EU president’s praise for Catholic teaching welcomed as bishops urge citizens to vote in elections to stop "nationalist threat"

[Vouthon]

The EU is intended (I think vainly) to be a single “nation state”.

It doesn’t aspire to nation-statism, after all it is a supra-national union of nation-states.

I will concede that there is a common European cultural identity and citizenship, but these complement and not do not abolish the national identities.

Still, the existence of countries like the UK - a multi-national state - complexify matters somewhat, given that Britain is technically a supranational union for the nations of the island of Britain that has become both a country and a unitary state, and has been one for a very long time.

The EU will remain federalistic in structure. It does not aspire to become and will never become a unitary state like Britain.

Federal polity/state, perhaps, but not unitary like France or Britain. And that’s very important where subsidiarity is concerned.

One of the causes of secessionist Scottish Nationalism, historically, has been the far too great centralisation of the unitary statehood of the UK centred in Westminster. We need more federalism within the UK as well, with greater devolution to English regions along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

[PLeeD]

An anarchical system of nation-states, without overarching juridical bonds and supranational authorities, is not in keeping with Catholic Social Doctrine.

That is not “Doctrine”. I do not believe you. Where is it in the catechism?

 

[Vouthon]

It is certainly part of the church’s social doctrine.

From Pope Pius XII’s 1939 encyclical Summi Pontificatus:

The nations, despite a difference of development due to diverse conditions of life and of culture, are not destined to break the unity of the human race, but rather to enrich and embellish it by the sharing of their own peculiar gifts and by that reciprocal interchange of goods which can be possible and efficacious only when a mutual love and a lively sense of charity unite all the sons of the same Father and all those redeemed by the same Divine Blood…

The idea which credits the State with unlimited authority is not simply an error harmful to the internal life of nations, to their prosperity , and to the larger and well-ordered increase in their well-being, but likewise** it injures the relations between peoples, for it breaks the unity of supranational society, robs the law of nations of its foundation and vigor**, leads to violation of others’ rights and impedes agreement and peaceful intercourse…

The human race is bound together by reciprocal ties, moral and juridical, into a great commonwealth directed to the good of all nations and ruled by special laws which protect its unity and promote its prosperity.

73.Now no one can fail to see how the claim to absolute autonomy for the State stands in open opposition to this natural way that is inherent in man - nay, denies it utterly - and therefore leaves the stability of international relations at the mercy of the will of rulers, while it destroys the possibility of true union and fruitful collaboration directed to the general good…Thus it would stand abandoned to the fatal drive of private interest and collective selfishness exclusively intent on the assertion of its own rights and ignoring those of others .

Once the bitterness and the cruel strifes of the present have ceased, the new order of the world, of national and international life, must rest no longer on the quicksands of changeable and ephemeral standards that depend only on the selfish interests of groups and individuals…"

- Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus (On the Unity of Human Society) October 20, 1939

 

[Vouthon]

Here, also, is how Pope Pius XII explained it in his 1951 Christmas address, with reference to it’s basis in natural law, which you can read in full here.

An excerpt:

https://archive.org/stream/1951christmasmespius#page/10/mode/1up

"…The Society of States

The common good, the essential purpose of every State, cannot be attained or even imagined without an intrinsic relation of the States to the human race as a whole. Under this aspect the indissoluble Union of States is demanded by nature. It is a fact that is imposed upon them. And in consent to it, although sometimes hesitantly, they answer the voice of nature. This natural union they strive to embody in an external stable framework, an organization.

As human experience teaches them, the State and the Society of States with its external organization, in spite of all their defects, are naturally, given the social nature of man, forms of union and order among men; they are necessary for human life…Their concept involves the tranquility of order, that ‘tranquillitas ordinis’ which St. Augustine gives as a definition of peace. These societies of their very essence exist for peace.

With them, as societies which exist for maintaining peace, Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace - and with Him the Church in whom He continues to live - has entered into a new and intimate relationship which elevates and strengthens society. This is the basis for the singular contribution that the Church makes to the cause of peace…

And how will this come about, except through the continuous enlightening and strengthening action of the Grace of Christ on the minds and hearts of citizens and statesmen, so that in all human relations they recognize and pursue the purposes of the Creator, that they strive to enlist the collaboration of individuals and nations for effecting these purposes, that within as well as among nations they practise social justice a and charity?

If men, obeying the Divine Will, will use that sure way of salvation, a perfect Christian order in the world, they will soon see the possibility of even a just war practically disappear. For there will be no reason for such a war, once the activity of the Society of States, as a genuine organization for peace, has been made secure. What we have said shows clearly our thought in this regard…"

 

[abucs]

Wow! Sounds like clergy in Europe have no problem getting directly political.

I do think the day will come when they’ll look back on the days of “nationalism” and “populism” with nostalgia. But at present it seems Europeans associate those terms with European Fascism of 70 years ago. It really does surprise me that Europeans trust themselves and their peoples so little.
Maybe it shouldn’t.

I think the EU has clearly been a secular anti Christian movement.

The rejection of mentioning Christianity in its founding documents, the anger at countries like Hungary who are overtly Christian and policies such as the removal of Christian symbols from state education and medical facilities testify to this.

What I think is happening is that bureaucrats like Junker have seen the EU polls and the coming tide of nationalist success in Europe. These people have so much disrespect and scorn for Christianity and yet their political project is under threat. How stupid do these people think Christians are that they would vote for these people. If Christianity is going to survive and thrive in Europe it is going to be in a nationalist Europe.

The pope and church officials should not get into bed with these people. These people are anti Christian and any church’s parroting of support for these people will rightly be seen as weak and cowardly. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, not to bow down at their feet and help them defeat our friends.

