Samuel Waveru writes in further response to our earlier exchange:

Dear Mr Wang,

Let me begin by thanking you for your response to the piece I wrote. Based on what you said, I gathered that your Catholic faith is very important to you. That is perfectly in order; I can understand and respect that.

I want to make it clear that I am not anti-Christian or anti-Catholic. However, I should point out that it comes across as somewhat presumptuous—if not outright arrogant—for you to claim with absolute certainty that other people’s faiths are the worship of “false gods” and the offering of “incense to demons.” There are 1.2 billion people who practice Hinduism, which has 33 major deities—not to mention countless lesser gods and goddesses. There are 90 million people who practice Shintoism. I’m curious: do you believe all these people are worshipping demons as well? If so, then by your standard, hell will be a rather crowded place.

It is estimated that about 2 million Europeans practice Norse, Baltic, Roman, and Hellenic traditions. I think they have a right to do so.

In any case, the question of which religion is true and which is false isn’t what matters most to me. I have never been to heaven or hell, and so I try to avoid judging religions based on those kinds of divine assertions. Instead, I try to judge a religion more based on the overall effect it is having on people’s lives on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps you might call that a “materialist” perspective, but I would say that we do live in a material world.

I believe that Catholicism has many admirable qualities that guide people’s lives on a daily basis. “Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal” are just a few examples of Christian beliefs that are very good for people to abide by in everyday life.

The argument I tried to put across—and one you agreed to—is that Catholicism does not say much in relation to race, tribe, or group survival. Each individual is simply judged based on their belief in a particular set of dogmas and doctrines. A catholic in Poland is no different than one in the Congo or Guatemala. All that matters is whether they have faith or not.

I think you would agree that immigration into the West is by far the single biggest threat it faces. This is why one cannot simply gloss over it like it’s just another random political issue—like whether school vouchers should be a thing or not. The damage done by reckless immigration policies will wreck the West in an irredeemable way from which it cannot recover. The rise in tension, crime, and societal distrust is just the beginning of far worse problems to come. The threat posed is unlike any other in the history of the West. Looking to understand how this situation unfolded in the first place is absolutely crucial, and therefore no path of inquiry should be verboten. This is why one must look at how something as powerful as religion, impacts people’s views on immigration or race.

All too often, Catholic charities in the West have been seen helping illegal immigrants after they have crossed borders. This is particularly true in America. It is also the case that Pope Francis frequently advocated on behalf of illegal immigrants into the West. I am not surprised by this phenomenon because the people who work for these charities genuinely believe they are actually doing God’s work by helping the less fortunate. The late Pope also probably believed he was advocating on behalf of the weak when he campaigned for illegal immigration into the West.

Now, I’m not trying to imply that all—or even a majority—of Catholics favor the actions of these charities or support legal and illegal immigration into the West. My point is that Catholicism is not very strong on a topic that is quite important.

It is important to note that just because Catholicism is not very strong on tribal survival doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. Perhaps there are Western Catholic bishops who may be willing to do the work of aligning Catholic doctrine with the group survival that the West so desperately needs right now.

The final point I would like to make has to do with ethical universalism. Just because I criticized the universalism of the Catholic Church does not mean that I believe in ethical relativism based on racial or group loyalty. Quite to the contrary—supporting freedom of association or dissociation does not negate the fact that certain values are universally applicable to all people, regardless of culture, race, gender, or other differences. One cannot, for example, justify theft, enslavement, rape, or murder on the basis of cultural differences, language, religion, race, or ethnicity. My defense of group or tribal loyalty does not justify one group violating the rights of another.

Discrimination and exclusion can be based on any metric as long as it is voluntary—this can include race, religious denomination, or even ideological persuasion. This does not negate the existence of certain “God-given” universal principles that are discovered rather than legislated by government or man. The right to life, individual autonomy, and private property are examples of these universal ethics.

Regards,

Samuel

Sebastian Wang replies:

Mr Waveru,

Thank you for your latest reply. I appreciate the effort to maintain civility and the openness with which you present your views. You have clarified that you do not regard yourself as anti-Christian or anti-Catholic, and I shall accept that as stated. That said, we continue to differ fundamentally on matters that are, to me, non-negotiable—not because I am intolerant of disagreement, but because I believe, as the Catholic Church has always taught, that religious truth is not subject to pragmatic convenience.

