The National Catholic Reporter runs a puffy review of a recent conference held in Trent: “Catholic Theological Ethics in the World Church: In the Currents of History: From Trent to the Future.” The article goes on to explain how speaker after speaker condemned the national impulse in Catholicism and how we need to change that in light of the new demographics of Catholicism.
At the start of the 20th century, there were 266 million Catholics in the world, most in Europe and North America. Today there are 1.1 billion, with two-thirds living the global South. This means….”greater attentiveness to diversity of all sorts in the Church” – which in turns means…something or other.
These articles (this is one of thousands along the same lines that appear in “progressive” circles) confuse me in so many ways. Nationalism is indeed a terrible problem for Catholics. We are not and have never been about the nation-state. Our universalism has always defined us. It has been a source of our growth, a characteristic that sets us apart in an age of nationalism. We’ve never had anything to do with nationalism, and this has gotten us in deep trouble in every country, especially in the U.S. where we were subjected to appalling violence in the 19th century. Our loyalty was questioned throughout the 20th century. Especially in wartime (worlds wars one and two), Catholics were treated as traitors to the state and its mission.
But we must ask ourselves what forces have been at work that have given rise to nationalism within Catholic circles in our own times?. The two most obvious changes that have done so are: 1) the power of national conferences, which was dramatically enhanced by the Second Vatican Council, and 2) the change in the primary language of liturgy following the Council, from Latin to the vernacular.
The second force is decisive here: there are schools of thought that establish a near identity between nation and language. Taking away Latin was devastating for the cause of universalism. The first issue of national conferences gave rise to a Catholic political identity within the Church, one so intense that there are even Bishops who imagine themselves to be shepherds of something called the “American Catholic Church” rather than a universal one.
So I have no problem with seminars that seek to address the problem of nationalism. What I do not understand is why these seminars seem to avoid the obvious solution, which is not to go on endlessly about the merits of diversity but to restore Latin as the primary language of liturgy and to reduce the national power of the conferences to establish national identities that fracture the universal Catholic identity. These are changes that many Catholics in the “global South” would cheer! In fact, these very regions were among the most skeptical of vernacularization in the 1960s – and that is a well-documented fact.
Such a solution doesn't occur to "them" (whoever "they" might be) because it isn't the objective behind their agenda to begin with. The objective is to show that the church has become "Non-European" and so a solution that turns to such a European icon as Latin would be anethema to their overall goal.
Has anybody heard complaints that the African Church is being "too African", or perhaps that the Church in South America is being too expressive of it's culture? No… such things are only a problem when a)they are European in origin and b)they are part of the tradition of the Church.
When progressives (or liberals or whatever they call themselves now) talk about eliminating "nationalism", they usually mean "Euro-centrism". I have yet to find a progressive (at least when talking about liturgy) who will object to using Spanish at a Mass with no Spanish speaking attendees, and yet when the idea of singing a selection or saying prayers in Latin is suggested, the immediate response is that nobody there will understand it.
However engrossed I am with the topics on Chantcafe.com — and they are engrossing! — I haven't commented here because I'm not educated enough in the topic of chant. Yet about nationalism I know something, myself an avid reader of John Lukacs, and liking his distinction between nationalist and patriot . So, for what is my first post at Chantcafe (I think it's my first), here goes:
Nationalism caused two world wars, it may have been the driving force behind the Cold War, and nationalism, rather than religion, may be indeed the real issue in the mess in the Near East; and certainly is the real issue in the Balkans. I once got into a verbal slugfest when I had argued that the conflict between Serbia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Albania really isn't about religion but about nationalism; ditto the Orangemen vs. the IRA.
The World Wars are reasons enough to give pause before supporting nationalism. Ethnic nationalism (a tautology) really is what Richard Sennett called it: "retribalization". As tribalism was pre-political, and the Greek and Roman polis overcame it, so nationalist retribalization, which does not predate 1789, is a product of a post political world. (Of course, St. Hannah Arendt rightly said that we really don't have politics in the modern world at all.) Even more appalling is racialist nationalism, something so fatuous as "White Nationalism" and "Black Nationalism".
I once was on a website with nationalists who were Catholics. Shocked they were indeed when I told them, in a writeback, that nationalism is spittle on the grave of Blessed Pius IX, the most prominent victim of nationalism in the Catholic history. On another occasion I told the same that Pius XI's condemnation of nationalism in Mit brenender Sorge settles the issue Magisterallly.
So I thank Mr. Tribe for coming as Nathan to David upon Catholics who think themselves nationalists. His reasons for the cause of this nationalism are worthy of consideration. It is my understanding that Mr. Tribe is friends with the laudable Lew Rockwell. I once, 4 years ago, wrote Mr. Rockwell about Southern nationalism ("Southern" as in "Dixie"). Mr Rockwell wrote back wisely, "Sorry, Sid, but all nationalism, even Southern nationalism, is bad."
Nationalism in the Church, as I understand it, rose with the very concept itself. There are countless manifestations of it as far back as Charlemagne. Wasn't it his desire to unite his kingdom partially through liturgical practice. This is, after all, how we got Gregorian chant. With the rise of France as a national power, its desire to control the Church became more apparent. Even in Spain, the Council of Trent reaffirmed Philip II's power to appoint bishops and to retain liturgical practices that dated 200 or more years old. Then there was England, who threw off Rome's influence, partly due to nationalist reasons. Anyway, to claim that national desires have never influenced the Church is to misread history. Trent sought to universalize the Church, partly due to the growing national demands on Rome.
Nationalism as I'm using the term is a 17th century impulse rising with the existence of the nation-state, but it in its current flag-waving and democratic slaughter campaigns, it is thoroughly 20th century.
Nationalism is a route that the Papist may take to include themselves in phony context of Americanism. John Wilkes Booth–southern papist is an example of how out-of-place the Papist is in an American context. May Rome be your only nationalism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pope Pius XI did NOT condemn nationalism at all (his encyclical isn't solemn magisterium either). He actually specifically mentioned that there is NOTHING wrong with an ethnic community wanting and affirming their independence and identity through the state (thus affirming the right to true nationalism; which is an extension of the very Catholic doctrine of patriarchy). What he does condemn is the idolatry of anything above God. Catholic dogma is about hierarchy of values not about equalization.
Please study your doctrine and done fall prey to modernist egalitarianism.
Every Catholic MUST read Sapientiae Christianae by Pope Leo XIII. Patriotism there is a moral obligation based on both natural and divine law. This is CATHOLIC DOCTRINE folks, to which we are obligated to ascent and opinion is irrelevant and heretical.
Here is another quote:
"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion." Saint Pius X
"Yes, it is worthy not only of love but of predilection the country (patriae) whose secret name awakens in your mind the most cherished memories and makes quiver every fiber of your soul, that common country which has cradled you, to which you are bound by bonds of blood and by still nobler bonds of affection and tradition." Saint Pius X