On Nationalism and Catholicism

An Essay

Introduction

We have heard much from traditional clerics and “conservative” politicians about the “war on the family” taking place in modern times. The family is that unit above the individual where life is brought forth, nourished, and developed into adulthood. Therefore, Satan plans to destroy this unit to strip away those many blessings that flow from this society. There is, of course, nothing wrong with this observation. In fact, the call to form and preserve the family is a noble call that must continually be made to men and women in the Church and in Civil Society. Yet, this is not the only call that must be made in the modern era.

To remove a natural society, we are told, strips from us many blessings. Beyond that, to repudiate this community is a grave sin against God that must lead to the most profound disorders. This is all true. Yet, while the war on the family has become the subject of intense scrutiny and critique, there is another war on a different natural society that has slipped below the radar: the war on the nation.

In fact, this war has been so successful that its widespread effect is to erase from public consciousness its own existence. The war on the family has led to controversy, with debates raging as to the extent of its rights and its importance in the life of the individual and society. Yet, the war on the nation has led to such a debilitating defeat that it has erased from public consciousness the very existence and reality of the nation as a concept distinct from the state.

In fact, for most of you reading, there is a desperate need for me to clarify the very concept itself before even speaking about Catholicism’s relationship with it.

Clarifying Terms

Especially in an American context, when we use the term “nation,” our mind immediately identifies it with the concept of “country.” Hence, for example, if I were to speak of “the country of Israel,” most would use the term interchangeably with “the nation of Israel.” Yet, this is not the case in the technical terminology used in Catholic Social Teaching. When we refer to a “nation,” we simply mean: “a large community of men who, because of their descent from a common stock, are in certain physical characteristics and intellectual and moral qualities to some extent distinct from all other men.” (Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, n. 1105) So, in the example of the country of Israel, there would be two main nations in one country: a Jewish Nation and an Arab Nation. Thus, when we speak of a “two-state solution,” we are gesturing at the idea that each nation (Jewish and Arab) should have a distinct state.

The Popes of the 20th century extensively spoke of the “rights of nations” and saw it as one of the positive developments of the era that the idea of the nation and its rights was developed: “Not only has there been a development in awareness of the rights of individuals, but also in awareness of the rights of nations…” (St. John Paul II, Centesimus annus, n. 21) It is only by the full respect of these rights of nations/peoples that true peace can be achieved: “Only on the basis of full respect for the rights of men and the rights of nations — full respect! — can the peace and reconciliation of Europe and the world in future be constructed.” (St. John Paul II, 18 May 1979)

The Church lists two rights in particular: existence and self-determination. The Church also points out that the nation is perfected in its own sovereignty and its free cooperation in the higher common good. This is all wonderfully summarized in the Compendium of Social Doctrine, n. 157:

“The field of human rights has expanded to include the rights of peoples and nations…The Magisterium points out that international law ‘rests upon the principle of equal respect for States, for each people’s right to self-determination and for their free cooperation in view of the higher common good of humanity.’ Peace is founded not only on respect for human rights but also on respect for the rights of peoples, in particular the right to independence. The rights of nations are nothing but ‘human rights fostered at the specific level of community life.’ A nation has a ‘fundamental right to existence,’ to ‘its own language and culture, through which a people expresses and promotes...its fundamental spiritual sovereignty’, to ‘shape its life according to its own traditions, excluding, of course, every abuse of basic human rights and in particular the oppression of minorities,’ to ‘build its future by providing an appropriate education for the younger generation.’ The international order requires a balance between particularity and universality, which all nations are called to bring about, for their primary duty is to live in a posture of peace, respect and solidarity with other nations.”

The first principle of existence is quite easy to understand: a nation cannot be destroyed by any other group, whether directly or indirectly.

The second principle of self-determination refers to the idea that a nation should have a degree of liberty. Just as a man has the right to choose between many particular goods, so also a nation has the same right to self-determination, especially in choosing its own mode of governance (e.g., what form of government, whether to be part of another group or groups in a state, etc.). It is for this reason that, for example, the Church supports a two-state solution for the Palestinians. The Palestinians form a true nation and have a right to self-determination, which in this case includes statehood.

