Contra Hall: Is Racialism Incompatible with Catholicism?
A response to Kennedy Hall's recent video to show why the opposition between racialism and Catholicism is simply manufactured, not real, along with outlining American identity
In a video entitled “Nick Fuentes, Our Little Brother in Christ, and the Gen Z Dilemma | TOD #2”, which premiered on YouTube on September 27, 2025, Kennedy Hall and Tim Flanders from The Meaning of Catholic, both of whom are notable figures in what could be termed the “traditional Catholic movement”, waded into the debate on questions of race, culture and American identity. Notwithstanding a somewhat patronizing video title, the viewer was introduced to arguments on the supposed opposition between racialism, that is racial preservation and an attendant racial program, with the Catholic faith. What is more, America was characterized as a country without a distinct racial character. Regrettably, Kennedy Hall, who will be the focus of this essay, did not offer any specific authors to support his arguments, much less Church-approved ones.
Conspicuous Silence
After the original video was released on the morning of September 27th, we spent considerable time preparing a response, the germ of which was developed into this essay. The hope was Hall would respond to good-faith criticism. The arguments marshaled were supported by approved authors, as alluded to above, so it was not a question of appealing to authorities that he would not find credible, or could easily dismiss.
Unfortunately, after repeated attempts [1], [2], [3] and [4], which garnered many views and solid traction, no engagement on the part of Kennedy Hall was made, nor his co-host, Tim Flanders. As a final effort, hoping that both will offer counterarguments, or perhaps reconsider their views, we are publishing this response in a more serious, essay format. To our knowledge, despite Hall confidently presenting his opinions, he still has not bothered to publicly defend them against any serious criticism.
Preliminary Observations
In what has become a troubling trend, many self-styled traditional Catholics, in their rejection of the modern world and all its attitudes and principles, conspicuously and tenaciously hold on to post-1960s views of race and racial politics. While this group correctly recognizes the revolutionary crisis in the Catholic Church, ushered in by Vatican II and the subsequent reforms, they are unwilling to examine, much less embrace, “traditional” views on race, nationality and identity. Put succinctly, it means embracing a doctrinaire position of anti-racism, including its application to public policy. Fortunately, the younger generations have not, by and large, fallen into this trap.
The effect is supporting the deracination of White countries, Europe and her diaspora, even if it is not intended. Why? Absent racial preservation and maintenance, the White races, not unlike any others, will cease to exist. This means these “trads” are committed to race as purely an intellectual abstraction, failing to appreciate and take into account collective differences. For background, these revolutionary anti-racist ideas, in their proto form, were first introduced in 18th century France, yet those who should be most opposed to them have tragically accepted them.
Austrian prelate, Alois Hudal, who will be mentioned later in the essay, keenly observed in 1937 that “No one can deny that since the French Revolution with its principles on peoples and human rights, a mixture of peoples and races has grown up in Europe in which the consciousness of nationality, race and their high cultural values has often lost all significance.”
Manufacturing Opposition
“The Whole America First thing, especially attaching it to race, is not reconcilable with Catholicism.” This was the statement confidently made at the 29:18 mark in the video by Kennedy Hall. The issue, which is immediately apparent, is Hall does not make a distinction between racialism, which is legitimate, and a position that is characterized by a radical or excessive racism. This is because, as will be outlined by Pope Pius XI, the program of Catholicism is that her universality does not come at the expense of particularity, far from it, rather it perfects the natural distinctions and groupings of men. It is a central doctrine of our religion that grace always builds upon nature, and there is a healthy racism, not only for Black and Asian races, but also for White races, whether they be American, British, Australian or Canadian. Recall that the same Pope, only one year before, had officially taught in his encyclical letter, Mit Brennender Sorge (MBS), no. 8, that race was a “fundamental value of the human community”, which plays a “necessary and honorable role” in human affairs. The Holy Father, contrasting the Catholic view against certain German racial excesses—that is, taking a good thing too far, raising it above a “standard level” to an “idolatrous level”—spoke plainly about this “healthy racism”. Noting that radical and excessive racism was condemned, in the 1938 address he would champion:
This is the Church’s response: this is what the Church considers true, proper, healthy racism [ecco che cosa è per la Chiesa il vero, il proprio, il sano razzismo] worthy of individual men in their great collectivity. All in the same way: all the object of the same maternal affection, all called to the same light of truth, of good, of Christian charity; to be all in their own country, in the particular nationalities of each, in their particular race, the propagators of this idea so great and magnificently maternal, human, even before being Christian.
