Washington D.C., Aug 24, 2017 / 03:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- People are probably familiar with white supremacist groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan – both of which made an appearance at the violent rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia that shocked the nation and the world.
But what of the self-described “alt-right” movement, which drew a younger crowd and appears to espouse some of the same tenets? Is it just the same white nationalism, re-manifested?
And, what is white nationalism, exactly? Although there’s intense historical and contemporary disagreement over which ethnicities count as “white,” the phrase could be summed up as an ideology which holds that there is a distinct white “race.” What’s more, white nationalists advocate for the protection and advancement of so-called “white” nations and cultures against perceived threats like miscegenation, immigration and multiculturalism.
While some of the ideologies behind white nationalism are rooted in 18th and early 19th century racial politics, a large portion of the movement’s rhetoric stems from the rise of nationalism as a political model, along with common conceptions of race and eugenics popular at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The “alt-right” movement, centered on nationalism and far right-wing politics, was named so in 2010 by self-avowed white nationalist Richard Spencer, and includes many white nationalist members.
The movement has coalesced online around an ever-evolving lexicon of memes and jokes, a focus on preserving what they call “white identity,” and vocal resistance to that identity’s perceived threats – including from immigrants, feminists, Muslims and Jews.
Alt-right blogger voxday described how he thinks the movement conceives of its goals, pointing out its “philosophy of offense” and nationalism. At “alt-right” events and in “alt-right” webspace, overtly racist terms like “The Daily Shoah” – referencing the Holocaust – and “cuck” (short for “cuckhold” – a vulgar term for miscegenation), find their way into the lexicon of terms used next to frog cartoons and Twitter screen caps.
Phillip de Mahy, a Ph.D. student studying at the Catholic University of America, researches online communities and explained some of the trends that mark the alt-right movement.
One of the most important aspects of the movement, he told CNA, is its shifting set of beliefs and alliances. “If you look at the message boards,” de Mahy explained, “there’s lots of disagreement about who’s in or out.” The tactics and political goals of the movement as a whole are also difficult to define with precision, he said.
“There’s many people in the alt-right who will say this is just the logical extension of the Republican platform,” de Mahy said, noting that in many cases, the alt-right supports many of the same policies or actions of conventional Republicans on issues like immigration or foreign policy.
However, what differentiates the two groups, he says, are the reasons that the alt-right and other white nationalist groups have for supporting these positions. They do so to “bring about the racial purity of the nation,” he said.
“I don’t think there’s many people that would identify with the movement who would have any trouble saying that, euphemistically, it’s White Identity politics or Pro-White politics, which is, in reality, White Nationalism,” de Mahy clarified.
However, according to “Ignatius,” a former writer for Breitbart who spent time observing the alt-right, the history of the movement is slightly more complex. What differentiates the alt-right from other racist groups, he said, is its use of the internet and internet culture.
“If you look at its origins and growth, it’s almost entirely from internet forums, based on internet memes, and consequentially it has the infectious nature of the memes,” he said in a written response to CNA.
Historically, the alt-right has organized around this culture which has accepted a range of controversial anti-feminist, anti-Islam, anti-immigration and white nationalist beliefs.
However, Ignatius pointed out, many Catholics who have political beliefs that could be considered alt-right “realize the evil of racism, how race is such a malleable and meaningless concept, how opposed, to Church teaching it is.”
And many of these people have been drawn to the movement by its strong denunciation of perceived problems within modern society, he said. However, even for those who don’t initially hold racist views themselves, the alt-right could still prove dangerous, Ignatius noted.
In many places in the movement, it is “more permissible for someone to be slightly racist” than it is for them to promote monarchist or feudalist ideals, he said. Thus, when some casual members of the group’s internet meme culture seek an ideological home in the alt-right, “it’s incredibly easy to slip into all forms of horrendous racism,” he warned.
“The alt-right requires one to sublimate religion to race in a lot of ways, hence calling the pope a ‘cuck,’” or “disliking” Guinean cardinal Robert Sarah, he said.
Furthermore, many members of the alt-right who were focused on other forms of nationalism but who were not racist have left the movement in the wake of the 2016 election, he said.
During the presidential election, groups like “traditionalists, white nationalists, libertarians, civic nationalists” all coalesced, but since then “non-overtly-racist civic nationalists” have left the movement. This has allowed the more openly white nationalist elements to define what the alt-right is, both within online communities and to the outside world,” Ignatius said.
