Throughout history it seems that the official church can't
decide which "side" it is on. God and angels? Or with the powerful and wealthy? Do christian churches really believe that ALL people are equal in their worth as human beings? In dignity?
Bryan Massingale's interview with Commonweal offers a good explanation of white privilege.
Sometimes churches lead in doing the
right things,, in saying the "right" things. Yet so often what they say seems to
be empty words, dutifully intoned, but not really intended to encourage real action -
unless it is against gays or abortion.
Sometimes the church is out in front demonstrating all the
wrong things through teachings and actions. This is true of most christian
churches, But there should be special criticism of the largest christian church
in the world, the RCC, which has failed to lead in too many cases, but has often been bringing up the rear in truly teaching the gospels, through actions as well as words.
Very often
the “little” people - the people in the pews, the religious sisters, the lower
clergy do demonstrate true christian leadership. Those at the top often
fail miserably.
But the laity and
the lower clergy and even the nuns are partly to blame for this because they
continue to dutifully support the hierarchical structures at the top, and the
clericalism that permeates the entire structure from the Vatican to the
individual parishes.
The parishes have a lot of good people and do a lot of good things - they run food pantries, and encourage "community" with fish fries and pizza nights. They take up "special collections".
But seldom do comfortable, mostly white parishes get out in front and really speak out on issues such as racial justice. It's fine to help the poor with tangible material things - everyone needs to eat. Feeding the hungry is not controversial with many people. And people can then feel good about themselves - after all, the just donated a bunch of cans of tuna and some pampers to the parish pantry collection.
BUT, there is mostly a deafening silence when it comes to trying to understand the structures that underlie inequality, the structures that underlie poverty, especially in minority communities. They speak out for the poor when it comes to tangible goods but seldom when it comes to becoming vocal on justice - because that is political. But it is so needed in the white, christian churches, including the Catholic church.
The majority of white Catholics voted for Trump. Why is that? Maybe because the clerical "leadership" refuses to speak out loud and clear? Unless it's abortion, gay rights or the church's distorted definition of "religious freedom"? Instead one of the country's most prominent cardinals expressed admiration for Trump from the pulpit of St. Patrick's. You can bet that will be used for highly partisan purposes.
Power and wealth. Still the drugs of choice for so many in miters.
Right now there is a pressing need for white people to begin
to understand what white privilege really means. But I doubt a whole lot will be said beyond
the bland comments of Catholic bishops and bland homilies in parishes. Because,
as Jim has pointed out, if the homilist says anything about what Jesus demands
of us in these circumstances - hard things, things that might cause us to break with family or friends (I am guilty too, but have said enough that I have not seen or spoken with a couple of siblings since Nov 2016 - we communicate by email only) - the parish might be deluged with what may only be
called “hate mail”. From a whole lot of self-described Christians.
Commonweal has an interview with Bryan Massingale, a black
theologian at Fordham. He uses the
example of Amy Cooper in Central Park to illustrate this – a “liberal” New
Yorker, a registered Democrat, a donor to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But
when it came to a face-off, the racism surfaced.
He explains clearly the roles we all play in upholding racist
structures.
Anne, many thanks for this post. I especially agree with this:
ReplyDelete"But seldom do comfortable, mostly white parishes get out in front and really speak out on issues such as racial justice."
Everyone, or at least a critical mass of white people, believes that racism is bad. I don't think I've heard of any family members or personal acquaintances speak of George Floyd's death in any way except to condemn it.
Certainly, the Catholic Church can speak more loudly in condemnation.
Beyond that, I think most people don't know what they can do. The one practical policy idea that has emerged from the protests, "Defund the police" probably strikes most white Catholics as a loony, self-defeating idea.
In a recent comment, I outlined what I take "systemic racism" to mean when it comes to a police force: that police don't hold one another accountable; that the senior echelons of police forces don't hold their employees accountable; and that our elected officials don't hold police departments accountable.
What can individual Catholics, or the church as a whole, do about those problems? Certainly, the church can raise its voice. And individual Catholics who are police officers or senior police leaders can do things, even courageous things, out of a sense of solidarity with those whom they are supposed to serve and protect.
Catholics could go on supporting "inner city" schools that have educated important numbers of African-American students. Catholic high schools, colleges, and universities should go on supporting funding and programs for African-American students.
DeleteEven if! many/most of these children and young adults are not Catholic.
Margaret - that is not a small issue you are broaching :-)
DeleteThe original purpose of Catholic schools was to form young disciples within a larger culture that had a certain level of hostility to Catholicism.
As demographics have changed in the local communities with Catholic parishes and schools, in some cases such that relatively few Catholics populate the local community, and Catholicism has become much more socially acceptable during our lifetimes, the mission of some Catholic schools has changed to providing local non-Catholic families with an alternative to public schools which in many cases are not satisfactory.
I don't dispute the necessity of that newer mission - if my family lived in one of those communities, I'm sure we'd see the Catholic alternative as a lifeline - but maybe it's worth asking: in this moment of social reform in which we all seem to find ourselves, could we be willing to undertake what is necessary to "fix" the local public schools?
Jim, Been there, done that: New York City fixes ("reforms") its public schools every five years. That makes the inner-city Catholic school program a welcome alternative to many families, not only African-Amerocans. I say we need every good school we can get...no matter who is running them.
DeleteI agree with a Margaret. In recent years the Catholic archdiocese of DC closed almost all of the inner city catholic schools. The DC metro area has several of the wealthiest counties in the country. Tuition at the RC schools in rich parts of the city and suburbs are very reasonable, far less than most of the families can actually afford. Why can’t the parochial schools in the affluent neighborhoods add a surcharge of some kind to tuition that could be used to help reopen some of the inner city schools? Maybe even make it a suggested donation or find some other way to do it that won’t “shame” families who might be stretched.
