![\"Illustration](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/635\/2018\/01\/Fedor_Bronnikov_007.jpg\")
<\/a>Journalist: What about your intellectual and cultural journey?<\/p>\n
Althusser: I encountered two men. The first one was Jean Guitton, who was a catholic philosopher, a friend of Pope Saint John XXIII and a close friend of Pope Paul VI. He helped me complete my dissertation. The other was a professor of history, whose name was Joseph Hours. He was a wonderful man. During the years 1936\u20131939, he talked to us about all that had happened: the war, the defeats, the miracle of Petain\u2019s defeat. He explained how Petain had to come to power; he explained everything that has passed\u2026 wonderful. So I thought in these lines, considering that at the same time I was a Catholic, I had established a catholic circle [association] in the Lyc\u00e9e where I was studying; I was profoundly Catholic, and had two points of view. On the one hand, there was the church which called for considering and studying social problems with great respect And on the other, there was this history professor [Hours], a Catholic but Galatian-Jacobin; he would tell us about everything<\/em> he was working on, an incredible world for its specificity. This is how I was shaped.<\/p>\n Journalist: In which moment did you become communist?<\/p>\n Althusser: I became communist because I was Catholic. I did not change religion, but I remained profoundly Catholic. I don\u2019t go to church but this doesn\u2019t matter; you don\u2019t ask people to go to church. I remained a Catholic, that is, an internationalist universalist. I thought that inside the Communist Party there were more adequate means to realize universal fraternity. And then, there was the influence of my wife who had fought in the terrible resistance and who had taught me a lot, a lot. Everything has come to me through women, and this is the reason why I attribute a very important role, a predominant role, to the women\u2019s movement. Women don\u2019t know their capacity, the possibilities, their capability to do politics. (The Crisis of Marxism)<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unsurprisingly, I don\u2019t agree with Althusser that a Catholic need not go to church. Such makes little sense for one who takes the content of the Faith seriously. But he makes an important point: Catholics are, by definition, catholic; we are \u201cinternationalist universalists.\u201d The Christendom of the Middle Ages was not, at the religious level, supposed to be a state project. We can see this in the Investiture Controversy<\/a> (in which the right of the pope to appoint bishops triumphed over the Holy Roman Emperor\u2019s desire to exert his, more local, influence) as well as in, as odd as this may be to say, the Crusades<\/a> (they\u2019re being \u201cright\u201d or \u201cwrong\u201d does not concern me here; we need only see that they were ostensibly an attempt to snuff out intra-Christian warfare, to spread the Gospel, if by the sword).<\/p>\n This needs to be reiterated in 2018. We live in a time of renewed nationalism, of increasing devotion to particular ideas often associated with particular peoples or nations. There is American Exceptionalism, and the seemingly-inescapable draw of \u201cmy country first.\u201d To be Catholic means to worry about others, most especially the poor. It means to be devoted to the spread of the Gospel through justice and charity.<\/p>\n At one level, this is all very abstract. So, how can we possibly enact this?<\/p>\n The absolute and universal truth of the Gospel is always carried on by particular people in specific communities. It is in this sense that we have particular struggles for justice and for evangelization. St. Patrick<\/a> brought the Good News to the Irish; St. Boniface<\/a> went to the Saxons. Justin Tse<\/a> speaks from the Eastern Catholic perspective while The National Catholic Register<\/a> <\/em>addresses mostly the Latin Church. Each of us works to accomplish certain ends. The Church needs both Dorothy Day\u2019s fiery social radicalism<\/a> and St. Francis de Sales gentle edification<\/a>. \u00a0In other words, the \u201cinternationalist universalism\u201d of the Church always finds particular expression at different moments in history. Take, for example, the \u201cpreferential option for the poor\u201d:<\/p>\n Today more than in the past, the Church\u2019s social doctrine must be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican Council, the most recent Encyclicals, and particularly in line with the Encyclical which we are commemorating. It will not be superfluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in recent years.<\/p>\n Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.<\/p>\n Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the \u201crich man\u201d who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate (cf. Lk 16:19-31). (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis)<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n But what must be remembered is that these individual struggles must always align with the Gospel, that is, with the Church\u2019s \u201cinternationalist universalism.