“Although I’ve said that the alt right is nebulous to the point where it’s hard to call them universally racists, it’s accurate to say it’s a racist movement.”
There are other morally reprehensible beliefs held by some in the alt-right, he noted, particularly support for abortion in non-white communities and the belief in paganism of some members.
In an April 2016 article for Radix Journal – a publication started by Richard Spencer – Aylmer Fisher pushed back against what he called the “pro-life temptation.”
Fisher argued that the pro-life position is “dysgenic” because it does not oppose birth among populations that are more likely to be below the poverty line and more likely to be of African-American or Hispanic heritage.
“Not only is the pro-life movement dysgenic,” Fisher wrote, “but its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. The alt-right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like ‘equality’ and ‘human rights,’ especially as bases for policy. The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community.”
He criticized pro-lifers, saying that those who are interested in “banning abortion because it’s ‘racist’ or adopting children from Africa, are the ultimate cuckservatives.”
While it’s unclear how seriously most members of the alt-right promote abortion, or how many support abortion access, it’s been a “consistent” topic of conversation among some of the group’s most vocal leaders and on some message boards, de Mahy said.
“They’re very explicit about the fact that this is a form of eugenics and that’s a good thing,” he said. Ultimately, “the alt-right would consider themselves to be pro-white and differing on the specifics of how to realize the furthering of the White Race. They would disagree about whether some things are pragmatic,” he said of support for abortion.
And while some members of the alt-right are Christian and while some see the Christian legacy – like historic Christian Europe – as a foundation for their worldview, others just see it as a vehicle for carrying their racist agenda. Or, they despise Christianity altogether.
“A lot of these people are very explicitly Atheist,” de Mahy said. “The overarching understanding of religion is largely instrumentalist.”
Some argue that Christianity is a compromised belief system because it is not defined by ethnic ties, and they find an alternative in paganism – particularly Nordic paganism – and its ties to the historic peoples of European descent.
Joseph Pearce, a senior editor at the Augustine Institute, has written a book about his previous involvement in the white supremacist movement and his subsequent conversion, “Race With the Devil: My Journey from Racial Hatred to Rational Love.” He recently wrote an opinion piece in the National Catholic Register, “Charlottesville Through the Eyes of an ex-White Supremacist.”
In his youth, Pearce had joined a white supremacist party in Great Britain, edited a white supremacist magazine, and was involved in violent street encounters with political opponents. Pearce twice spent time in prison, yet began reading St. Thomas Aquinas, Blessed John Henry Newman, and other Catholic authors during his second prison term on his path to conversion.
But why might young people be attracted to the white supremacist movement? Pearce told CAN that he joined it the because of “pride.” This also motivates other young men who are joining the movement today, he said, because “we live in a culture which is antithetical to Christianity, because it elevates pride.”
Younger generations are “all about self-identity now, basically constructing a cosmos in conformity with your own desires, wishes, prejudices,” he said. And they are looking to “tribalism,” which racism is a part of, because that offers a collective sense of pride.
“I think that tribalism’s on the rise because we’re not teaching generations these days about virtue, about Christianity, about humility, about love being laying down your life for the beloved, which is the other, including your enemy,” he said.
“We’re producing whole generations of people who are animated and motivated by pride, and racial pride will be one of those manifestations.”
For those who seriously believe in white nationalism, Catholics must forcefully condemn their beliefs but pray for their souls, Pearce said.
“I was a white supremacist. I went to prison twice. I was demonized by the culture, perhaps rightly so,” he said. “Certainly my ideas should have been demonized by the culture.”
“But I was a human being, and I wasn’t beyond the reach of the love of God, because God reached me in the prison cell,” he said, noting that his conversion began while he was serving his second prison sentence at the age of 24.
For one who is part of the white nationalist movement, we must be “hoping that he can be brought to the love of Christ and brought to conversion,” Pearce said. “God laid down his life for sinners, and we’re all sinners.”
[…]
I think it’s time for Pope Leo to fire the Archbishop of Detroit.
And perhaps rehire the (former) Bishop of Tyler, TX? And while he’s at it, rescind Traditionis Custodes and Fiducia Supplicans — all for starters.
Ken T, add to your list the correct and proper consecration of Russia to our Lady.
Amen!
. . .with the excuse that it wouldn’t be helpful to give any specific reason.