DeleteMy personal opinion is that elementary schools are key to it all. More important than high schools in many ways. Preschool is shown to improve student outcomes for years following. So the help is needed even before kindergarten.
In DC four RC schools were turned over to charter school enterprises. I don’t know if that has helped or not. I guess I will research it.
The police are not held accountable because they and their unions are so very politically powerful. Those who oppose the police are like the Republicans who oppose Trump: fearful of being thrown out of office by the police officers' voting base.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Stop-California-s-cops-from-looting-city-hall-15321423.php
Jim M - I think you're right. I actually think that one of the most important practical changes to come from this round of protests is that this is the first time I have heard progressive activists speak out against the entrenched power of a public employee union.
DeleteConservatives are pretty comfortable already speaking out against teachers' unions and AFSCME. They should be capable of adding police unions to the list.
The Catholic church sometimes finds itself tongue-tied when it comes to criticizing unions, because church social teaching has been pro-labor, and besides, many of the bishops during our lifetimes have been Irish American Catholics who came from union households (and perhaps in some cases from police families). There are strong ties in Chicago between the police and the church; the church continues to provide police chaplains to the Chicago Police Department. American church leadership will need to find its voice to make appropriate distinctions between the common good and individual union organizations that hamper it. Although, I've been reflecting recently that the New Deal strain of the Democratic Party is waning, so maybe it won't be the stretch I'm supposing it to be for American Catholic leaders to offer critiques of police unions.
Joan Chittister in NCR observed that few white people have any non-white friends. She suggested that everyone try to find a way to establish a personal relationship with an African American.
ReplyDeleteEasier said than done. Often this may occur at work - but how many invite their black colleagues home for dinner or to a BBQ? Some, but a lot more probably could than do.
More needs to be said in homilies - risking the wrath of some of the congregation. But that is the church equivalent of what Massingale recommends for us when we hear someone use a racist comment, or make a racist joke at the Thanksgiving table. He says most of us brush it aside, few of us speak out . And he is right.
At a parish level, maybe other things could be done. A former RC parish we belonged to had (and still has ) a twin parish in downtown DC, a black parish. But too often it's a case of nominal involvement - send them a check from the parish, have a pulpit and choir exchange once/year. The other former RC parish has partnered with a multi-cultural church (white, Hispanice, Black) but it's still sort of the rich people giving money and school supplies, and food, and winter coats and mittens to their poor fellow Catholics across town. The EC parish is similar. No real efforts to get to know the less fortunate. The monetary help is needed, but it's not enough to change hearts, to spur whites to work for candidates who might really help the poor, even if it means their property taxes go up. It's frustrating, because I have also been part of mostly white religious communities my entire life. Hard to help financially but not otherwise without it coming across as just a bit condescending.
Anne - you are on fire with these observations! Keep them up!
DeleteFWIW, I strongly believe that personal relationships are the key to changing individual hearts; and that changing individual hearts is the key to reducing racism.
As I have mentioned before, our EC parish is currently without a rector. Of course it's been closed all this time too. So some of the Vestry have been keeping things going, with a livestream evening prayer. Sunday is the Cathedral livestream. But they also send out meditations in email. I thought this one had pretty good food for thought.
ReplyDeleteFriends:
Jesus was a human being of his own time, place and culture, who also had to learn over three decades of his largely “hidden” life before his Messianic ministry, that the artificial distinctions in the human family between “them” and “us” must be overcome through courage and compassion. The Gospel story today is one of the most poignant in all of Matthew. Jesus is confronted by a person who he still considers to be one of “them.” In his day, the Canaanites were considered to be the descendants of the ancient enemies of the Israelite people from the time of the return from the Exodus. They were “dogs.” It is one of these “others,” a woman (!), who teaches Jesus more about the universality of faith and compassion. What did this woman recognize in Jesus that gave her the courage to cross ancient ethnic and gender chasms?
THE GOSPEL
Matthew 15:21-28
Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon." But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, "Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, help me." He answered, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed instantly.
Imagine yourself in the crowd of disciples. Jesus’ initial put-down of this female “foreigner” is expected, and we are reassured in our superior identity as the “chosen ones.” Driven by desperate love for her little girl, the shouting, disturbing, and incredibly courageous Canaanite woman also sees something beneath the surface of Jesus. His initial stinging rebuke is met with even greater courage and her complete vulnerability. Astonishing. She “one-ups” Jesus and confronts him a second time. As a result, Jesus is deeply moved beyond his own comfort zone. He is being taught the universality of love and compassion and is learning more about what it means to be the Messiah - to bring the Good News to all people. Jesus has the courage to respond with solidarity and compassion.
There are other examples of these moments in the Gospels: the Canaanite woman at the well, the Roman centurion. In the course of his ministry, Jesus is drawn inexorably deeper into the knowledge of Abba’s absolute love and compassion for all people, and for all of Creation. Those in the crowd, both Jews and Gentiles, are stunned, discomforted, and challenged. We are in just such a moment today. Let us have the courage to move beyond our comfort zones and join with Jesus in not “sending her away.” Let us, especially those of us who are white, have the courage to confront the invisible racial, ethnic, and gender privileges of our time, and “let it be done.” It is because Jesus is like us that we have hope that we also can grow and be healed.
I love the insights here - that Jesus was human, that Jesus had to learn also how not to exclude those outside his own tribe, that he had to evolve in understanding just as we do. That he had to learn to move beyond his own comfort zone.
So, I am reflecting on that idea as I try to figure out how to move beyond my own comfort zone, even though it will cost me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI turned off the television recently because I had exceeded my limit of strident strangers on television telling me what I must do. That's not bridge-building. It's not the road to peace.
