As the language of “Christian Nationalism” gains currency in Britain, the Archbishop of Selsey questions whether it adequately describes the convictions of those seeking to preserve the country’s Christian inheritance. Writing as a patriotic Catholic, he proposes Christian Patriotism as an alternative grounded in Christian moral teaching, British history and a common responsibility which Catholics and Protestants can embrace without compromising their religious convictions.
A PERSONAL EDITORIAL
I have been following with considerable interest the growing enthusiasm among some of our fellow countrymen for the restoration of Britain’s Christian identity, particularly those who have attended the Unite the Kingdom demonstrations carrying crosses, displaying Christian banners and, in some instances, proclaiming the Kingship of Christ. I confess to finding something rather encouraging about it. For most of my lifetime, Christianity has been treated by much of our political and cultural establishment as an historical curiosity, something to be admired perhaps in a medieval cathedral or tolerated during the Christmas holidays, provided nobody takes its actual teaching too seriously.
Now we have people publicly declaring their attachment to Britain’s Christian inheritance, some of whom, I suspect, would not previously have considered themselves especially religious. That is interesting in itself, and potentially encouraging. What I am less convinced about is the wisdom of the political description which some have adopted, or allowed others to apply to them.
Christian Nationalism.
I wonder whether those who employ this expression have really considered what they intend by it, or whether it has simply become a convenient label, borrowed from American political commentary and carried across the Atlantic with much of the controversy already attached. Our own mainstream media have been perfectly happy to adopt it, usually with the suggestion that Christianity, nationalism and racial politics are so closely associated that they scarcely require distinguishing.
Why should we accept that? Particularly when the expression now invites associations with white supremacy, ethno-nationalism, Nazi Germany and the rather peculiar preoccupations of American political religion. I doubt very much that this is what most of those carrying the Cross through London understand themselves to be advocating.
If what they wish to defend is Britain’s Christian cultural inheritance, its historical institutions, traditional customs, moral principles and the place of Christianity in our common life, then surely there is a more appropriate way of describing their intentions.
I would suggest Christian Patriotism.
It is hardly a revolutionary expression, which is part of its attraction. Christians have been discussing the proper duties owed to one’s country for centuries, and the Catholic moral tradition has a good deal to say about them. We need not adopt an American political vocabulary merely because it happens to be fashionable, particularly when it obliges us to explain away implications which have little to do with the cause we wish to advance.
Some will object that changing the name is giving way to those who have deliberately misrepresented the movement. I understand the objection, though I am not convinced by it. There is a difference between defending a principle and becoming unnecessarily attached to a particular expression of it. I have never quite understood the enthusiasm for allowing one’s opponents to supply one’s political vocabulary and then spending every subsequent interview complaining that they have misunderstood it. One might almost suspect that the controversy has become part of the attraction.
I have written about this confusion before. In March, Nuntiatoria considered the increasing tendency to characterise public expressions of Christian belief as political extremism, while questioning the appropriation of Christianity by movements which appeared to regard it principally as an expression of national identity.¹ Earlier, in The Cross and the Flag, I challenged the interpretation placed upon Christian symbols appearing at patriotic demonstrations, particularly the suggestion that their public display necessarily implied hostility towards others.²
The Cross means something quite specific to a Christian, of course, but a cross carried at a political demonstration may signify rather different things to different participants. One person may be making a sincere profession of faith; another expressing an attachment to Christian civilisation; a third perhaps protesting against what he regards as the deliberate removal of Christianity from British public life. We cannot assume that everybody carrying one has the same understanding of the Faith, still less that they have all agreed upon a coherent political programme. Nor can we reasonably infer racial hostility merely because somebody has chosen to display the central symbol of a religion which teaches that Christ died for the salvation of mankind.
There is a discussion worth having here, though I think it would benefit from greater clarity concerning what precisely is being defended.
I approach the subject as a Catholic bishop, certainly, but also as an Englishman who loves his country. Perhaps that is worth stating at the outset, because there remains a curious tendency in some quarters to treat Catholicism as though it were somehow foreign to Britain’s history, or at least peripheral to its national identity.
