Review Reports - The Eclipse of the Common Good: How American Nationalism Overcame Catholic Social Teaching in the 20th Century and How the 21st Century Might Reclaim It

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Brief Summary

The manuscript examines how American religious nationalism has shaped U.S. Catholic identity, contrasting the relative inclusion of Catholics in a “chosen nation” narrative with the persistent exclusion of Native Americans, and evaluating this dynamic through Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and the common good. Inclusion, the author argues, occurs at a price: Catholics align with nationalist frameworks that conflict with CST’s universalism. Set against the exclusion of Native Americans, CST’s vision of the common good—grounded in papal encyclicals and conciliar documents—emerges as a critical alternative to nationalist exceptionalism. The main theses, stated or implied, are: (1) American nationalism rests on three pillars: racial–religious identity, reading military/economic success as covenantal blessing, and a salvific mission to reorder the world; (2) U.S. Catholics achieved inclusion by aligning with those pillars (e.g., becoming “white enough,” sacralising war, joining anti-communist coalitions), thereby attenuating CST’s universalist demands; (3) Native Americans remained marginal because their identity and metaphysic (land, sovereignty, ritual) conflict with those pillars and resist assimilation; (4) CST rejects nationalist messianism across all three pillars and centres an international, peace-first, poor-centred, universal common good; (5) reversing the “eclipse” requires concrete CST praxis (solidarity with the poor, de-militarisation, economic justice, ecological conversion, and reformed global governance). Strengths include the ambitious comparative frame, the wide historical sweep (colonial rhetoric to contemporary papal teaching), extensive use of CST sources, and an effective bridge between theology and political history with rich primary quotations.

General comments

Key terms require definition. “Common good” is invoked but not defined in the author’s own terms. Given the title and argument, an explicit definition—situated within CST and contrasted with national prosperity/security—would improve clarity.

The philosophical landscape is missing. CST is one position among several influential accounts of the common good in political philosophy. A short orienting paragraph would situate CST vis-à-vis among others: liberal egalitarianism (Rawls), where the right has priority over comprehensive goods and social cooperation is guided by public reason and the two principles of justice; communitarianism (Etzioni), which stresses shared moral culture, responsibilities alongside rights, and a “common good” that balances autonomy and social order; or the capabilities approach (Sen), which reframes evaluation around expanding people’s real freedoms through public reasoning rather than aggregating utilities. Positioning CST’s personalist, teleological common good understanding against these frameworks would show convergences and divergences. The central tension is identified but not analysed: Catholics are integrated while CST critiques nationalism. The mechanism over time remains unclear. Stating whether inclusion unfolded despite CST, by sidelining it, or via selective reception would strengthen the argument. The paper notes divergent trajectories—CST expanding its universal scope while U.S. public life grew more nationalistic—yet does not explain how Catholics navigated this gap or whether earlier, less explicit CST made inclusion easier. Theses appear implicitly. Making them explicit and numbered in the ‘Introduction’ would allow the Discussion and Conclusion to assess each one directly.

The structure needs revision. A titled ‘Conclusion’ that restates the theses, synthesises findings, and notes limits would improve coherence. A distinct ‘Discussion’ that positions the results in current scholarship, draws implications for CST praxis and American religious history, and outlines future research would increase interpretive value.

Scope and comparators would benefit from a brief acknowledgement that national messianism is not uniquely American (e.g., Polish messianism) and from a justification of the U.S. focus (institutionalisation in civil religion; global reach).

Terminology needs precision. “Natives” should be defined (e.g., American Indian and Alaska Native peoples as recognised in U.S. contexts) and the inclusion/exclusion of Indigenous peoples in U.S. territories clarified.

Crossing and mixed identities are under-addressed. Catholic Indigenous communities, Black Catholics (who often did not become “white”), and recent Catholic migrants are not analysed as test cases for the “inclusion at a price” thesis.

Article-Specific Weaknesses

A short ‘Methodology’ section would clarify the logic of selection. Identifying the corpora (Puritan sermons, presidential rhetoric, civil-religion texts, magisterial CST, selected secondary scholarship), the selection criteria (texts exemplifying the three pillars; cases of inclusion/exclusion), the analytic approach (conceptual typology; close reading; comparative contrast), and the limits (illustrative, not exhaustive; U.S. focus) would strengthen transparency.
The comparison concentrates on Catholics and Native Americans. This design is defensible, but the rationale should be stated. Mixed identities appear episodically (e.g., Elias Boudinot; Sr. Geraldine Clifford) without systematic analysis of how Catholic identity intersects with Indigenous sovereignty and ritual. Black Catholics are mentioned only in passing, and recent Catholic migrants are not treated as sustained cases. Either justify the asymmetry (depth over breadth) or add a compact subsection that tests the thesis on one mixed-identity case.