DeleteI don't know if Latinos have the same issues with police that Blacks do. About 75% of my neighbors on our street are Latinos. Most speak limited English. I speak a little Spanish, but it is pretty limited too. Took it in high school and college, but if you don't use it you lose it.
ReplyDeleteYes, they do. Or put it this way: When a cop sees someone having trouble with English, the cop does not see someone who will complain to someone else who has the chief's ear.
DeleteKatherine: About 75% of my neighbors on our street are Latinos.
DeleteKatherine, do your neighbors go to your parish?
Defunding police may sound crazy but their arguments need to be listened to. Defunding can mean something like diverting funding from the police to drug rehabilitation or closing it down completely and replacing it from scratch. The reason for the latter might be to break away from the founding purpose which lives on in the culture. For example, the PA state police for breaking miner strikes. Nowadays, they are rather innocuous because the miners had many of their grievances addressed.
ReplyDeleteThe Biden campaign stated that they do not support defunding the police. Instead they favor additional funding for community based policing programs. They correctly recognize "defunding the police" as political kryptonite. The opposition would use the phrase as a weapon to beat the Democrats with (and in fact are already using it).
ReplyDeleteTrump's version of defunding the police is, as explained to me by a MAGA: "The blacks want to take money from the police and give it to themselves." Real Trumpian thinking.
DeleteThe stupid version is: We don't need no stinkin' poooolice force. Try that one out on unsnarling traffic after the concert.
The simple version is: "Take away their tanks and personnel carriers and shields and tasers and drones and the other military toys and make them think instead of playing soldier." That might help a little.
The sophisticated version is: We currently expect police to treat drug addiction and mental health issues, educate children, settle domestic disputes, handle landlord-renter relations and do a lot of other things that we have under-funded other agencies -- which, being underfunded, they do poorly, leaving their work to the police. Divert the money we are giving to the police to do those things to the underfunded agencies that are set up to do them, and you will end up with a smaller, better focused police force. And that could work. Except it is more likely that our current political establishment would take the money away from the cops and use the "savings" to provide tax cuts for economic growth, leaving the underfunded agencies underfunded and the cops still doing their work with less money.
Tom, I agree with what you said. I just think the phrase, "defunding the police" is a mon-starter. Because, trust me, the Rs will spin it as the Dems wanting an anarchist's paradise.
Delete"The stupid version is: We don't need no stinkin' poooolice force. Try that one out on unsnarling traffic after the concert."
DeleteThat is pitch-perfect.
I think we're aligned on the sophisticated version. The one thing I would highlight is that it is not the police per se who are criminalizing mental health; it is state legislatures and governors who are underfunding mental health treatment (and pension contributions, and ...), and in effect turning prison systems (not police forces) into inadequate, and arguably unjust, mental health treatment facilities.
When a mentally ill person is causing disorder somewhere, 911 still will be called, and chances still are good that it will be a police officer who will have to intervene and restore order. No doubt, many police could be better-trained on recognizing symptoms of different forms of mental illness, and applying the most effective and humane ways to intervene, according to the symptoms. That would actually require more, not less funding, but in my view it would be money well-spent. And then, downstream from that initial police intervention, some actual treatment could be administered for the person who is mentally ill, without criminalizing him/her.
Katherine, thanks for that link to the HuffPost article. Biden's position strikes me as sensible - more so than Trump's; the president has declared that police won't be defunded, as though it is a federal government matter (it isn't).
DeleteThat said, Biden's position surely is not in line with the passion of the protesters, who by all the evidence really do want much less policing. Biden has been around the block several times and presumably has concluded that the African Americans in South Carolina and elsewhere who propelled him to the nomination are not the same ones who are mob-shaming the Minneapolis mayor.
It seems that Biden's campaign didn't trot the candidate in front of the cameras to make this policy pronouncement? At some point, they're going to have to unlock the cellar door and bring him out into the light of day, and turn the reporters loose on him.
When I was a staff member of the mental health board, I was also designated a public health officer, even though I was a researcher not a clinician.
DeleteWhat I could do as a public health officer was to call the police, ask them to detain an individual, e.g. a mentally ill person who had come into our office and made threatening statements about himself or others, and to transport that individual to a local psychiatric hospital to be evaluated, and of course those psychiatrists could admit or if necessary commit against their will that person to the hospital.
The sole thing the police were needed was to forcibly detain that person according to law and to place that person in the custody of people who could treat the problem. It didn't require any judgement or expertise on their part. I merely presented my card and signed what is know as a 'pink slip'
The role of the public health officer is to be able to recognize the deeper problems, and to get people involved connected with the help they needed, forcibly if necessary.
What our society needs is more public health officers. Public health officers need to be very broadly trained to recognize physical, mental and social problems. However we need to separate their role from treatment providers and the police. Both treatment providers and police have motivations to provide their services (bigger treatment and prison facilities) that might not be in the best interests of society or of particular individuals.
Public health officers need to have both the individual and the community's interests at heart. Right now with Covid-19 we are at a good time for increasing the role of public health officers, even our Republican governor recognized that before the pandemic.
Jack, many thanks. I admit I have little or no knowledge of the role of the public health officer.
DeleteIn your experience, had police "roughed up" any of the patients you had asked them to detain? I see mentally ill people as being particularly vulnerable to this. (I'm coming at this from the point of view of someone who works in a very modest way with homeless people.) And I wonder to what extent mental illness plays a role in the victims of police brutality which is driving the protest movement across the country.
