I agree that putting the nation above it's due place is against the faith, and even idolatrous, as Pius XI puts it in "Mit Brennender Sorge". "8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God;" However, there is an opposing error which is much more perniciously widespread today (Especially in relation to the identity of Europeans, speaking as a Norwegian), namely those that deny the existance of race, and thus the function of it as a "fundamental value of the human community". Jesus goes as far as to say that (Luke 14:26) "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." However, Jesus denies here neither the existence of families nor extended families (brethren), and their fundamental value in the human community. Similarly, the nation or the race (latin: natio, "birth, nation, race") is comparably as integral to the human person as family is. This grouping is not a modern invention either, the greeks for example, with their city-states, nevertheless spoke of "greeks" as springing from the soil of Hellas. I write all this as a Norwegian nationalist, but Catholic first.
@@snokehusk223 You cannot hold to Nationalism and Catholocism if that Nationalism is ideological instead of natural. It is good that you should be most concerned about the individuals who form the community closest to you. It is evil to be more concerned about the welfare of a person you have never met more than your neighbor. But this also goes for individuals within nations. You should have less concern over the welfare of a Norwegian across the country, or even is diaspora, than you should with the Swede that lives down the street. To do the opposite is not love, but an excuse to not love. One doesn't love the person in abstract, but in immediacy. The thing modernity gets wrong is exactly that though. Instead of a nationalism, you have a globalism. Globalism is just Nationalism at a larger scale. Instead of caring first for the welfare of your family, you are taught to first care for the welfare of the impoverished Somali you have never met, and whose life you can better in no way. You are told to sacrifice your family for the betterment of persons whose lives cannot be bettered by your action or inaction. That is the problem, and is shared equally between nationalism and globalism. But in the end, there is not nation, there is no nationalism, and there is no globalism. These things exist only in our heads. They are arbitrary and have no reality without the force of the state. You are first a foremost a citizen of the community in which you live and work and produce goods for. The state which is around you, which since the rise of nationalism is called the nation, should exist so as to foster the moral and material benefit of those under it. It need not be national to do so. It can be an empirial entity, like the Austrian Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. So long as that state exists first for the moral benefit of the person and secondarily for their material benefit, it is good. As much as the state fails at these tasks, being used for the enrichment of a monarch or a set of Aristocrats without care for the common persons moral and material life, the state is bad. This is as true for a nation-state, like modern Norway supposedly is, or an Empire, like the Hapsburgs or the Byzantines or modern America. But there is no room for nationalism.
nationalism is Catholic, the protestants are no threat since there is no solid set of beliefs. Catholics on the other hand are dangerous and will not hesitate to use the state power to submit everyone to the pope. History speaks the truth of this with all other attempts at dissent being suppressed prior to the protestant reformation. If it weren't from God the protestants would have not succeeded.
Hey guys, I mean this in all due respect... I think you completely left out nationalism in practical terms, which is honestly the draw to nationalism in the modern world. Yes, there is a historic ideological realm to certain forms of nationalism. But in terms of modern politics, nationalism is largely a methodology of reaction against globalism. The thought goes like this: Nations exist > their governance can be directed to global ends at the expense of the national people, or > their governance can be directed to national ends for the betterment of the national people. "Nationalistic" policies would involve things like upholding a consistent and homogenous moral system, having a fair justice system to exercise the moral system, attempting to bolster domestic businesses, focusing charitable giving on local poverty (instead of sending all the money to foreign countries), establishing borders and effective immigration policies so that bad actors cannot infiltrate and disrupt the established social order, etc. Can you address if and why these would be wrong? It may end up being a more nuanced discussion if you tackle the rather agreeable policies instead of just remaining in ideological discussion.