Review-Specific Comments

Coverage of CST sources, U.S. nationalist rhetoric, and the Catholic inclusion story is broad and useful. The Native comparison is persuasive but not suffcientluy elaborated and risks appearing illustrative rather than sustained; modest expansion would balance the design. The topic is highly relevant to Religions readers in theology, politics, and history.
The research gap is implied rather than stated. An explicit paragraph near the start identifying the gap—absence of a study combining a three-pillar typology of U.S. messianic nationalism, a mechanism of Catholic inclusion, a CST-based critique, and a contrastive exclusion case—would clarify the manuscript’s contribution.

References require standardisation. The list is incomplete and inconsistently formatted; in-text citations oscillate between footnotes with full bibliographic details and author-only mentions without years; titles of magisterial documents vary between Latin and English. MDPI/Chicago Author–Date practice calls for uniform in-text Author–Date citations and a single, alphabetised list.

Specific comments to thematic sections

“What Makes a Messiah” is the most structured section. The three-pillar typology is clear and effective. A brief textual summary mirroring a table would sharpen uptake.

“How to Become Messiah” explains mechanisms of Catholic assimilation (whiteness, sacralisation of war, anti-communism). Linking each mechanism explicitly to a corresponding CST tension (e.g., just-peace teaching vs sacralised war; preferential option for the poor vs valorised wealth) would integrate the critique.

“The Evaluation of Messianship” deploys CST sources effectively. A concise, explicit definition of “common good,” contrasted with national prosperity/prestige and situated alongside other philosophical stances. Greater focus on changes over time, illustrated on a timeline, would help readers grasp the dynamics of CST teaching and the relevant political processes.

“The Rejection of Messianship” moves from principle to praxis and attends to institutional levers (solidarity with the poor, curbs on speculation, demilitarisation with a global fund, ecological conversion, UN reform). Strengths lie in concrete proposals; weaknesses arise from limited linkage back to the three pillars and the article’s title. Framing each proposal as a direct reclamation—identity (anti-racialism, Indigenous sovereignty, subsidiarity), blessing through wealth/war (de-sacralise war; order the economy to the poor), mission (from national exceptionalism to universal common good)—would align praxis with diagnosis.

The present ending functions as an implicit conclusion. A titled ‘Conclusion’ that restates the theses, answers the central tension (integration vs CST), and notes limits would complete the arc. A distinct ‘Discussion’ should situate the results within civil-religion and CST scholarship, acknowledge non-U.S. messianisms while justifying the U.S. focus, and address the inclusion mechanism (despite CST, by sidelining CST, or via selective reception) and its implications for Catholic public witness and mixed identities.

General Questions Checklist

Clarity and structure are strong in parts but weakened by the missing definition of the key term and the absence of titled ‘Discussion’ and ‘Conclusion’ sections.
References are largely classic CST texts (appropriate); citation practice should be standardised to Author–Date with an alphabetised list.
Figures/tables are absent. Not required, but a simple summary device aligning the three pillars with the CST critique would aid clarity or a time axis.
Conclusions broadly align with the evidence but do not operate as a full ‘Conclusion’. Restating theses, results, implications, and limits would provide closure.
Ethics and data-availability statements are not applicable and should be added in standard form.

Author Response

I wish to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find below the detailed responses, explaining as well the relevant revisions/corrections noted by line in the resubmitted file.

Comments 1: Key terms require definition. “Common good” is invoked but not defined in the author’s own terms. Given the title and argument, an explicit definition—situated within CST and contrasted with national prosperity/security—would improve clarity.

Response 1: Agree. Accordingly, page 10, lines 372-395 now include a more explicit discussion of CST’s conception of the common good.

Comments 2: The philosophical landscape is missing. CST is one position among several influential accounts of the common good in political philosophy. A short orienting paragraph would situate CST vis-à-vis among others: liberal egalitarianism (Rawls), where the right has priority over comprehensive goods and social cooperation is guided by public reason and the two principles of justice; communitarianism (Etzioni), which stresses shared moral culture, responsibilities alongside rights, and a “common good” that balances autonomy and social order; or the capabilities approach (Sen), which reframes evaluation around expanding people’s real freedoms through public reasoning rather than aggregating utilities. Positioning CST’s personalist, teleological common good understanding against these frameworks would show convergences and divergences. / “The Evaluation of Messianship” deploys CST sources effectively. A concise, explicit definition of “common good,” contrasted with national prosperity/prestige and situated alongside other philosophical stances. Greater focus on changes over time, illustrated on a timeline, would help readers grasp the dynamics of CST teaching and the relevant political processes.