It was relatively unlikely that anyone detained by a public health officer would be roughed up by police because someone associated with the mental health system had clearly labeled a person as being likely in need of treatment. Police attitude is that this is not their problem, somebody else is taking responsibility for it. They have more important things to do. My boss was on good terms with the county commissioners and the county sheriff. So a compliant from him about inappropriate behavior of someone whom we had referred would have consequences, at least a warning.
DeleteOn the other hand your average mentally ill homeless person is very vulnerable as at least a nuisance and perhaps in some cases as being a threatening person, or a person who does not respond with respect to a police officer. The police officers are responsible, and generally way over their head in how to manage the situation.
Once Voice of the Faithful had a lecture by a priest at a parish in Cleveland. We were confronted by a group of very conservative Catholics who challenged the priest during the lecture and us afterwards. Someone called the police.
However one of my colleagues with a lot of counseling skills simply engaged the conservatives as HE continued to slowly walk out of the hall. By the time the police arrived they were near their cars and wisely decided to get into them. Police generally don't have the verbal and social skills to ratchet down a situation. If their physical force does not intimidate people they are usually at a lost for what to do.
During normal, pre-COVID times, we serve dinners a couple of Sundays each summer month to 60-70 people, almost all of whom are homeless. During the six years we've done this, we've had to summon the police a couple of times.
DeleteOne of those times was last year, and it was over a racial incident. There were two African American women eating at a large table in our parish center, and a white couple, man and woman, sat down at the same table. A dumb argument broke out between the two groups, something about someone not passing the butter to someone else. Tempers flared, and one of the white people used the "N word", and one of the black women responded by throwing a glass of lemonade at the white woman. The black woman then stood up, announced she would wait for the white couple in the parking lot so they could 'finish the conversation', and stormed out. This all happened without the knowledge of us who were running the dinner; our attention was elsewhere, and other diners alerted us to the issue.
We called the police, because throwing the drink constituted assault, and we took the parking lot statement to be a threat of violence. The police reacted by sending over three squad cars, which seemed to be overkill. The two black women were in the parking lot, while the white couple was still at the table. One of the black women was still spoiling for a fight; the other just wanted some peace so she could have some dinner. One group of police spoke with the women, while another group came inside and spoke with the couple. On this occasion, I thought the police did a good job calming everyone down and defusing the situation. Eventually, the black women left. I was hoping the police would support my desire to evict the white couple (using the "n word" is a violation of our standards) but the police thought it was more important to keep the principals physically separated from one another, so the couple was allowed to remain until they finished their meal.
We get a lot of "regulars" at these dinners, but I had never seen the white couple before. They returned for the next dinner, and then I never saw them again. The African American woman who seemed to be eager for a physical confrontation didn't come back for a few weeks but then returned. I told her I was glad to have her back. She told me she thought I shouldn't have called the police. I don't think she considers the police her friends. That is common among homeless people in our area.
I posted this article because I wanted to learn your thoughts on what Fr. Massingale says about the preference of the Catholic church (and most christian churches) in America for whiteness. So I have copied a few key passages and would like ideas on how you and your parishes might respond to how our churches can respond to what Fr. M refers to as "idolatry".
ReplyDeleteThe congregation are the bystanders—the people who see what’s going on, know what’s going on, but who take no action to intervene.
Even if you … are not actively anti-racist, if you’re not actively challenging people when they say and do terrible things, then you’re creating the permissive atmosphere that allows these blatant things to happen
The 2018 (Bishops) statement came… in response to the events of Charlottesville, when we saw white nationalism resurgent in this country in a way that we’ve not experienced in decades… open white supremacists marching in the streets of an American city with torches saying, “You will not replace us. Jews will not replace us.” The document .. never named white nationalism as a social crisis in America. The phrase “white privilege” does not appear in the document. The phrase “black lives matter” doesn’t appear in the document, …
There is a normative whiteness present in the church, but I would also say that it’s a form of idolatry. It’s the worship of a false god.
when it (the Bishops statement) speaks of racism, it speaks of it in the passive voice. African Americans were excluded from opportunities, but it never says who did the excluding or why.
In other words, the document was written by white people for the comfort of white people. And in doing so, it illustrates a basic tenet of Catholic engagement with racism: when the Catholic Church historically has engaged this issue, it’s always done so in a way that’s calculated to not disturb white people or not to make white people uncomfortable. ..
the Catholic Church wants to deal with these issues in ways that won’t disturb the comfort of whites...
…. Why is it that the only group in America that is never allowed to feel uncomfortable about race is white people?
Another example came during Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit in 2008, … The theme of the liturgy was to celebrate the cultural diversity that’s present here in the United States. The readings were done in a number of languages. The first reading was the classic account of Pentecost where the Spirit descended and enabled the peoples of the world to hear the Gospel proclaimed in the world’s languages. The prayers of the faithful were offered in a variety of languages. The gifts were presented to the accompaniment of vigorous Gospel and Spanish singing. After which the commentator on EWTN opined—and I remember these words because they’re emblazoned in my mind—“We’ve just been subjected to an overpreening display of multicultural chatter, and now the Holy Father will begin the sacred part of the Mass.”
I note the disjunction between “multicultural chatter” and “sacred.” “Sacred” (according to EWTN) had nothing to do with “multicultural”. Being “sacred” means speaking in a white idiom, praying in a white idiom, using European hymns. It’s this normative whiteness that’s ubiquitous in the Catholic Church—which is its greatest hindrance to dealing effectively with issues of race.
"The congregation are the bystanders—the people who see what’s going on, know what’s going on, but who take no action to intervene."
DeleteAnne, thank you for calling us back to the topic at hand :-).