I am a Catholic, and I am a patriot. I have never found the slightest difficulty in reconciling those loyalties. My adherence to the Catholic Faith does not diminish my affection for Britain, its people, its institutions or its history. I am grateful for the good I have received from my country and conscious of the responsibilities which accompany that inheritance. I wish to see Britain prosper, its people flourish, its culture preserved and its future secured. I imagine most patriotic Britons would say much the same.
I am also aware, naturally, that the history of this country has not always been particularly kind to Catholics.
The English Reformation brought about the separation of England from the authority of the Apostolic See, the suppression of monasteries, the appropriation of ecclesiastical property and the transformation of religious institutions which had been Catholic for centuries. Those who remained faithful to Rome were subsequently subjected to penal legislation which restricted their religious practice, deprived them of civil rights and, in certain circumstances, exposed priests and those assisting them to imprisonment and death. The records preserved by the National Archives give some indication of the machinery through which conformity was enforced.⁴
It is sometimes forgotten how long these restrictions survived. The Catholic Relief Acts of 1778 and 1791 began removing particular disabilities, while the Catholic Relief Act of 1829 permitted Catholics to enter Parliament and hold most public offices. Even then, emancipation was incomplete. Generations of Catholics had lived under legislation which regarded fidelity to the religion of their forebears as grounds for exclusion from the ordinary rights and opportunities of their fellow countrymen.⁵
Alongside the legislation came centuries of anti-Catholic polemic, much of it designed to persuade the population that loyalty to Rome necessarily involved disloyalty to England. Catholics were routinely portrayed as possessing foreign allegiances, harbouring treasonous intentions or being incapable of genuine loyalty to the Crown.
The history itself is rather more complicated. There were Catholics involved in political conspiracies, certainly, but there were also many who maintained their loyalty to their lawful sovereign while refusing to concede that temporal authority extended to spiritual jurisdiction. The English martyrs themselves frequently distinguished their obligations towards the Crown in civil matters from their duty to remain faithful to the Catholic religion. Refusing to acknowledge the monarch as head of the Church did not necessarily mean desiring to overthrow the government.
That distinction was not always accepted by the authorities, sometimes with fatal consequences.
Yet Catholics continued to contribute to British society, and in later generations served their country in public life, the professions and the armed forces. Their service during the First World War, including the work of Catholic chaplains and the sacrifices of Catholic servicemen, belongs to the national history of Britain every bit as much as that of their Protestant comrades.⁶ It would be difficult to maintain, in the face of such evidence, that Catholicism somehow renders a man incapable of loving his country.
We are entitled, therefore, to regard ourselves as no less British, no less patriotic and no less concerned for the preservation of our national inheritance than our Protestant fellow countrymen.
Indeed, there is a certain irony in suggesting that Catholics should somehow remain outside a movement seeking to preserve Britain’s Christian heritage, when so much of that heritage was created by Catholics in the first place.
Our forebears founded monasteries, established schools, built churches, endowed charitable institutions and ordered much of the common life of the country around the Christian calendar. The great medieval cathedrals of Canterbury, Winchester and Durham were built and maintained for Catholic worship. The fact that they subsequently passed into the possession of the established Church does not alter the religious convictions of those who founded them, any more than the dissolution of the monasteries could retrospectively turn their monks into Protestants.
As the Titular Archbishop of Selsey, I naturally possess a particular affection for the history of St Wilfrid and his mission among the South Saxons during the seventh century. His work belonged to the wider Christianisation of the peoples who would eventually form England, and reminds us that the foundations of our Christian inheritance were laid many centuries before the ecclesiastical settlements with which modern Britons are familiar.
I find the subject personally fascinating, though I appreciate that my enthusiasm for the early history of Sussex is not necessarily shared by everyone. Nevertheless, the point is worth making. Christianity was shaping the character of this country long before the Reformation, and certainly long before anyone thought of calling himself a Christian Nationalist.
And yet, notwithstanding this history, I harbour no animosity towards our Protestant separated brethren.
