Gosh, I make it a point not to visit Vox Nova often as it is a very silly place. It is just so darn convenient when your religious beliefs coincide with your political beliefs. When its not so convenient, you need to make them coincide. One of the easiest ways to do such a thing is not to clearly define your terms and expect that nobody will bother to ask.
Matt Talbot at Vox Nova entitles his post “Nationalism is Idolatry.” Hmmm. Ok. I think this is a point on which we might agree, provided that some distinctions are drawn and terms defined. Here is how Mr. Talbot defines his terms.
His foreigner friend says “Boy, you have lots of flags in this country.” Matt Talbot responds, “We do? I shall drive around and assess for myself.” Matt Talbot drives around and says “Omigosh, we do have lots of flags in this country. Flags are evidence of nationalism. We are evil nationalists!”
Matt Talbot then calls upon every right (sorry, left) thinking Catholic to fight against the ghastly sin of flag exposition.
Think I exaggerate?
…Callie, my coworker, was right: there was never a place where an American flag was not visible. We made 20 stops, and most of the time we did not even have to get out of the car to find one. This was not the 4th of July or Memorial Day (and well before 9/11/2001).
Nationalism saturates American life – it is just the ever-present, ambient sound coming from every form of corporate media, 24/7/365, so ever-present that it has become, in an odd way, invisible. I have come to understand that it is idolatry – subtler, arguably, than building a golden calf, but no less idolatrous. And it disturbs me a great deal.
I wish Catholic priests and laity would stand up more often against this sort of thing. We Catholics, at every level of our society and in every vocation, me included, have failed to do our jobs of providing clear witness against this spiritually destructive idol.
Without fail, the lefty echo chamber (aka Michael Iafrate) responds with this insightful comment.
Exactly right. Great post.
The propaganda becomes even more obvious when you live outside of the u.s. for a few years and then come back.
We definitely should not have them in our churches, or flying outside of our churches.
Mr. Iafrate, having been outside of the country, is in the unique position to know such incredible things.
How these folks make the leap that exposition of the flag is sinful nationalism is beyond me. I fly a flag at my home because I wish to signify the respect for my country and the God-given freedoms that she has endeavored to secure for me. I fly a flag to show respect for the men and women how have sacrificed and died to to protect those freedoms. I fly my flag to show my proper and fitting esteem for my country and to show the honor properly owed to her.
In a similar way, while not blind to their faults, I show honor and esteem for my parents as God has commanded.
To suggest that flags flying at car dealerships, libraries, malls, and even churches constitutes a sinful nationalism and idolatry is simply as disingenuous as it is senseless. In other words, perfectly Vox Nova.
December 16, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Use of national flags in Christ worship contexts is never a good idea. But the Mexican context is different from the u.s. american context. Should be obvious.
Okay, so the Spanish speaking group in our parish is off the hook for their display of both countries' flags because they're sufficiently non-white.
Does that mean I'm okay flying the flag too, or is being half-Mexican not enough to change my context?
How about my fully Mexican grandfather, who installed a 20ft flagpole at his house so that he could fly the US flag on holidays?
Obviously, the clear lesson is you can never fly the flag — you're far too white, you colonialist, imperialist, anarchist, you.
Feel free to rant against "nationalism" if you like, but for those of us who actually came to this country within the last few generations, we'll fly flags when to like to show how glad we are to be here, thank you very much.
December 16, 2009 at 7:28 pm
"as long as the intention is still helping the disadvantaged, a conservative economic position is entirely compatible with Church teaching"
Sigh. What you call "conservative" is actually a liberal position. We need to stop this prevailing misleading labels. What Americans call "conervative" on economic matters is laissez-faire liberalism, one of the "twin rocks of shipwreck" condemned by the Church (note – this is not to say that free markets are wrong, it is that they must be tempered by the state).
"while Hobbes was fundementaly in error, the fact is that given the opportunity most people will act in their own self interest. This is the result of the Fall of Man and there is not much use in complaining about it.."