The quote I picked out here, particularly interested me when I read the interview. It struck me that there is a parallel here with liturgy. As I am sure you know, the primary pastoral thrust since the liturgical reforms of Vatican II has been to induce the People of God, which includes (and is symbolized by) all the people gathered for mass, to engage in full, conscious and active participation. And, as you may be able to attest from personal experience, this is very different than what was asked of them prior to Vatican II.
We are five and a half decades past the close of the Council, but I don't see that progress is being made in the great project of bringing about full, conscious and active participation.
The connection with Fr. Massengale's remark is that it seems to me that he is calling the People of God to engage in full, conscious and active participation in the quest for justice. And, as in liturgy, he does not see progress being made.
My supposition is that these are two symptoms of the same malaise.
If people could somehow be motivated to engage in works of justice, perhaps they would bring that motivation to the work of liturgy as well. And our corporate worship, as well as the justness of our society, would be the better for it.
"Even if you … are not actively anti-racist, if you’re not actively challenging people when they say and do terrible things, then you’re creating the permissive atmosphere that allows these blatant things to happen"
DeleteI think this is true. I can say with honesty that the number of times in the last 30 years that I have heard or seen anyone do or say anything terrible, could be counted on the fingers of one hand, perhaps with a couple of fingers left over.
On the other hand, when I was a child, I heard both childen and adults use the "n-word", which is by no means the most terrible thing, but is still bad and also symptomatic of deeper problems, all the time. It was common.
Does that mean that, during the last 30 years, attitudes have improved? Hearts have changed? I hope the answer to that question is Yes.
Could it also mean that some hearts haven't changed but the unchanged hearts are cagier about allowing their secret thoughts to be spoken aloud? Probably there is some truth to that, too.
I don't know if Massengale supposes that white people think and do terrible things frequently, but it isn't part of my life experience.
"Does that mean that, during the last 30 years, attitudes have improved? Hearts have changed? I hope the answer to that question is Yes."
Delete"Could it also mean that some hearts haven't changed but the unchanged hearts are cagier about allowing their secret thoughts to be spoken aloud? Probably there is some truth to that, too."
Jim, I think what you said is true.
If you're under 40, you may think nothing has changed.
DeleteIf you're over 40 you know that something has changed when you see the mayors of Chicago and DC., and you hear the NYTimes now referred to as the New Woke Times (no joke!).
More change needed? More change coming...hope so, if we don't screw up and re-elect Trumpltwit.
Margaret, from your mouth to God's ears!
DeleteRespond to how to respond
ReplyDeleteAnyway....
Most of what Fr. Massingale says rings true. Although the Church is of African origin, it squished into Romanita too easily. There are people today who will insist that if European music isn't used, the music isn't sacred. They also (but won't admit it) think Latin is the only language God understands. Massingale is right about that, of course. Still, when guitars found their way to the altar, the parish in which we lived acquired a long-haired blonde musician who included in our repertoire "Amazing Grace." An African-American I knew in the Movement objected that we were appropriating "his" music. ("Amazing Grace" was written by a white man. Sorry, Fr. Massingale, ignorance is überall.)
DeleteMassingale said: "Because people of color, black Americans, have marched. We have demonstrated. We have organized. We have protested. We have voted. We have studied. We have taught. We have begged. We have pleaded. We have cried out.... And still we are being killed while jogging." I know. I was there and did a lot of that. As Margaret indicated, young people might not know that white folks were involved in things like that 60 years ago. What I didn't do was still get killed for being BWL (Black While Living.) There was a night in Grenada, Mississippi when I thought I might be collateral damage. But, in general, I could go home and be as white as needed. Others who demonstrated, organized and cried out couldn't.
That is white privilege. Nobody I know figured out how to get around it except John Howard Griffin.
As I watch demonstrations today (marching is not good for my COPD) I see there are more possessors of white privilege involve than there will back in the day. I am encouraged, even as I remember that I was encouraged before the Era of St. Ronnie put hope on hold.
Let me clean up that last graf:
DeleteAs I watch demonstrations today (marching is not good for my COPD) I see there are more possessors of white privilege involved than there were back in the day. I am encouraged, even as I remember that I was encouraged before the Era of St. Ronnie put hope on hold.
"That is white privilege."
DeleteI don't think what you have described is white privilege. Rather, it is living in dignity and security. Those are human rights to which all are entitled. It is a moral crime that the same dignity and security which you and I may enjoy, isn't extended to all humans.
"White privilege" suggests that I'm enjoying something which I'll have to relinquish. But some people shouldn't have to give up human rights so that others may enjoy them. The point of the exercise should be to secure them for all.
I don't see my lifestyle as a zero-sum game. I don't accept interpretations of history that imply that it is.
No doubt the phrase "white privilege" is very annoying. What me?
DeleteSo I betook myself to a real dictionary and looked it up...the usual Middle English, Old French, from Latin privilegium: "A law affecting one person." Is privilege the right word. How about thick headedness, hardheartness?
The following is seriously off-topic.
This morning as I was betaking my furious self downstairs (in the elevator) to berate a malevolent driver of an anonymous and humongous "logistics" truck for running his engine on our street and under our windows for 30 minutes, my dear one asked: "Was I exercising gender privilege by imagining a woman could get the idiot to turn off his ignition." I replied, this was gender emboldenment, not gender privilege.
End of story: Just as I got downstairs and outside, the truck pulled away. I could tell that my rage had preceded me three minutes (in the elevator), he was frightened, and drove away.
Correction: hardheartedness.
DeleteJim Pauwels, what you said! That living in dignity and security are human rights to which all are entitled, is what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the words. "Privilege"to me says almost some sort of luxury. Like getting the VIP parking place at work. It also is something that gets bestowed on you by someone else, not something that should go along with just being a human being.
Delete" [Privilege] also is something that gets bestowed on you by someone else, not something that should go along with just being a human being."