The third principle of sovereignty refers to the right and duty of a nation to express and promote its own unique characteristics (especially language, traditions, and culture) to the benefit of the individuals of the nation. This is the perfection of a nation towards its members.

The fourth principle of the free cooperation in the higher common good refers to the perfection of a nation towards other nations and the international order. Just as an individual has a duty and finds his perfection in his service to his nation, so also the nation has a duty and finds its perfection in its service to the higher common good (especially emphasized by St. John XXIII in Pacem in terris).

The nation that is perfect in its duty develops and preserves its own perfections both collectively and in its members so that it may serve the higher common good of other nations. It is on this point that many of the errors of “false nationalism” arise, in understanding the perfections of the nation in an insular or hostile manner. For example, rather than subjegating and exploiting a barbaric nation, the good nation will draw from its own abundance to communicate the goods of civilization, justice, and economic development to this people.

This is especially expressed in the sending of missionaries from one nation to another, beautifully set forth by Fr. Fahey in his work titled The Kingship of Christ According to the Principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, where he compares the sending of missionaries to other nations as an exercise of national mortification, governed by charity:

Missionary endeavor I regard as a part of the working of the law of mortification, which is the great law of life for nations as for individuals. We see this law continually operating in ourselves and in others, in the imperious demand of reason that the inferior life of the senses should be subjected to the rational…In the still higher sphere of the supernatural order, we see that the cutting off of even the legitimate pleasures of the natural order is made the condition of the fullness of the life of union with Jesus…

The going forth of missionaries from a nation may be considered to have an action on its higher life analogous to that of the sacrifices of even legitimate pleasures, in the natural order, on the life of the individual. The sons...of a people who go forth for Christ are near and dear to the nation’s heart. They love their country, and at home would be...among its most cherished citizens. But they cut themselves off from their own country in the natural order, with the purpose of implanting the true life of the supernatural in other lands, and their sacrifice will make for the development of supernatural life at home. And if the true life of a nation remains vigorous nothing can overthrow that nation.

The going abroad to build up material civilization on the part of those who are needed at home to build up their own native, national civilization — that is, to build up the body which contains the soul — is a very different process; and if carried on over a long period of time, as has been the case in Ireland, may endanger the survival of the old race in its own land. It is a process similar to the excessive mortification of the body, a practice against which the saints warn us as being one of Satan’s means of preventing good from being accomplished, for it is thus that he impairs the efficiency of one whom he fears.

Under the image of mortification, we are able to properly understand this principle. While it is necessary to deny your lower appetites so as to free your soul for contemplation, it is perfectly possible to so excessively mortify your flesh as to harm your soul. Hence, St. Paul writes: “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8) In a similar way, we can chastise those who wish to provide for the goods of other nations while neglecting the goods of their own nation. This is neither justice nor charity.

True Nationalism and Catholicism

Pius XI gives us the general principle concerning the nation: that “feeling of piety towards our own people…[are] hallowed and strengthened by the right order of Christian charity.” (Caritate Christi Compulsi, n. 4) True nationalism, broadly defined, concerns the “love of natural friendship towards one’s own nation.” (Thomistic Philosophy, n. 1108) This differs very much from forms of “false nationalism” that we will address below. According to the ordinary way in which the Magisterium currently speaks, “false nationalism” is referred to simply as “nationalism,” and “true nationalism” as “patriotism,” as we shall see from St. John Paul II below.

This obligation to “feel piety” towards our own nation is a natural obligation. It is an obligation that falls under the fourth commandment. Yet, as Pius XI states, such a feeling of piety is “hallowed and strengthened by the right order of Christian charity.” Now, we do not simply love our nation for a natural end and with natural virtues, but we love our nation for a supernatural end and with virtues infused by God and directed by supernatural charity. Far from decreasing or destroying the obligations we have towards our people, the Catholic religion binds us to a more intense and pure affection for our people. St. Paul’s affection for his own people was elevated to such a degree that he was able to say: “I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race.” (Rom. 9:3) In the light of Divine Revelation and moved by grace, he was able to understand the profound supernatural vocation of his nation and the noble qualities endowed upon them to fulfil this vocation, feeling anguish at their failure in this. Such a supernatural vocation is not unique to the Hebrew Nation; the call to baptize, teach, and disciple is given by Our Lord to the Church for all nations.