Agreed. The Pope put the pallium on the Archbishop of Detroit, so he can take it off. Am not holding my breath.
Since the pallium was placed this month, it is reasonable to think that Pope Leo wants Archbishop Weisenburger to be the Ordinary in Detroit. Everyone, including Cardinal McElroy, looks plenty happy here: https://www.detroitcatholic.com/archbishop-stories/receiving-the-sacred-pallium-from-pope-leo-xiv-in-rome
Ah well, It took several decades after Pope Honorius to get the necessary corrections. Jesus Christ is Lord. He was crucified and we follow Him. Witness the thousands of recent martyrs. https://www.opendoors.org/en-US/persecution/persecution-trends/
Pray and stay Catholic.
Appeal to Rmeu
No, Diogenes: a tit for a tat leads to the domino effect!
Br. Jaques, no! When injustice, abuse of power and a lack of charity are clearly demonstrated, a disciplinary response is called for. You’re correct, though, that retaliatory acts are uncalled for from any Christian . I’d classify the bishop’s acts as retaliatory.
I agree.
The “Spirit-of-Vadigun-Too” wages unrelenting war against The Word of Truth.
Perhaps it would deemed “unjust” if the Bishop Weisburger of Detroit should be relieved of his position without explanation by Leo XIV?
We shall see…
I don’t know this Bishop Weisenburger from a hole in the wall. I don’t know what his educational background is. I don’t know if he has the highest credentials in theological study or whether he’s like too many of our bishops in recent years who have graduate degrees in fields sociology and the like. I do know that bishops are like the rest of us i.e. given to one kind of sin over all the rest. Some of us are prone to the sin of avarice. Some of us to sins of lust. Some of us to the sin of sloth and some of us to the sin of envy. These alone do not exhaust the smorgasbord of sin to which man is prone.
But, I have begun to wonder whether about the motivation behind the bishop’s seemingly arbitrary, uncharitable and monomaniacal exercise of his episcopal office. I have begin to wonder whether the bishop here isn’t envious of the academic achievements of the three theologians involved in these seminary firings. I am wondering whether this relatively newly-appointed bishop isn’t a bit insecure in his role, eager to exercise power in his archdioese and just a bit envious of these highly-accomplished, well-published and well-regarded Catholic theologians. I don’t know the answer to these questions of mine since the answers lay wholly within the conscience of the bishop. It might be something that the bishop might want to address with his confessor the next time he meets with him.
DeaconEdwardPeitler have you ever heard of a well documented psychological condition know as Pathological Narcissism? If you haven’t, look it up and the scales might fall from your eyes about this Archbishop and a good few others of dubious reputation in the upper echelons of the Church.
My guess is that the skids were greased to fire these guys ahead of time through Cardinals Cupich and McElroy who sought Pope Leo’s approval.
Call me: I agree with your assessment that Cupich and McElroy are running the Church of Woke in America. In fact, they’re running the Catholic Church into the ground.
Weisenberger has also severely restricted the Trad Latin Mass is Detroit and forbade ad orientem posture by priests at Novus Ordo Masses. He also proposed Canton canonical penalties for Catholic ICE agents. He sounds very much like clerics Stowe, Cupich, and McElroy.
The Church has been wrong in the past (Saints – Joan ,Padre Pio . John of the Cross, to name only a few) but it is still the Church and we must accept its teaching and authority. Our leaders are human and they will sin and make mistakes, and we can question their motives and decisions; but at the end of the day we must either swallow our pride and go along with them or else jump ship and find another church.
I remember reading about the trials St. Louis de Montfort went through with his bishop.
Obedience is a very tough thing but necessary. Even when it doesn’t appear to make any sense.
not in today’s day and age of instant communication; you don’t have to live against the Gospel because the higher church authorities tell you it’s okay
James Connor: According to your warped thinking, it was fit and proper that those seminarians in the Metuchen and Newark dioceses should follow their bishop’s summons to his bed at the New Jersey beach house. Hmmm! It seems like we have a McCarrick apologist on our hands.
Make no mistake about it, we have a good many current bishops of the Bergoglian ilk who are followers of McCarrick and not followers of Christ. The Catholic Church is in dire trouble.
Believers are under no obligation to follow false, narcissistic, or sinful shepherds.
Thanks, dear ‘Athanasius’. This was always true . . .
