The Church and the Resurgence of Nationalism, Part IV

"The unity of mankind will not be achieved through ... dissolving all nations into one. It will be achieved by guiding all nations to Jesus Christ."

From Crisis

By Darrick Taylor, PhD

Erasing national borders is a godless vision of unifying mankind without reference to God.

In the first three parts (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) of this essay, we took a look at the history of nationalism in Western nations since the French Revolution, how the Catholic Church reacted to nationalism in that time frame, and, finally, we looked at the teachings of the popes regarding nationalism since 1789. In the final installment, I want to take a look at the return of nationalism in the world today—and what the Church’s reaction to this return should be.

Nationalism and the Ordo Amoris

As I write this, here in the United States we are but a few days removed from rioting that took place in the city of Los Angeles. The riots were a response to the presence of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the agency responsible for the enforcement of immigration law, on the ground in Los Angeles. Mexican nationals waving the flag of Mexico burned cars while supporters of the riots started “doxxing” ICE agents (releasing their names and personal information on the internet). This led to the National Guard being called out to quell the protests and a war of words between the mayor of Los Angeles, the governor of California, and the president of the United States.

These riots are a microcosm of Western countries today. On the one hand, you have forces which seek to let as many people come into their countries as indiscriminately as possible. On the other, you have an administration acting to enforce immigration laws long on the books, backed by a majority of the country’s citizens who wish to see the country’s mass migration policies come to an end. And then, you have an activist class backed by portions of the political and social elites of the country attempting to thwart this policy by fomenting unrest. 

Many are still unaware, it seems, that these protests are not organic. They are organized attempts to disrupt the normal functioning of a liberal democratic system of government. Mass immigration is an enormous enterprise involving big business, left-wing interest groups, and foreign governments. For example, mass immigration to the United States is a major source of revenue for countries such as Mexico and India, whose nationals send back remittances to their country of origin. And by this time, everyone should be aware it is the policy of the Democratic Party to encourage mass immigration for political and ideological reasons. 

In short, much of the mass immigration that has taken place over the past 30 to 40 years across Western Europe and the United States—but especially in the past 20—has been a deliberate policy, implemented in the face of consistent and widespread popular opposition. What is happening in Los Angeles is not new; similar scenes have been enacted in Europe throughout the past decade plus. More than this, the forces responsible for such scenes have attempted to void the democratic process when it appears as if a “nationalist” party or candidate appears close to attaining power, as in Romania(in which the courts voided a presidential election) and Germany (seeking to ban a political party). 

The forces of progressive liberalism are the greatest source of disorder in the world today—not those of nationalism. There is no doubt that nationalism is still potentially the most powerful and dangerous ideology in the world. But the current nationalist wars (in Gaza and Ukraine) are the result of liberal interventions of other nations, attempting to reshape other societies in line with liberal democratic norms. Within Western societies, efforts to “absolutize” the tenets of liberal democracy (openness, tolerance, compassion, equality) have led to division and social disruption not witnessed since the 1960s. 

What is striking about this is that both nationalism and liberalism can threaten the hierarchy of love that the Church teaches is intrinsic to the social order. Whereas nationalism threatens it by placing the nation above higher loyalties (to God and the Church), progressive liberalism attempts to collapse such hierarchies altogether—indeed, not merely on a national scale but a global one. No society can sustain such an assault. 

The response to the vice president’s anodyne invocation of the term ordo amoris last year illustrates this. The responses to Vance, even from professed Christians, seemed to equate any preference for one’s own nation over another as tantamount to committing acts of violence against foreigners. No country that acts upon such an idea can hope to survive for very long.

The Church and the Future of the “Postwar Liberal Order”

The Catholic Church as an institution is in many ways similar to how my old college mentor once described the modern university, as constitutionally conservative. That may sound incredible to those whose primary experience of the academic world is screeching protesters being hauled off by police on television. What my mentor meant was not that the university is ideologically conservative but that it was a giant bureaucracy that moves very, very slowly. 

The academic world in the West in general was not at all what one would call “leftist” before World War I; but by the 1960s, it was well along the path, and the campus radicals of that era were pushing at an open door. The Church, in a similar way, is like an ocean-sized aircraft carrier that does not turn on a dime. The Church—in a practical not a theological sense—embraced the culture of liberal democracy in the 1960s, and it would be foolish to think she could or would abandon this practical turn willy-nilly.