German prelates, where the racial problem was most acute, confirmed the same moderate view and affirmed the right to protect one’s blood, nation and race, of course using strictly moral means. Archbishop Conrad Gröber, who wrote the authoritative Handbook of Contemporary Religious Questions, with the approbation of the entire German hierarchy, witnessed to this in 1937 by saying:
Since every nation bears the responsibility for its own happy existence and the taking in of completely foreign blood for a historically proven nationality always means a risk, no nation may be denied the right to preserve its previous racial status undisturbed and to provide safeguards for this purpose. The Christian religion only requires that the means employed do not violate moral precepts and natural justice.
Bishop Alois Hudal, a consultant of the Holy Office and mentioned previously, similarly confirmed this in his brilliant 1937 study, The Foundations of National Socialism:
This certainly does not mean that all races are also equal in their natural, intellectual, moral and physiological dispositions. Racial protection can therefore be regarded as self-defense for a people in certain living conditions, as far as it is concerned with preventing mixing for the purpose of producing children.
Finally, the eminent Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber drove home this same distinction, simultaneously outlining necessary conditions to regulate a program of Catholic racialism in a series of sermons, later collected and published in 1934:
First, love of one’s own race must not lead to the hatred of other nations. Secondly, the individual must never consider himself freed from the obligation of nourishing his own soul by the persevering use of the means of grace which the Church provides. The young man who is always hearing about the blessedness of his own race is apt too easily to conceive that he is no longer bound by duties to God and His Church, duties of humility and chastity. Thirdly, race culture must not assume an attitude of hostility to Christianity.
What to Make of Eugenics?
As a brief aside, while many Catholics may be tempted to consider eugenics, qua eugenics, as something incompatible with true religion, they would do well to familiarize themselves with the writings of PP. Pius XI and Pius XII on the matter. Again, applying a careful distinction, the fundamental program of eugenics is above reproach, provided exclusively moral means are employed and that racialism, which is a natural good, is subordinated to higher, spiritual goods. What is the fundamental program of eugenics? As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia records in its entry, it simply means “good breeding” and is a legitimate endeavor, considered in itself.
Meaning, the moral horror which is evoked nearly every time eugenics is mentioned, then, applies only to immoral and unchristian strains of eugenic thinking.
America Was Always a White Country
As for Mr. Hall’s remark about America, our country has always had a distinct racial character, that is White European, specifically Anglo-British, and this is reflected in our citizenship criteria, immigration law, public attitudes and customs. Hall, a Canadian national, perhaps, can be forgiven for not knowing this.
Making this point is not terribly difficult. The first immigration law passed by the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790, explicitly limited citizenship to “free white person[s]”, merely codifying the original racial character of the country, along with prevailing public sentiment.
In 1857, the first Catholic Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled that Negroes, free or enslaved, could not be considered citizens of the United States and therefore did not have the right to sue in federal court. Incidentally, this is not to say Black Americans are not citizens today, they are and cannot be denied the legal rights of other Americans, whether they be White, Hispanic or Asian. However, it is to demonstrate that the determination of citizenship, with its accompanying duties, first, followed by rights and privileges, belongs to the public authority, the State. As a matter of positive human law, it is fundamentally mutable, and must take into account changing circumstances. What does this mean? The right to citizenship is not absolute, nor is it a natural right, but once given could only be revoked for certain grave and proportionate reasons. That said, just like every other type of law, the common good is its essential directing principle.
It is also important to highlight that the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Taney, was deeply concerned—as it should have been—with the intention of the framers of the constitution. The intention of the legislator, or legislature as a moral body, is the only authentic rule by which to interpret and implement law. Common sense confirms the same, and it is why the decision in 1857 was correct, notwithstanding the discomfort it brings anti-racists and liberals.