I do not need to approve of the Reformation, or pretend that the injustices suffered by Catholics were inconsequential, in order to recognise that those who now worship in England’s ancient parish churches and cathedrals are our fellow countrymen. They inherited a religious settlement which they did not themselves create, just as we inherited the consequences of its establishment. I can see little purpose in holding the present congregation of an Anglican cathedral personally responsible for the decisions of Henry VIII or Elizabeth I.
I can enter one of those great churches, recognise that it was built for Catholic worship, regret the loss of its original ecclesiastical communion and nevertheless be glad that it remains a place where the Scriptures are read, the name of Our Lord is honoured and prayers are offered. My disagreement with Anglican theology and ecclesiology does not oblige me to wish ill upon Anglicans.
Nor does my reverence for the English martyrs require me to perpetuate the religious animosities of the age in which they suffered. The martyrs gave their lives for the Faith. Their witness deserves our gratitude and imitation, and it would be a strange tribute to their fidelity if we reduced it to an excuse for resenting people who had nothing to do with their persecution.
Our Protestant fellow countrymen have their own history of service to Britain, their own traditions of worship and their own contribution to its moral and cultural life. Much that remains recognisably Christian in British public affairs has been preserved through their efforts. I have no difficulty acknowledging this. It involves no concession concerning Catholic doctrine. It is simply a matter of recognising what is true.
Given the present condition of Christianity in Britain, I would suggest that we have rather more reason to consider what we hold in common than to spend our energies rehearsing the divisions of the past.
Catholics and the principal historic Protestant denominations profess belief in the Blessed Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, His Incarnation, Death and Resurrection, and the authority of Sacred Scripture. We share the Ten Commandments, substantial elements of Christian moral teaching and the conviction that human affairs ought to be governed according to principles higher than political convenience. Serious differences remain concerning doctrine, the sacraments, ecclesiastical authority and the nature of the Church, and contemporary disagreements over moral questions have complicated matters considerably.
I am not suggesting that these differences are unimportant, or that they can simply be set aside in matters of religion. But I can see no objection to Catholics and Protestants cooperating in the defence of Christian education, the rights of parents, religious liberty, the preservation of historic churches and the recovery of Christian observances which once formed an ordinary part of our national life.
Such cooperation does not require joint worship or the pretence of ecclesiastical communion. Neither party need surrender or conceal its religious convictions. We may pursue legitimate common objectives in the temporal order while remaining entirely honest about the theological questions upon which we disagree.
I can imagine somebody asking at this point whether, as a Catholic bishop, I believe that a truly Christian nation ought ultimately to be a Catholic one.
Well, of course I do.
I believe the Catholic Faith to be the religion revealed by Almighty God, and that the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to His Church is found within Catholicism. I regard the divisions arising from the Reformation as a tragedy for Christianity and for our country. I could hardly profess the Catholic Faith sincerely while suggesting that the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism were matters of indifference, or that the restoration of visible Christian unity was not something for which we should hope and pray.
But I am also sufficiently acquainted with the circumstances in which we presently live to recognise the difference between the ultimate religious good which a Catholic ought to desire for his country and the immediate responsibilities which Catholics and Protestants may legitimately undertake together.
For a movement seeking to restore Britain’s Christian inheritance, the first order of business ought surely to be the reassertion of what we hold in common, rather than the rehearsal of everything which has divided us.
That is a practical judgement concerning the purpose of this particular endeavour. It does not diminish the importance of Catholic doctrine, nor suggest that evangelisation and conversion should cease to concern us. Those remain essential duties of the Church. But there is little wisdom in insisting that every Christian who wishes to preserve our common inheritance must first resolve the ecclesiastical controversies of the sixteenth century before we can agree that Christianity ought not to disappear from British public life.
We are fellow Britons, living under the same Crown and sharing the responsibilities which arise from belonging to the same country. Its history is our common inheritance, however differently we understand particular chapters of it. Its continuing secularisation affects us all.
I would hope, moreover, that working together to preserve Christian institutions and customs might encourage greater understanding between Catholics and Protestants, perhaps even renewed interest in the theological questions which still separate us. I have always thought that serious discussions about religion are better conducted between people who possess some genuine goodwill towards one another. There is certainly no shortage of historical grievances available should we wish to make ourselves disagreeable, but I cannot see that doing so will assist much in recovering the Christian character of contemporary Britain.