DeleteYes. If I may riff a bit on your thought:
My first premise is this: I try to be a practitioner of the spirituality of gratitude, which is the basis for that perennial pastoral favorite around here, Stewardship. The idea is that none of the good things we have are because of our own merits; we didn't earn them. Any blessing we have, is God's gift to us - and it is gratuitous. I find this approach to be a valuable corrective to the idea that I've *earned* whatever advantages I've had - that it is my hard work or shrewdness or perseverance or similar self-congratulating descriptors that entitle me to safety, security, peace, health and other things which I enjoy and others don't. The starting point, from a spirituality of gratitude, must be that none of us have these things because we've earned them.
The second premise is that God intends that all people should be given these things we call human rights - life, safety, security, shelter, food, peace, health care et al. None are to be excluded from these gratuitous gifts. We may not each get all of them in equal measure, but we should all get them adequately.
In my view, these two premises give us a basis for thinking about folks who don't have the blessings of safety and security. First of all, we must reject the idea that it is their own fault; just as my merits don't entitle me to these things, others are not to be excluded from them because of their defects. All of us, as creatures of a God who is good, have the same right to these things.
Second, it forces us to confront the question of why these rights, as gifts, have not been distributed adequately. God intends that all should share in them; but not all share in them. I reject the notion that this unjust distribution is the will or the caprice or the unfathomable mystery of God. That notion squares neither with what we know about God's love for us; nor with what we know about human agency.
The only conclusion I am able to draw is that it is up to us humans to ensure that these human rights are secured for all humans. I perceive this to be a part of discipleship - not all there is, but a part of it, and a part to which some of us are especially called to work for.
Well put, Jim.
DeleteJim I would suggest that whites are privileged because they do enjoy God's gifts more than do minorities. You say you have not really seen this in action. When I looked up Arlington Heights demographic data I came up with this: there are ~75000 total population, of whom about 1150 of 75,000( 1.7% of the population) are black, and more than 80% are white, with Asians the next largest group. Arlington Heights also enjoys a high median income - Estimated median household income in 2017: Arlington Heights $101,634 Illinois: $62,992
DeleteRead more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Arlington-Heights-Illinois.html
So now I will make an assumption - these demographics could mean you probably have few blacks in your parish, and relatively few poor people, and so don't hear their stories. You see it - race and poverty - in your service at the food kitchen – but essentially you observe it from the perch of white privilege.
Fr M does a good job of illustrating how white privilege works - the privilege in the Amy Cooper case was that she assumed that she would be more likely to be believed by the police than Mr. Cooper - because she is a white person and he is a black man - that confers the privilege of greater credibility in situations like the one that occurred in Central Park.
Amy Cooper held the key to help us understand what happened in Central Park. It tells us a great deal about what we mean by white privilege, white supremacy, and why these more blatant outrages occur. We see a white woman who exemplified all of the unspoken assumptions of whiteness. She assumed that she would be presumed innocent. She assumed that the black man would be presumed guilty. She assumed that the police would back her up. She assumed that as a white woman, her lies would hold more credibility than his truth. She assumed that she would have the presumption of innocence. She assumed that he, the black man, would have a presumption of guilt. She assumed that the police would back her up. She assumed that his race would be a burden, and that she had the upper hand in the situation. She assumed that she could exploit deeply ingrained white fears of black men, and she assumed that she could use these deeply ingrained white fears to keep a black man in his place.
It occurred to me that she knew exactly what she was doing, but also that we all know what she was doing. Every one of us could look at that situation and understand exactly what was going on, and that’s the problem. Whether we want to it or admit it or not, we all know how race functions in America; it functions in a way that benefits white people and burdens people of color, and especially black people. That systemic advantage, that awareness that most white Americans have even if they don’t want to admit it, means that they would never want to be black in America. We need to be honest about the centuries-old accumulations of the benefits of whiteness that make it easier to be white than it is to be a person of color. Until we have the courage to face that reality and to name it explicitly, then we’re always going to have these explosions and eruptions of protest, but we will never have the courage and the honesty to get to the core of the issue and to deal with the systemic ways in which inequality works in America.
Another example that came across my FB feed by Shola MRichards
DeleteTwice a day, I walk my dog Ace around my neighborhood with one, or both, of my girls. I know that doesn’t seem noteworthy, but here’s something that I must admit:
I would be scared to death to take these walks without my girls and my dog. In fact, in the four years living in my house, I have never taken a walk around my neighborhood alone (and probably never will).
Sure, some of you may read that and think that I’m being melodramatic or that I’m “playing the race card” (I still have no clue what the hell means), but this is my reality.
When I’m walking down the street holding my young daughter’s hand and walking my sweet fluffy dog, I’m just a loving dad and pet owner taking a break from the joylessness of crisis homeschooling.
But without them by my side, almost instantly, I morph into a threat in the eyes of some white folks. Instead of being a loving dad to two little girls, unfortunately, all that some people can see is a 6’2” athletically-built black man in a cloth mask who is walking around in a place where he doesn’t belong (even though, I’m still the same guy who just wants to take a walk through his neighborhood). It’s equal parts exhausting and depressing to feel like I can’t walk around outside alone, for fear of being targeted.
If you’re surprised by this, don’t be. We live in a world where there is a sizable amount of people who actually believe that racism isn’t a thing, and that White Privilege is a made-up fantasy to be politically-correct. Yes, even despite George Floyd, Christian Cooper, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor (and countless other examples before them, and many to come afterward), some people still don’t seem to get it.
So, let me share some common sense points:
1) Having white privilege doesn’t mean that your life isn’t difficult, it simply means that your skin color isn’t one of the things contributing to your life difficulties. Case in point, if it never crossed your mind that you could have the cops called on you (or worse, killed) for simply bird watching then know that is a privilege that many black/brown people (myself included) don’t currently enjoy.