In the twentieth century, unsurprisingly, the White racial character of America was further cemented in law. In a famous Supreme Court ruling in 1923, “United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind”, the highest court in America ruled that the plaintiff, Bhagat Singh Thind, could not become a naturalized U.S. citizen because, as a Punjabi Sikh, he was not a “white person”. White, as had always been understood, was a racial identification exclusive to those of European ancestry which found its basis in lineage and blood, not merely the color of a man’s skin.
A year later, in 1924, an immigration bill was passed in Congress which, as reported by the New York Times, was designed to “preserve [the] racial type as it exists here today”. Not content with merely regulating non-White immigration and naturalization, the legislation sought to limit the influx of Eastern and Central Europeans, in an effort to preserve the original founding stock and its racial character. A racial character determined by people who were sourced almost exclusively from Northwestern Europe.
By mid-century, America was still a White country and racist, in a descriptive and non-pejorative sense. For example, the Hays Production Code, which was drafted and enforced by Catholics and lasting meaningfully into the 1950s, prohibited miscegenation from being shown on-screen, meaning sex relationships between the White and Black races. A perfectly sensible social regulation, which one would not be surprised to find in an Asian country like Japan, a European country like Sweden or an African country like Nigeria.
Finally, the general attitudes of Americans towards racial intermarriage are worth examining. As reported by Gallup Polling in 1958, only 4% of Americans approved of racial intermarriage between White and Black people. Presumably some of them were good Catholics, whose views were informed by something other than blind, race-hatred and prejudice?
Not until the the infamous Hart–Celler Act of 1965 was White America and its racial character meaningfully challenged, albeit only de jure, which was soon to be realized de facto in the coming decades. Prior to the passing of the Act, the country was 85% White, with Black people—most of whom were descendants of slaves—making up 11% of the population, while Latinos made up less than 4%.
Moving to the present, the demographic situation has only worsened. In a 2018 study conducted by the Brookings Institute and published in the Wall Street Journal, America is projected to become majority non-White in the year 2042. Terrifyingly, most White people have not considered this prospect, let alone appreciated its significance and ramifications, an event which will likely occur even earlier due to several important factors. Chief among them is the continuing program of mass legal and illegal immigration, made worse by the unholy trinity of abortion, artificial contraception and pornography, all of which White America has embraced even though they are gravely immoral. These latter factors and moral cancers, while harming the vigor of the other races, have significantly contributed to the White racial suicide.
In fact, the complete racial transformation of America has now begun in earnest, with the under-18 population already being majority minority, displacing the native White population in the same age category and subjecting them to an inferior status in their homeland. William H. Frey, a renowned demographer for the Brookings Institute, has cheerfully characterized this demographic nightmare in his study as follows: Youthful minorities are the engine of future growth. His projections are valuable, nonetheless, and will hopefully be a wake-up call to most White Americans, along with a select few non-Whites, who do not share his enthusiasm.
But the Irish Were not White!
In anticipation of the popular “but the Irish were never considered White” objection, this is not true since they have legally always been classified as White in America. The Irish, themselves, also thought of their being racially White. This is recorded in the leading Irish Catholic paper in the 19th century, The Pilot, which had the following to say about America:
The negro indeed is unfortunate, and the creature has the common rights of humanity living in his breast; but, in the country of the whites where the labor of the whites has done everything, but his, nothing, and where the whites find it difficult to earn a subsistence, what right has the negro either to preference, or to equality, or to admission?… To white toil this nation owes everything: but to black, nothing.
Hopefully, in the coming years, this tired argument will be abandoned. An argument which conflates a restrictive definition of “White” to Anglo-British people, which does have its value and place, with the official and public definition of “White” in America.
The Appeal to Dr. E. Michael Jones
Tim Flanders, who was on with Kennedy Hall, at the 33:14 mark unfortunately appealed to Dr. E Michael Jones to discredit any idea of racialism being compatible with Catholicism. While not presenting his view with complete confidence, Mr. Flanders claimed that “E. Michael Jones has responded to Nick Fuentes about his racialism which seems to me to completely refute the entire program of some sort of racial theory about race and DNA and whatnot”. This remark came near the end of their discussion, before Hall and Flanders took Q&A.