Hey, I think I might have a response to your comment. I think largely you make a good point, but there's a distinction between nationalism and populism. Take for example the phrase "America first": many Americans may be upset that we always have enough resources to fight unwinnable foreign wars but never have enough to take care of people at home. In terms of combining economic populism with foreign non-intervention, I agree. In terms of globalism, there's also the idea that it is either anti-democratic or too centralized because unelected bureaucracy does not respect the will of more localized politics. I also agree with that. But "America first" obviously includes the word "America", and thus relies on the same ideology that was explained in the video. In fact, if we just go off of the globalism VS decentralization debate, the two poles are one world government or anarchy and individualism, and nationalism is not a part of that dichotomy. So both the practical and ideological parts are at play here, in my assessment. As it relates to the other videos in this series, I think one of the main points has been that it's not a black and white battle of good and evil. The "evil" according to nationalists might be globalism, but to the socialist it is the capitalist class and to the libertarian it is authoritarianism or collectivism. All 3 ideologies make good points, but is making history a battle against these forces a good idea or is there some third way that is possible? Policy-wise, our sense of morality should ideally be internally motivated and I have concerns about legislating morality or being "tough on crime", but I largely think there is no problem with what you call "nationalistic" policies. I will say that I tend to have a more cosmopolitan view that respects both individuals and humanity as a whole, and this influences my thoughts on immigration. I think a disruption to the social order can just as easily come from within as it can come from without because anyone can be a "bad actor". I think part of spreading the gospel means to encourage as many members of the human race as possible to be good actors, regardless of nationality or other differences between us. I also wonder about how much our beliefs are influenced by talking points. With inflation, the pandemic, etc, many people are concerned about the economy, and justifiably so. Is that because taxes are too high, because the government spends too much, because immigrants/AI/Automation are taking jobs, or because billionaires are greedy and people aren't payed enough? The real concerns of common people seem to be filtered through pre-existing ideologies that offer an explanation for thier suffering, but we should be critical of how accurate that explanation is. I hope that answered your question and I look forward to hearing your feedback on my reply.
Interestingly, one of the main goods St. Olav, eternal king of Norway (martyred 1030) is known for, is the unification of the nation of Norway into one kingdom. Thus establishing Christian law and peace.
Loving these throwbacks. Thanks for shedding light on these often vaguely defined terms. Looking forward to the “Socialism is not Catholic” one next. 👍🏼
Catholic subsidiarity emphasizes the role of local and regional governments, as well as self-government, over the government of the national and global societies
Yes, the principle of subsidiarity neither assumes or depends on the creation of the modern state in order to for its principles to be true. In other words, you can find the principle of subsidiarity at play in medieval Christendom before the rise of modern nation-states.
@@asdfasdf3989 The ideology of nationalism works with a certain modern understanding of nation. Before answering that question, then, it is necessary to ask "what does one mean by nation?" The purpose of the episode is to expose the emergence of the nation-state as a modern invention, and allow this to reform how we conceive of national identities. So, to answer your question, obviously not. In fact, the argument made in the episode (and the article below) is that the creation of nation-states had to destroy the previous provincial identities that existed in order to create a larger, homogenous unity. newpolity.com/blog/a-defense-of-the-particular-and-the-universal
I wouldn’t consider myself a nationalist but I have to say, I was disappointed by your representation of it. You mostly take issue with the idea that the nation should take precedence over religion or the family and on that point I agree, that’s both a terrible idea and incompatible with Catholic teaching, but it’s also not what I hear nationalist acquaintances espousing. Rather, they champion the nation-state as preferable to other forms of state for one reason or another. Also, and I’m genuinely surprised to have to point this out, referencing Our Lord’s negative use of the term “the nations”-in Hebrew, “goyim”-as evidence of His disapproval of the nation-state is shockingly poor exegesis! It’s akin to concluding that the ancient Church must have despised rural villagers because it continuously denounced “pagani”.
