Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s Protestant pastor, has come under the spotlight recently, given his of his “controversial” utterances. Here is what he said:
”The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people…God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme…We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye…We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost”.
Let us assess this statement as Catholics, not as nationalists. First, much of what he says is in line with Catholic social teaching. Racism in intrinsically evil, and it is hard to deny that racism is still very much alive and well in America, especially in its justice system. Wright also is right to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were nothing more than gravely evil massacres of civilians. And today, the United State still takes a one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, at odds not only with the rest of the world, but with the Vatican.
But let’s address the charge at hand: did Wright say, as is claimed, that the United States is responsible for 9/11? That could mean two entirely different things: (i) the policies of the United States led directly to the hatred that took the form of terrorism, or (ii) United States somehow deserved to be attacked, got what was coming to it. Clearly, (i) is supported by common sense, and is in line with Catholic social teaching, while (ii) is not, given its assumption that innocent people deserve to die. In fact, many of those who used to be called “conservative” in the United States (before the messianic lunatics took over the asylum) ascribed to the “blow-back” theory– this was the bedrock of Ron Paul’s now-failed presidential campaign. From what I read, Wright is supporting interpretation (i), not (ii). He is talking about the faults, hypocrisy, and hubris of the United States as its military might engages the world. He is talking about the blindness of so many Americans who see their country as a beacon of hope and freedom– and yet fomenting violence and supporting regimes around the world that stamp on human dignity. This notion of “blindness” is a very biblical notion, coming out clearly in John’s gospel.
By the way, there are American Protestants who ascribe to theory number (ii). They are people like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell who did say that America is directly responsible for 9/11, as God was punishing the nation for its sins. There is no ambiguity here. Their God is a God who condones the murder of innocents. And yet, these people received a free pass, while Wright is harassed. I think the double standard is very easy to explain: Robertson and Falwell attack the message of Christ, whereas Wright attacks the basis of American nationalism. It is clear what people value more– even Catholics.
Let’s get to the “God damn America” directly, the quote that provoked the most ire, and led one of out own contributors to attack this blog from a secular nationalist perch. If we are going to criticize Wright for using this phrase, we need to do so from a Catholic perspective. And indeed, criticism is warranted. For literally understood, Wright is calling the wrath of God down on an entire nation, again calling for the murder of the innocent. This is perhaps reading too much into it, and I’m sure Wright did not have this concept in mind. He is using the “God damn” phrase in its modern incarnation of “a plague upon” rather than an invocation of what he sees as divine justice. Still, a churchman should not take the Lord’s name in vain in such manner. But at the end of the day, this is a minor transgression. Wright used heated language to make some very valid points.
Fundamentally, therefore, there is no evidence that Wright is supporting violence. On the other hand, McCain’s new friends– Protestant ministers John Hagee and Rod Parsley– do call for a war between America and what they see as America’s enemies, casting their bizarre Calvinist-Gnostic view of the world into a very real foreign policy. Put it like this: if McCain listened to Hagee and Parsley, he would foment a great war in the middle east and wipe the Palestinians off the map. If Obama listened to Wright… what exactly? Maybe a foreign policy more respectful of human rights and human dignity? Maybe penal reform at home? Certainly, not even the wildest right-wing conspiracist is predicting the mirror image of Hagee-Parsley– that Obama would start rounding up the white people…
Such double standards are quite outrageous. Again, it is because people are looking at these Protestant leaders through glasses tinted more by nation than gospel. From a Catholic standpoint, it is clear who the more dangerous, the more in error. But from a nationalist viewpoint, Wright has committed the great crime of “hating” America. Think about this for a second. How can one hate a nation state? A nation state is not a person, and is never made in the image and likeness of God. Wright is criticizing the policies of the leadership of a particular nation state. To turn that into an attack on the “personhood of America” is to turn nationalism into a civic religion. It is abundantly clear to me that many of the critics of Vox Nova in this regard define “orthodoxy” in terms of this false civic religion, instead of the universal Church that preserves the memory of Christ. And remember, many of our Christian forefathers suffered martyrdom rather than bow down the Roman civic religion.
