“The ‘naivety of niceness’ is the idea that Christians should never cause another person any discomfort, but rather we should just ‘be nice’ and never make anyone feel bad. It seems as if many Christians have adopted an 11th commandment: ‘Thou shalt be nice and never make anyone feel uneasy.’ Such a mentality displays both a scriptural and practical naivety. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians are not called to be nice. Rather we are called to be holy. And such a calling will sometimes put us in a position where we won’t appear to be ‘nice’. Our culturally conditioned idea of ‘niceness’ is that of never causing anyone to feel sad or bad about themselves. ‘Self-esteem is to be guarded at all costs’ is the prevalent worldview, including of many in the church. The fallout of such an erroneous outlook is that we fail to be true friends because we fail to tell the truth.”
—Doug Van Meter—
✦✦✦
If I haven’t spoken of this problem before in my writing (though I’m almost certain I have), I’ll speak on it in the future and I’ll speak on it a little bit here. Western Christianity has a real problem with “being kind”. No, not that it isn’t kind. The opposite. We’re obsessed with niceness and kindness to the point where we think of these as supreme virtues to the detriment of all others; especially virtues like telling the truth, preserving beauty, and displaying courage, which saints in previous centuries (canonized and not) exemplified in ways that we today… well… kinda wouldn’t dare.
Christian leaders in the West—regardless of whether they’re evangelical, mainline, nondenominational, or Catholic—in recent years by and large have adopted a very therapeutic, feel-good, vague, watered-down communication style when addressing worshippers and the general public about any subject. And this sanding down of the faith’s rough edges, this removal of its danger, this elimination of its concepts of sacrifice, this reconceptualization of our religion as a force meant to rebuke and transform society to a thing that is instead meant to be conformed to society and its fleeting trends, has done nothing except make us superfluous. Why “superfluous”? Because a religion that merely attaches itself to the fads of the world like a parasite, and regurgitates those fads back to the world with only a little “Jesus seasoning” sprinkled on top has nothing of real value to contribute. It would not surprise me in the slightest if the widely reported decline in church attendance—and decline of the number of self-proclaimed Christians generally—were due not to us “not being loving enough”, but due to the fact that we no longer actually stand for anything and thus are no longer appealing to anyone who wants a full and meaningful life.
Getting closer to the purpose of this essay: there’s a point where avoiding conflict or controversy out of wanting to be “nice” or “kind” becomes a form of enabling darkness. There’s a point where the desire to be “nice” or “kind” entails turning a blind eye to very obvious cultural and global problems so as not to be offensive or “exclusionary”. In essence, there’s a point where being “nice” and “kind” becomes a very convenient excuse for being a coward. Many famous Christian leaders have fallen into this trap as of late. Many Christian leaders with large public followings (who claim to care about the social and political sphere) have essentially insisted upon looking—or even becoming—stupefyingly naive about existentially threatening issues.
This problem is exacerbated by leftist movements in the West (authoritarian and manipulative) that have claimed a monopoly on “empathy” and “compassion”, and have weaponized these concepts to guilt people into supporting their ideas and policies; inevitably leading to Western Christianity being co-opted, and its idolatry of “niceness” and “kindness” causing Christian leaders to direct any words of condemnation (or rare talk of sin) almost solely at critics of the agendas of “compassionate empathetic liberals”.*
And though I’m not sure when exactly our transition in Western Christianity from Aragorn to Beaver Cleaver occurred cross-denominationally, the Catholic Church specifically under the late Pope Francis typified this approach of “niceness above all else, damn the conservatives”. And now it seems Pope Leo XIV is going to stay that same course.
During last Sunday, which was Pentecost Sunday, the new pontiff was giving a homily at St. Peter’s Square and had this to say about migration both in Europe (primarily from the Middle East) and in the U.S. (primarily from Latin America):
“Where there is love, there is no room for prejudice, for ‘security zones’ separating us from our neighbors, for the exclusionary mindset that—tragically—we now see emerging also in political nationalisms. […] Let us invoke the Spirit of love and peace, that He may open borders, break down walls, dispel hatred, and help us to live as children of our one Father who is in heaven.”
He went on later in the sermon to encourage Catholics to “move beyond our fear of those who are different”; insinuating that any Christian who opposes unrestricted migration must be motivated by racism and xenophobia, instead of having valid concerns that mass migration from third world countries will lead to sharp increases in assault, theft, trafficking, drug cartels, gangs, and terrorism.
This is not the first time Pope Leo XIV has made statements like this, although it is the first time he has done so as pope. Before he was pope, when he was still Bishop Robert Prevost, he previously remarked about President Trump and his supporters that “A person who thinks only of building walls, and not of building bridges, is not Christian.”
Mkay.