Now this is strange. There is not much point in complaining about sin? Whatever happened to grace and redemption? Whatever happened to the incarnation restoring the lost unity of man with God and people among themselves? Sounds like you are positing a complete separation of grace and nature…
December 16, 2009 at 8:09 pm
"You and your husband clearly have a lot invested in the military discipleship community."
Wow, that's pretty presumptive of you. You know nothing of my husband and I.
I know that your husband is in the military and that you invoked this fact in your expression of disgust at my statement/views. Why would you possibly get upset about me thinking you might have something invested in it? If, after sharing about you and your husband's attachment to the military, you don't want me to refer to it, maybe you shouldn't invoke your husband's line of "work" in your internet arguments.
Are you saying one cannot serve one's country in the military and still serve God first? What of the many soldier saints?
I don't think one should serve in the u.s. military as a Christian because it is a rival discipleship community with pagan/idolatrous ideas about god and country. That is not a personal judgment on your husband or anyone else. I presume he's trying the best he can to preserve his Christian faith in such a death-dealing environment.
The "many" soldier saints you refer to: most of the are saints precisely because they left the military, e.g. St Ignatius of Loyola who is frequently cited as a "soldier" saint by "Catholics in the Military" types.
Okay, so the Spanish speaking group in our parish is off the hook for their display of both countries' flags because they're sufficiently non-white.
No one is "off the hook." I didn't say any such thing. Nationalism is a danger for all communities.
Does that mean I'm okay flying the flag too, or is being half-Mexican not enough to change my context?
Which flag? In what context? Why do you always seek universal moral rules? I speak in this case only as a u.s. american and would not judge other cultures without good reason. As a u.s. american, I oppose flying the u.s. flag in churches. This is a non-controversial view. The u.s. bishops share it.
How about my fully Mexican grandfather, who installed a 20ft flagpole at his house so that he could fly the US flag on holidays?
His house, his business. If he has something invested in u.s. national flag religion, fine go for it.
Obviously, the clear lesson is you can never fly the flag — you're far too white, you colonialist, imperialist, anarchist, you.
And I don't.
Feel free to rant against "nationalism" if you like, but for those of us who actually came to this country within the last few generations, we'll fly flags when to like to show how glad we are to be here, thank you very much.
Go for it. This country holds freedom of religious expression in very high regard, especially when that religion is american civil religion. Just don't presume that it's acceptable to fly the u.s. flag in a Catholic church which is home to all cultures.
To equate patriotism with nationalism is to be ignorant of the meaning of both words. Patriotism is an appropriate loyalty to one's country, while honoring and obeying God above all. Nationalism is a blind devotion to one's country and its actions, regardless of their morality.
I don't see anyone here "equating" patriotism and nationalism. I distinguish them very clearly. (I would actually, though say patriotism is not loyalty to one's country but love of one's homeland and its people. This is closer to what JPII, for example, had in mind when he spoke of patriotism. And it transcends focus on nation-states which are largely artificial. I am quite patriotic about being Appalachian, for example.) I just diagree with most of you about where the line should be drawn. You all preserve "nationalism" for Nazi Germany and other extreme examples, when it is clearly alive and well in the united states.
December 16, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Although we are the Catholic Church in America and not the American Catholic Church, the love of country is not precluded by the universal trait of our faith. The excessive love for country at the expense of the members of the international community is imperfect. But that is not the case with flying flags in Church – imho. How is that a put down of other nations?
December 17, 2009 at 1:36 am
It is an implicit linking of eucharistic worship with a particular nation. Around the altar, the u.s.a does not exist as we are participating in the eschaton in which all sectarian division will disappear. I'd be in favor of setting flags from every nation of the world around the altar, as that would be an entirely different sort of symbol. But to only have the u.s. flag in the sactuary is a bizarre symbol of exclusion that has no place at eucharist.
December 17, 2009 at 2:02 am
Michael I. First time I heard that. And is this your interpretation of why the flag is there or does anyone else share this notion?
