By David Carlin

When I was in high school, a school managed and mostly staffed by Christian Brothers, our Latin teacher was a young diocesan priest. I don't believe he taught me much Latin (though I still remember the first line of the Aeneid), but he taught me at least one great sociological truth. One day, leaving Virgil aside for a few minutes, he told us that the greatest rival to Catholicism in modern times was, not Protestantism, but nationalism.

I would broaden that statement and say that nationalism has been the greatest "religious" rival not just of Catholicism, but of Christianity in general. Communism in the 20th century was another great rival "religion," but nationalism - which first appeared in strength on the geopolitical scene in the 18th century - was even greater. It was nationalism that defeated Communism. Even in Russia, Russians loved Russia more than they loved Communism.

Much depends of course on how we define religion. Let's say that a religion is a moral community that provides its members with (a) an explanation of the universe, (b) a purpose in life, (c) a code of morality, and (d) a mystical connection with all other members of the community. Catholicism does that, and so does Communism, and so does nationalism. And so they are all forms of "religion."

One of the surest proofs that you belong to a religion is that you are willing, if need be, to suffer death for your religion. Over many centuries Christian martyrs have given such proof again and again, and so have many Communists. As for martyrs of nationalism, think of the American Civil War and World Wars I and II.

Even today Christian martyrs are being produced in large numbers in some parts of Africa. One may doubt, however, that many of today's Christians in Europe and North America are made of the same martyrdom stuff as our African co-religionists.

The religion of nationalism, however, unlike the religion of Communism, didn't necessarily see itself as the enemy of Christianity. In some countries it imagined that it could co-exist with the old faith and that the two - nationalism and Christianity - could, so to speak, marry one another, or at least cohabit, locked in a not-quite-licit embrace. In the United States, for instance, being a good Christian made you a better American nationalist, and being an American nationalist made you a better Christian. Or so at least it has been widely felt.

In some countries - France comes to mind - you could be an ardent nationalist while at the same time being an ardent anti-clericalist. Think of Georges Clemenceau.

In any case, nationalism, whether in combination with Christianity or standing alone, has been, as my old Latin teacher told us, a great and powerful modern religion. He told us this, it may be noted, while attempting (alas, with scant success) to teach us boys to read and appreciate the greatest piece of nationalistic literature ever written, the Aeneid.

For a thousand years or more the Western World has been engaged in a process of modernization. For several centuries, this process required that societies be organized as monarchies with increasingly strong monarchs. Eventually, kingdoms came to think of themselves as nations (even if they retained nominal monarchs).

More recently, individuals and organizations in the vanguard of modernization have come to believe that the Age of Nations, like the earlier Age of Monarchs, has had its day. It is due to be replaced by an Age of Globalism or Transnationalism. We are living, not so much in individual nations like Germany or France or America, as in a great world city or Cosmopolis.

This Cosmopolis is of course not yet fully formed, and its full construction may take a few centuries. But its outlines can be seen (look for example at the European Union). And if we are wise, we will work at building this city, the progressives say, abandoning our increasingly archaic attachments to this or that particular nation.

If we are truly modernized men or w...