The Catholic moral tradition itself supplies ample justification for patriotic cooperation.
St Thomas Aquinas places the duties owed to one’s country under the virtue of pietas, which belongs to justice. Man owes gratitude and appropriate service to those from whom he has received life and nurture, particularly his parents and his country, while recognising that the obligations owed to God remain supreme.⁷
I have always found this a helpful way of understanding patriotism. It begins with gratitude for what we have received, rather than a claim that our own people possess some inherent superiority over others. We love our country because it is ours, because we have received much through it, because previous generations have laboured and sacrificed for goods which we now enjoy, and because we have responsibilities towards those who will inherit it after us.
Pope Leo XIII expressed the same principle in Sapientiae Christianae in 1890, affirming the natural duty to love and defend one’s country while insisting that the higher obligations of religion and conscience must take precedence whenever the State demands what divine law forbids.⁸ Pius XII, writing in Summi Pontificatus at the outbreak of the Second World War, defended the legitimate attachment of peoples to their particular traditions and national characteristics while condemning doctrines which subordinated human dignity to racial and national absolutism.⁹
There is no difficulty here in recognising the legitimate duties of patriotism. Nor is there anything in Catholic teaching which requires a man to cease loving his native country because he recognises that all men belong to the same human family. We have particular responsibilities towards those communities to which Providence has joined us, but these exist within a moral order established by God, which neither the State nor the nation has authority to overturn.
There is also, of course, the doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ, taught with particular clarity by Pius XI in Quas Primas in 1925.¹⁰ Our Lord’s sovereignty extends beyond the private religious convictions of individual believers. Civil society itself remains subject to divine and natural law, and those exercising political authority possess obligations which cannot be discharged merely by observing the prevailing opinions of the electorate.
This ought to interest those who speak of restoring a Christian nation, because Christianity makes claims about truth, morality, worship and the supernatural destiny of man. Its influence upon our civilisation arose from people who believed those claims and sought to order their lives accordingly.
I would therefore be concerned if Christian Patriotism amounted simply to preserving a collection of familiar customs and ceremonies while leaving Christianity itself largely untouched. There is much to be said for preserving the outward signs of our religious inheritance, especially when so many are disappearing. But we should remember why they existed in the first place.
The churches were built for worship. The schools were established to educate children in the Faith. The Christian calendar ordered the life of the community around the mysteries of Our Lord and the commemorations of His saints. Charity towards the poor and sick was understood as a religious duty. It would be unfortunate if we succeeded in preserving the buildings while forgetting what they were for.
This brings us to another difficulty, one which recent research has made rather apparent.
In October, Theos published a study of attitudes towards Christianity and British national identity, based upon responses from 1,765 adults in the United Kingdom. Dr Nick Spencer and Dr Yinxuan Huang identified five distinct approaches to the relationship between Christianity and Britishness, ranging from a desire to preserve Christian cultural identity to a more direct concern with the promotion of Christian belief.¹²
The findings were rather more interesting than the familiar division between Christian Nationalists and their opponents might suggest.
Among those whom the researchers classified as Identity Integrationists, people particularly concerned with the relationship between Christianity and national identity, only 13 per cent reported attending church weekly. Among the Belief Integrationists, whose concern was more directly with promoting Christian faith, the proportion was 31 per cent.¹²
This distinction seems to me quite important. A person may possess a genuine affection for Christian civilisation without practising Christianity. He may admire the architecture of our great churches, appreciate the moral influence of Christianity upon British history and wish to preserve the Christian festivals which have shaped our national calendar, while remaining personally uncertain about the doctrines of the religion itself.
I do not regard such interest as worthless. Quite the contrary. Many people have first encountered Christianity through its art, sacred music, architecture or charitable works. A renewed appreciation of our Christian inheritance may well encourage some to investigate the Faith more seriously.
But admiration for Christianity’s historical achievements cannot indefinitely substitute for Christian belief and practice.
