By Michael Pakaluk

"Our foreign-born citizens must permit us to say that they have been imprudent and have committed some serious mistakes," so writes an esteemed Catholic social philosopher about the immigration question. "It is wrong to claim as a natural right what is really only a boon. No nation is bound to admit foreigners to all the rights and immunities of natural-born citizens."

This highly revered author continues, "The nation has the natural right to preserve itself, and that which constitutes what it is, – its national spirit, genius, usages, manners, and customs, – and therefore has a natural right to guard against any influx of foreigners, which, in its judgment, is incompatible with the maintenance of its identity."

This Catholic of very good judgment then attacks the universal humanism which some call "globalism": "For foreigners to claim as a natural right to be placed on an equal footing with natural-born citizens, is entirely to misrepresent American republicanism, and to assert the abominable doctrine of the solidarity of peoples, maintained by the infamous revolutionists of Europe, which is incompatible, not only with all regular government, but with all national independence."

I will not name him just yet. Let's see if you can guess his name as I say more about him. He's been someone always disposed to say what he regards as true, not what's "politic."

Just before he published these words, he had been offered a distinguished professorship at a newly founded Catholic university, in a country from which many of these "foreigners" were emigrating. But the religious leaders of that country, especially the Catholic bishops, were so disturbed by his sentiments, that they insisted that his invitation be withdrawn. In effect, he was cancelled.

True, it was an odd invitation in the first place. Although he was a recognized social and political philosopher, and a wide-ranging theologian, he was asked to lecture in a subject outside his expertise. I will reproduce part of the Rector's letter of invitation:

we feel it impossible to offer you any inducement sufficient to lead you to connect yourself personally with the institution, nor indeed are we ourselves yet in a position to make such an offer to anyone. But we have thought we might still avail ourselves of the name and assistance of various eminent Catholics, in a way which it is possible both for them and for us to contemplate.

What I take the liberty of asking you, is, whether you would consent to accept the office of Lecturer Extraordinary for (we will say) a year.

The subject which I should propose to your acceptance would be one of such surpassing interest and breadth that I am often surprised that it is not put more prominently forward in Collegiate establishments. We never omit a professorship of astronomy, but how much more fertile a subject of thought is the province of geography! Viewed under its different heads, as physical, moral, and political, it gives scope to a variety of profound philosophical speculations, which will at once suggest themselves to your mind. It treats of the very stage and field of all history; of the relation of that field to the characters of nations, to social institutions, and to forms of religion, of the migrations of tribes, the direction and course of conquests and empires, the revolutions and extension of commerce, and the future destinies of the human race. This is the subject I offer to your acceptance.

This social and philosopher, not inclined to lecture on geography, was disposed to turn down such an invitation. He let some powerful friends know the same, after which the invitation was changed. The Rector sent a revised invitation:

it disappointed me that you did not see your way to assist us in the University in the way I pointed out. . . .It has struck me you would not be disinclined to take the chair of Philosophy of Religion, or the Evidences of Christianity, or of the Notes of the Church, especially as viewe...