Nationalism and the Order of Charity in Aquinas

The key principle of Christian nationalism is quite simple: we should have a special, preferential love for those who are more closely related to us by blood and political compact. This does not imply that we hate those who belong to other nations, states or races. This key principle should be as uncontroversial as it is simple, yet it is fervently denied by the globalists both within and without the Church.

The contemporary churches have completed inverted this principle and they celebrate equal (or even preferential) love for the total alien as the greatest Christian virtue. White evangelicals spend millions on foreign missions while their own racial kin fall further into apostasy and face declining life expectancy.

Christian nationalism is completely in line with the historic faith of the church, as can be seen in the following passages from Thomas Aquinas. Although we certainly do not endorse all of Aquinas’ theology, these passages from a section of his Summa Theologica entitled The Order of Charity, demonstrate that showing preferential love for one’s kin is within the mainstream of Western Christian thought:

One’s obligation to love a person is proportionate to the gravity of the sin one commits in acting against that love. Now it is a more grievous sin to act against the love of certain neighbors, than against the love of others. Hence the commandment (Leviticus 10:9), “He that curseth his father or mother, dying let him die,” which does not apply to those who cursed others than the above. Therefore we ought to love some neighbors more than others.

Now the object of charity’s love is God, and man is the lover. Therefore the specific diversity of the love which is in accordance with charity, as regards the love of our neighbor, depends on his relation to God, so that, out of charity, we should wish a greater good to one who is nearer to God; for though the good which charity wishes to all, viz. everlasting happiness, is one in itself, yet it has various degrees according to various shares of happiness, and it belongs to charity to wish God’s justice to be maintained, in accordance with which better men have a fuller share of happiness. And this regards the species of love; for there are different species of love according to the different goods that we wish for those whom we love.

On the other hand, the intensity of love is measured with regard to the man who loves, and accordingly man loves those who are more closely united to him, with more intense affection as to the good he wishes for them, than he loves those who are better as to the greater good he wishes for them.

Having established the principle that there are different degrees of love due to different people, Aquinas specifically considers the love that is due to those who are “connected with us by their natural origin” or by “ties of blood.”

Again a further difference must be observed here: for some neighbors are connected with us by their natural origin, a connection which cannot be severed, since that origin makes them to be what they are. But the goodness of virtue, wherein some are close to God, can come and go, increase and decrease, as was shown above (24, 4,10,11). Hence it is possible for one, out of charity, to wish this man who is more closely united to one, to be better than another, and so reach a higher degree of happiness.

Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards those who are not connected with us we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who are connected with us, we have certain other friendships, according to the way in which they are connected. Now since the good on which every other friendship of the virtuous is based, is directed, as to its end, to the good on which charity is based, it follows that charity commands each act of another friendship, even as the art which is about the end commands the art which is about the means. Consequently this very act of loving someone because he is akin or connected with us, or because he is a fellow-countryman or for any like reason that is referable to the end of charity, can be commanded by charity, so that, out of charity both eliciting and commanding, we love in more ways those who are more nearly connected with us.

The commandments of the decalogue contain a special precept about the honor due to our parents (Exodus 20:12). Therefore we ought to love more specially those who are united to us by ties of blood.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 7), we ought out of charity to love those who are more closely united to us more, both because our love for them is more intense, and because there are more reasons for loving them. Now intensity of love arises from the union of lover and beloved: and therefore we should measure the love of different persons according to the different kinds of union, so that a man is more loved in matters touching that particular union in respect of which he is loved. And, again, in comparing love to love we should compare one union with another. Accordingly we must say that friendship among blood relations is based upon their connection by natural origin, the friendship of fellow-citizens on their civic fellowship, and the friendship of those who are fighting side by side on the comradeship of battle. Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens, and on the battlefield our fellow-soldiers. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 2) that “it is our duty to render to each class of people such respect as is natural and appropriate. This is in fact the principle upon which we seem to act, for we invite our relations to a wedding . . . It would seem to be a special duty to afford our parents the means of living . . . and to honor them.”

In addition to recognizing blood kinship as a legitimate category for preferential love, Aquinas significantly notes that blood kinship is unique in that it is more stable than friendships based on shared interests.

If however we compare union with union, it is evident that the union arising from natural origin is prior to, and more stable than, all others, because it is something affecting the very substance, whereas other unions supervene and may cease altogether. Therefore the friendship of kindred is more stable, while other friendships may be stronger in respect of that which is proper to each of them.”

I believe that it is precisely because blood kinship is more stable than other unions that God has commanded ethno-nationalism as the preferred political system. Preferential love for those who are closer to us by blood is the great weapon against the globalist beast, a weapon which is ours if we listen to the wisdom of the Christian tradition.

Comments

  1. Paul

    A young woman in West Virginia was released from her duties as spokes(woman) for the Attorney General. She was violating the new laws, lex non scripta , which condemn hate or in the end , love.

    SHe had listened to a video of young women , who were enlightened to the realities of the day . It appears their propaganda was successful with her and she believed , Miss Bowe, that her race , white was the victim of a concerted world effort of other races to destroy her and her race . She used a word genocide , which is the sole property of the persecuted chosen ones.

    She evidently repeated the propaganda , which emanated from healthier minds and young people , women , who actually had the audacity to be alarmed and wanted to wake others to their genocide. The thought that , hate is as natural as love or love as supernatural, that transforms itself to hate for the purpose of preservation of their life or that which they love is another forbidden “hate crime” or thought.

    It is clear that we live in a loveless world , an experience of conformity and are forbidden to discriminate . This prevents love . But hate is also forbidden . WHat is left but indifference to holy things and compliance with our own self destruction?

    Everything the nice jewish people speak is a lie . But it can be interpreted truthfully as an ultimatum . What shall our answer be ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *