Another comment from Dr. Fleming worth reading:

I know that many Catholics today believe that their Church teaches and has always taught that national and ethnic groups are insignificant and that all Christians have a universal obligation to help equally all people everywhere. Therefore, no country can pass and enforce immigration and trade restrictions or conduct wars that protect and benefit its citizens as opposed to all mankind. This is, quite simply, a grotesque misreading of Catholic/Christian doctrine.

This is no place to go into a lengthy and complicated discussion of this point, but a few simple observations are in order. In the Old Testament, we are given the story of Babel as a warning against human presumption. Babel is figuratively an attempt at a multi-cultural empire and it falls apart because of its diversity. We are also told the story of a peculiar people whose special relationship to God requires them to defend their way of life against others. In the NT, Christ and the Apostles do teach us that the distinctions between Jews and Samaritans, Greeks and Jews are insignificant in spiritual and religious terms, but they say nothing about the amalgamation of all nations and responsibilities. in the Scriptures and in the writings of the early Church, Christians are told repeatedly to carry out the ordinary obligations of everyday life–the duties of spouses, parents and children, slaves and masters, and citizens. Even the gentiles do these things, we are told, which makes it even more incumbent upon Christians to fulfill such obligations.

The fact is that in a flawed world, we must defend ourselves, our families, our neighbors, and our fellow-citizens from those who would prey upon them, whether the enemies are domestic criminals or foreign invaders. When distinctions, no matter how arbitrarily arrived at, are made, we have a duty to make sure that they are not used to cut against interests of our people as opposed to their people. In the color-blind world of liberal theory, there would be no special programs privileging people of one color over another and people like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton would not be given a public forum. But when a movement has been created to marginalize and extinguish the group you happen to belong to, you are justified in protecting your own interests and in refusing to sign on to a suicide pact.

The Catholic universalism that Tradcat invokes is a product of the anti-Christian Enlightenment that borrows Christian phrases and puts them to decidedly non-Christian uses. A good example is the pseudo-Catholic support for the welfare state, which invokes the Christian language of charity as a justification for imposing Marxist policies.

The choice that we face today is not between sentimental universalism, whether in its anti-Christian Marxist or pseudo-Christian form, and racialism, but between the historic Christian view, demanding justice and charity to strangers but also requiring us to fulfill our particular duties to family, friends, and fellow citizens, and two nasty ideologies created in the Enlightenment, universalism and racial nationalism. One does not have to be a Marxist to practice charity–quite the contrary-and one does not have to be an anti-Christian bigot to protect one’s children.