Dr. E. Michael Jones, for his part, has been refuted, time and time again on this very question. His many merits and storied career aside, he is not a serious thinker on questions of race, nor is he familiar with Catholic scholarship on the same. Most frustrating is his seeming allergy to scholastic philosophy, which results in many “category errors”, as he likes to say. The way he has interacted with a single clip of Nick Fuentes, which can be seen below, is emblematic.
The humorous contrast aside, several critiques of Dr. Jones’ views are found below, which we would like draw to the attention of Tim Flanders:
White Superiority, Properly Understood
During the exchange, located at the 29:50 mark, Mr. Hall implies that believing the White races are superior to other races, a special-ness if you will, is also incompatible with Catholic thinking. This is because, again, he is not making proper distinctions:
Also, the Jewish program of naturalism, not “White supremacy”, the former which is committed to race-blindness, individualism and indiscriminate racial-mixing (save for Jews, of course), is what will usher in the man of perdition, the anti-Christ. Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., who Mr. Hall quoted earlier in the discussion, warned in 1953 that “The Jewish World, February 9th, 1883, contained the following programme: ‘The great ideal of Judaism is... that the whole world should be imbued with Jewish teachings, and that in a universal Brotherhood of nations—a greater Judaism in fact— all the separate races and religions shall disappear.’”
Hall’s View of Racial Intermarriage
As for the question of racial intermarriage, it commendable that Mr. Hall mentioned the older, “politically incorrect authors” at the 30:14 mark, alluding to his familiarity with them. Unfortunately, he did not name any of them, nor does he seem familiar with their opinions on the moral considerations of racial intermarriage, or why it should be discouraged as a general practice, even though it is not opposed to Natural, Divine or Ecclesiastical law.
“Like interracial marriage is against his values cuz like that’s not Catholic values. It’s not [against Catholic values], it’s kind of racist and you got to be careful with that. Like St. Paul’s pretty clear. There’s neither Jew nor Gentile or Greek, you know, meaning once we’re incorporated into the body of Christ, those differences, while they’re important for reasons of like cultural cohesion [sic], are secondary to baptism.” — Kennedy Hall, 30:54 mark
Before turning to the writings of modern Catholic theologians, it must be said that the Catholic faith is infinitely more important than a natural good, like race. Mr. Hall is right about this, and it bears repeating. Unlike for race, the Church has rightfully imposed an impediment on those who want to contract marriages with heretics or schismatics. In canon law, these are referred to as “mixed marriages” and should be avoided, at nearly all costs. In exceptional circumstances, they can be obtained with the observance of strict conditions and a dispensation from the Church.
That said, it does not follow that race is somehow unimportant, or to be ignored when considering who one will marry. This is the central error, in this case omission, of Kennedy Hall’s presentation. He puts forward a bloodless, liberal view, albeit unwittingly, when he frames his concession to racialists as merely a matter of “cultural cohesion”. What about lineage and race? The other thing worth pointing out is that Nick Fuentes, who is being criticized by the panel, has repeatedly said he does not regard racial intermarriage as sinful, considered in itself. In addition, he has gone out of his way to condemn and distance himself from racial hatred and idolatry, properly understood.
The Rights and General Duties of Races
Noting, first, that in the most systematic study of race by a modern theologian, Fr. Bonaventure Hinwood plainly stated that “[E]ach race has the right to peaceful expansion, by multiplying itself through procreation, by promoting the purity of its blood and its physical vigor, and by cultivating its psychic potentialities, in all of which the civil authorities should cooperate. Whence the members of a race have a responsibility towards their racial heritage.” As shocking as this may be for modern ears, the White races along with Asians and Blacks have these same rights and responsibilities. Notice that the civil authority, the State, also has a role to play in the maintenance of racial harmony, which sometimes can mean legitimate separation.
Understandably, in order to preserve and cultivate White identity, it will have the consequence, however regrettable, of many non-White people, mainly Jews, Blacks, and mixed-race persons being offended—though this effect is not intended, it is foreseen and to be expected. We should not shy away from it. Anything else would be entirely committing to irreversible racial suicide.