If we wish to preserve our churches, somebody must attend them. If we wish Christian schools to retain their character, parents must understand and support the religious education being provided. If we lament the disappearance of Christian customs from our communities, perhaps we ought to begin recovering them within our own families.
A flag may remind a man of his country’s history. It will not teach his children their prayers.
I make that observation without wishing to sound censorious. Many people have received little proper religious instruction, and our churches must bear a considerable share of responsibility for the situation. It would be unreasonable to reproach ordinary people for failing to practise a religion which successive generations of clergy have too often failed to explain with either clarity or conviction.
Nevertheless, the restoration of Christian civilisation requires Christians, and that seems to me a point worth making to anybody who wishes to campaign for it.
The Theos research also produced a finding which those advocating Christian Nationalism should consider carefully. Among the Identity Integrationists, 42 per cent agreed that being white was necessary to be truly British, compared with 16 per cent of the overall sample.¹²
This does not establish that everyone concerned about Christian national identity embraces racial nationalism. It does, however, demonstrate why the distinction matters. There are people who understand national identity through ethnic categories, and others who regard Christianity chiefly as a cultural characteristic of a particular people. It would be mistaken to assume that they necessarily share the same convictions as those seeking the restoration of Christian belief and practice.
The Catholic Church teaches the dignity of every human person, irrespective of race or ancestry. A country may legitimately preserve its cultural inheritance, regulate immigration according to justice and the common good, and expect those who settle within it to respect its laws and institutions. Such responsibilities do not depend upon theories of racial superiority.
That is one reason why I consider Christian Patriotism a more appropriate expression of the legitimate concerns being raised.
The word nationalism itself has a complicated history. There have been nationalist movements concerned with independence, self-government and the preservation of distinctive cultures, none of which necessarily implies racial supremacy. The national aspirations of the Irish or Poles, for example, cannot sensibly be equated with German National Socialism merely because the same word is sometimes employed in describing them.
Nevertheless, the twentieth century left the word with associations which cannot simply be ignored. Its contemporary conjunction with Christianity has been further complicated by American political arguments concerning Evangelical Protestantism, Republican politics and the relationship between religion and national belonging.
The British circumstances are rather different.
The Church of England remains established in England, with the Sovereign as its Supreme Governor and bishops sitting in the House of Lords. Scotland possesses its own constitutionally recognised national Church, with a distinct settlement concerning spiritual independence, while the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920.¹⁴ Christianity has occupied a recognised place in the constitutional and institutional life of these nations for centuries.
We are therefore considering a very different historical and constitutional situation from that which exists in the United States. I see little reason why British Christians should be obliged to conduct their discussion of national identity according to terminology developed in the course of American political controversies.
Professor Luke Bretherton of Oxford University appears to have reached a similar conclusion. Advising Anglican bishops about the expression Christian Nationalism, he reportedly offered the rather straightforward recommendation: “Don’t use it.” His concern was that the term possessed no particular theological authority and tended to operate ideologically rather than clarify the questions being discussed.¹⁵
I find myself in considerable agreement with the recommendation, although perhaps for somewhat different theological reasons.
There is also a practical question about the way such terminology is understood by the wider public. Existing British research provides reasonable grounds for anticipating that a movement describing itself as Christian Patriotism might receive a more sympathetic hearing than one adopting the language of Christian Nationalism.
In April 2024, YouGov asked 4,611 adults in Great Britain whether they considered themselves patriotic. Fifty-eight per cent described themselves as very or fairly patriotic, while 35 per cent said they were not very patriotic or not patriotic at all.¹⁶
More revealing is the distinction which British people themselves make between civic belonging and ethnic descent.
The British Social Attitudes survey conducted in 2023, and published the following year, found that 68 per cent of respondents expressed a primarily civic understanding of British identity, compared with 19 per cent whose understanding was primarily ethnic. Among those who identified as British, the corresponding figures were 70 and 17 per cent. Respect for British political institutions and laws was considered important to being truly British by 86 per cent, while 39 per cent attached importance to British ancestry and 19 per cent to being Christian.¹⁷
Subsequent polling commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research and published in December 2025 found that 51 per cent regarded Britishness as something a person could acquire through effort, while 36 per cent associated being truly British with birth. Asked to select qualities which made a good British citizen, 64 per cent chose obeying the law, 62 per cent raising children to be kind and only 3 per cent selected having white skin.¹⁸
There are some indications of changing attitudes towards ancestry and national belonging, although differences in survey methodology complicate direct comparisons. The findings nevertheless suggest that many British people distinguish loyalty to their country and participation in its civic life from questions of racial descent.