You object to my statement that non-Christian religions worship false gods, even going so far as to call it “presumptuous” and “arrogant.” Yet this is not my invention. It is the unbroken teaching of the Church since the apostolic age. Saint Paul wrote plainly of the pagans, as did the writers of the Old Testament:

ὅτι πάντες θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια — “For all the gods of the nations are devils” (Psalm 95:5 LXX; KJV Psalm 96:5).

The Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the Catechisms of every age, and every orthodox Christian confession have affirmed that while pagans may sometimes grope toward the divine, they do not know the true God unless they worship the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. What they worship is, in theological fact, not God. That this view offends modern sensibilities is irrelevant to its truth.

I do not deny the sincerity of Hindus or Shintoists, nor do I question their human dignity. But sincerity is not a substitute for truth. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” says Christ; οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ — “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6 KJV). Christianity is not an interchangeable moral code among others. It is a revealed religion. Its dogmas are not optional. To assert that millions believe otherwise is true. To imply, therefore, that we must all be agnostic about it, is to mistake popularity for revelation.

You write, “I have never been to heaven or hell.” Nor have I. But the Church is not grounded in personal experience; she is grounded in the Incarnation. That you prefer to judge religions “based on the overall effect they have on people’s lives” is indeed a materialist criterion, and one that leads inevitably to relativism. You may say, as you do later, that you believe in “God-given universal principles,” but once you abandon revealed religion, your claim to such principles is unsupported. “God-given” becomes a metaphor for your own moral instincts. That is not religion. It is ethics dressed in religious vocabulary.

You note, accurately, that Catholicism is not grounded in blood, race, or tribal survival. That is because it is Catholic—universal, addressed to all men in all nations. It judges not by ancestry, but by grace. This is a feature, not a flaw. No one is excluded from baptism because of his birth. No one is saved without faith because of his descent. That a Catholic in Poland is no different from one in Congo is exactly the point. You may view this as a weakness; I know it to be the mark of the Church of Christ.

You raise again the issue of immigration. As I have already conceded, mass immigration has been a reckless and destructive policy. That Catholics, even bishops and pontiffs, may have erred gravely in supporting such policies is not in question. But this is a question of prudential judgment, not of Catholic doctrine. The Church did not ordain the Hart-Celler Act in America, nor the European open-border system, nor does She canonise every papal opinion. You argue that this issue is so grave that it cannot be treated like any other “random political issue.” Very well. But its gravity does not make it theological. It is a temporal crisis, not a doctrinal one.

Indeed, the Catholic Church does not, and cannot, issue dogma about population control, immigration quotas, or ethnonational policy. These are the realm of politics and statecraft. That some Catholic clergy have foolishly lent moral cover to demographic suicide does not invalidate the Church’s mission. It simply confirms what should already be obvious: not every bishop is a prophet, and not every Pope is Leo the Great.

As for your suggestion that perhaps the Church could evolve to support “group survival,” I must be direct. This is not how doctrine works. The deposit of faith is not an instrument of policy. The Creed is not a charter for racial self-organisation. It is a supernatural revelation of God’s triune nature, the Incarnation, and the means of salvation. You may wish for a religion that places the survival of European tribes above the salvation of souls. But such a religion would not be Catholic. It would be merely tribal with a crucifix painted on the shield. You are free to found or join such a system. But do not ask the Church of Christ to become it.

Finally, you say that your defence of tribal loyalty does not justify harm. That is well said. But it is also deeply inadequate. One cannot affirm a tribal metaphysic while insisting that universal moral law remains intact unless one believes in a Lawgiver above the tribe. You speak of “God-given universal principles,” but reject the only universal Church that has ever credibly defined and defended them. You cannot have Jerusalem without Christ. And you cannot have Christ without His Church.

You want the Church to support ethnocentrism, but not relativism. You want divine authority for racial preference, but not for doctrinal exclusivity. You want the fruits of Christianity without the root. That is not reform. It is wishful thinking.

I wish you peace. But I will not retreat one syllable from what I wrote: those who reject Christ do not know the Father. Those who worship other gods, however ancient or poetic, are not worshipping the True God. And no racial, tribal, or cultural loyalty can substitute for the Cross of Christ.

ἐν δυνάμει Θεοῦ—in the power of God.

Sebastian Wang
Catholic
Confirmed in the Faith