Here's an article from back when we were Postliberal Thought, published roughly around recording the original discussion. It touches on the distinction you are pointing out (current nationalist positions, versus 19th century nationalism). But the point is, due to its historical roots, both historical and current nationalism still share certain common presuppositions about reality, and these are the ideas being criticized in both the article and podcast: newpolity.com/blog/a-defense-of-the-particular-and-the-universal
@@kadedaivis5118yep, totally agree with that critique. We are to love that which we are closest to prior to that which we are more distant. Catholics are then Catholic first (because our proximity to the Church is most immediate, as a result of the mark of baptism on our souls), then we are members of our family, then the gens/tribe/clan, then the city, then the nation, then mankind. I took issue in the podcast when they said things like “I’m a Catholic who just so happens to be a member of the Smith family in Steubenville.” No, you are a Catholic who is in many ways defined by your relationship to the Smith family. You are not John, an individual who by mere happenstance is “John Smith.” You are John Smith. Likewise, your position as a “Steubenvillean” is not inconsequential or merely a product of what zip code you put on your government ID. It is less immediate than your position as a member of the Smith family, but it isn’t something that can be dismissed as mere happenstance. Ironically, I think a lot of the byproducts of liberalism colored their statements made in this episode. Liberalism has the habit of downplaying the family, tribe, city, and nation in favor of the atomized and deracinated global “humanity.” Liberalism says that “you are John who just so happens to be a member of the Smith family of Steubenville, Ohio.” A rightly ordered society would say that “you are the Catholic John Smith of Steubenville, Ohio” and that none of these things should be seen as merely circumstantial. Maybe a better way of putting it - in order to avoid the baggage that comes with conflating the nation with the modern nation-state - would be to replace “nation” in this discussion with “people” or “folk” (although this isn’t perfect either because the former of these has associations with mid-century liberalism and latter has negative connotations associated with mid-century nationalists).
So what does it mean to be an American or rather a good American? It seems based in nationalism and libertarianism. So can a good Catholic be an American or would they be a bad American?
Fantastic!
I agree that putting the nation above it's due place is against the faith, and even idolatrous, as Pius XI puts it in "Mit Brennender Sorge".
"8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community - however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things - whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God;"
However, there is an opposing error which is much more perniciously widespread today (Especially in relation to the identity of Europeans, speaking as a Norwegian), namely those that deny the existance of race, and thus the function of it as a "fundamental value of the human community". Jesus goes as far as to say that (Luke 14:26)
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
However, Jesus denies here neither the existence of families nor extended families (brethren), and their fundamental value in the human community. Similarly, the nation or the race (latin: natio, "birth, nation, race") is comparably as integral to the human person as family is. This grouping is not a modern invention either, the greeks for example, with their city-states, nevertheless spoke of "greeks" as springing from the soil of Hellas.
I write all this as a Norwegian nationalist, but Catholic first.
Amen. From Croatian Catholic Nationalist.
@@snokehusk223 You cannot hold to Nationalism and Catholocism if that Nationalism is ideological instead of natural. It is good that you should be most concerned about the individuals who form the community closest to you. It is evil to be more concerned about the welfare of a person you have never met more than your neighbor. But this also goes for individuals within nations. You should have less concern over the welfare of a Norwegian across the country, or even is diaspora, than you should with the Swede that lives down the street. To do the opposite is not love, but an excuse to not love. One doesn't love the person in abstract, but in immediacy.
The thing modernity gets wrong is exactly that though. Instead of a nationalism, you have a globalism. Globalism is just Nationalism at a larger scale. Instead of caring first for the welfare of your family, you are taught to first care for the welfare of the impoverished Somali you have never met, and whose life you can better in no way. You are told to sacrifice your family for the betterment of persons whose lives cannot be bettered by your action or inaction. That is the problem, and is shared equally between nationalism and globalism.
But in the end, there is not nation, there is no nationalism, and there is no globalism. These things exist only in our heads. They are arbitrary and have no reality without the force of the state. You are first a foremost a citizen of the community in which you live and work and produce goods for. The state which is around you, which since the rise of nationalism is called the nation, should exist so as to foster the moral and material benefit of those under it. It need not be national to do so. It can be an empirial entity, like the Austrian Empire, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire. So long as that state exists first for the moral benefit of the person and secondarily for their material benefit, it is good. As much as the state fails at these tasks, being used for the enrichment of a monarch or a set of Aristocrats without care for the common persons moral and material life, the state is bad. This is as true for a nation-state, like modern Norway supposedly is, or an Empire, like the Hapsburgs or the Byzantines or modern America. But there is no room for nationalism.
