Racism in the Church?
Courtesy of Rocco, some very provocative statements from Memphis bishop Terry Steib:
“I … know there is a subtle racism that still exists within our Church that leads to a mistrust of the Church among our young African American men and women. (snip)
“Slowly we are moving away from that mistrust to trust in our Church and thereby trust in the Universal Church. You may ask, ‘What do you mean by subtle racism?’ Well, recently and particularly because of the awarding of a degree to President Obama at the University of Notre Dame, the question [of] racism among the bishops of the country has been raised. I am only raising it because [retired San Francisco] Archbishop [John] Quinn in an article in the America Magazine said that continuing confrontation with President Obama and his administration sends the message that the bishops are insensitive to the heritage and continued existence of racism in America. Archbishop Quinn said that.
“When President Obama was inaugurated four buses full of African Americans Catholics drove for more than 19 hours to be present for the historic moment. But they felt that their celebration was muted because they had heard that so many of our bishops did not seem to understand the significant moment. They seemed not to understand what the whole world took to heart — that President Obama’s election was creating or beginning a whole new era that rejected racial stereotypes and it was opening the door to more embracing international relationships.
“But many of our Church did not share that jubilation. And this, people, I will admit to you too. Nothing was done during other administrations, nothing was said when other presidents who favored the war in Iraq with its constant killing, or who favored capital punishment were given awards in the name of the Church, even though those presidents were not adhering to Catholic Right to Life principles. Because of his clearly unacceptable stand on abortion many who are leaders in the church are willing to pillory President Obama with direct confrontation rather than with clear moral teaching about abortion and public law.”
I share the bishop’s concern about the recent behavior of some of his brother bishops – a distinct minority, let me point out. I’m not sure how many of them are motivated by racism. I think they listen too much to their secular allies, who are becoming more hateful, less rational, and more nihilistic with time. Some of that rhetoric has unfortunately crept into Catholic discourse (look at some “usual suspect” blogs and see how their opposition to healthcare reform goes far beyond the USCCB’s cautions). Bishop Steib is absolutely right to suggest double standards – I could also point to the argument that Medicare cuts leads to euthanasia only when such cuts are proposed by Democrats. I hope his brother bishops who have been most outspoken on this will listen to the disappointment in the voice of this African-American bishop. I hope they realize that they are pandering to racist elements, even if they are unaware of it.
Comments are closed.
I disagree entirely. The Bishops’ criticisms of the Administration’s abortion policies are wholly legitimate. Now, I do wish they had been more consistent in their application of the Church’s comprehensive social doctrine when, for example, Notre Dame gave President Bush an honorary degree, but that’s a separate issue. With all due respect to Bishop Steib and Archbishop Quinn, they appear to have no actual evidence to support this very serious accusation against their brother Bishops. I can see their point about the lack of consistency demonstrated in the Notre Dame affair; Bush arguably bore a much larger burden of personal responsibility for each execution in Texas, for each Iraqi civilian death, and for each tortured prisoner, than Obama does for each abortion in the US. However, to make the leap from inconsistency to racism seems somewhat fallacious, to say the least.
“Notre Dame gave President Bush an honorary degree, but that’s a separate issue.”
No, it’s not, this is exactly the point about racism: it’s systemic. An individual action, in isolation, is neither racist nor non-racist. If you act fairly some of the time, then you do not act fairly at all: Justice and fairness REQUIRE consistency.
I’m inclined to agree that it’s not primarily about race, but about political affiliation: Bush was a republican, Obama is a democrat, and the church these days is Republican. That strikes me as so obvious that I can hardly believe some Catholics still deny it.
It is worth pointing out, though, that the church was not at all concerned about the appearance of racism. The simple fact of the matter is that Obama was only grudgingly accorded the basic respect that every other president has gotten, and suggestions of racism were simply dismissed.
The R Card is just a smoke screen used to end a discussion on the pros or cons of any given topic. Just throw that card on the table & no one dares open their mouths again. So much for “dialogue”….geez…how duplicitous can you get? Just come out & say “Anyone who dares to disagree with me or the President is racist” & then you won’t have to talk to anyone who ever disagrees with you!