The same people who criticize the United States for all the abortion that happens within it are upset that a preacher points out that the death of innocents brings down divine judgment (and condemnation)? Strange that!
Thanks for being objective. Quite refreshing:)
Agree with you and if you have no objection here is my link.
http://justlearningman.wordpress.com
Actually he is a moron since God would not destroy (damn) Sodom as long as there were ten just people there (Gn.18:32) which ten just men I would think even the vox nova extremists have to concede as being here in the US since they favor the USCCB steering committees which exceed ten people.
The “US” is a concatenation of virtuous acts by some people and evil acts by other people and Wright is a moron for not grasping that. But he is a moron like a fox is a moron….slanted pandering sermons like that bring in the donations and keep that church from being boring to the carnal. Boredom of the parishioners means Wright would actually have to get a job.
Likewise Morning Minions’ home of the UK is a concatenation of good acts and evil acts as when she stopped slavery by Portugal or when on the other side of virture, she forced opium on China.
They are people like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell who did say that America is directly responsible for 9/11, as God was punishing the nation for its sins. There is no ambiguity here. Their God is a God who condones the murder of innocents. And yet, these people received a free pass, while Wright is harassed.
I actually bashed them both. They’re all nutters, they just differ in their emphases. Radicals have much more in common than they’d like to admit. As a Republican with libertarian leanings, I freely admit that there is unpleasant company in the party, how could there not be in so big a party ? I’m on the National Review, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman etc. end of things, you’d have to pay me to watch the ’700 Club’. As far as these ‘reverends’ are concerned – a pox on all of them, from Jesse to Pat to Jeremiah.
“Racism in intrinsically evil, and it is hard to deny that racism is still very much alive and well in America…”
“Such double standards are quite outrageous.”
Funny, that congregation is unabashedly racist, and supports some of the worst racists of our day. Where’s your attacking them for committing an intrinsic evil? According to you all intrinsic evils are of equal seriousness so it would follow that you would attack this congregation as much as you do the current administration of the United States (notice I didn’t say the nation-state called the United States).
Like you said, such double standards are outrageous, and you fall right into them like anyone else.
Tim Tim Tim…don’t you know only whites can be racist? :P I guess you haven’t been to sensitivity training yet. They’ll come for you soon enough :P
MM,
This man utters truths which may not win elections (there is that lower to lower middle class white vote, along with that of a certain Southern ‘gentleman’, the notion circa 1700s-1960s), but are necessary–albeit painful and humiliating– for persons of good will to acknowledge.
Yes our country deserves a healthy patriotism and ‘pride’ it its commendable ideals and great individual and collective deeds. But it also has its unpleasant history and own unique propensities to vice and self-idolatry. It only follows that any Christian and/or person of good will who loves our country, great as it is in many, many respects, must have a deep ambivalance about it, unless he/she is in willful denial or blinded by one form of ideology or another.
Why is this even at all controversial? Is anything in or of this world not a cause of healthy ambivalence, as it is limited and not God? The only thing one can/should be unambivalent about is God, his glory, goodness and truth as love.
I know that I succeed at the existential ackwledgement of God’s absolute preeminence only at those moments during and immediately after I receive sacramental absolution. Maybe others do better, and, if so, I commend and seek to emulate them. But I also know that it is ever helpful for me to humbly remind myself what a sinner I thus am, but still trusting in God’s mercy and transformative grace. In this particularly challenging epoch our my country’s history, I try to mind this always.
Tim,
This post is not about whatever sins Wright or congregation may have committed. A sinful man can speak truth, and when he does, we should listen. Pope Benedict often cites heretical or protestant thinkers in his works, but he cites them for their truth.
The words Wright spoke are unpopular just as the words of Jeremiah were unpopular. I do not know if the claims of racism by his congregation are warranted or not, but I do know that Americans need a good prophet (not in the sense of prognostication, but in the sense of speaking the truth and calling us, as a community, out on our sins).