The Holy Spirit of GOD, inspiring Saint Paul, warned us all:
” . . fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks [that is bishops] there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your guard . .” Acts 20:30 see, also, Ezekiel 3 . . .
Thank you for this article; now we have a glimpse about the “theological perspectives” now in play, and with this glimpse the added knowledge that the controversy is not confined to “seminary personnel matters” as claimed by the Archdiocese of Detroit.
Two points:
FIRST, Bishop Wiesenburger is mimicking “saint” Francis I who not long ago forced Cardinal Muller (then the Prefect for the CDC which is now demoted as one dicastery among many) to fire three of his subordinate priests in Rome. When asked for a reason, the saint responded: “I don’t need a reason; I’m the pope!” So, now, what chance do three (“rigid, bigoted and backwardist”) peasant laymen have in forwardist Detroit?
SECOND, Detroit, the scene of the nationwide and orchestrated Call to Action crescendo in October 1976 (repudiated by the American bishops a few years later) and about which Rev. Vincent Miceli SJ wrote later that same year:
“[….] The radicals demanded: 1) Divorced, remarried couples to receive Holy Communion while still living in adulterous unions. 2) Ordained women priests and bishops. 3) Women given the power to preach the Gospel with authority. 4) A reversal on the doctrine of artificial birth control. 5) A mitigation of the doctrine on abortion. 6) A teaching approving Marxism, Socialism and pacifism as doctrinally true and morally good practice. 7) A denial of the right to property and to reasonable profit. 8) The creation of a new Church, democratic, non-hierarchical in structure, a classless church” https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4544
SUMMARY: Sound familiar? “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Beautiful. I was wondering who had been urging Weisenburger prior to his decision, eg., who from among the charismatics that Martin was working with and to whom he was making presentations in the last couple of years or so.
Feedback that is getting stopped up is not dialogue or openness or accompaniment, etc., it’s something else. Back in the day they were just speaking out and acting out, now they’re controlling and harnessing information.
Which could mean also that in the case of Martin (for example) it could be he had gotten set up and it then is impossible to clear the air on it.
There are now three vacancies at the Seminary that will have to be filled and so far we are able to identify only maybe a couple or maybe a handful of Weisensplainers.
These unjustified terminations were preceded by a full frontal attack on the liturgy in Detroit parishes, not only the Traditional Latin Mass but also any practice during a Novus Ordo Mass that would promote the teachings of the Catholic Faith. This tells you all you need to know about this Bishop Weisenburger. I suspect Pope Leo will do nothing. In everything but style, he is Francis 2.0.
“One thing all three now-former faculty members have in common is that they criticized Pope Francis publicly during the late pope’s pontificate” (McDonald for CNA).
During that period of darkness it was an obligation for the informed Catholic to underline the errors of Francis I – for sake of the salvation of souls including their own.
Our present concern is where will Pope Leo, who calls himself a disciple of Francis I – stand on this issue. Most US cardinals are either Pope Francis appointees or have similar leanings on doctrine.
Interesting that neither side is giving any full explanations. On the surface, it appears that the Archbishop is basically saying “my way or the highway”. But we don’t know that. If the three fired men pursue lawsuits, maybe then the full story will be revealed. Good or bad.
Having talked to one of the three professors, I’m quite certain that there is nothing to explain from their side. They were fired and were given no explanation why they were fired, even when they directly asked the question. So, yes, this will likely have to come out via legal channels.
Oh yes, you can trust that the full story will be revealed.
All three of these guys were too old. Time to retire and prepare for the Kingdom.
Kevin, would you mind telling us just how old you are?
Nope.
Conversely, it is likely that the Bishop Weisenburger is not too Christian.
Then give them a gold watch, a party and a pat on the back. No, these firings are a message to all at the seminary.
Don’t be a tall poppy…
At root in all of these firings is a willingness boldly teach seminarians the full Truth of Christ and proclaim everywhere the Gospel, especially: Humanae Vitae, pro-life, Heaven/Hell, sexual morality, and other unpopular teachings of Christ.
Aside from the issues Pope Leo appears an amiable, welcoming kind, as some say refreshing compared to the previous. We’ve about reached the one hundred day mark. Although there remain monumental unresolved issues for the ordinary Catholic. Leo seems impervious.