@@josephmoya5098you’re decrying nationalism in favor of literal localistic tribalism 😭
nationalism is Catholic, the protestants are no threat since there is no solid set of beliefs. Catholics on the other hand are dangerous and will not hesitate to use the state power to submit everyone to the pope. History speaks the truth of this with all other attempts at dissent being suppressed prior to the protestant reformation. If it weren't from God the protestants would have not succeeded.
Hey guys, I mean this in all due respect...
I think you completely left out nationalism in practical terms, which is honestly the draw to nationalism in the modern world.
Yes, there is a historic ideological realm to certain forms of nationalism.
But in terms of modern politics, nationalism is largely a methodology of reaction against globalism.
The thought goes like this:
Nations exist > their governance can be directed to global ends at the expense of the national people, or > their governance can be directed to national ends for the betterment of the national people.
"Nationalistic" policies would involve things like upholding a consistent and homogenous moral system, having a fair justice system to exercise the moral system, attempting to bolster domestic businesses, focusing charitable giving on local poverty (instead of sending all the money to foreign countries), establishing borders and effective immigration policies so that bad actors cannot infiltrate and disrupt the established social order, etc.
Can you address if and why these would be wrong? It may end up being a more nuanced discussion if you tackle the rather agreeable policies instead of just remaining in ideological discussion.
Hey, I think I might have a response to your comment. I think largely you make a good point, but there's a distinction between nationalism and populism. Take for example the phrase "America first": many Americans may be upset that we always have enough resources to fight unwinnable foreign wars but never have enough to take care of people at home. In terms of combining economic populism with foreign non-intervention, I agree. In terms of globalism, there's also the idea that it is either anti-democratic or too centralized because unelected bureaucracy does not respect the will of more localized politics. I also agree with that. But "America first" obviously includes the word "America", and thus relies on the same ideology that was explained in the video. In fact, if we just go off of the globalism VS decentralization debate, the two poles are one world government or anarchy and individualism, and nationalism is not a part of that dichotomy. So both the practical and ideological parts are at play here, in my assessment. As it relates to the other videos in this series, I think one of the main points has been that it's not a black and white battle of good and evil. The "evil" according to nationalists might be globalism, but to the socialist it is the capitalist class and to the libertarian it is authoritarianism or collectivism. All 3 ideologies make good points, but is making history a battle against these forces a good idea or is there some third way that is possible?
Policy-wise, our sense of morality should ideally be internally motivated and I have concerns about legislating morality or being "tough on crime", but I largely think there is no problem with what you call "nationalistic" policies. I will say that I tend to have a more cosmopolitan view that respects both individuals and humanity as a whole, and this influences my thoughts on immigration. I think a disruption to the social order can just as easily come from within as it can come from without because anyone can be a "bad actor". I think part of spreading the gospel means to encourage as many members of the human race as possible to be good actors, regardless of nationality or other differences between us.
I also wonder about how much our beliefs are influenced by talking points. With inflation, the pandemic, etc, many people are concerned about the economy, and justifiably so. Is that because taxes are too high, because the government spends too much, because immigrants/AI/Automation are taking jobs, or because billionaires are greedy and people aren't payed enough? The real concerns of common people seem to be filtered through pre-existing ideologies that offer an explanation for thier suffering, but we should be critical of how accurate that explanation is.
I hope that answered your question and I look forward to hearing your feedback on my reply.
Interestingly, one of the main goods St. Olav, eternal king of Norway (martyred 1030) is known for, is the unification of the nation of Norway into one kingdom. Thus establishing Christian law and peace.
Yes, although that unity was achieved by Christendom, and the identity is Christian first
Loving these throwbacks. Thanks for shedding light on these often vaguely defined terms. Looking forward to the “Socialism is not Catholic” one next. 👍🏼
Pretty sure the one preceding this was just that.