\u201d We do not work for justice when that justice fails to accord with the Gospel; similarly, we do not work in love when our works fail to square with the universal love of Christ.<\/p>\n And that brings me to the pragmatic point gestured to by my title. What of the Alt-Right? What of a renewed sense of national exceptionalism, an attitude of \u201cus first\u201d?<\/p>\n It is true, as many have argued<\/a>, that the Catholic tradition places some emphasis on loyalty to one\u2019s nation, which is analogous to the loyalty one has to one\u2019s family (think \u201cfatherland\u201d and \u201cfather\u201d). This sort of argument goes back at least as far as Plato\u2019s Crito<\/a><\/em>. It must, however, be approached properly. Aquinas distinguishes between proper loyalty to one\u2019s family and nation and a loyalty that detracts from our ultimate allegiance to God:<\/p>\n Religion and piety are two virtues<\/a>. Now no virtue<\/a> is opposed to another virtue<\/a>, since according to the Philosopher<\/a>, in his book on the Categories (Cap. De oppos.), \u201cgood<\/a> is not opposed to good<\/a>.\u201d Therefore it is impossible that religion and piety mutually hinder one another, so that the act of one be excluded by the act of the other. Now, as stated above (I-II:07:2<\/a>; I-II:18:3<\/a>), the act of every virtue<\/a> is limited by the circumstances due thereto, and if it overstep them it will be an act no longer of virtue<\/a> but of vice<\/a>. Hence it belongs to piety to pay duty<\/a> and homage to one\u2019s parents according to the due mode. But it is not the due mode that man<\/a> should tend to worship his father rather than God<\/a>, but, as Ambrose<\/a> says on Luke 12:52<\/a>, \u201cthe piety of divine religion takes precedence of the claims of kindred.\u201d<\/p>\n Accordingly, if the worship of one\u2019s parents take one away from the worship of God<\/a> it would no longer be an act of piety to pay worship to one\u2019s parents to the prejudice of God<\/a>. Hence Jerome<\/a> says (Ep. ad Heliod.): \u201cThough thou trample upon thy father, though thou spurn thy mother, turn not aside, but with dry eyes hasten to the standard of the cross; it is the highest degree of piety to be cruel in this matter.\u201d Therefore in such a case the duties of piety towards one\u2019s parents should be omitted for the sake of the worship religion gives to God<\/a>. If, however, by paying the services due to our parents, we are not withdrawn from the service of God<\/a>, then will it be an act of piety, and there will be no need to set piety aside for the sake of religion. (Summa Theologica)<\/em><\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As stated above, Christ\u2019s message is a universal one, and it is very easy for proper concern to turn into something that is an affront to the call of the Gospel. For example, many parts of the world are, undoubtedly, dealing with a \u201crefugee crisis.\u201d<\/a> The vast majority of those fleeing to the United States and Europe (among many other places) are leaving behind poverty, war, and crises of all sorts. The majority settle in places close to their original homes <\/a>and spill over into \u201cthe West\u201d only when these places are nearly full. Thus our nations, our \u201cfatherlands,\u201d are, in many cases, their last hopes.<\/p>\n When it comes to the poor and marginalized, the Bible (never mind the quote from Pope St. John Paul II above) is rather clear:<\/p>\n Those who oppress the poor revile their Maker, but those who are kind to the needy honor him. The wicked are overthrown by their wickedness, but the just find a refuge in their integrity. Wisdom can remain silent in the discerning heart, but among fools she must make herself known. Justice exalts a nation, but sin is a people\u2019s disgrace. (Proverbs 14:31-34)<\/a><\/p>\n Whoever cares for the poor lends to the LORD, who will pay back the sum in full. (Proverbs 19:17)<\/a><\/p>\n Those who give to the poor have no lack, but those who avert their eyes, many curses. When the wicked prevail, people hide; but at their fall the just abound. (Proverbs 28:27-28)<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Now someone approached him and said, \u201cTeacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?\u201d He answered him, \u201cWhy do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.\u201d He asked him, \u201cWhich ones?\u201d And Jesus replied, \u201c\u2018You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother\u2019; and \u2018you shall love your neighbor as yourself.\u2019\u201d The young man said to him, \u201cAll of these I have observed. What do I still lack?\u201d Jesus said to him, \u201cIf you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.\u201d When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, \u201cAmen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.\u201d (Matthew 19:16-24)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n And, of course, ending the well-known passage about the Final Judgment:<\/p>\n He [the Son of Man] will answer them, \u201cAmen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.\u201d And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25:45-46)<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n