Ireland First or Catholic Solidarity? A Necessary Choice

Tom Szustek / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)

Across the West, there has been a resurgence of nationalism, with anti-immigrant, racist and anti-multiculturalism rhetoric. Ireland has not experienced this phenomenon to the same extent as the countries on its left or right, however, it is there. Not only does it exist but I have observed it in Irish Catholicism. This is not something I had recently noticed, but over the last few months I had the opportunity to dedicate a lot of time considering it for the class “Religion, Media and the Public Sphere.” For that class, I wrote about Irish Catholicism and how it was constructing online an understanding of what it means to be Irish and Catholic using the issue of immigration as a defining issue. While for the class, I adopted the position of an impartial observer, I knew as soon as I chose the topic that I wanted to write about what I observed and analysed in that essay as a Catholic.

 

I originally intended to publish online two pieces, the first part being the essay I wrote for the class and the second piece being my response to my findings. However, having written the essay, I have decided that I do not want to publish it online because while I only used social media posts which were public and therefore, no one I cited as an example should be uncomfortable with me using them, I have decided against it as I do not want this article to be read as a personal attack against any particular individual. After all, Ireland is a small country, it is not inconceivable that what I wrote might be shared with someone I wrote about. Let me give an overview of what I have observed over the last few months. I have noticed that there is a group of Catholics who devote a lot of their social media posts on the issues of nationalism, immigration, open-borders, refugees, and multiculturalism. I use the term group but to be clear I do not mean that they are in any way a formal, organised group and there are differences, for example in how they view Pope Francis due to his stance on immigration, from disagreeing with him theologically to implying that he is a freemason. When Irish Catholics, for example, a bishop, make public comments about how the Bible tells us to welcome the stranger or statements with a similar intent, these are judged as an incorrect statement. The backlash that I have seen when someone makes a statement of this kind includes arguments that they are not interpreting the Bible correctly, that Catholic social teaching allows for strong borders and that the individuals have been influenced by anti-Catholic forces, the atheists and liberals. Catholics who advocate for the support of refugees are treated as an other, with the suggestion that they are pandering to liberals. I have noticed that there seems to be intense anxiety around Irish culture being destroyed with multi-culturalism. It is argued that those in Ireland should accept Irish law and culture if they are to stay. The introduction of “alien” cultures, even if there are similarities, will not work. There seem to be two fears connected to the introduction of other cultures, the first is that it will result in violence as Islamic extremists will be let in and secondly, that the Irish will be replaced. These Catholics want a largely homogenous Ireland, which controls its borders and laws, which is why many advocate for Ireland leaving the European Union, promote free speech and often have a libertarian perspective.

 

First, I would like to address what I might call the “trumpening” of Irish Catholicism (although I do recognise that this phenomenon is not simply due to the influence of American culture). One of the aspects I had originally planned on exploring was what was causing this change in Irish Catholicism, however, in the end, I decided to focus on other aspects. It appears to me that this is in part because of the influence of conservative figures like Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, etc. and I think a distrust of the “liberal” media which has led to people looking for alternative sources also plays a role. It is also clear that these Catholics do not feel represented in the new Irish identity. As Charles Taylor wrote when a group does not feel that the identity does not include them, that they are not accommodated and that they feel that are not full citizens that trouble will follow. As mainstream culture does not represent them, they find conservative and provocative figures as attractive due to their ability to “own the libs.” They may have started supporting the figures because they agree with them on some issues but over time it appears that they have granted them authority beyond those initial issues. Let us take a figure like Donald Trump as an example. I do not support him; I do not think that he is pro-life. But I could be I am wrong, however, in other areas, for example, the treatment of children at borders really leaves me unconvinced that he cares about the sanctity of life and therefore, it is impossible for me to support him. From my perspective, it appears that these Irish Catholics are not only supporting him on the issue of abortion but also mirror his immigration rhetoric, for example, “Ireland first.” It is always difficult to judge how much this is coming from the individual and to what extent this is due to following right-wing media, which persuades them of the general worldview, so I am not going to make a judgment on whether the Catholics sincerely hold these views. From my perspective, they see themselves in opposition with the liberal left and I fear that they are letting this impact their thinking. Catholicism does not fit into the modern right left, Republican Democrat binary, yet these Catholics appear to continuously, on almost every issue, identify with the Republican Party. When other Catholics say anything that might be understood as “left-wing,” like statements supporting refugees, one is understood as anti-Catholic. Apart from the theological and biblical tradition which often accompanies these views, they are ignoring natural law theory. According to natural law, while we are all subject to original sin, we are all orientated towards the good. As Paul says in Romans, while the Gentiles did not receive the revelation of God’s Law, they already knew it as it is written on their hearts. With the way that some Catholics write one might wonder whether God was tired of writing and so skipped the hearts of the left. Natural law does not mean that people are free from error, but it does mean that without God, people are able to use reason to know of the good. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the left in its support of the poor, refugees, for example, has recognised the good. I think that it is crucial when one approaches any thinker, whether they are religious or not, left or right, to consider what they are saying critically and whether it corresponds with the truth.