Beside the subjective obligation we have towards our nations, we can look at the objective power of the Gospel on nations. This relies on a principle set forth in so many places in the tradition (especially renewed at the Second Vatican Council) that grace is a force that cleanses and elevates natural realities in order to subordinate them to a supernatural end. Each nation (as each person) has their vices. Catholicism is able to cleanse that nation so as to remove those vices, and the stronger the impact of grace on a nation, the greater the purification from vices. Further, Catholicism is able to elevate and perfect the qualities of the nation. Now, not only does the nation serve the temporal good of the people by inculcating and preserving her noble qualities in them, but the nation also preserves these noble qualities for a higher end. Their nobility becomes a disposition for eternal life. The man firm in the natural virtues of sobriety, justice, diligence, and perseverance is fertile ground for the life of grace. Hence, the nation which inculcates these virtues has an indirectly supernatural end, far more noble than the simple preservation of national distinctives.

On False Nationalism and Globalism

It is important to note that the free cooperation in the higher common good supposes the other principles. A nation cannot freely cooperate in the higher common good unless it is a nation with existence, self-determination, and sovereignty. A nation contributes to the higher common good by preserving and sharing the fruits of its own unique characteristics and perfections, not by destroying or removing these unique characteristics and perfections. It is with this in mind that many of the “anti-nationalism” texts of the Magisterium are properly interpreted — not as denying the existence, rights, duties, or necessity of the nation, but as condemning the corruption of its universal vocation. Hence, many authors will distinguish between a “true” and “false” nationalism.

Some understand nationalism as a denial of the universal vocation of nations or of the universality of human nature. Hence, the goodness and duty of the nation are not framed in a positive light, in service to the universal common good, but in an egotistic and insular manner. To give an analogy: it would be as if some man were to accumulate much wealth and not use it in service of the common good and charitable purposes. This form of nationalism views the end of the nation purely in enriching itself and the individuals of its own nation, rather than viewing its more sublime and divine vocation in the elevation of other nations and of the international order. This fatal error places the nation in a hostile stance towards other nations (including those present in the same state). This “hypernationalism” (which is really a false nationalism) has led to bloodshed and brutality.

Connected to this error is the error of those who assert the principle of nationality. The principle of nationality asserts that it is inherently unjust for there to be any distinction between the nation and the state. This principle of nationality is, of course, quite distinct from the self-determination of peoples, the latter conceding that there can be instances when a nation desires to be united with another nation or group of nations in a single state or confederation.

Others, in their opposition to “nationalism,” slide into the opposite extreme, denying the existence, rights, perfection, necessity, and duties of the nation. Just as nature has intended that the state be serviced and men be formed by families, so also has nature intended that the world be serviced and states formed by nations. Thus, the unique perfections and inherent worth of nations are crushed by a drive to uniformity, and nations are not able to fruitfully develop their own perfections — the very perfections needed to be at the service of other nations.

These opposed errors were set forth with a great degree of clarity by St. John Paul II in his Address to the United Nations, 5 October 1995:

The problem of the full recognition of the rights of peoples and nations has presented itself repeatedly to the conscience of humanity, and has also given rise to considerable ethical and juridical reflection…Today the problem of nationalities forms part of a new world horizon marked by a great “mobility” which has blurred the ethnic and cultural frontiers of the different peoples, as a result of a variety of processes such as migrations, mass-media and the globalization of the economy. And yet, precisely against this horizon of universality we see the powerful re-emergence of a certain ethnic and cultural consciousness, as it were an explosive need for identity and survival, a sort of counterweight to the tendency toward uniformity. This is a phenomenon which must not be underestimated or regarded as a simple left-over of the past. It demands serious interpretation, and a closer examination on the levels of anthropology, ethics and law.