Perhaps, in a benevolent sense he has a laissez faire attitude, as many hold God is in charge, things will work themselves out in good time. But did Christ not institute the papacy for his vicar to defend the faith, or to simply be a smiling, quiet, nice guy? If so, we may as well have elected the old cigar store wooden Indian.
I do happen to agree with your thoughts on this matter.
I also remember the early days of the Bergoglian Papacy when the Faithful bent over backwards to give Francis the benefit of the doubt. But after awhile, even the most tolerant threw up their hands and said we’ve had enough of this guy running Holy Mother Church into the ground. As for me, I am happy that Bergoglio has vacated the See of Peter. That said, I doubt many of us will be as forebearing of Leo if he does not act more decisively in defending the Body of Christ against bad shepherds. Until then, we are sheep without shepherds.
Like that of most of right wing conservative Catholic media platforms, CWR’s framing and most subsequent readers’ comments about the firings at Sacred Heart Major Seminary take a narrow, sympathetic narrative that omits key context and consequences. While Canon Law professor Edward Peters’ credentials and academic contributions are notable, his and his colleagues’ public, sustained criticisms of Pope Francis, delivered not only in academic settings but in media interviews and blogs, crossed from scholarly discourse into disloyal and disrespectful ideological opposition. This pattern of dissent, cloaked in theology, contributed significantly to a toxic culture of “popebashing” within sectors of the U.S. Church – like here in CWR!
Critics may accuse defenders of these firings of “popesplaining,” but when Church unity and clerical formation are undermined by those tasked with upholding them, accountability is not censorship—it’s leadership. Archbishop Edward Weisenburger, newly installed in Detroit, acted not rashly but necessarily to restore order to a seminary long regarded as a bastion of anti-Francis sentiment. His actions reflect fidelity to the Church’s ecclesiology: that clergy and educators must uphold communion with both bishop and pope.
Though Peters has indicated legal action, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hosanna-Tabor decision (2012) affirms the wide latitude religious institutions hold in hiring and dismissing ministers and educators. His case, therefore, is unlikely to gain legal traction.
Ultimately, Archbishop Weisenburger did not create a scandal, he ended one. His firm action affirms that the Church must not be hijacked by culture war factions, but instead be defined by fidelity to the Gospel, unity with the pope, and a mission rooted in mercy and compassion. With the election of Pope Leo XIV, who is committed to continuing Pope Francis’s reforms, it is clear that the Church’s direction favors communion over division, and pastoral care over ideological rigidity. These dismissals, while regrettable on a personal level, were essential to preserve the integrity of priestly formation in Detroit.
Thank you, Michael Sean Winters, for your comment. I suspect it will not age well.
About legal action, what about Canon 221:1?
Dr. Peters did an excellent job castigating Mary McAleese, the ex Irish president who gained a JCD at the Gregorian and subsequently used it to attack the faith, Well done Dr Peters!
Bishop Hamburgler should be investigated for covering up, or committing, sexual abuse against minors. The worst heretics are always the worst perverts as well.
Diogenes: No Catholic (or Christian) is obliged to obey an immoral act requested by a superior, this also applies in the military. In this case it IS The bishop’s prerogative to make staff decisions and changes in his diocese. It’s my understanding that the Sacred Heart seminary is a diocesan seminary and is under the bishops jurisdiction. Make no doubt about it, I am and have been for many years and admirer of Ralph Martin and his work and he has been in my and is in my daily prayers. I also was delighted with the seminary and the numerous of exemplary priests that they helped to form and I am saddened that they can no longer teach there. That said,however, it was the bishop’s decision and clearly within his administrative right. We don’t need to agree with him, but we must accept his decision. Not being in his diocese, I don’t feel that I am in a position to express my opinions to him. If I lived in Detroit I may have second thoughts. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings you may have about what I stated previously. God bless , James
If anyone was disloyal and disrespectful it was Francis, him and his Liberation Theology so-called Catholics cronies. Just a truly sorry excuse for a Pope.
The Deacon Dom comment is the National Catholic Reporter set of talking points.
Praise the Lord, I think my little itsy Detroit points here and there cut deep when they got to it.
In this case, I learned more from comments than the “firings” per se. Thank you, and now due to the news, I (and others) have three more persons to explore regarding perspectives on the Papacy of Pope Francis (though I had previously known a bit of Edward Echeverria’s writings). Cannot make a full omelet without cracking some eggs. All will be good in the end, and Truth will prevail.