 

To turn to the question of culture, I think it is important to recognise that there are two ways in which we can speak about multiculturalism. One way of speaking of multiculturalism is that it is good to have a variety of cultures, for examples, if one considers the US and the pride that some Americans have in seeing their country as a melting pot. But multiculturalism also refers to the state of a country. In looking at Ireland, it is a fact that Ireland is a multicultural society and it cannot be ignored. In a given class, one might find students whose family have come from another country, children with no religious identity and those with religious identities which have not historically been the norm in Ireland. The Irish identity that is put forward by these Catholics is on where everyone is proud of Ireland, of the revolutionaries, saints and writers, etc., where people accept at the very least that Catholicism is a part of Irish culture and speak Irish. I do not think that anything is necessarily wrong with wanting to promote, for example, the Irish language. My problem is with how Irish culture is seen by these Catholics, where it is something that they possess, but that those who, for example, support Ireland being part of the EU are viewed as having betrayed Ireland. Culture is not static; it is something that by its very nature is constantly evolving and being contested. Right now, Ireland has evolved so that it is more multicultural than it was in the past and I do not think that even if Ireland closed its borders would radically change that. In modern Ireland, there is no unified idea of what constitutes the good life. We are living in a society with people of all sorts of views exist and we need to learn to accept that fact. I understand that the very nature of conservatism wants to conserve aspects of society and culture, but it is necessary to acknowledge that cultures will change for better or worse and not to treat the change as a betrayal to a past vision of Ireland. We are all to varying degrees choosing what of the past that we want to keep and what we wish to reject. Rowan Williams describes culture as a process of trying to figure things out, where we are constantly trying to alter society to make it better. I think it is important to recognise that culture is a negotiation between people, there is no platonic ideal that is Irish culture, it is bound by time. Let me be clear, however, what I am not saying, which is that I am not supporting relativism, there are certainly versions of Irish culture which correspond to moral truth more than others. When I look at some Irish Catholics, who might quote an Irish revolutionary saying something along the lines of Ireland can never be free while under the influence of a foreign power, it feels like Irish culture has been decided rather than being historically contingent. But there is no singular Irish culture and none of them are perfect. Like multiculturalism, it is also necessary to recognise that the world for better and worse is very interconnected. Even those who are ardent nationalists, whether they recognise it or not, are influenced by outside cultures. Particularly with the invention of the internet, I do not think it is possible for a culture to stay in its box.

 

I confess that observing this group of Catholics that I have often felt frustrated with them. I think a particular post really encapsulates why I felt upset with them, it stated that the essence of Christianity was self-sufficiency. Christianity which at its centre is about Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose again for others, this is really about self-sufficiency… okay… In my essay, I was focusing on the issue of immigration and refugees, but this mentality is there on many other issues, in how the welfare state is viewed and how some people are treating COVID-19, as Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters’ court case shows. Solidarity is a part of Catholic social teaching and yet it is being ignored by these Catholics, trading it for a more libertarian view. Many of these Catholics are dismissive of Pope Francis and therefore, if I quoted his calls for solidarity and quoted him saying that self-sufficiency is a sin, I imagine would be unconvinced and would not feel any urge to rethink their personal philosophy, even though Saint John Paul II also said the same about self-sufficiency. The reality is that we are dependent on God and dependent on each other. Their idea that what matters is freedom from others, of negative rights, ignores the common good and how we have responsibilities to one another. Solidarity, while an important them of Francis’s papacy, predates him, it is a theme which is found in many papal documents, where it is stress as part of our moral thinking. Solidarity, John Paul II wrote in Centesimus Annus, is a principle that we are to use to judge both the national and international order in how it treats the most vulnerable. This includes refugees and it shows that our moral concern is not confined to our country. Solidarity is often seen as a structure which is needed in our institutions, which should determine how they are run, and it should help to combat structural sin. It is both a communal and individual virtue. In the Pontifical Council Document Cor Unum, which was written in 1988 on the treatment of refugees it says:

“Indifference constitutes a sin of omission. Solidarity helps to reverse the tendency to see the world solely from one’s own point of view. Acceptance of the global dimension of problems emphasises the limits of every culture; it urges us towards a more sober lifestyle with a view to contributing to the common good; it makes it possible to provide an effective response to the just appeals of refugee and opens paths of peace.”