Response 2: Agree. Accordingly, page 10, lines 396-439 now include an extended orientation grounding CST’s common good in a personalist anthropology, vis a vis competing individualist and communitarian schools, as well as organizing the paragraphs of Section 4 to reflect the chronology from earlier CST (Leo XIII, Piux XI) to later CST (John Paul II, Francis).

Comments 3: The mechanism over time remains unclear. Stating whether inclusion unfolded despite CST, by sidelining it, or via selective reception would strengthen the argument. The paper notes divergent trajectories—CST expanding its universal scope while U.S. public life grew more nationalistic—yet does not explain how Catholics navigated this gap or whether earlier, less explicit CST made inclusion easier.

Response 3: Agree. Therefore, page 7, lines 262-281 now begin section three with an introductory and situating description of the divergent mechanisms by which American Catholicism drifted out of step with the ongoing development of CST, along with both the introduction and conclusion more clearly numbering the theses.

Comments 4: Theses appear implicitly. Making them explicit and numbered in the ‘Introduction’ would allow the Discussion and Conclusion to assess each one directly. The structure needs revision. A titled ‘Conclusion’ that restates the theses, synthesises findings, and notes limits would improve coherence. A distinct ‘Discussion’ that positions the results in current scholarship, draws implications for CST praxis and American religious history, and outlines future research would increase interpretive value.

Response 4: Agree. Therefore, both introduction and conclusion have been clarified to reflect each other, expecting and restating the main theses and findings of the work (page 2, lines 62-72 & page 17, lines 707-721). The discussions across sections III and IV have drawn on further scholarship, while page 16, lines 670 to 693, have developed more future research opportunities.

Comment 5: Scope and comparators would benefit from a brief acknowledgement that national messianism is not uniquely American (e.g., Polish messianism) and from a justification of the U.S. focus (institutionalisation in civil religion; global reach).

Response 5: Agree. Accordingly, the introduction has been reworked to clarify these points (page 1, lines 26-32)

Comment 6: Terminology needs precision. “Natives” should be defined (e.g., American Indian and Alaska Native peoples as recognised in U.S. contexts) and the inclusion/exclusion of Indigenous peoples in U.S. territories clarified.

Response 6: Agreed. Footnote #1 has been dedicated to this purpose.

Comment 7: Crossing and mixed identities are under-addressed. Catholic Indigenous communities, Black Catholics (who often did not become “white”), and recent Catholic migrants are not analysed as test cases for the “inclusion at a price” thesis. / The comparison concentrates on Catholics and Native Americans. This design is defensible, but the rationale should be stated. Mixed identities appear episodically (e.g., Elias Boudinot; Sr. Geraldine Clifford) without systematic analysis of how Catholic identity intersects with Indigenous sovereignty and ritual. Black Catholics are mentioned only in passing, and recent Catholic migrants are not treated as sustained cases. Either justify the asymmetry (depth over breadth) or add a compact subsection that tests the thesis on one mixed-identity case.

Response 7: Agreed, yet difficult to include in the scope of this paper without sacrificing depth for breadth. Further references to mixed identities and the black Catholic experience have been added to help round out this insufficiency (see footnote #15 or page 16, line 682-683), while noting further examination is required in future work.

Comment 8: A short ‘Methodology’ section would clarify the logic of selection. Identifying the corpora (Puritan sermons, presidential rhetoric, civil-religion texts, magisterial CST, selected secondary scholarship), the selection criteria (texts exemplifying the three pillars; cases of inclusion/exclusion), the analytic approach (conceptual typology; close reading; comparative contrast), and the limits (illustrative, not exhaustive; U.S. focus) would strengthen transparency.

Response 8: Agreed, and therefore additions have been made to the introduction (see page 2, lines 62-72) to demonstrate to the reader the methodology to be utilized.

Comment 9: The research gap is implied rather than stated. An explicit paragraph near the start identifying the gap—absence of a study combining a three-pillar typology of U.S. messianic nationalism, a mechanism of Catholic inclusion, a CST-based critique, and a contrastive exclusion case—would clarify the manuscript’s contribution.