Now, I appreciate that none of these surveys asked whether respondents preferred the expression Christian Patriotism to Christian Nationalism. We cannot pretend that they did. But neither need we suspend every reasonable judgement merely because a particular question has not yet appeared in an opinion poll.
The available evidence establishes that substantial numbers of British people readily identify themselves as patriotic, while civic understandings of national belonging remain more prevalent than ethnic ones. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that a movement presenting its objectives in terms of Christian cultural inheritance, civic responsibility and service to the nation might encounter fewer initial objections than one whose chosen description immediately invites discussion of racial nationalism.
There is another consideration which I think deserves attention.
A British citizen need not be a practising Christian to recognise that Christianity has profoundly influenced our laws, institutions, architecture, literature, charitable traditions and understanding of public duty. Jewish, Muslim and other non-Christian citizens may value the preservation of that inheritance, just as an agnostic may wish to see an ancient parish church maintained or Christian festivals continue to occupy their historic place in the national calendar.
Such cooperation would not require Christians to surrender the distinctive claims of their religion, nor oblige others to profess beliefs which they do not hold.
I have previously addressed the confusion between defending Britain’s Christian identity and expressing hostility towards Muslims.¹⁹ A Christian may sincerely believe that Islam is theologically mistaken, recognise that Christianity and Islam make contradictory claims about revelation, and nevertheless regard Muslim fellow citizens as persons entitled to justice, charity and the protection of the law.
We ought to be capable of making such distinctions without difficulty. The fact that contemporary political discussion so frequently fails to do so is another reason for exercising care in the language we choose.
I should hope, naturally, that those attracted initially by an appreciation of Christian civilisation might become interested in Christianity itself. Perhaps they might discover that the religion has rather more to say about their own lives than the cultural and political questions which first drew their attention.
There is ample practical work which could be undertaken by a movement concerned with Christian Patriotism. Historic churches require support, Christian schools and parents need encouragement, religious liberty requires defence, and many of the customs which once formed a natural part of our communal life are in danger of disappearing through neglect.
I should particularly welcome efforts to recover Christian observances within the family. The traditional celebration of Christmas and Easter, the observance of Sunday, knowledge of the saints and the practice of family prayer are all part of the inheritance which many profess to value. Some of these things require relatively little effort, though their gradual disappearance has contributed considerably to the present unfamiliarity with Christianity.
I would also hope that such a movement might encourage people to become acquainted with the actual history of their country. Britain’s Christian inheritance is much older and richer than the rather simplified account sometimes offered in contemporary political discussion. It includes the missionary work of the early Church, the monastic foundations, the medieval universities, the Reformation and its consequences, the witness of the martyrs, the subsequent contributions of Protestant Christianity and the complicated process through which Catholics eventually recovered their civil rights.
We need not agree about every chapter of that history to recognise that it belongs to us all.
This brings me back to the practical proposal.
Rather than accept the increasingly ambiguous description Christian Nationalism, why not adopt Christian Patriotism as the expression of a common endeavour to preserve and restore Britain’s Christian inheritance?
Such a movement might begin by setting out a declaration of principles affirming the Christian foundations of our national culture, the duty to preserve that inheritance, the dignity of every human person, the obligations of citizenship and the proper place of Christian moral teaching in public life.
It should be clear about the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical authority, and equally clear that Christianity cannot be employed to justify racial supremacy, political violence or hostility towards fellow citizens on account of their ancestry or religion. Nor should the public defence of Christianity become an excuse for neglecting the personal obligations which the religion imposes upon those who profess it.
