Gregory Baum (1923-2017), one of Canada's most honoured theologians, was professor emeritus of religious studies at McGill University. He participated in the CBC Massey Lecture Series and was an officer of the Order of Canada.

Nationalism, Religion, and Ethics
Gregory Baum

Table of Contents and Excerpt

Excerpt

Ethics and the Polymorphous Phenomenon of Nationalism

Martin Buber?s Ethic of Nationalism

Mahatma Gandhi?s Ethic of Nationalism

Paul Tillich?s Ethic of Nationalism

Jacques Grand?Maison?s Ethic of Nationalism

Conclusions, Proposals, and Unresolved Questions

Afterword
Notes
Index


Excerpt: Ethics and the Polymorphous Phenomenon of Nationalism

Nationalism is a confusing historical phenomenon. Those of my generation remember the aggressive, murderous nationalism of Nazi Germany, and some people continue to think of nationalism as a political movement close to fascism. We are presently appalled by the outbreak of militant nationalism in several regions of Eastern Europe that previously were ruled by a communist government. At the same time, history books usually present the American Revolution as a nationalist, anti-colonial movement that deserves admiration. Similarly, many people have had a great deal of sympathy for the anti-imperialist nationalism of the former colonies in Asia and Africa struggling to become independent states; their political efforts received international approval in the 1966. Covenant of the United Nations which recognized the right of nations or peoples to cultural and political self-determination. We are not used to relating these various phenomena to one another. Friends of mine, academics among them, who strongly disapprove of nationalism, enjoyed the great American film on the life of Gandhi, which glorified Indian nationalism in its struggle against the British empire for independent statehood. Because nationalism is such a polymorphous phenomenon, Nationalism, Religion, and Ethics we are often confused by it and react to it without careful political analysis. Since the nationalist movement in Quebec and the demand for self-government on the part of the Native peoples are for many Canadians disturbing developments, there is special need for critical thinking. What interests me in this book are ethical reflections on nationalism.

While it is difficult to judge a nationalist movement looking at it from the outside, it is, of course, also difficult to evaluate it from the inside. How, for instance, did Christians living in North America at the time of the American Revolution evaluate the political struggle to define a group of British colonies as a new nation, vindicate its right to political self-determination, and repudiate the jurisdiction of the British Crown? Christians were deeply divided by the Revolution, and they defended their respective positions with ethical arguments drawn from the Scriptures. The historian Mark Noll distinguishes four different camps within the Christian community. The nationalists, or patriots as they were then called, invoked the biblical story of the Exodus and likened King George to King Pharaoh who would not let the people go; their preachers adopted very passionate tones in support of the Revolution. A second group supported the Revolution but held that it was biblically justified only if it was accompanied by the conversion of the new nation to greater obedience to God?s commandments. Some preachers even suggested that if Americans claimed the ethical right to assume political sovereignty, they should be ready to grant freedom to their black slaves. A third group opposed the Revolution. Relying on the biblical texts that demand obedience to legitimate authority, in particular Romans 13:1-5, they remained faithful to the British Crown. Canadians are well aware of this latter group because many of the Empire Loyalists, as they were called, moved to the northern British colonies that were to become the dominion of Canada. A fourth group of Christians, mainly Quakers The Polymorphous Phenomenon of Nationalism and Mennonites, opposed the Revolution because as pacifists they repudiated the use of violence. This American Christian experience shows how difficult it is for a people to evaluate a nationalist movement organized in their own midst.



AN ETHICS FOR NATIONALISM ABSENT IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION


There exists little systematic theological or ethical reflection on the polymorphous phenomenon of nationalism. What impressed me as a Catholic theologian was that Catholic Social Teaching, which constitutes an impressive body of literature and provides a rich source of social and economic ethics, offers no systematic treatment of nationalism. In the papal encyclicals dealing with social issues nationalism is hardly ever mentioned. While Catholic Social Teaching has offered original ideas in response to the economic crises in Western society, it has almost nothing to say in response to the nationalist crises in the world. Nor did the evolution of the Church?s social teaching during and after Vatican Council II produce serious ethical reflection on the topic of nationalism. Even the recent, otherwise excellent New Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought, published in the United States, carries no article on nationalism.