Response 9: Agreed, and such a requested piece has been added to the introduction on page 2, lines 54-61.

Comment10: References require standardisation. The list is incomplete and inconsistently formatted; in-text citations oscillate between footnotes with full bibliographic details and author-only mentions without years; titles of magisterial documents vary between Latin and English. MDPI/Chicago Author–Date practice calls for uniform in-text Author–Date citations and a single, alphabetised list.

Response 10: Agreed, and such organizational necessities have been fully standardized.

Comment11: “How to Become Messiah” explains mechanisms of Catholic assimilation (whiteness, sacralisation of war, anti-communism). Linking each mechanism explicitly to a corresponding CST tension (e.g., just-peace teaching vs sacralised war; preferential option for the poor vs valorised wealth) would integrate the critique

Response 11: Agreed, and this has been added later in the paper during the CST evaluation portion, see page 14, lines 586-605.

Comment 12: Framing each proposal as a direct reclamation—identity (anti-racialism, Indigenous sovereignty, subsidiarity), blessing through wealth/war (de-sacralise war; order the economy to the poor), mission (from national exceptionalism to universal common good)—would align praxis with diagnosis.

Response 12: Agreed, thus on page 15, lines 603, 621, and 635, this connection with the three pillars and three CST principles has been made more explicit.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors General: Recommended for publication as a useful reminder of excessive US nationalism at a time of renewed nationalism and retreat from cooperation across the globe. The appearance and relative popularity of a variety of forms of "Christian nationalism" makes the article timely and inserts a useful critical voice into a wide variety of reports of American exceptionalism which will increase as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration. And the author's three part analysis of American nationalism (identity, success, and mission) is historically strong. And the comparison on Catholic and Native American reservations about and alternatives to extreme nationalism is an original and engaging feature of the paper. Finally it would be helpful to combine this paper with a critical commentary on the importance of alternative readings of American "civil religion" a dialogue badly needed for the sester=centennial year. --------------- Commentary: 1) the ideas of the revolution "ruled out any basic challenge to the system"----in fact the idealism of the D of I ("created equal", "inalienable rights" and consent of the governed) was a constant critical and occasionally prophetic element of American discourse from the anti-federalist demand for a bill of rights through the abolitionist--including Frederick Douglass--claim to authentic Americanism to the regular reference of African-American and other critics to universal understanding of American principles eg MLK "I stand with humanity" 2) "theology of one's own people as Ultimate Reality"---regularly reappears about always challenged including by Catholic Americanists like Isaac Heker and John Courtney Murray----Americanization via white and privileged but also as liberation making free commitment to universal principles possible--need to be careful about turning family aspirations into return to Egypt narratives 3) there were and are "passive" as well as "active" understandings of "mission" and those appeals have always been very strong even motivating missionary type activity. 4) very important useful reminder of the important and implications of Vatican II "Pastoral Constitution" Gaudium at Spes--seen as an add-on at the time but brought back to central focus by Francis----universalism of human dignity and solidarity extremely important and often ignored or minimized by US Catholic leaders----and "bottom up" road to solidarity is a bridge to US Catholic experience-----5) could be strengthened by referende to earlier and hugelmy important Catholic accomodations of exteme natioalism, especially in the period from 1918 to 1945 in Italy, Spain, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, Vichy France and Germany, and in milder form in Quebec, Argentina---all under infuence of Quadragesimmo Anno of 1931 and Vatican politics; and 6) finally is Americanism (ideas giving positive meaning to US experience) always a "betrayal of the fundamental universalism of Catholic social teaching"---and native American wisdom?---or can it also be a powerful recurring call to renewal and reform of American Catholicism in service to this neirgborhood of our common home. Attention to the best African American leaders would help build bridges.

Author Response

Comment 1: the ideas of the revolution "ruled out any basic challenge to the system"----in fact the idealism of the D of I ("created equal", "inalienable rights" and consent of the governed) was a constant critical and occasionally prophetic element of American discourse from the anti-federalist demand for a bill of rights through the abolitionist--including Frederick Douglass--claim to authentic Americanism to the regular reference of African-American and other critics to universal understanding of American principles eg MLK "I stand with humanity"

Response 1: Agreed, and I believe this is part of Bercovitch’s point in saying so. I have added further exposition from lines 117 to 121 to help bring out his point more clearly.

