Social media can be hard to assess sometimes, but it seems that Brandon McGinley’s latest piece for First Things, “Catholics Must Resist Ethno-Nationalism,” is generating some buzz (both positive and negative). Most of what McGinley has to say is pretty straightforward. For a good long while, Catholics in America were marginalized for religious and racial reasons; now (white?) Catholics are firmly a part of mainstream American life; and today that means (white?) Catholics have to contend with the racialist nature of contemporary American politics (or, rather, contemporary American conservative politics). Where people seem to take umbrage with McGinley concerns his strongly implied position that Americans (particularly American Catholics) should not support policies which exclude persons based on race or ethnicity. (What about religious background?)
On a certain level, McGinley is right. As I wrote about in my two recent posts regarding the so-called “alt-right movement” (see here and here), racism has no place in authentic Catholic social teaching or politics. A well-ordered society will not discriminate arbitrarily between its citizens, nor will it ignore concrete injustices being inflicted upon particular classes of persons (however defined). That does not mean that a well-ordered society cannot or should not exercise prudence when it comes to the status, rights, and opportunities of non-citizens, particularly if they pose a legitimate threat to public order. And this is where things start to get messy. For while it is no doubt true that some Americans who want to place stricter regulations on immigration (temporary or permanent) are animated by good old-fashioned redneck-style racism, that’s hardly true across the board. Americans — including American Catholics — have a genuine fear that increased Muslim immigration to the United States, Canada, and Western Europe poses a serious security threat which cannot be dismissed with guffawing and some finger wagging. Moreover, while the Catholic Church teaches that we are called to show charity toward all peoples, including refugees fleeing violence or other horrors, it does not state that such persons are to automatically enjoy all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. Under ideal circumstances, refugees should return to their native lands when the opportunity permits. If permanent residency is to be extended to them, that decision must be made with an eye toward the common good.
Where McGinley loses me is toward the end of his article where he seems to justify open-armed acceptance of all with the argument that American Catholics will soon find themselves on the margins of American life. While I agree with McGinley that American Catholics will find themselves increasingly pushed to the sidelines (if not cast out like lepers), I cannot wrap my head around the idea that letting in more people to the United States who profess a false religion which harbors murderous hatred for Christ and His Church is going to improve our situation. If anything, we should be pushing for looser immigration policies for those coming from historically Catholic countries (e.g., Mexico), along with opening our borders to persecuted Christian populations in the Middle East, a number of whom are Catholic (e.g., Chaldeans, Melkites, and Maronites). To hell with “American values” and “our nation’s history.” As faithful Catholics, it is not our duty to appeal to secular-liberal conceptions of tolerance or buy into fanciful ideas of “brotherhood” that have nothing to do with what the Church magisterially teaches. Our duty is to Christ the King and the conversion of society to His rule. Racism can have no part in that, of course, but neither can squishy platitudes.
July 28, 2016
These are all good goals, but accomplishing them is putting the cart before the horse. The necessary antecedent is to get rid of the secular-liberal ordo.
July 29, 2016
“… the moral law recognises the family and the nation to be moral persons. They have the qualities and the natural rights of persons. And by the law of God the essential rights of the family and the nation, and especially their right to live, are prior to the rights of any state. It is part also of the moral law that no state has the right to use any other national entity merely as a means to its own profit, and no state has a right to seek national advantages which would mean genuine harm to any other nation. All that is universal Christian tradition. It is also Christian tradition that men should obey the moral law rather than the law of a state whenever the two should clash. … It is universal Christian tradition that it is the duty of members of a family and of a nation to defend the essential rights of the family and of the nation, and especially it is a duty to preserve the life of a nation, or to defend it from any mortal blow, by all means possible short of taking human life unjustly or breaking the moral law. … Now, everywhere in Europe today we see governments asserting that they are above the moral law of God, that they recognise no other law but the will of the government, and that they recognise no other power but the power of the state. These governments claim absolute powers; they deny the rights of persons and of moral persons. They deny that they can be challenged by any code of morals, and they demand the absolute obedience of men. Now that is Atheism. It is the denial of God, of God’s law. It is the repudiation of the entire Christian tradition of Europe, and it is the beginning of the reign of chaos.”
— Saunders Lewis, 1936