A reminder to the Holy Father that the Vatican has walls. And armed men ready to inflict violence on hostiles. And no bridges. Oh, and the Vatican enforces entry control checkpoints at all of its museums as well as the Sistine Chapel. If we were to think of something with which to compare these entry control checkpoints (where some people are allowed through and others are turned around), that something could probably best be described as... uh… a type of “border”.
Perhaps, then, if the Holy Father wanted to act in a way that was consistent with how he wants every other country to behave (at least in the West), he would lead by example and order that the Vatican walls be torn down, stop enforcing checkpoints, and fire all his armed security. That way his beloved “neighbors” from Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, and other Islamic locales (who are merely “different”, mind you, none of them are dangerous) can waltz into every Vatican building and do… whatever the hell they want.
^ Don’t let your eyes fool you. This Pontifical Guard isn’t holding a lethal SIG 552. He’s holding a “love & peace” gun that shoots candy.
Another reminder to the Holy Father: you’re the Holy Father. You’re supposed to act better than the typical clueless celebrities in Hollywood who:
Call for “gun control” but have armed bodyguards.
Call for “free housing for the homeless” but own mansions with plenty of empty rooms.
Call for expanding social welfare programs but don’t pay taxes.
Call for “open borders” but live in gated communities; and can always move to Lyford Cay or Monaco on a private jet if the open borders they’ve supported cause their own country to collapse.
Being the Holy Father means you’re the representative of Christ on earth. Which means that whenever you make declarations ex cathedra, it’s straight from the Holy Spirit. And even when you’re not speaking ex cathedra, from a Catholic’s perspective you’re still the most important person in the world, and the words you say are supposed to be taken seriously. All this to ask… what are you doing? And for that matter, what was your predecessor doing? Do you have any idea how demoralizing it is to the faithful conservative Catholic laity that the bishops and the cardinals and the Big Papas of the past 12 years have completely lost their marbles; choosing to adopt the worldview of John Lennon’s “Imagine” instead of the worldview of sacred scripture, the early church fathers, the wisdom of the saints, and previous councils and popes?
Get your shit together.
When two adults are in a room having a serious heated exchange about immigration or war or crime (wherein things like statistics, probabilities, policy results, policy repercussions, resource availability, resource scarcity, resource distribution, security, and prevention are brought up and their validity debated), you essentially interjecting with “Let’s have peace and love and kindness and joy and welcome the stranger, yippee!” has a very unserious quality to it. You sound silly. Because grown men aren’t supposed to issue kindergarten platitudes as an answer to severe problems that threaten civilizations. Even if they’re the pope. (Especially if they’re the pope.)
Also, “the exclusionary mindset of political nationalisms”?
Yeah, we’re a world of nations. We’re a world of distinct cultures, histories, customs, laws, and myths. And nationalists are the only political force that seem to acknowledge and embrace this.
And yes, cultures and customs and laws can change and evolve—slowly, organically, in stages—but we’re not an amorphous blob called “humanity” that can just be transferred from one place to another with no issue. We have roots. No one is entitled to settle in any country of their choosing, and even if someone does legally immigrate somewhere, they have to assimilate. They can’t just form their own “micro-country” within the country to which they fled. Nor can they rape and traffic our women, kidnap our children, shoot our police officers, desecrate our memorials, and climb on top of our monuments waving their flags as if they’ve “conquered” us. How dare you, actually, for choosing to be this naive.
^ “Strict citizenship policy”? There must be a mistake. What’s with this exclusionary mindset?!
And you’re not in line with Catholic tradition, by the way. Not at all.
Catholic priests and theologians in the past who devoted themselves to the Church’s social teaching came to a conclusion very different from the one you preached (to the whole world) this last Sunday.
For instance, the Jesuit priest Fr. Henry Davis, who taught in his 1935 book Moral and Pastoral Theology that:
“The right of a sovereign state to regulate the entry and settlement of foreigners is derived from its obligation to promote the common good of its people. It would be contrary to justice and prudence to allow unrestricted immigration when such would lead to disorder or harm to the established community.”
Or similarly, a decade prior, the Dominican Fr. Dominic Prümmer, who wrote in his 1923 book Manual of Moral Theology:
“The state has the right, and indeed the duty, to control the influx of foreigners to protect the rights of its citizens and maintain public order. This includes the power to impose limitations on immigration when the common good so demands.”
Or, lastly, St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, who—writing seven centuries before either gentlemen—declared in his Summa Theologiae:
“A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now, to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole citizenry or to someone acting on behalf of the whole citizenry. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole citizenry or to a public personage who has care of the whole citizenry: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.”
Translation: any legislation or effort undertaken by representatives or judges—who are charged with serving the best interest of a populace—that directly hurts, displaces, disorients, impoverishes, and dilutes the power of said populace is fundamentally unjust. Hence, as unrestricted migration undermines a society’s effort to create communities of shared values and interests, renders impossible the ability of law enforcement to keep those communities safe, and affects the availability and cost and quality of land (public and private), a call for “opening borders” and “breaking down walls” can only be interpreted as a call contrary to Aquinas’ notion of the common good.
