Can you be a Catholic and a nationalist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheDefaultMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TK421 said:
I won’t bother entertaining alternate definitions of the word or tap dancing with semantics. “Nationalism” has a specific historical meaning and it is built on mass corpses
Click to expand...
Hold the Phone.

There was nothing wrong with, for instance, “The Nation of Israel” in God’s eye.

And let’s never forget Internationalism and Globalism… and Marxism… and Communism,
as being Behind the incredible Numbers of Deaths of Humans which tie directly into
their ongoing ploy to obliterate and UNIFY Nations… Into one Huge AntiChristian Mess…
_
 
Well the Catechism seems to strike a balance that
(1) countries are obliged to welcome foreigners, but only “to the extent they are able to”, and
(2) immigrants to countries must follow the laws of the welcoming country

Many so called “Nationalists” today only support (1) and (2), so per the CCC yes.

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
 
EndTimes said:
This is all well and good perhaps, yet it totally ignores the stark reality of Globalism…
Click to expand...
To contrary, it intentionally opposes what it sees as stark danger of Globalism. Doesn’t ignore it at all
 
Aquinas11 said:
To contrary, it intentionally opposes what it sees as stark danger of Globalism. Doesn’t ignore it at all
Click to expand...
Well that’s good. . For, Globalism appears to be the work of the spirit of AntiChrist…
 
My apologies I misunderstood what you meant. Yes you’re right that (1) and (2) can be seen as soft on Globalism, however the key is “to the extent they are able” in (1) and right now in USA we’ve had open immigration for 55 years and are due to close borders for several decades to let the last 50 years of immigrant assimilate. BOrders were closed from 1920 -1965, then open from 1965-now so we’re due for another 40 year assimilation border close.
 
Aquinas11 said:
BOrders were closed from 1920 -1965, then open from 1965-now so we’re due for another 40 year assimilation border close.
Click to expand...
“40 more years? Perhaps there’s some optimism - in the sense that that presumes that this worldly world shall actually last that long before the necessary Return of Our Lord, who shall in turn finally put an End to The Mess!”, said EndTimes, with a mixture of seriousness and light-hearteness; were such a thing possible.
 
Closed border or Return of Christ. Either one sounds like a win to me.
 
As long as you are primarily a citizen of heaven, what matters on earth will be of far lesser concern.

One difficulty with nationalism is that it risks entering into a form of apartheid, a “separate but equal” which is certainly separate but never equal. Borders are allowed, and this also places the responsibility upon those wishing to enter that they follow the rules.

Certain food for thought here.
 
I don’t think that if you’re a citizen primarily of heaven, what happens on earth “will be of far lesser concern”. When God chose Abraham and his descendants, in order to form a nation, he wanted that nation, that people, to be an example and light to the world. Jesus himself said, “Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven.”

The fact that nationalism may create “a form of apartheid” situation is not necessarily a problem or evil. The Israelites were called to form a nation for this very reason. They were to be set apart from the world, and to be holy as God was holy. They had very distinct, unique and different laws from the nations around them. They were completely separated from the heathens around them. Of course, the later sin or downfall did not come in the separation, but in the fact that the Israelites and their kings wanted to mix with the surrounding nations and not remain separate.
 
Differences in latitude, differences in attitude.

I may drop dead at any moment, having lived on borrowed (divinely granted) life for 11 years now. Nationalism means less and less. The respect for law remains, however.
 
I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that it’s the spirit of the AntiChrist, but on the other hand, Satan is known for making bad things look good, at least at the beginning. So, maybe it is.

My take is that globalism is primarily a result of international commerce, which requires several things, including:
  1. Commonality of manufacturing standards (ISO9000 when I was in manufacturing),
  2. Creation of contracts which rely on negotiation, and negotiation requires give-and-take by both parties
  3. Acceptance of (or at least tolerance of) many of the cultural norms inherent in other societies (China’s poor treatment of its workers, for instance).
  4. Percentage of content of parts/labor for each company which is party to the contract.
  5. Some means of arbitration of disputes.
Consequently, various international entities have been created to establish and support the requirements of international business. All of that seems reasonable, until it gets to the point that a given nation feels like it is becoming too subservient to outside forces.

It reminds me of the Commerce Clause, which ultimately (in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) allowed the government to control what someone grows in their own backyard.

I think a lot of people in the United States and in England are getting fed up with corporations profiting at the expense of the citizens. I’m pro-capitalism, and understand that corporations have a duty to increase value for their shareholders, but there are other stakeholders that they should be concerned about, such as the citizens of the country in which they are incorporated.

In summary, I believe nationalism stems from over-reaching globalism, and the one of the Church’s teachings is the law of subsidiarity. Where possible, the more localized the government control over people’s lives, the better. That, I believe, applies to the business world, as well.
 
Larry1700 said:
I don’t know if I would go so far as to say that it’s the spirit of the AntiChrist, but on the other hand, Satan is known for making bad things look good, at least at the beginning. So, maybe it is.

My take is that globalism is primarily a result of international commerce, which requires several things, including:

In summary, I believe nationalism stems from over-reaching globalism, and the one of the Church’s teachings is the law of subsidiarity. Where possible, the more localized the government control over people’s lives, the better. That, I believe, applies to the business world, as well.
Click to expand...
RE: Satan/AntiChrist (and his minions, Yes it’s an arguable stretch as well as being an arguable fact.