 

[Vouthon]

What I think is happening is that bureaucrats like Junker have seen the EU polls

Oh yes, I think they have certainly seen the EU polls. The most recent being…

Loading…

www.google.co.uk

https://twitter.com/x/status/1121688717624737793

 

[Ridgerunner]

For an American some of these things are different. But it truly does seem like the European countries just don’t trust themselves and in the course of doing what they think might keep themselves from knifing each other, they’re adopting a totally secular mega-state structure that might or might not serve them well in the future.

After all, being governed from, e.g., Berlin under pretense that you’re not, is no better than being governed from Berlin and acknowledging that you are. Think I would rather just acknowledge it.

 

[Vouthon]

secular mega-state structure

And here was me thinking that much of the continent of North America from east to west coast was under a secular mega-structure called the United States of America with it’s secular constitution.

Do you want to live under a theocracy? Because I certainly don’t.

As you can see from Juncker’s statement, it is known by many in Europe that our Union was founded by Catholic statesmen in large part inspired by my church’s social teaching.

But that doesn’t mean that we want to live under a theocracy and abandon the secularism that every modern society needs to be plural and tolerant, including the US which was the world’s first truly secular liberal polity, ironically.

Jacques Maritain, one of the most important social philosophers who influenced the founders of the EU, has a cause for canonisation going right now in the Catholic Church. And he explicitly said that United Europe should be unified by a “secular democratic” constitutional patriotism and that this would be the means of restoring Christian values and Christendom to Europe in a modern, pluralist manner that would involve people of all faiths and none.

And I’d say his dream has come pretty darn true, judging by the diverse Europhiles on this very forum.

 

[abucs]

For an American some of these things are different. But it truly does seem like the European countries just don’t trust themselves and in the course of doing what they think might keep themselves from knifing each other, they’re adopting a totally secular mega-state structure that might or might not serve them well in the future.

After all, being governed from, e.g., Berlin under pretense that you’re not, is no better than being governed from Berlin and acknowledging that you are. Think I would rather just acknowledge it.

Yes, it might actually be worse in not acknowledging it.

You might be interested in this analysis of the EU polls.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Russia is a bigger country still, but I doubt you are keen on joining Russia to the EU.

Also, while the U.S. adopted the British Common Law (My state’s constitution says so) and while the U.S.’ primary law is the constitution, it is generally understood that the constitution and the Declaration of Independence are a continuity and both are contributors to the philosophical underpinnings of the country. In the Declaration, the fundamental principal underlying all rights are rights inherent to humans “endowed by their Creator”. In other words, while Parliament is supreme in Britain entirely, the inherent rights of man given by God are supreme in the U.S. and cannot be overridden by any branch or government.

So the U.S. is not a secular state in the same way Britain is.

 

[Vouthon]

So the U.S. is not a secular state in the same way Britain is.

Britain is not a secular state at all.

We are an Anglican constitutional monarchy with CofE bishops in the upper house of our legislature, as Lords Spiritual.

Our society is far more secularized than the US but our unwritten constitution is unambiguous: we have a state religion still and it’s Protestant Christianity.

Queen Elizabeth II is Defender of the Faith.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Britain is not a secular state at all.

We are an Anglican constitutional monarchy with Anglican bishops in our upper house of legislature.

All surface. The reality is that parliament is supreme in all things. If it determined that people are not regarded as human beings until age 2, that would be the law of the land. Nothing is superior to the human determination of parliament. In the U.S. that’s not the case.

 

[Vouthon]

The reality is that parliament is supreme in all things

I’m not denying the supremacy of parliament under the British constitution.

What I’m saying is that the UK does not have a secular constitution.

We are a Protestant monarchy with a Queen reigning officially “by the grace of God” and a national anthem called “God save the Queen”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No offense, but Britain is a secular democracy pretending to be a protestant monarchy.

 

[Vouthon]

No offense, but Britain is a secular democracy pretending to be a protestant monarchy.

No, it’s a constitutional monarchy under a Protestant Sovereign but with an increasingly secularized society.

The US is the reverse: a secular republic with a more religious society.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For the tourists, correct. And the tourists appreciate it. But the Queen no more runs it than Mickey Mouse runs Disneyland.

 

[Vouthon]

For the tourists, correct. And the tourists appreciate it.

The Queen is largely ceremonial but she is intrinsic to the workings of the British constitution (no law comes into effect without her seal of approval, which finalises the parliamentary procedure) and to the country’s heritage, and self-image.

Even if Scotland became independent of the UK one day, it would be a Kingdom with the British monarch as Sovereign of Scotland, not a republic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, as I understand it, the Queen opens Parliament or something, and the PM has to confer with her on some things. But Parliament could take away those functions. Can the Queen even choose her ladies in waiting anymore, or was Victoria the last who could do that?

 

[tomarin]

All surface. The reality is that parliament is supreme in all things.

Could this be because they don’t have a written constitution?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Could this be because they don’t have a written constitution?

I think it is in part. But I think it’s also due to the development of the Brit system versus the American one. American jurisprudence and governance was a deliberate creation. The Brit system was more organic. It just developed over the centuries. The Magna Carta is as close to a constitution as the Brits have. It declares rights, but they’re acknowledged to be rights “granted” by the King (under compulsion of course). Later determination of parliamentary supremacy meant that human rights are manmade.

The American founders were more philosophical. In denying that human rights are granted by man (who to them is untrustworthy) they posit that human rights are granted by God. As such, they can’t be taken away by man.

I’m not saying people think about this sort of thing all the time, but it’s part of the thought process underlying both systems, and it does have meaning. Those (like appellate court judges) who deal with the law in a more reflective and philosophic way, do understand it and think about it. At least some do.