I would find the proposition that there is a total lack of any racism among the episcopacy a much more remarkable assertion in need of evidence than Bishop Steib’s remarks.
Our society has made great progress — thanks to faith leaders, liberals and (as Dr. King firmly asserted) the labor movement — in combating direct racism.
But I don’t think we can pat ourselves on the lack for a lack of racism because we don’t have Sheriff Bull Connor. I think subtle racism, as the bishop suggests, is very common. When Blacks are sold a car, apply for a mortgage or ask for a good table in a restaurant, the cumulative results are hard to explain without acknowledging some racism, even if it is just an unconscious feeling this person won’t push back as much when given something less desirable. So one wonders, while bishops and others may have legitimate policy differences with the President, is there a subconscious feeling that one can be a little harsher in tone and action with him than other presidents?
If racism in no part of the inconsistency of certain bishop’s actions, it would be helpful if they could indentify some other fault of their which has led them to this.
Mickey, I find it hard to disagree with anything your write (and you are dead on with Bush’s proximity to evil closer than Obama’s) but I also know some black Catholics who are very very angry about what they see as the Church’s response to Obama. I blame the majority of bishops for their silence, for being unwilling to rock the boat. And I blame the loud minority for inching too close to the evangelical right, and its white southern-based political movement. These bishops are not racist, but they don’t do enough to distance themeslves from those who are.
They need broader horizons. They need to deal with politics as their brother bishops in Europe and elsewhere do. When Burke complains that the Vatican is too pro-Obama because it is full of Europeans, he needs to follow that logic to its conclusion.
Phosphorious: I agree that consistency is necessary for justice and fairness, but where do you make the leap from inconsistency to racism? I also agree that there is probably a bias that causes some of the Bishops to speak harshly against Democrats but give the Republicans a pass, but again do you have any evidence that even these Bishops have been MORE harsh towards Obama than they would have been to Hillary Clinton? And what has the Church done that gives the “appearance” of racism of which you speak? Again, I haven’t heard any Bishops promoting birtherism, or saying that the health care bill is just a stealth reparations plan, etc. Honestly, I think the Bishops have been some of the few voices of sanity in the past year. They have criticized him on a policy level, some more harshly than others, but I have never seen an instance of blatant disrespect for the office or the man. Can you give an example of when the Bishops demonstrated the “grudging respect” of which you speak?
Kurt: I agree that subtle racism still exists. But unless you can prove, as I said, that the Bishops are being more harsh towards Obama than they would be towards Hillary Clinton, then I think charity requires us to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t criticize them when we see inconsistency, only that we shouldn’t claim to know their motives unless we have actual empirical evidence as opposed to supposition.
MM: reciprocally, I can’t really disagree with anything in your comment. The Catholic Church in America has lost a lot of moral credibility by aligning with the evangelical right, and in general by conforming without question to the two-party dualism without trying to be truly revolutionary as followers of Christ should be (Deacon Fournier from Catholic Online recently wrote a great column about that…I’ll try to find it and post it). But for that, us laity are as much to blame as the Bishops.
I can see their point about the lack of consistency demonstrated in the Notre Dame affair; Bush arguably bore a much larger burden of personal responsibility for each execution in Texas, for each Iraqi civilian death, and for each tortured prisoner, than Obama does for each abortion in the US.
Well, considering Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001, I’m not sure the Iraq War and torture are particularly relevant here. And Bush and Obama are both in favor of capital punishment, so, remind me, what’s the argument here?
But unless you can prove, as I said, that the Bishops are being more harsh towards Obama than they would be towards Hillary Clinton, then I think charity requires us to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I could definitely imagine similar harshness toward an imagined Clinton presidency, but similarly we could imagine that it would be inspired by sexism. No? But I’m not sure hypotheticals are helpful. It’s better to compare the treatment of Obama with the treatment of past presidents.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t criticize them when we see inconsistency, only that we shouldn’t claim to know their motives unless we have actual empirical evidence as opposed to supposition.
