating factors for the First Crusade.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)