People taking offense at something that is objectively moral and good, racial preservation within a Catholic framework, is merely their subjective, errant response. The objective order, ultimately, is most important. Certain excesses should be avoided, but there there will be a place for rhetoric, even an inflammatory kind, particularly in discussions of public policy and current events. Importantly, these conversations are distinct from private interactions. This racial program to save the White races and allow them to flourish will require both a positive and negative aspect, and it is the latter, the stigmatization of racial intermarriage, using only moral means (attitudes, manners, custom and public policy) and absent any racial hatred, that will have the greatest negative reaction. This is to be expected.
That said, the positive side deserves the most emphasis, which is saying we want to marry our own kind and raise healthy, White Catholic families. Naturally, the same should be the aim and attitude for non-White peoples, wanting to preserve and promote their racial identities, enriching their homelands with their various gifts and abilities. Those points established, we can now turn to the issue of racial intermarriage, considered from the point of view of approved, Catholic theologians.
What have Catholic theologians said about racial intermarriage?
In itself, per se, racial intermarriage is not sinful. As outlined above, Divine, Natural and Ecclesiastical law do not oppose it. However, by circumstance, per accidens, it can be sinful and theologians have identified a number of potential cases. In a healthy society, racial intermarriage will be very uncommon, though some will choose to marry outside their race, exceptionally, and they are certainly not incapable of having happy marriages. Regardless, as a general practice—for reasons adduced below—it ought to be discouraged and stigmatized, in which the State can play a role. In the current moment, the near-universal racial suicide of White people, the practice should be even more heavily discouraged using only legitimate means.
For a more extensive treatment of this question, the reader is encouraged to review the following, which details more of our thinking on the matter:
Since Vatican II, regrettably, few prelates have had the courage to speak about this issue with candor and if they do, it invariably comes with breathless equivocation, eager to prove their anti-racist bonafides. Bishop Richard Williamson, may God rest his soul, nearly alone, had the fortitude to reject this unique complex of White guilt, mapping out a balanced and noble loyalty to one’s kind. To the chagrin of many, he effectively challenged the modern, liberal taboos surrounding race, helping countless disaffected men, particularly in the younger generations, grapple with current racial problems.
Finally, in a recent development worth monitoring, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò decried the current “monomaniacal obsession with indiscriminate immigration and miscegenation” within the Catholic Church, emanating from its highest levels.
Post Script
While the original intent of this critique was to publicly challenge the ideas recently advanced by Kennedy Hall, and we want him to seriously consider the evidence above, it is our hope that this essay will reach a broader audience. That is why we further developed the original and core arguments, simultaneously addressing topical questions, ultimately to publish at The Journal of American Reform. To underscore what was said at the beginning of the critique, in no way is this an attack against the person of Mr. Hall, or his guest Tim Flanders, but only strong criticism of their public positions. It is also possible they are simply misinformed on the issues. Regardless, both men have done and continue to do important and valuable work.
That said, we would like more Catholics, whether they assist at the Traditional Mass or the Novus Ordo, along with the clergy, to engage with the substance of these arguments. American identity is important, and so is saving the White races, whether in America or abroad, allowing them eventually to flourish again. The reader, ultimately, will be the judge and will have to decide for himself if the compatibility between racialism and Catholicism was merely asserted, or perhaps, demonstrated.
CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!
As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (graphics) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.
Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.
In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:
X: @AmericanReform_
Telegram: @American_Reform
Regarding William Frey’s comment in the article, his statement needs some clarification. Diversity is not a good thing when it leads to disunity caused by multiple and different beliefs. If you look at Catholicism, which means universal, there was great racial and ethnic diversity and all members must believe in the teachings of the Church. In present times the Church is in crisis but prior to 1965 the Church was much more cohesive. It should be no surprise that the crisis in the Church is the same crisis that we are seeing in Western civilizations today.
In defense of KH, his baby boy (not sure if he’s been born yet) is not expected to survive. KH is most likely preoccupied with family concerns. Pray for the Hall family.