I don’t think anyone is talking about racism as a “motive,” as if bishops have some racist ideas and therefore they are consciously more harsh toward Obama. I think the issue is unconscious, systemic racism, and that is a problem for all whites in the united states, not just white bishops.
therese – Why so quick to accuse folks of “playing the race card” in order to “end discussion,” and being “duplicitous”? Are you making these charges against MM or against Bishop Steib? Hopefully not the latter. (Hopefully not either, but you catch my drift.) I am grateful for the witness of Bishop Steib and other black Catholics who have much to teach me. The predominantly (but not for long) white church in america needs to listen for a change.
For just a moment, let’s just talk about the region that has become the Republican Party’s only remaining bailiwick–the South.
I think it’s impossible to deny that this is the most violently racist region of the United States. I grew up there, and I know this intimately, as someone whose parents are of mixed Jewish-Catholic-Celtic (British) background, and who were outspoken proponents of civil rights for blacks.
The opposition to African American civil rights ALWAYS cloaked itself in “anti-communist” and “anti-socialist” rhetoric, but was actually ALWAYS really about loss of white privilege:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/the-latest-insanity.html#more
“Well, considering Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001, I’m not sure the Iraq War and torture are particularly relevant here. And Bush and Obama are both in favor of capital punishment, so, remind me, what’s the argument here?”
Well, Notre Dame aside, President Bush spoke at quite a few Catholic colleges after war and torture were most certainly issues. As for the death penalty, I don’t think President Obama ever personally signed off on 131 executions, so while he may be in favor of it, he doesn’t bear the degree of personal responsibility that Bush does. That’s not really my point, however; I’m not interested in a debate over who was worse, Bush or Obama. My point is that both of them take positions that are contrary to Catholic teaching on the dignity of human life, and if indeed it is true that the Church should not as a matter of principle honor politicians who do so (a principle with which I generally agree), the Bishops should have spoken up about Bush’s commencement addresses and honorary degrees. Their actions have been inconsistent. As I said, however, it is a huge leap from inconsistency to racism.
So, to directly answer your question, John Henry, there really was no argument. As far as I’m concerned, neither Bush nor Obama should have received an honorary degree from any Catholic institution.
As far as I’m concerned, neither Bush nor Obama should have received an honorary degree from any Catholic institution.
I agree with you here.
As far as I’m concerned, neither Bush nor Obama should have received an honorary degree from any Catholic institution.
Agreed.
I’m trying to recall Bush receiving a similar honor, though (post Iraq and torture), and I’m coming up blank.
Bishop Steib notes that “Other presidents have had disagreements with the positions of the Catholic Church, for example, in war policies and capital punishment, but have received honorary degrees without similar objection.” In that infamous letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who, as we know, conveniently concealed the letter for quite some time, Cardinal Ratzinger instructs the bishops:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia…While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Therese,
“The R Card is just a smoke screen used to end a discussion on the pros or cons of any given topic. Just throw that card on the table & no one dares open their mouths again. So much for “dialogue”….geez…how duplicitous can you get? Just come out & say “Anyone who dares to disagree with me or the President is racist” & then you won’t have to talk to anyone who ever disagrees with you!”
Ahhh. . . a new fallacy: The “The Race Card” Card. If someone accuses you of racism, then you can ignore everything they say, because they have “Played the race card”.
Kurt: I agree that subtle racism still exists. But unless you can prove, as I said, that the Bishops are being more harsh towards Obama than they would be towards Hillary Clinton, then I think charity requires us to give them the benefit of the doubt. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t criticize them when we see inconsistency, only that we shouldn’t claim to know their motives unless we have actual empirical evidence as opposed to supposition.
Mickey,
I would respectfully disagree. While I am sure your motivation is the promoting of charity, I fear the result of that position would be a tolerance of racism.