Here at Utube is one of Wright’s pelvic moments of graditude to Bill Clinton where the quality of his audience is in full bloom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xb7AVw_no0&feature=related
I don’t recall Jeremiah having such a moment as the above utube moment…
I cannot help but painfully consider that it may not be one’s love of country that is put into question whenever one is asked about one’s stance toward Rev. Wright’s statements. I think a hairthread away from this interrogation, at the very least, is not the question, “Are you an America lover”, but posed most vilely and veiledy, “Are you a ‘ni**er’ lover.” May this not be how some (and I am not saying anyone in this blog) are exploiting and narratizing Mr. Wright, with most depraved intentions?
,
If anybody wants to know, I am a lover of both, proudly.
This post is accurate and appreciated. And it avoids some of the confusions risked by Policraticus in his nonetheless admirable post below. (For may take on his attempt to salvage the symbol of the flag, see comment 33 to his post.)
There is, in Pastor Wright’s words, going to be much “hating on” MM for this.
I, for one, promise to respond to none of it.
And I urge other stalwart “defenders of the faith” (by which I mean Henry, Michael, Policraticus, etc. — not the venerable “Tito”) to ignore the angry commentary.
Further angry discussion is pointless and not in the spirit of charity.
Wow a lot here.
A few words on the Racist US Justice system!! While I do think there are some problems as a former Prosecutor that used to be involved in the Judical Machinary it seems that often the African American Jurors had a different viewpoint. Once we got past the particular bad reading of “Judge not, lest you be judged” that sadly seems so prevalent in the African American Community in my neck of the woods and found Blacks we could sit they often came to a different conclusion.
For the most part they recognized that often African Americnas were most of the victims of violent crime. They had no problem with bringing down harsh sentences. I suppose having a bullet go through your living room for the 3 rd time while minding your own business does that.
As to Pat Robinson and Falwell they did not recieve a “free pass”. In fact there are reason why Falwell closed up shop on the “Moral Majority” and declared victory. Just like there are reason why Pat Robertson influnce has been on the wane for years. That is many evanglicals thought they were nuts and were a tad wary of people that thought Incident x was directly connected to problem y. Especially when in the Robertson’s case he often said it was a result of some divine communication.
Other views of these people have little to do with an American Nationalist Religion or some Calvanist quirk. More often than not their views on Foreign Affairs have to do with quirky Dispensationist theories that are widely just trying to connect the dots. I am pretty sure that people in other other Countries that embrace this are doing the same
The comments of Wright should be examined. I suspect as to 9/11 there were other things said and other “conspiracy” literature promoted. The conspiracies as to AIDS and 9/11 that were so promoted by segements of the American left have now been adopted by the fringe right. SOmething I have been warning about for years. Those Chickens have truly come home to roost and not in a good way. Especially when combined with other extreme views. In the black community this becomes even more problematic because I hate to say Conspiracies are believed left and right by many. It is amazing how many people in New Orleans think Bush blew up the levees so Black folks woold have to leave New Orleans. It ceases being funny when you hear 9 year old kids in New Orleans Catholic schools spouting this garbage. So let the probing continue
Lastly the attacks on 9/11 American did not bring on themselves. They were connected to a grousp that has their own evil ambitions. There is a common thread between the attacks of 9/11 by AQ and the attacks that AQ does on people all over the world. The reason cited above have little to do with them
Just examine the second worst terrorist attack since 9/11. That is the August 14 2007 massacre of the Yazidi in Iraq to see that.
Mr Bannon,
“Pelvic gratitude to Clinton” ” Not boring to the carnal.”
You are dredging out the foul old stereotypes ofv the American negro shamelessly and without pause.
I humbly implore you to wash that filth of yopur tongue or leave immediatlely. There is absolutely no place for this racist banter on a Cathoilc blog. Especially during Holy Week.
If you cannot help[ yourself, do yourself at least the courtesy of a quick cyber-departure.
G Alkon,
You are right. I am out of here. I will not listen or respond any longer.