This tension between the particular and the universal can be considered immanent in human beings. By virtue of sharing in the same human nature, people automatically feel that they are members of one great family, as is in fact the case. But as a result of the concrete historical conditioning of this same nature, they are necessarily bound in a more intense way to particular human groups, beginning with the family and going on to the various groups to which they belong and up to the whole of their ethnic and cultural group, which is called, not by accident, a “nation”, from the Latin word “nasci”: “to be born”. This term, enriched with another one, “patria” (fatherland/motherland), evokes the reality of the family. The human condition thus finds itself between these two poles — universality and particularity — with a vital tension between them; an inevitable tension, but singularly fruitful if they are lived in a calm and balanced way.

Upon this anthropological foundation there also rest the “rights of nations”, which are nothing but “human rights” fostered at the specific level of community life. A study of these rights is certainly not easy, if we consider the difficulty of defining the very concept of “nation”, which cannot be identified a priori and necessarily with the State. Such a study must nonetheless be made, if we wish to avoid the errors of the past and ensure a just world order.

A presupposition of a nation’s rights is certainly its right to exist: therefore no one — neither a State nor another nation, nor an international organization — is ever justified in asserting that an individual nation is not worthy of existence. This fundamental right to existence does not necessarily call for sovereignty as a state, since various forms of juridical aggregation between different nations are possible, as for example occurs in Federal States, in Confederations or in States characterized by broad regional autonomies. There can be historical circumstances in which aggregations different from single state sovereignty can even prove advisable, but only on condition that this takes place in a climate of true freedom, guaranteed by the exercise of the self-determination of the peoples concerned. Its right to exist naturally implies that every nation also enjoys the right to its own language and culture, through which a people expresses and promotes that which I would call its fundamental spiritual “sovereignty”. History shows that in extreme circumstances (such as those which occurred in the land where I was born) it is precisely its culture that enables a nation to survive the loss of political and economic independence. Every nation therefore has also the right to shape its life according to its own traditions, excluding, of course, every abuse of basic human rights and in particular the oppression of minorities. Every nation has the right to build its future by providing an appropriate education for the younger generation.

But while the “rights of the nation” express the vital requirements of “particularity”, it is no less important to emphasize the requirements of universality, expressed through a clear awareness of the duties which nations have vis-à-vis other nations and humanity as a whole. Foremost among these duties is certainly that of living in a spirit of peace, respect and solidarity with other nations. Thus the exercise of the rights of nations, balanced by the acknowledgement and the practice of duties, promotes a fruitful “exchange of gifts”, which strengthens the unity of all mankind…

In this context, we need to clarify the essential difference between an unhealthy form of nationalism, which teaches contempt for other nations or cultures, and patriotism, which is a proper love of one’s country. True patriotism never seeks to advance the well-being of one’s own nation at the expense of others. For in the end this would harm one’s own nation as well: doing wrong damages both aggressor and victim. Nationalism, particularly in its most radical forms, is thus the antithesis of true patriotism, and today we must ensure that extreme nationalism does not continue to give rise to new forms of the aberrations of totalitarianism. This is a commitment which also holds true, obviously, in cases where religion itself is made the basis of nationalism, as unfortunately happens in certain manifestations of so-called “fundamentalism”.

Defining the Nation

The aspects detailed above consist of the “easy part” of questions surrounding nationality. The “difficult part” concerns precisely determining the boundaries of nationality. For example, while it is quite easy to see that the English nation and the Italian nation are distinct nations, does the same apply outside of the ancestral homelands of England and Italy? What about the descendants of both nations outside of their ancestral homelands? This has led some to deny altogether any concept of nation that does not involve an a priori identification of the state and nation. Yet, it is important to remember that it does not follow that a reality does not exist simply because its boundaries or particular characteristics are hard to precisely define outside of more general notions. If I were to ask you “is your seventh cousin ‘family’?”, you would easily answer “no.” If I were to ask you “is your first cousin ‘family’?”, you would easily answer “yes.” Yet, what about your second or third cousins? Here, the calculus gets a bit more difficult, yet it is obvious that the idea of “family” denotes a certain reality. The same problem strikes the natural scientist in the so-called “species problem” in determining the taxonomy of the animal kingdom. While it may be difficult to determine the distinction of species in particular cases, or even as a general concept, it is clear that there are distinct species of animals.