I recognise that those attending Unite the Kingdom demonstrations do not constitute a single ecclesiastical body, nor necessarily share an agreed understanding of Christianity. My proposal is addressed particularly to those whose sincere concern is the recovery of Christian faith, customs and moral principles, and who would wish their public identity to reflect those objectives.
Some will undoubtedly object that abandoning the word nationalism amounts to giving way to hostile commentators. I would suggest that there is little honour in insisting upon a word merely because somebody else dislikes it. Christian patriotism possesses a moral foundation considerably older than the present controversies, and one which seems to me far more appropriate to the duties we wish to discharge.
We should also remember that the country we profess to love deserves rather more from us than indignation at its present condition. Patriotism requires service, responsibility and a genuine concern for the welfare of our neighbours. It involves considering what we contribute to the common life of the nation, including the example we set to those who will inherit it.
As a Catholic, conscious of the injustices suffered by my religious forebears and of the ecclesiastical divisions which remain, I see no reason why I should feel any less entitled to love my country or to work alongside my Protestant fellow Britons for the preservation of its Christian inheritance. Indeed, the Catholic understanding of patriotism gives me every reason to do so.
Do I desire the restoration of Catholic unity and the recognition of the fullness of Christian truth? Certainly. But I also recognise the responsibilities which confront us here and now, and the opportunity for common endeavour which the present interest in Britain’s Christian heritage may provide.
It would be a pity if that opportunity were squandered through an unnecessary argument about terminology, particularly when there is so much practical work to be done.
I should therefore welcome serious consideration of Christian Patriotism by those organising the Christian presence at Unite the Kingdom, by others concerned with preserving our national religious inheritance, and by public figures who have begun speaking of the need to restore Britain’s Christian character. I would be pleased to contribute to a discussion of the principles upon which such a movement might be founded.
Our ancient churches need congregations, our children need Christian instruction, our families need encouragement in the practice of their faith, and our national institutions would benefit from recovering some understanding of the religious and moral principles which contributed to their formation.
There is work enough before us. I believe Christian Patriotism would provide a sounder foundation for undertaking it.
✠ Jerome, Titular Archbishop of Selsey
¹ Nuntiatoria, Christian Nationalism in Britain: A False Label and a Misguided Revival, 29 March 2026.
² Nuntiatoria, The Cross and the Flag: Christian Nationalism, Anglican Confusion, and the Kingship of Christ, 7 November 2025.
³ Nuntiatoria, Christian Britain Without Christianity: Faith, Fear and the Politics of National Identity, 23 October 2026.
⁴ The National Archives, How to Look for Records of Catholics.
⁵ UK Parliament, Catholic Emancipation.
⁶ Michael Snape, British Catholicism and the British Army in the First World War, British Catholic History, 16 September 2015.
⁷ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q.101, a.1.
⁸ Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, 10 January 1890.
⁹ Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, 20 October 1939.
¹⁰ Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, 11 December 1925.
¹¹ Nuntiatoria, Christian Britain Without Christianity: Faith, Fear and the Politics of National Identity, 23 October 2026.
¹² Nick Spencer and Yinxuan Huang, Theos, Beyond “Christian Nationalism”: Measuring Attitudes to Christianity and Britishness Today, 11 October 2026.
¹³ Madeleine Davies, Christianity Today, UK Christians Question Using the Term Christian Nationalism, 22 October 2026.
¹⁴ House of Commons Library, The Relationship Between Church and State in the United Kingdom.
¹⁵ Madeleine Davies, Christianity Today, UK Christians Question Using the Term Christian Nationalism, 22 October 2026.
¹⁶ YouGov, Regarding the UK, How Patriotic Would You Say You Are?, 25 April 2024.
¹⁷ Sir John Curtice and Alex Scholes, National Centre for Social Research, British Social Attitudes 41: National Identity, 3 September 2024.
¹⁸ Institute for Public Policy Research, Shared Values Still Define Britishness for Most, but Ethno-nationalist Views Are Rising Fast, 30 December 2025.
¹⁹ Nuntiatoria, Christian Britain Is Not Anti-Muslim: Rowan Williams, Nigel Farage and the Increasingly Dangerous Confusion Between Christian Identity and Hostility to Islam, 21 August 2026.
Leave a Reply