Mark
Apparently you think that that audience as it laughs at slander (Bill never did have intercourse with Monica…”riding”…they had oral sex which St. Bernadine called the use of the “unfit vessel” but which is allowed now as foreplay within marriage I’m told) but for you laughing at slander represents blackness then….which means you may be the racist….and you may never have eaten with cultured educated blacks from Barbados at a breakfast spread in their home which would rival anything you have seen for breakfast as I have. You have never have a date with an artistic black native girl of Antigua in the Cockle Shell Inn in St. John who would not laugh at slander and discussed art and sublimation instead having studied film in Spain. Have you paid tuition for a poor black girl to catholic school for years and tutored her every night? If you haven’t….why don’t you do those things first before opening your mouth.
Let us assess this statement as Catholics,….a churchman should not take the Lord’s name in vain …
at the end of the day, this is a minor transgression
Actually, that would be a mortal sin, which is not exactly minor.
Saying that McCain’s friends are worse is not really a very good defense for Wright.
”The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law
This is the part I have the biggest problem with.
Mr. Bannon,
Where is the substance of your argument? It seems to me that it would be wise to consider your words before ranting about your experience of the black community.
“Tim,
This post is not about whatever sins Wright or congregation may have committed.”
Sure it is… The title is “What’s wrong with Wright”.
He’s a racist. He heads a racist and anti-semitic congregation. He’s not bashful about it.
MM said himself, racism is an intrinsic evil, and all intrinsic evils are equal (according to MM). That said, he (and obama) should be treated with just as much vitriol as the Bush admin.
Chris
This thread posits the question: “What’s Wrong with Wright?”
Is it rhetorical and all embarrassing moments to your position are to be suppressed?
The utube moment answered that question in the sense that a picture is worth a thousand words. He is slandering Clinton…intercourse is theologically worse than oral sex even as mortal sin since possible childbirth is involved and the possible resultant abortion…..and he is committing the sin of ingraditude toward Clinton as helper of blacks so that his…Wright’s listerners …will vote for Obama and not for Clinton’s wife.
So let’s not compare him to the prophets who did no such things.
Here by the way is the Bill Clinton record as pertains to helping e.g. Africa …the same man that Wright is implying has not helped blacks at all and rather has done to them what he did to Monica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
Wonderful entry. Wright very well may be a racist, but as you stated, when he is correct people should listen. As for TeutonicTim calling his congregation anti-semitic… thats a leap.
Is it rhetorical and all embarrassing moments to your position are to be suppressed?
You presume to know my position on Pastor Wright even though I have in no way stated it. Wright’s statements are alarming and demonstrate a theological vision that is focused on the historical experience of slavery and racism, to the exclusion of a more universal, catholic vision. His words reflect an overly simplistic dualism, one that pits the black community against a faceless nation-state.
He is slandering Clinton…intercourse is theologically worse than oral sex even as mortal sin since possible childbirth is involved and the possible resultant abortion…..and he is committing the sin of ingraditude toward Clinton as helper of blacks so that his…Wright’s listerners …will vote for Obama and not for Clinton’s wife.
So let’s not compare him to the prophets who did no such things.
These comments bring up two important deficiencies in your argument. First there is the question of prophetic behavior. While I am in no way endorsing Wright’s statements, I do believe that they reflect the prophetic mode of discourse. Look at the prophet Hosea for instance. He takes a harlot for a wife and states that Israel plays the harlot. Or think of Elijah and his battles with Ahab and Jezebel. Is that slander?
Secondly there is your understanding of intercourse. In Genesis God gives man (both male and female) the command to “be fertile and multiply,” which implies that there was intercourse prior to the Fall. Your theological discussion of intercourse stands contrary to the biblical account and could easily fall into a form of Gnosticism.
Chris,
Wright’s actions were physical-verbal signing of slander and the sin of the ingrate against Bill Clinton who did much for black causes.
Hosea and Elijah have zero to do with either slander or the sin of the ingrate. That they and other prophets did unusual signs does not mean they did slanderous signs or ever signed being ingrates. Your intellect is conflating primary opposites while noticing secondary similarities.