Governments have every right then to: set limits on the amount of legal immigration they want (as well as the right to choose what countries they want immigration from and which they do not), arrest and deport illegal immigrants, punish businesses and individuals who aid and abet illegal immigrants, and sanction other countries who refuse to stop the flow of their people from coming. Furthermore, the citizenry of a nation has every right to demand all of the above from their government. And when governments, private institutions, NGOs, and—yes—even members of religious hierarchies ignore the protests of a nation’s citizens against excessive or illegal migration, and defiantly seek to accelerate that migration, then this is contrary to the good and worthy of resistance.
⚜︎⚜︎⚜︎
No doubt more than a few Catholics would take issue with my tone (especially those who confuse Catholicism with hyperpapalism), and would likely point out how “hurt” the new pope would be if he ever read this. I’m not concerned with this objection because 1) the pope won’t read this, and 2) insofar as “the harshness of my tone”, my response would be that it’s okay because Leo’s from Chicago. And I know he’s from Chicago because that’s all I’ve been told about him literally fifty-thousand times since he became pope over a month ago. “The Pope from Chicago. Did you know he’s from Chicago? He’s from Chicago. The Chicago Pope! From Chicago.” Well alright, seeing as how every pundit, news anchor, late show host, and podcaster wants me to think of “the Pope from Chicago” in the most annoyingly stereotypical Italian-American tough guy Sopranos terms (“Aaaay c’mon he’s from Chicago! It’s a ruff place widalotta ruff naybuhoods and corrapchun, and if you don’ like deep-dish pizza geddattaheres!”) then I guess Pope Leo can handle it right?
The First Vatican Council of 1870, in its dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus, made clear that only when the pope speaks ex cathedra are Catholics obligated to adhere to his pronouncements and treat them as infallible. Therefore, if a fallible non-ex cathedra opinion of a pope conflicts with moral and social beliefs traditionally held by the Church, we as laity ought to cling to tradition and challenge (sometimes forcefully, sometimes with humor, sometimes with both) the Holy Father’s fallible perspective on political and cultural issues. Especially if that fallible perspective is clearly influenced by—and favorable to—liberalism, globalism, secularism, and hostile modernity.
In regard to what was said last Sunday, while I’m disappointed, I can’t say I’m surprised. (The curse of becoming a reactionary in your 30s is that it doesn’t take a long time for very little to surprise you about human foolishness, and yet you still have so much life left with which to observe it.) Traditional Catholics knew when the late Pope Francis stacked the College of Cardinals with appointments who shared his progressive views, that it was a naked attempt to rig papal elections after his death and ensure the Church continued along his desired path.** While I doubt the Holy Spirit will allow this diabolical scheme to succeed in the long term, we traditional Catholics still knew that the odds were not great that the pope immediately after Francis would take a hard stance against Islamic jihadism, against transgender ideology, against abortion, or be aggressive when it came to internal church battles over female ordination, same-sex blessings, and suppression of the Latin Mass. And, as early as it is in Leo XIV’s papacy, it does look like conservative Catholics are gonna have to buckle up for more Francis-style popery. Especially more pacifistic and anti-national sovereignty rhetoric.
Which, without being directly connected, also likely means more Novus Ordo cringe mediocrity.
Which means more “Gather Us In” and other suicide-inducing hymns from Glory & Praise.
Which means more felt banners with white doves that say “peace” on them that hang over 18th and 19th century cathedral carvings of dragons and swords; like a toddler’s ugly scribble drawing being placed as an “ornament” in the middle of an otherwise immaculately decorated Christmas tree by an appeasing mother.
Because religious liberalism is a package deal. It’s never just one fruit, it’s a whole damned fruit basket.
You don’t just get liberalism in theology and traditionalism in aesthetics. Nope. It’s lengthy homilies about weapons disarmament and bad guitar music from the worship band. It’s excitement about working to abolish the death penalty and Susan from the parish council reminding everyone that the “spirit of Vatican II” requires terracotta carpet in the foyer instead of stone tile. It’s looking at how “hip” and “cool” and “with the times” the Episcopal Church is, and being envious (which is dumbfounding, seeing as how you walk into an Episcopal Church and find that it’s even deader than the local bowling alley at noon on a Wednesday).
Oh well.
The good news is that the younger priests in seminaries, especially in America, are overwhelmingly conservative theologically and politically. In 20 or 30 years, we Catholics in the West will wrest our Church back from the vice grip of the hippies wearing vestments. Then… no more felt banners. No more guitars. No more bad carpets. No more wistful dreaming of “no borders”, “no walls”, and “no fighting” (🎶 above us only sky 🎶). We’ll be done with all that. We’ll get our Gregorian chant back. We’ll get the full beauty of our cathedrals back. And more importantly, we’ll get our common sense back.