2) Responding to “Black Lives Matter” by saying “All Lives Matter” is insensitive, tone-deaf and dumb. All lives can’t matter until black lives matter.
3) Racism is very real, and please don’t delude yourself into thinking it’s limited to the fringes of the hardcore MAGA crowd. As Amy Cooper proved, it’s just as prevalent in liberal America as it is anywhere else.
4) While racism is real, reverse-racism is not. Please don’t use that term, ever.
5) In order for racism to get better, white allies are absolutely critical. If you’re white and you’ve read this far, hopefully you care enough to be one of those allies. Please continue to speak up (despite some of your friends and family rolling their eyes at you), because your voices matter to PoC now more than ever. Special shoutouts to my friends ….
6) And if you’re white, and you’re still choosing to stay silent about this, then I honestly don’t know what to say. If these atrocities won’t get you to speak up, then honestly, what will? Also, it’s worth asking, why be my friend? If you aren’t willing to take a stand against actions that could get me hurt or killed, it’s hard to believe that you ever cared about me in the first place.
As for me, I’ll continue to walk these streets holding my 8 year-old daughter’s hand, in hopes that she’ll continue to keep her daddy safe from harm.
I know that sounds backward, but that’s the world that we’re living in these days.
#BlackLivesMatter
VIRAL EDIT: Whoa, so this post blew up. I am deeply touched by all of your kind words, and also, for your willingness to step up as allies. The comments on this post have only strengthened my faith in humanity, and for that, I am very grateful. We have a lot of work to do, and I’m ready to stand at your side to do it ❤️.
"Jim I would suggest that whites are privileged because they do enjoy God's gifts more than do minorities. You say you have not really seen this in action."
DeleteAnne - That's not actually an accurate synopsis of what I said.
What I said was, "I can say with honesty that the number of times in the last 30 years that I have heard or seen anyone do or say anything terrible, could be counted on the fingers of one hand, perhaps with a couple of fingers left over."
I trust the difference is clear.
I'm not going to argue with Fr. Massingale's point that, as a general proposition, whites get better treatment from the police than people of color do. I believe him.
"Fr M does a good job of illustrating how white privilege works - the privilege in the Amy Cooper case was that she assumed that she would be more likely to be believed by the police than Mr. Cooper - because she is a white person and he is a black man - that confers the privilege of greater credibility in situations like the one that occurred in Central Park."
DeleteIf that is his illustration, then surely we are justified in inquiring, "How did that stratagem work out for Amy Cooper? Did her racist assumption cause the effects she allegedly was hoping for?"
If it did - then that's a good example. If it didn't, then - at the very least, it's a poor example. Conceivably, it could even be a counter-example.
Anne, what's your view: did the outcome of Amy's scheme illustrate that white privilege is real?
Anne, thanks for that FB post from Shola M Richards. That was outstanding.
DeleteJim, since neither of the Coopers were still in the park when the police arrived, we don't know if her ploy would have worked or not. But she made the attempt because she of her instinctive understanding that she would be more likely to be believed than he would be - because she is white and he is black. Higher credibility with cops is almost always a white privilege.
DeleteThe Floyd murder occurred on the same day. I'm quite sure that her corporate employer would not want to be linked in the public mind with any sign of tolerance for racism. We have at least made enough progress that being seen as tolerant of racism is bad PR.
Anne C: "Jim, since neither of the Coopers were still in the park when the police arrived, we don't know if her ploy would have worked or not"
DeleteAnne, that wasn't my understanding of the scenario..I'm curious where you read that...
I’m not sure where I first read it. Probably the NYT . But here is a report from NBC
Deletehttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nyc-officials-call-police-probe-white-woman-s-911-call-n1216451
With more digging I found a NYT story that seems to indicate that cops did come. But how long would that have taken? Did they just stand there for ten minutes waiting?
Deletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/nyregion/amy-cooper-dog-central-ppppark.html?referringSource=articleShare
The police could have been there in minutes; they patrol Central Park. The park has its own police station.
DeleteThis gets you to the story I remember reading:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/nyregion/amy-cooper-dog-central-park.html?searchResultPosition=6
What is touching and amazing is Christian Cooper not only accepting her apology, but seeming regretful at her losing her job and her dog.
Anne and Peggy, thanks for hunting down those details on the outcome of that Central Park dispute.
DeleteHere is Fr. Massingale's analysis - and I think this paragraph, as far as it goes, has the ring of truth about it:
"Amy Cooper held the key to help us understand what happened in Central Park. It tells us a great deal about what we mean by white privilege, white supremacy, and why these more blatant outrages occur. We see a white woman who exemplified all of the unspoken assumptions of whiteness. She assumed that she would be presumed innocent. She assumed that the black man would be presumed guilty. She assumed that the police would back her up. She assumed that as a white woman, her lies would hold more credibility than his truth. She assumed that she would have the presumption of innocence. She assumed that he, the black man, would have a presumption of guilt. She assumed that the police would back her up. She assumed that his race would be a burden, and that she had the upper hand in the situation. She assumed that she could exploit deeply ingrained white fears of black men, and she assumed that she could use these deeply ingrained white fears to keep a black man in his place."
But ...
... if Fr. Massingale is right in guessing what Amy Cooper assumed on that occasion, then it should be noted that those assumptions were wrong - and for her and her future, disastrously so. And that her racist assumptions were wrong surely has *some* bearing on our analysis of the state of our society. The police did not believe her nor disbelieve the black man. The police did not assume the black man's guilt. The police did not back her up. The police did not assume that she told the truth and that the black man lied. In this case, at least regarding the police's involvement, his race did not turn out to be a burden.