Which is a problem—as most thoughtful commentators are quite aware by now that the “postwar consensus,” the “rules based international order,” or the “postwar liberal order,” or whatever one wants to call it, is in bad shape. It is now clear that what has been presented as a universal ideology is the product of a particular civilization (Western European) promoted by its latest and perhaps last great power (the United States). Most would agree the drive to make liberal democracy dominant across the globe has been a disaster. Liberal democracy is largely a Western phenomenon, and it will likely remain so. Nationalism, however, has spread across the globe, and there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. 

What should the Church do about this? When the Church threw her mantle over the cause of liberal democracy in the 1960s, she had good reasons to do so. It was necessary to make some accommodation to the liberal order after the horrors of World War II; nationalism is a very potent and potentially dangerous ideology. She is right to be worried about the conflicts it can cause, especially in this age of doomsday weapons. 

But in my opinion, Church leaders made the mistake in the 1960s of seeing liberal democracy as an inevitable, irreversible part of human society rather than the culturally relative, time-bound cultural form it actually is. As the hegemony of that form begins to fade, the Church must come to grips with this fact sooner or later. Her shepherds must understand that one can no more eliminate “illiberal” sentiments (i.e., preferring or loving some peoples more than others) within societies, than you can eradicate “illiberal” regimes abroad. 

There will always be loves that turn easily into hatred, and no amount of wishing will make all men love each other equally in this world. Prior to the 1960s, the Church recognized this without embarrassment, and there is no reason she should not do so now. The Church should seek to promote “healthy” types of nationalism and curb “unhealthy” ones rather than continue to pursue a chimerical globalism. This will be more productive than pretending racial and ethnic hatred can be eradicated by treating national borders as mere inconveniences. 

Nationalism, dangerous though it can be, is a foundational element of modern society and cannot be dispensed with, outside of some sort of technological totalitarianism which no one but benighted tech oligarchs might relish. Modern liberalism, with its welfare state and concern for minorities, is practically impossible without the type of society nationalism creates. Such an ideology requires a large, wealthy, educated population, with a shared culture, history, and language, the kind created by the chauvinist governments of the 19th century which gave birth to modern, progressive liberalism in the first place. 

Even now, liberal democracy and nationalism are not necessarily incompatible; all one has to do is look at the success of the nation of Denmark in dealing with the issue of immigration. That country’s ruling left-wing party, when faced with popular unrest, passed legislation curbing immigration. Their very much socially and culturally liberal elites simply gave the majority what they wanted and retained power, unlike in other countries who refused and have brought about a crisis by denying the popular will. 

There are many reasons for this. Decades of mass immigration and an intolerant multiculturalism have eroded the solidarity necessary for self-government. Mass immigration has brought cultural clashes in its wake, as Western nations have imported populations whose cultures simply do not mix with cultures of modern, Western European, liberal democracies. One reason liberal elites have done this is they were convinced that the nation-state was going to be replaced by some sort of global institution, national cultures by a global one, and that the social solidarity their policies were eroding did not matter. 

The Church has played a role in fostering what has turned out to be a false prognostication concerning the inevitability of liberal democracy. The Church’s emphasis on human world governance in her modern magisterium has helped fuel the subversion of the hierarchical order of subsidiarity she has so eloquently articulated. Though she should always put peace first and protect the human dignity of all people, she must remind governments that they cannot dissolve the nation-state in order to help minorities, refugees, and other vulnerable peoples without destroying the social order that makes such concerns feasible in the first place.

The truth is that the unity of mankind cannot be assured by some sort of global, human government any more than the government of nations. The Church in the Middle Ages at times claimed a “global” sovereignty over temporal rulers, and this did exactly foster the unity of mankind. It is true that the Church is the only human institution with a divine mandate to care for the “universal common good,” but it is a subordinate one. The Church on earth is not self-contained but serves the court of the Most High and His providential governance of the universe. For the Church, though she has a governing structure, is not a universal government but a universal mission. 

That mission requires, as Pope Leo has stated, that men must obey “the commandment of love,” which means loving God the Holy Trinity, and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, first and foremost above all else. The unity of mankind will not be achieved through erasing every national border and dissolving all nations into one. It will be achieved by guiding all nations to Jesus Christ. The Church can only do this by converting the world to Jesus Christ; for only in Him are there no borders or boundaries, only boundless, endless love.