It would be wrong to start naming individual names without empirical evidence. And we are best to preface our observations with “I think…” rather than insist they are facts. But if we cannot note the perceived existence of racism in broad groups such as our society, employers, our family, the church or even among union members (I thought it was noble and not a violation of charity when AFL-CIO leader Rich Trumka addressed racism among union members last year) then I think you have blocked us from addressing this problem. And not addressing it, I think, is wrong.
This is not a conversation stopper, as others claimed. It is a conversation that needs to happen. Some people will be uncomfortable with it (fine, I’m uncomfortable discussing ACORN right now!). But closing off discussion is not the answer.
standmickey:
I agree that consistency is necessary for justice and fairness, but where do you make the leap from inconsistency to racism? I also agree that there is probably a bias that causes some of the Bishops to speak harshly against Democrats but give the Republicans a pass, but again do you have any evidence that even these Bishops have been MORE harsh towards Obama than they would have been to Hillary Clinton? And what has the Church done that gives the “appearance” of racism of which you speak? Again, I haven’t heard any Bishops promoting birtherism, or saying that the health care bill is just a stealth reparations plan, etc. Honestly, I think the Bishops have been some of the few voices of sanity in the past year. They have criticized him on a policy level, some more harshly than others, but I have never seen an instance of blatant disrespect for the office or the man. Can you give an example of when the Bishops demonstrated the “grudging respect” of which you speak?
As I say, I don’t think it’s racism, but politicization; Hillary would have gotten exactly the same treatment, whereas Sarah Palin would not have, even given her stated opinions on US detainment policy.
As for the appearance of racism, and the “grudging respect”: there was an outcry when Notre Dame invited Obama to speak. There wasn’t for previous presidents. To a non-catholic, it must have looked like the Church was reluctant to have him speak. Why would a Catholic university that was happy to have Bush, a enthusiastic applier of the Death Penalty, speak, and not Obama. There’s one obvious answer. . . but we’re not allowed to say it.
The Church simply didn’t do enough to distance itself from the truly despicable elements of the political right. The Church is not racist, just as I assume most conservatives are not racist. But they (both conservatives and the Church) seem too willing to dismiss charges of racism.
” . . . and the church these days is Republican. That strikes me as so obvious that I can hardly believe some Catholics still deny it.”
Well the Vatican seems to be denying it rather emphatically via Cardinal Cordes who issued this statement shortly after the Notre Dame flap and just before Obama’s papal visit. I don’t think the timing was any coincidence.
“The Church is not a political party, nor is it an actor in the political process. Woe to those who reduce the mission of the Church to a worldly pressure group seeking political results.”
Comparing Bush, 2001 – to Obama 2009 is nonsensical because it fails to fully recognize and understand Church teaching. First, when Bush was awarded an honorary degree at Notre Dame, THERE WAS NO IRAQ WAR … so please, STOP talking about war killing and torture in comparing Bush 2001 to Obama 2009.
Second, the Church does not require Catholics in governmental positions to refuse to enforce laws. So, whomever happens to be head of a department of a state that publicly funds abortions is not required to withhold those funds going to abortion providers. … Likewise, a governor in a state where the death penalty is legal does not violate Church teaching by not granting clemency.
Third, both Bush and Obama support the death penalty. But, most importantly, the death penalty is NOT intrinsically evil, and the Church has never defined it as such. Abortion is, was and always has been an intrinsic moral evil. The Church is speaking out against the death penalty as part of the culture of death and we should pay attention. But there is no comparison between support for the death penalty and support for an intrinsic moral evil.
The reason there was such revulsion over Obama’s Notre Dame honorary degree is precisely because of this moral evil, that is the scourge of our nation and is a much more grave, widespread and imminent threat to our Country and to our society than is the death penalty.
By the way, I have always thought it bad form to award any president an honarary degree precisely because of the appearance of polititcs and because that public of a figure will likely always differ with the Church somewhere.
I don’t see Bishop Steib accusing his other bishops and Catholics of racism; I see him noting that in their zeal to oppose Obama’s position on abortion, many have lost sight of what a significant event Obama’s election was to the African American community, and that this may cause damage to the Body of Christ.