Your comments on intercourse were similarly incomprehensible. Intercourse outside of marriage post Eden and actually post Christ is all we are concerned with as to the slander of baptized Clinton by Wright….and non married intercourse is mortal sin….and it meant for the early Jews in the Mosaic law that they would have to marry and not even be able to divorce ever…. as other Jews were permitted to divorce the latter due to the hardness of their hearts…as per Christ’s words. The “law” involved for consensual sex of the non engaged follows:
Deu 22:28 ¶ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and THEY be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
I do hope that the Left in this country rallies behind Jeremiah Wright and defends his ravings. Please. Alas Senator Obama does have a survival instinct:
“The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.
Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.
Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.
As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.
Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.
With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States. ”
You know, I actually do believe Obama in part. Like most politicians I think he doesn’t take preachings seriously, and the hard leftism\hate America which Jeremiah Wright embodies probably is foreign to Obama, although perhaps not to his spouse. The problem for Obama is that more than a few of his supporters agree with much of what Wright said, while most Americans are simply appalled by Wright’s rantings. Obama is about to find out that the worst place in politics is to be ground between one’s own supporters and the majority of the voters.
Thank you Donald for this thoughtful comment.
I read three posts repudiating Hagee when John McCain was not a member of his church, received an endorsement and immediately condemned the anti-Catholic rhetoric when it was shown to him.
We now have a Jeremiah Wright apologist.
Vox Nova is now officially a Liberal Blog™
I’m not sure if this post indicates being a Wright apologist, nor if I’m ready to categorize this blog, but at the same time I’m not shocked that more effort is made to glean any truth from Wright’s statements than from Hagee’s. NB: that’s in no way a defense of Hagee, but rather an observation that Wright has received a more favorable reading at VN.
I’m open to correction, and would be happy to be wrong in this instance.
First, yes, I do view Wright more favorably than Hagee. That is a simply reflection of the great evil that Hagee supports when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Second, this should not be read as an apologist for Wright. While I agree with much of his criticism of official American policies, I still have problems with his theology.
Tony: define “liberal”. How many times must it be pointed out that these distinctions make no sense in the Catholic domain and that — from our standpoint– the ridiculous “culture war” is a war between siblings, between step-children of the Enlightenment. Why must you people insist on using secular political terms again and again and again?
When someone’s every political post either 1) defends Democrats in some respect, or 2) dismisses any positive thing that Republicans have done, that person has no standing to complain about being called a “liberal” when he knows full well that the term is being used in the normal American sense to mean someone who prefers Democrats over Republicans.
On the particular quote above, Wright does point out some legitmate failings (Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Israeli-Palestinian conflict), although other claims he makes are more dubious. Aside from the “damn” comment, this particular quote does not concern me nearly as much as things brought to light in other threads.
“When someone’s every political post either 1) defends Democrats in some respect, or 2) dismisses any positive thing that Republicans have done, that person has no standing to complain about being called a “liberal” when he knows full well that the term is being used in the normal American sense to mean someone who prefers Democrats over Republicans.”
Preach it, brother!
Tony: define “liberal”. How many times must it be pointed out that these distinctions make no sense in the Catholic domain and that — from our standpoint– the ridiculous “culture war” is a war between siblings, between step-children of the Enlightenment. Why must you people insist on using secular political terms again and again and again?
Because you quote Catholic teaching out of context, to support your liberal agenda. I have seen it time and time again, from the minimizing of the indefensible evil of abortion by emphasizing less evil issues like racism and poverty to now defending this blatant racist, at whose knee Barack Obama learned his theology for 20 years.
So now, because Hagee supports Israel’s right to exist, you can overlook “AIDS was caused by white people to kill black people”, “The chickens are coming home to roost (in reference to 3000 Americans killed in the WTC)”, “white people gave drugs to black people and them put them in prison” and the ever popular “God DAMN America”.
Hagee is a footnote. If McCain had spent 20 years in his congregation, he would not be the Republican nominee.
So before attending to the mote in your brother’s eye, how about arrenting to the sequoia in your own.
[...] uniquely on those priests who support Democrats in general, and Obama in particular? I’ve already talked about the hypocritical approach between the treatment of Wright and Pfleger on the one hand, and [...]
[...] Dangerously Distorted Christianity Back in March, I took issue with the media furore over Jeremiah Wright, and argued that two Protestant “pastors” who endorsed McCain, John Hagee and Rod [...]