Comment 2: "theology of one's own people as Ultimate Reality"---regularly reappears about always challenged including by Catholic Americanists like Isaac Heker and John Courtney Murray----Americanization via white and privileged but also as liberation making free commitment to universal principles possible--need to be careful about turning family aspirations into return to Egypt narratives

Response 2: Agreed, and I have included some further exposition of dissenting voices in a new paragraph between lines 312-348 of pages 8-9.

Comment 3: there were and are "passive" as well as "active" understandings of "mission" and those appeals have always been very strong even motivating missionary type activity.

Response 3: Agreed, and some language has been added to page 15, lines 627-651, indicating a positive understanding of mission in the thinking of CST.

Comment 4: very important useful reminder of the important and implications of Vatican II "Pastoral Constitution" Gaudium at Spes--seen as an add-on at the time but brought back to central focus by Francis----universalism of human dignity and solidarity extremely important and often ignored or minimized by US Catholic leaders----and "bottom up" road to solidarity is a bridge to US Catholic experience-----

Response 4: I am very appreciative of your considered reading, and glad to hear that we share similar concerns in a time such as ours.

Comment 5: could be strengthened by referende to earlier and hugelmy important Catholic accomodations of exteme natioalism, especially in the period from 1918 to 1945 in Italy, Spain, Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, Vichy France and Germany, and in milder form in Quebec, Argentina---all under infuence of Quadragesimmo Anno of 1931 and Vatican politics;

Response 5: Agree, but difficult to enact for want of depth over breadth. However, mention of such a reality has been included in explaining how such nationalist accommodation became the scaffolding that segregated US parishes were built upon. (see line 291)

6) finally is Americanism (ideas giving positive meaning to US experience) always a "betrayal of the fundamental universalism of Catholic social teaching"---and native American wisdom?---or can it also be a powerful recurring call to renewal and reform of American Catholicism in service to this neirgborhood of our common home. Attention to the best African American leaders would help build bridges.

Response 6: Agreed, though in the context of ever-increasing nationalisms, it seemed more fitting to lay the emphasis upon the ways in which CST challenges US nationalism on its own terms. I have included new language on page 16, lines 682-685 to help draw attention to this tension.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the author of this article manuscript submission offers some spirited and at times intriguing treatment of certain important themes and issues of our time, the analysis falls well short of ordinary academic standards. My summary judgment, then, is that the special issue of “Religions” will not benefit from the inclusion of this article manuscript. While some solid sources are cited and while certain sections display more merit than the rest (the conclusions in the final two pages emerge as among the best passages here), the methods of drawing of inferences and conclusions on display here is simply not what one would expect in a respected academic journal. The arguments and findings are not adequately clear, coherent and compelling to warrant publication.

Further, there is a tendency in the text to exaggerate claims and to paint a slightly distorted picture in the interest of proposing certain interpretations of historical events. Even in the first line of the article abstract, we read that “Catholicism is the enemy to the American story” and this requires massive nuance to be intelligible and helpful to the reader. Another example (among many that might be cited here) appears in the discussion of “messianic identity” and its origins around page 8. Key points are asserted and others are hinted at, but the reader is left guessing about much regarding the actual lines of causation that are actually at play here.

Another flaw of the article is a tendency to give in to non-sequiturs. The author often simply provides long lists of facts in rapid sequence without shedding much light on the conceptual linkage. For example, the long paragraph on page 3 jumps from point to point, with little seeming relation between component parts. The reader will be confused, and almost certainly will not be persuaded by the rapid series of only loosely related claims here. Further, in the middle sections of the article, the comparisons between the Roman Catholic and the Native American communities are not clear and well-drawn, so the reader will again be confused or misled.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Besides the substantive points above, the level of English proficiency displayed here is quite weak, as native English speakers will find many instances of unusual phrasing that will distract the reader at many junctures. The grammatical errors are frequent and unfortunate. There are also errors of fact, such as the appearance on page 12 of a Pope John XIII (it should be XXIII) and on the same page a miscalculation of the number of years between the publication of Pacem in Terris (1963) and Fratelli Tutti (2020) which is nowhere near the 70 years claimed (it is not even 60 years). There are also a number of places where the mechanics of writing are sub-standard, with many mistakes of capitalization, punctuation, hyphenation and spacing as well.

Author Response

Comment 1: The methods of drawing of inferences and conclusions on display here is simply not what one would expect in a respected academic journal. The arguments and findings are not adequately clear, coherent and compelling to warrant publication.