No it most certainly is not
+
Are there identifiable distinctions between nationalism and Catholic subsidiary?
Catholic subsidiarity emphasizes the role of local and regional governments, as well as self-government, over the government of the national and global societies
Yes, the principle of subsidiarity neither assumes or depends on the creation of the modern state in order to for its principles to be true. In other words, you can find the principle of subsidiarity at play in medieval Christendom before the rise of modern nation-states.
@@NewPolityPodcast Nations, even if in antecedent form, precede nation-states. Is national identity and politicking wrong?
@@asdfasdf3989 The ideology of nationalism works with a certain modern understanding of nation. Before answering that question, then, it is necessary to ask "what does one mean by nation?" The purpose of the episode is to expose the emergence of the nation-state as a modern invention, and allow this to reform how we conceive of national identities. So, to answer your question, obviously not. In fact, the argument made in the episode (and the article below) is that the creation of nation-states had to destroy the previous provincial identities that existed in order to create a larger, homogenous unity. newpolity.com/blog/a-defense-of-the-particular-and-the-universal
I wouldn’t consider myself a nationalist but I have to say, I was disappointed by your representation of it. You mostly take issue with the idea that the nation should take precedence over religion or the family and on that point I agree, that’s both a terrible idea and incompatible with Catholic teaching, but it’s also not what I hear nationalist acquaintances espousing. Rather, they champion the nation-state as preferable to other forms of state for one reason or another.
Also, and I’m genuinely surprised to have to point this out, referencing Our Lord’s negative use of the term “the nations”-in Hebrew, “goyim”-as evidence of His disapproval of the nation-state is shockingly poor exegesis! It’s akin to concluding that the ancient Church must have despised rural villagers because it continuously denounced “pagani”.
+
I would also add, the lack of unpacking the understanding of language in conjunction with nation
Here's an article from back when we were Postliberal Thought, published roughly around recording the original discussion. It touches on the distinction you are pointing out (current nationalist positions, versus 19th century nationalism). But the point is, due to its historical roots, both historical and current nationalism still share certain common presuppositions about reality, and these are the ideas being criticized in both the article and podcast: newpolity.com/blog/a-defense-of-the-particular-and-the-universal
@@kadedaivis5118yep, totally agree with that critique. We are to love that which we are closest to prior to that which we are more distant. Catholics are then Catholic first (because our proximity to the Church is most immediate, as a result of the mark of baptism on our souls), then we are members of our family, then the gens/tribe/clan, then the city, then the nation, then mankind.
I took issue in the podcast when they said things like “I’m a Catholic who just so happens to be a member of the Smith family in Steubenville.” No, you are a Catholic who is in many ways defined by your relationship to the Smith family. You are not John, an individual who by mere happenstance is “John Smith.” You are John Smith. Likewise, your position as a “Steubenvillean” is not inconsequential or merely a product of what zip code you put on your government ID. It is less immediate than your position as a member of the Smith family, but it isn’t something that can be dismissed as mere happenstance.
Ironically, I think a lot of the byproducts of liberalism colored their statements made in this episode. Liberalism has the habit of downplaying the family, tribe, city, and nation in favor of the atomized and deracinated global “humanity.” Liberalism says that “you are John who just so happens to be a member of the Smith family of Steubenville, Ohio.” A rightly ordered society would say that “you are the Catholic John Smith of Steubenville, Ohio” and that none of these things should be seen as merely circumstantial. Maybe a better way of putting it - in order to avoid the baggage that comes with conflating the nation with the modern nation-state - would be to replace “nation” in this discussion with “people” or “folk” (although this isn’t perfect either because the former of these has associations with mid-century liberalism and latter has negative connotations associated with mid-century nationalists).
So what does it mean to be an American or rather a good American? It seems based in nationalism and libertarianism. So can a good Catholic be an American or would they be a bad American?
Yo talk about ethnos