What is the reason for this lacuna? One reason is the fact that in the nineteenth century the Catholic Church had strongly repudiated nationalism. At that time, the papacy was allied with the feudal-aristocratic order and the conservative sector of European society, and it vigorously opposed the new ideas of popular sovereignty, the liberal state, the concept of citizenship, the separation of church and state, and the concession of civil liberties. The Syllabus of Errors of 1866 remains an important witness to this phase of the Church?s history. The papacy looked upon nationalism as a political and cultural force that fostered secularization and undermined even further the unity of Europe?s Christian civilization.

But this was not all. Nationalism posed a particular threat to the papacy. In the Middle Ages the popes had acquired secular rule over certain regions on Italian and French soil, the so-called states of the Church. In 1791 the French republic confiscated the papal state on French soil, and half a century later, Italian nationalism, wrestling against the remnants of the feudal order, intended to abolish the papal state on Italian soil. When the papal army was defeated in 1861, Pius IX lost his entire territory with the exception of the city of Rome. In 1870 Rome itself was lost and the Pope withdrew into the Vatican. He regarded himself a political prisoner, refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new Italian state, and forbade Catholics to vote and participate in the country?s political life. These experiences reinforced papal opposition to nationalism.

At the same time, by a curious paradox, a new kind of nationalism that had a special appeal for Catholics was emerging in several countries. When the nation-state created by the bourgeoisie fostered a secular, republican culture, which tolerated atheism and religious pluralism and favoured the capitalist virtues of individualism, materialism, and personal ambition, conservatives attached to the traditional virtues became critical of modernity and material progress, and advocated the return of people to the ethos of community and to their religious and ethnic roots. This movement existed in different forms.

One form consisted of an attachment to the ancien r?gime. In France we find a conservative movement, strongly supported by Catholics, that opposed the rational, universalist values of the republic, cultivated the memory of past national glories, and advocated the restoration of the monarchy. Here nationalism ceased to signify the struggle for popular sovereignty, equal citizenship, and the formation of the modern state; it became instead a conservative movement within the modern state, opposed to equality and democracy and supporting the social hierarchy inherited from the past. This nationalism disapproved of the civil liberties: it stood against freedom of speech and religious pluralism. Since in the modern state Jews had become citizens on an equal footing and come to play an important role in science, the arts, and politics, they were looked upon by conservatives as agents and symbols of liberalism and consequently hated. In France the new nationalism was antisemitic, and it had strong Catholic support. A typical example is the vehemence with which the Catholic clergy and the Catholic press demanded the condemnation of Captain Dreyfus, even when the evidence against him fell apart.

Yet at the same time in France there existed another form of nationalism, one that was critical of the ancien r?gime, defended civil liberties, expressed solidarity with the poor, and had a reformist thrust. Charles P?guy, the remarkable thinker and poet, long dedicated to the virtues of the republic, was one of the most eloquent defenders of the innocent Dreyfus. P?guy regarded antisemitism as a betrayal of the genius of France. Inspired by the vision of a just and humane society transcending the differences created by wealth and inherited privilege, he became critical of the dominant republican discourse because it expressed contempt for the culture and religious sentiment of the ordinary people. Severed from their roots, P?guy argued, people lose their sense of social solidarity and become exclusively concerned with their own advancement. P?guy became a nationalist, yet without abandoning his egalitarian ideal. Once a passionate secularist, he now became a Catholic. Faith became the important dimension of his life. At this time he wrote his most moving poetry. Yet he refused to attend Mass, the Church?s public worship. Why? Since he had always been in solidarity with the marginalized and excluded, he did not want to join the Catholic upright establishment that divided humanity into ?us,? the superior, and ?them,? the inferior. Martin Buber, as we shall see, referred to P?guy?s nationalism with admiration.

No general Catholic theory dealing with the ethics of nationalist movements existed at that time. There was only confusion. The papacy did not endorse the conservative nationalism supported by French Catholics, nor did it support the anti-imperialist nationalism of the Irish demanding home rule from Great Britain. To this day, there is no Catholic theory to offer guidance to nationalist movements in Catholic countries such as Poland or Croatia. A recent report on an ecumenical meeting held in Belgrade involving Christian leaders from various parts of the former Yugoslavia revealed an almost total absence of theological and ethical reflection. The participants did not, on the whole, see themselves as heirs of a tradition that brought them wisdom in regard to nationalism.