Response 1: In understanding of this critique, further editing has attempted to strengthen the development of cause and effect in the author’s arguments, including an extended orientation grounding CST’s common good in a personalist anthropology, vis a vis competing individualist and communitarian schools, (see page 10, lines 396-439), a situating description of the divergent mechanisms by which American Catholicism drifted out of step with the ongoing development of CST (see page 7, lines 262-281), an improved evaluative portion (see page 14, lines 586-605), and methodological improvements to the introduction, purpose, and conclusion (see page 2, lines 62-72).

Comment 2: Further, there is a tendency in the text to exaggerate claims and to paint a slightly distorted picture in the interest of proposing certain interpretations of historical events. Even in the first line of the article abstract, we read that “Catholicism is the enemy to the American story” and this requires massive nuance to be intelligible and helpful to the reader. Another example (among many that might be cited here) appears in the discussion of “messianic identity” and its origins around page 8.

Response 2: In understanding of this critique, further editing passes have worked to eliminate any exaggerative or improperly indicative voice. An entirely revised abstract has been provided on the first page.

Comment 3: Another flaw of the article is a tendency to give in to non-sequiturs. The author often simply provides long lists of facts in rapid sequence without shedding much light on the conceptual linkage. For example, the long paragraph on page 3 jumps from point to point, with little seeming relation between component parts. The reader will be confused, and almost certainly will not be persuaded by the rapid series of only loosely related claims here. Further, in the middle sections of the article, the comparisons between the Roman Catholic and the Native American communities are not clear and well-drawn, so the reader will again be confused or misled.

Response 3: In understanding of this critique, further revisions have included improved linking and argumentative language throughout Parts 1, 2, and 3, in order to demonstrate the cause and effect relations being defended in more clear and united ways.

Comment 4: The grammatical errors are frequent and unfortunate. There are also errors of fact, such as the appearance on page 12 of a Pope John XIII (it should be XXIII) and on the same page a miscalculation of the number of years between the publication of Pacem in Terris (1963) and Fratelli Tutti (2020) which is nowhere near the 70 years claimed (it is not even 60 years). There are also a number of places where the mechanics of writing are sub-standard, with many mistakes of capitalization, punctuation, hyphenation and spacing as well.

Response 4: In light of this critique, relevant errors have been corrected and mechanics have been standardized.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I advise that this be accepted for publication, but subject to a revisiting of section 4 and 5.

While the historical analysis is very comprehensive, a number of revisions need to be made with respect to the theory and application of CST.

Regarding section 4, It might be because of the analysis of the three pillars of nationalism, but there does not seem to be evidence of a corresponding systematic analysis of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, implicating key principles of CST in turn. I see references to some of these principles, such as human dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity. However, while there are references to elements of the social teachings, the explanations of those principles themselves were underdeveloped, which resulted in the latter sections lacking the same systematic coherence as the first three. One way forward would be to contrasting CST's principle of human dignity against the notion of the chosen people, solidarity against the notion of conquest of peoples, and subsidiarity against pretentions of being a "vanguard of civilisations". In order to do this, some further secondary research on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching might be necessary.

Regarding section 5, there is a question on whether this is meant to be an application of the findings of section 4. If it was indeed the case, then it is unclear just which elements of CST were being applied. I believe that enunciating more clearly the principles of CST in section 4 would give some further cogency to this section.

Author Response

Comment 1: Regarding section 4, It might be because of the analysis of the three pillars of nationalism, but there does not seem to be evidence of a corresponding systematic analysis of the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, implicating key principles of CST in turn. I see references to some of these principles, such as human dignity, solidarity and subsidiarity. However, while there are references to elements of the social teachings, the explanations of those principles themselves were underdeveloped, which resulted in the latter sections lacking the same systematic coherence as the first three. One way forward would be to contrasting CST's principle of human dignity against the notion of the chosen people, solidarity against the notion of conquest of peoples, and subsidiarity against pretentions of being a "vanguard of civilisations". In order to do this, some further secondary research on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching might be necessary.

Response 1: Agreed fully—therefore, sections 4 and 5 have been revised with the purpose of organizing the CST critique around human dignity, solidarity, and subsidiarity as answering the three pillars of nationalism. Examples of this include page 14, lines 586-605, and page 15, lines 603-635.

Response 2: Agreed fully—and so the above revisions have also focused upon developing a more coherent throughline to answer the pillars of nationalism directly with concern for human dignity (and the preferential option for the poor), for solidarity (and so a critique on unrestrained markets and war), and with subsidiarity (and so a careful delineation of the need for both local and universal authority). A section selecting certain Native practices has been added (lines 659-674) to compare with CST in an attempt to draw out more clear meaning.