My definitions of Globalism and Nationalism must be mentioned for the sake of sense…

Globalism? Is the move to Unite all Nations into one - call it - Nation - under one Ruling Authority…

Nationalism? Pertains to Nations who fall into two groups:

Those who are part of Globalism … e.g. NATO / EU / Israel and more…
who by definition and actions - want the Globe United… under one Gov’t.

And those Nations who do not want to be governed by call it, The West:
Such as China, Russia, NK, Iran, Syria and more…
who in both Technological-Military-Economic Manners -
are currently operating in very strong (and growing) opposition to the West – (and Vice Versa)
 
EndTimes said:
RE: Satan/AntiChrist (and his minions, Yes it’s an arguable stretch as well as being an arguable fact.

My definitions of Globalism and Nationalism must be mentioned for the sake of sense…

Globalism? Is the move to Unite all Nations into one - call it - Nation - under one Ruling Authority…
Click to expand...
The nonsense of casting anti-globalism as some sort of Catholic doctrine needs to be corrected right now - in light of the fact that it demonizes such things as the United Nations just because it has a global scope. There is no such Catholic doctrine. There never was. It is an invention by some who want to pretend their political philosophy is in fact part of the deposit of faith in the Universal Church.

Here is what can legitimately be said against globalism. There is the principle of subsidiarity in Catholic teaching that says that civil issues that can be handled at a local level ought to be handled at a local level rather than a higher level. Thus city ordinances are preferred over state laws and state laws preferred over national laws, and national laws preferred over world-wide entities.

Of course some issues, like standards for roads and bridges, cannot be handled well by city ordinances and are better handled by the state, or the nation, depending. And some issues cannot be handled by states alone but are better handled at the national level. And some issues, like dealing with pandemics, and such require some sort of world-wide coordination. This is what the World Health Organization, a part of the UN, does.

If at some time in the future, a global government were to arise that superseded all national laws, that would be contrary to subsidiarity. But the UN, as it currently stands, is a very loose voluntary association of sovereign nations. It is nothing like the scary story some tell. There is nothing intrinsically wrong according to Catholic doctrine with nations joining such a voluntary association.

Now when it comes to particulars about how the UN operates, one can find fault, just as one can find fault with one’s own national government. That does not mean that all national governments are intrinsically contrary to Catholic teaching. And it doesn’t mean that any global entity that sets rules for its member nations is necessarily evil.

The real discussion should be over a matter of degree. How much authority and what kind of authority is vested in a broader organization. The same is true of nationalism. It is right and proper to prefer one’s own national interests over the national interests of other nations. But by how much? This should have a limit too, because Catholics are supposed to care for the common good of all - to some extent. It would be wrong to set the level of preference for one’s home nation so high that it left the concern for the interests of other nations at zero.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
The nonsense of casting anti-globalism as some sort of Catholic doctrine needs to be corrected right now - in light of the fact that it demonizes such things as the United Nations
Click to expand...
Ain’t it interesting how I’ve never presented Globalism as being any sort of part of Catholic Doctrine …

To suggest that I’ve done that is… well… disingenuous nonsense?

Predecessor of the United Nations - The League of Nations - connecte w/Woodrow Wilson who lent support to the Mexican Marxist revolution - which sought to destroy the Church in Mexico

It’s been said that the UN was formed in part by some known Atheists/Communists …

Satan is the Prince of this world and some see him and his agents as seeking to Glom the world, yes?

The bottom line to any overarching leadership of this world - directly connects with the IDEOLOGY of the Leadership…

Are they followers of Jesus?
or
Do they connect with those who still seek to destroy Christ / Christianity?

SINCE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE acknowledges ANTIChrist and AntiChristianity –
as going to ultimately appear to be Victorious over Christianity,
we can Never let that Truism leave our sight.
 
I find it hard to believe we have to choose between globalism and nationalism. Its like saying, communism was a disaster, so lets just step it back a bit to socialism. No, the answer to our problems are not in large nation states, any more than they are in a global system of government. We change our whole mindset, the answer to our problems lies in our communities. When that doesn’t work, the states (if you are in the US), and only then do we look to a federal solution. Nationalism, is by its definition, making the nation the premier entity. I asked very early on, have we really been well served by the rise of the large nations?
 
tafan2 said:
Nationalism, is by its definition, making the nation the premier entity. I asked very early on, have we really been well served by the rise of the large nations?
Click to expand...
Some large nations have been good for humanity, and some have been bad. The one I know the most about, the United States, I think has been very good for humanity. I doubt 50 independent and sovereign states could have put together the kind of defense that was needed to defeat Germany and Japan in WWII. Plus being able to travel unimpeded through all 50 states without having to go through border checkpoints, and being able to use the same Federal currency in all 50 states is great. There are many more.
 
I am not opposed to the United States. But we have completely abandoned subsidiarity. Nationalism implies the nation takes precedent over all. That is not what I believe the Church teaches.
 
tafan2 said:
I am not opposed to the United States. But we have completely abandoned subsidiarity. Nationalism implies the nation takes precedent over all. That is not what I believe the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Please back up your assertion.

I don’t see the developed world abandoning the developing world. They are allowed to govern themselves and do receive aid. Poor governance is their primary challenge, not foreign interference.

Nationalism means to focus on your direct responsibility (your nation), but it hardly excludes helping your neighbors. it is not in conflict with subsidiarity.
 
I didn’t say any thing about the developed world vs the devoloping world. I said we have abandoned the principle of subsidiarity. People don’t even know what it means. This thread is proof enough for me.

I don’t think we should make out focus the nation, it should be our town our county, our state, and then our country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top