From my perspective, the rhetoric of Ireland first, where it is argued that we cannot take in anyone in due to the housing crisis, appears to be a limited perspective, which overlooks the plight of those beyond Ireland and the need for Ireland to recognise that the common good, which is not limited to borders and to recognise what it can do to help the refugee crisis. We cannot be indifferent to our neighbours who are part of the same human family. As Pope Paul IV argued nationalism can jeopardise our sense of common humanity and solidarity. Without love, nationalism can threaten the welfare of humanity. We need to recognise that as richer countries we have obligations to help poorer countries. As Catholics, it is necessary that we practise the habit of solidarity. If we adopt a virtue ethics approach, we need to consider what our end goal is, what kind of society do we want to become. The end of the virtue of solidarity is to participate in the common good. If one is to practice solidarity, I do not think it is possible to maintain the attitude of Ireland first because at every level of society, from the individual to the global, we are called to look beyond ourselves and reach out to others. Looking at the accounts of this group of Catholics, from what they regularly post which are posts arguing against immigration, it appears that the habit of solidarity is absent. In accepting a global approach to problems, this does not mean that the local is not to be respected, it is as part of solidarity is respecting each other as equal agents. It also does not mean accepting the problematic elements of globalism, it just means that recognising that we have a responsibility towards others beyond our nations and the structures of the world can require an international response.

 

I want to conclude by saying that I am writing as a concerned Catholic, who feels that it is important that I speak out about what I see as a worrying trend, particularly as I see that some of these Catholics seem to be viewed as having some authority by Catholics. I pray that we will all grow in the virtue of solidarity, reaching outwards even when it is tough.

A New Decade A New Discourse... Maybe?

                                            And so, a new decade begins…

Just like New Years are in many ways an arbitrary date in the year where we consider the last twelve months and make plans, express dreams and hopes for the next year, so too is a decade arbitrary. However, it is a useful framework in which to consider the world and where one is going. As someone who is twenty-three as this decade ends it is easy to see a difference in myself compared to who I was at thirteen. It is difficult to separate my perception of the last decade from who I was and have grown into. Despite the financial crash at thirteen, I was much more optimistic about the world. At thirteen, I thought as a species we were going in the right direction that as a species we were growing in humanity, understanding and compassion. I still want humanity to develop these things but today there is a greater cynicism. At twenty-three, I can the idea of progress is alluring, but that it is naïve, and it can be even dangerous as it ignores human weakness. We can discuss the precise interpretation of original sin is correct, critique bad understandings, but if we ignore human sinfulness we do so at our peril. I still believe that people are orientated towards the good, but that sin can get in our way and blind us. I sit here at the end of a decade where Ireland sits in between two countries where people have been polarised since 2016. I see people on the right and the left make caricatures of each other. I see people who are pleased to see certain groups are against a particular idea as it is evidence that the idea is worth pursuing. I see the most simplistic understandings of religion, particularly the idea of a single Islam. It can feel like I am seeing strawman, after strawman, after strawman. Brexiteers, Trump supporters all hate immigrants. The Democrats, Labour want their countries to become Venezuela. Religions want to take control of you and to stop you from thinking rationally, especially if it contains any sort of hierarchy. The list goes on and on.

©Bart Everson

So, where does this leave us? I still want compassion, justice and understanding but if this is to occur something needs to change. I do not think that this approach of suspicion and ill will can continue. There is, I believe, a need for an approach of hospitality similar to what is described by Paul Ricoeur. Ricoeur sees that it is a shortcoming if one is only capable of speaking one language as the more languages that one can speak, the more ways one is able to think and understand. There is a need for linguistic hospitality, where one is open to other languages. This idea he sees as being applicable to other cultures. If this idea of hospitality is to occur, it requires an openness. It requires that one is open in two ways, first it requires that the individual is open in what they personally think. It also requires that people are open towards others that they engage and attempt to understand what the other person thinks. It means that it is necessary that people show in a very honest manner what they think, the reasons for why they think that, the entire process of what they think, how this links to other beliefs that they hold and also being open about the areas where people are not exactly sure of what they think. We can feel at times that it is necessary to make a choice, pick a side, possibly when there is a lack of information. However, being open about areas of uncertainty, apart from being intellectually honest, also allows others to appreciate that people’s views are evolving and that they are still trying to figure out what they think.