December 17, 2009 at 2:53 am
Can a person who uses selective capitalization of proper nouns really be taken seriously? "West Virginia", "Mexican", "u.s."? Peope are actually investing time in arguing with this person?
December 17, 2009 at 3:02 am
In reference to Michael Iafrate's charge that the military is "pagan": I will not attempt to counter your argument as anyone as bigoted as yourself will ignore anything I say. So as a son and grandson of a soldier I say only this, GO TO PURGATORY!
December 17, 2009 at 5:53 am
P. Button – You obviously have a lot invested in the u.s. military too. Touchy?
Rick – To clarify, I don't think the flag is "there" in order to be a symbol of exclusion. I think the flag is there as a hangover from increasing Catholic attempts to appear like "good americans" like our Protestant brothers and sisters in a time when Catholics were suspected of having a stronger allegiance to the Pope than to the nation-state. Isn't it strange that we came to be accepted as "true americans" whose ecclesial allegiances do not interfere with the american way of life, i.e. warmaking? Now, just like every other Christian church (and increasingly, non-Christian religions as well!), we privatize our faith. If it is brought to bear on "politics" at all, it is merely used to critique pelvic politics or culture war nonsense.
All the while Christian churches have remained silent or have actively supported various flare-ups of u.s. imperialism, refusing to condemn any of its warmaking. Thus, the cross and the flag have become linked in concrete political terms and having flags in the sanctuary has become a sign of this Christofascist linkage. And yet we "enlightened" Western Christians have the nerve to tell militant Muslims that their mix of religion and politics is "primitive" and "barbarous."
Anonymous – Can someone who flips out over the capitalization (or lack thereof) of "america" and "u.$.a." be taken seriously? You're boring me.
December 17, 2009 at 7:24 am
Michael Iafrate – You seem to have many valid points and good ideas, and I would like to hear about them. However, continually using ad hominem attacks is causing your thoughts to get lost.
You make some good points regarding Catholics in early America. I'm sure we disagree on some issues, but you seem to be more knowledgeable than I am in the history of Catholicism in America and your input is welcome.
I don't know why you refuse to capitalize certain proper nouns referring to our country. Certainly, mocking the country by replacing the "S" with a dollar sign is causing us to focus on this rather than your perhaps useful thoughts. Whatever your reasons for insistence on lowercase letters, I would recommend you get over it and use capital letters for proper nouns so we can focus on the message.
December 17, 2009 at 7:59 am
Brendan – 1) I have not attacked anyone. If anyone here has felt "attacked," it is because of their own sensitivities and inability to deal with critical views. But that is hardly an "ad hominem" attack. 2) I am really surprised that you are taking my purposeful lack of capitalization so seriously that you find it difficult to "focus on the message." But I'm convinced you can ignore this preference of mine, concentrate really hard, and discern what I am trying to say just fine.
December 17, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Anonymous – Can someone who flips out over the capitalization (or lack thereof) of "america" and "u.$.a." be taken seriously?
Yet another example of sanctimonious hyperbole.
? You're boring me.
*yawn* Right back atcha.
December 17, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Wow. Matt puts his foot in his mouth and people jump in to double down on this loser.
December 17, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Oh, good grief… I try to leave Vox Nova behind, like a bad dream, and it follows me here, to one of my favourite blogs! One more thing to offer up, I suppose…
For the Vox Novans who scorn the flying of Old Glory, do you seriously not know that patriotism is a virtue, as a subset of the virtue of piety, which itself is a subset of the virtue of justice?
Yes, I'm sure that there is the occasional nut who flies the U.S. flag solely because he's making a concerted effort to exalt country at the expense of Christ's Church. I'm sure there are also occasional nuts who fill their homes with crucifixes solely because they just like to see a guy nailed to a piece of wood. But I was assuming that we're talking about the vast majority of people who *aren't* insane in those particular ways.
