That is a very complicated question that, sadly, leads itself to some really oversimplified answers.
The short answer is: It depends.
Should you love your fellow countrymen whether they “deserve” that love or not? Absolutely. Look at the example of Christ.
Should you care for your cultural and spiritual heritage? Probably, at least to some degree.,provided, upon analysis, that it lines up with the teachings of the Church that were extant at that time. A couple of egregious examples:
- Many, if not most, countries at least tolerated slavery for many centuries. Obviously, the teachings of the Church do not endorse slavery. And that has been the consistent decree of the Holy See since, if memory serves correctly, the 15th Century. Should one be ashamed of this after that time? Probably. However, should one despise a country for holding slaves prior to that time? (when there was no moral edict preventing it) I would submit that one should be a little more tolerant prior to then.
- There are some countries that have had official programs of genocide in their past (I won’t list the obvious choice, desiring not to invoke Godwin’s Law). Those are shameful episodes in any country’s history. Denying that is ludicrous. If the consensus of the population in a country tries to justify it or deny it (despite being presented unequivocal proof to the contrary), I would be loathe to associate myself with such.
- The majority of countries in the civilized world support the wholesale slaughter of babies in their mothers’ wombs. See my comments on genocide, above.
- And so on, regarding any number of topics.
The Church authorizes civil disobedience and even, in extreme instances,
armed rebellion, when conditions of life and religious freedom become intolerable:
** 400. **
Recognizing that natural law is the basis for and places limits on positive law means admitting that it is legitimate to resist authority should it violate in a serious or repeated manner the essential principles of natural law. Saint Thomas Aquinas writes that “one is obliged to obey … insofar as it is required by the order of justice”.[823] Natural law is therefore the basis of the right to resistance.
There can be many different concrete ways this right may be exercised; there are also many different
ends that may be pursued. Resistance to authority is meant to attest to the validity of a different way of looking at things, whether the intent is to achieve partial change, for example, modifying certain laws, or to fight for a radical change in the situation.
** 401. *
The Church’s social doctrine indicates the criteria for exercising the right to resistance: “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave and prolonged violation of fundamental rights, 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted, 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders, 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution”.[824] Recourse to arms is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a “manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country”.[825] The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it preferable in any case that passive resistance *be practised, which is “a way more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for success”.[826]
But the question is: if a person licitly participates in such a thing, is that person not, in fact exercising a “love for country”, trying to right that country’s direction to be more in alignment with the teachings of Christ?
Like I said, a very difficult question with no easy answer.