Rather than solely speak in the abstract let me give an example, my thoughts and beliefs about refugees and immigration. Some of my reasons are secular, others are religious and some of the religious ideas are translatable into secular discourse. While I am very interested in virtue ethics, the perhaps more “deontological” side of me is also very interested in considering what do we owe other people. To answer the question “am I my sibling’s keeper?” the answer is yes. I, of course, have a duty to care for those around me, my family, my community and my country. But the reason I am likely to focus on them is not because they are citizens but because they are in my immediate vicinity. This does not mean that I see the boundary of the nation state to be the boundary of whom I am to care for and to be concerned with. I also have a duty to those beyond my country and it would seem in a globalised world remiss not to consider their needs. But also because the modern nation state is a human construct, where people at some point historically decided that they were a nation based on a common language, culture, etc. I have as a result no problem with a reassessment of that construct due to a necessity of meeting certain ethical demands. A nation can decide to leave behind a previous understanding of the construct. I think that the material conditions matter as a socialist and therefore I do think we need to be concerned with not only refugees fleeing war but also those who are economically destitute. Ultimately, I am not sure of what exactly the ideal policy is, I only have an idea of what one should be ethically concerned with. Hopefully, by being honest about my understanding of the nation state makes it clear why I am not a nationalist and my view of the ethical obligations helps one to understand my perspective. I could go on to discuss other related ideas like human dignity, the biblical understanding of the stranger and refugee and my understanding of the human person. Even if we are unable to agree on a particular policy, I hope that this approach would result in a more fruitful dialogue, because one may be able to understand my perspective by seeing how exactly the various beliefs and convictions interact.  

Let me be clear that I do not underestimate that genuine dialogue is challenging for many reasons. The old slogan “the personal is the political” continues to be true. There are many aspects of today’s society because they touch on personal issues are seen as beyond question as they are seen to bring pain. I think this approach is entirely understandable. But I would question whether the approach of public reason, where people only argue in terms of what is generally agreeable, works. I would argue that there is a greater chance of strawmen because one is not engaging with people actually think. However, that does not mean that it is excusable to use language is intentionally hurtful, offensive or disrespectful. If there is to be dialogue between those who identify as pro-choice and pro-life, it is much more fruitful to try to discuss what one understands terms like autonomy and life are than to use extreme language like murder. Refraining from such language shows that one is actually willing to really listen and engage with what the other is saying. It also does not help in understanding except on a very surface level, whereas considering each other’s understanding of autonomy may help to see something very important in one’s thinking but may not be particularly explicit in what they believe, though their ideas build upon it.

It is also important to state that any attempt to understand does not mean that one condones the position or even that one refrains from criticising others. It may be that there is an unseen bias or prejudice that the individual has not observed in themselves. The honesty from the person in dialogue can lead to personal growth. On the more extreme end of racism, sexism etc., the call for dialogue is not a call for relativism. I think it is important, for example, to understand those who support Brexit, even though I disagree with them, particularly because of the consequences to Northern Ireland. By understanding the system of beliefs, I hope to understand why Brexit is desired, but I am going to be critical because of how it overlooks Northern Ireland’s peace process and that it was not considered by so many and I am going to criticise the arguments which are based upon racial prejudice. It does not help anyone to say that they are not real problems. If in the quest to understand we no longer challenge these ideas, then it is not better than public reason.

Another challenge with engaging with different arguments and ideas is the problem of judging ideas. To use the title of the work by Alasdair MacIntyre there is the question of “Which Rationality? Which Justice?” Depending on the particular ethical framework one is working in, if one is even working in a particular framework, it can hinder one’s understanding of terms such as autonomy and justice. These terms can hinder dialogue, insofar as my understanding of these terms do not work in another’s argument failing to see that they understand the terms differently. This can be seen in the argument over abortion, where it is in part a hermeneutical question of how one interprets terms like life or autonomy, what are the limits of autonomy, etc. I agree with MacIntyre that with modernity which has meant that there is a break with tradition which has meant that we are justifying and judging ethical questions differently. However, I do not think that translation is impossible as a result. This is for me why I think that dialogue is so important because I hope that in attempting to lay it all bare that we will be able to at least understand each other to a greater degree. Judging other ideas is in many ways is a second step after understanding what the other person is saying, which requires thinking about criteria. Thinking and arguing for certain criteria requires a post on its own, which I may do in the future, but what I really want to underline here is that if we are to judge other’s views, then we need to understand what kind of rationality they are working in, how they justify things and how they define terms.

To conclude, I hope in this new decade that we move past the partisanship and try to really understand each other to the point where we would feel comfortable saying how we understand another’s point of view without it being a strawman but that it actually resembles what they think. This requires time and patience, which is why I think for many of us it is best done in person rather than online. I know it will be difficult since I began writing this piece, I have already seen an infuriating post about Greta Thunberg, and I did not want to try to understand their perspective. I also know that I am not always want to explain in a detailed and honest way what I believe. But I hope to try. I am not naïve enough to say that it will end divisions between people but I hope that by understanding each other we can see each other better and that maybe we can find areas where we might not have originally seen that we could work together.