(Translation: Michael I., you seem to assume that anyone who flies a U.S. flag is at least partially imbrued by this "exalt country at the expense of Christ and His Church"–but you don't seem to realize that this is hardly the only scenario–or even a common one. Can you truly not imagine how a visual display of patriotism could harmonize with right religion? The Church does…)
Express your opinions however you wish; but don't pretend that your private views (steeped in American political liberalism–yes, I know, distinct from what Europeans mean by "liberalism") have anything particularly to do with the Church, Her teachings, or Her disciplinary positions on the matter.
December 17, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Re: "refusing to condemn any of its warmaking."
– 2 words. Just War.
Re: "has become a sign of this Christofascist linkage."
– Signs like art acquire meaning subjectively. You gave it that meaning.
Re: " have actively supported various flare-ups of u.s. imperialism, "
– US is not perfect; tell me who is. But having been in the third worlds of Asia & Central America, I'd prefer US imperialism over the other imperial forces. Who wouldn't?
Re: "I think the flag is there as a hangover from increasing Catholic attempts to appear like "good americans"
– We are good Americans and continue to be even when engaging in protest and civil disobedience.
December 17, 2009 at 6:04 pm
paladin – I don't have a problem with legitimate patriotism. Matt and I do have a problem with nationalism which is distinct but very common in the united states.
Rick –
2 words. Just War.
Well, too bad those are two words the church has rarely used in reference to the united states' wars. The church tends to make judgments that the u.s.'s wars are not just, and then remains silent when u.s. Catholics ignore them. Like yourself apparently.
WHo wouldn't
The victims of u.s. imperialism. This "our imperialism isn't as bad as their imperialism" is total nonsense. Imperialism is never right or good or acceptable.
December 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm
mICHAEL iAFRATE,
Yes, I am Catholic
LOL!
December 17, 2009 at 6:17 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
December 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Re: "The victims of u.s. imperialism."
– At least, they're still alive.
Re: "This "our imperialism isn't as bad as their imperialism" is total nonsense."
– It is not total nonsense to many. In fact, it can be justified under the "lesser evil" standard of morality.
Re: "Imperialism is never right or good or acceptable."
– You must be referring to the Hobson's political-economic discourse. And what is right or good or acceptable? Leninism?
December 17, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Michael I. wrote:
paladin – I don't have a problem with legitimate patriotism. Matt and I do have a problem with nationalism which is distinct but very common in the united states.
Well… unless, by "nationalism", you mean "the rare nuts who are the equivalent of gawking at crucifixes for the violence value", I'm not sure how Matt's main point in his original post could be maintained. (The word "nationalism" is used in non-pejorative senses, you know–Matt is using a very narrow definition, which doesn't apply to nearly so wide a swath of Americans that he apparently supposes.) I quote:
Callie, my coworker, was right: there was never a place where an American flag was not visible. We made 20 stops, and most of the time we did not even have to get out of the car to find one. This was not the 4th of July or Memorial Day (and well before 9/11/2001).
I realize that insinuation is far safer (from rebuttal) than are declarative statements, but no sane person could read Matt's post and not conclude that he thought this "density of visible flags" was indicative of something evil/undesirable (which he later made explicit, by calling it "idolatry"). More on that, below. Continuing quote:
Nationalism saturates American life – it is just the ever-present, ambient sound coming from every form of corporate media, 24/7/365, so ever-present that it has become, in an odd way, invisible.
This is nothing but raw opinion; and the jolting "jump" from "lots of visible flags" to "nationalism in the pejorative sense" is enough to cause cognitive whiplash. Does Matt seriously think that there's no other explanation for flag-flying than "idolatry"? (Does he think the same thing about having statues of Saints in churches? Various anti-Catholic groups think so… and the reasoning is disturbingly similar to Matt's. "Look at all the idols! Yeah, maybe some Catholics use them in right proportion, but… wow, look at all the idols!! This is disturbing! You can't tell me that such a plethora of idols doesn't indicate and perpetuate idolatry!")
Summary: when Matt assumes, willy-nilly, that widespread flag-flying is evil, he has no basis (beyond his raw opinion) for saying so.