The outcome of this incident complicates (to say the least!) the narrative of white privilege, and of police being deployed to preserve that privilege to the detriment of black people. The police punished neither of the principals. And as we have gotten to know a bit about Christian Cooper, my sense is that the incident has only enhanced his public reputation. He has come across as an interesting and thoughtful man.
Not so for that poor woman. Her life is wrecked. Her employer fired her for her poor handling of a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with her job or her employer, and reputationally she is now the human equivalent of toxic waste. For a time, and perhaps still today, she has been one of the most vilified people in the country.
I agree with Peggy that Christian Cooper showed magnanimity - certainly more than the howling social media mob. Forgiveness is one of the ointments that lubricates our social interactions. I wish it were more prevalent in our society today.
Please don't take this line of thought as a total dismissal of Fr. Massingale's thesis. His article is both challenging and powerful. And Christian Cooper offers some testimony in that NY Times article that is very much of a piece with it:
"“I am one of the few male African-Americans who birds the Ramble regularly,” [Christian Cooper] said. “And I have always been aware that if I am crawling around behind a shrub trying to catch a glimpse of that rare bird, holding a metal object in my hands, I will be perceived differently than a white man if police come across that scene.”"
Jim! A brilliant analysis.
DeleteLet me fill in a bit on an ancillary piece of this drama: Dogs. Dog owners. Ordinary New Yorkers.
There are a lot of dogs in NYC. More than you would imagine, and more every Christmas!
There are two kinds of dog owners, owners who obey the rule to leash their dog and owners who don't. Some parks [not sure about Central Park] allow owners to let dogs off their leash from say 7 to 9 AM but properly supervised etc. After 9 Am, all dogs must be leashed in our local park, they must always be leashed on sidewalks and streets. I have a dog-owner friend who obeys these rules, and who goes after dog-owners who don't because she values the 7-9 exception, and doesn't want the city to rescind it. She leashes her dog at other hours.
Runners, bike riders, and ordinary walkers support leashing because they don't want to have to deal with a dog chasing, jumping, etc....etc.
So Ms. Cooper may have suffered from an illusion of white privilege (as Jim proposed), but she also suffered from the illusion that her dog didn't need to be leashed. Mr. Cooper was enforcing the rules in urging her to follow the rules. She took umbrage.
And Birders are serious people!
Peggy, thanks for the doggy details! My initial reaction is: birders should do their birding before 9 am - and people who work in the financial industry should have walked their dog by 9 am and been at their desk following the markets or whatever they do all day!
DeleteJim you are right about that woman's life being wrecked, at least for now. I hope she is able to learn and move on from the moment. She has certainly had to do public penance. But her life isn't over yet, something about one bad apple not spoiling the whole barrel.
DeleteJust thinking about the Cooper/Cooper incident; people hate being corrected. Even (or especially!) when they know the corrector is right. Brought to mind an incident from years ago. I was in the library, browsing some books in the non-fiction section. I picked up a book, looked at it, then put it back. Wasn't careful to put it in the right slot. A man who was also browsing said to me, "You need to put that book in its proper place. If others are looking for it they won't be able to find it". I just glared at him, picked up the book and shelved it according to its Dewey Decimal number. And left. Cussed at my car radio all the way home. What I didn't do was tell the librarian that "There is a man annoying me in aisle 3."
DeleteFunny.
DeleteKatherine - I suspect that most of us carry around a bagful of those little humiliations, and perhaps a few not so little, that we've suffered at the hands of others. Some of them go back decades and get the dust blown off them from time to time. I read or heard Christian Cooper say something somewhere which led me to believe that he is not one to swallow his resentment and skulk away thinking to himself, "Here's what I shoulda said!"
DeleteJim, Fr M's assumptions about Ms Cooper's assumptions seem on target. The cops didn't arrest anyone. But her deliberate use of African American in her threat to call police, followed by the actual use of the racial descriptor certainly implies that she assumed her whiteness would make her more credible than Mr. Cooper- an African American. Otherwise she simply would have told police that she felt threatened by a man in the park. Her use of African American was quite calculated.
DeleteAnd the more I think about it, the more I think she got what she deserved. Although in the wrong, she called the cops with the intent of causing trouble for Mr. C. Willing to lie to do so. If I were her employer, I would not like to have an employee who was willing to lie to get someone else in trouble. She showed herself to be dishonest - untrustworthy - in addition to assuming racism would cause the police to take her side. Nope. I hope she has learned a lesson and that others have learned it too.
Delete"Jim, Fr M's assumptions about Ms Cooper's assumptions seem on target."
DeleteYes, I agree - in fact, tried to say as much.
"And the more I think about it, the more I think she got what she deserved."
I really disagree. There is little doubt that a lot of people, perhaps millions of people, agree with you. And it scares the bejeebers out of me. If thoughtcrime is to be punished thusly, then our unemployment problem is going to settle in for a permanent run!
I prefer the paths of forgiveness and reconciliation. Also, proportional punishments, second chances and worker rights.
I don't see the whole social media shame culture as being very helpful. Sort of a virtual dunking stool or stocks, where all and sundry can throw eggs and rotten tomatoes.
DeleteJim, it’s not thought-crime.
DeleteShe called the police and made a false accusations. She lied.
In lying she made a point of his race. Why? Because she knew that she would have the benefit of the doubt - a professional white woman v a black man. It turns out that he is Harvard educated professional also. But she didn’t know that. Plus, because of race, she would still have the edge.
Her lies, her proactive attempt to cause possible harm to someone after she violated the leash restrictions indicated that she is not a trustworthy person.
I would not want someone like that working for me. Someone who, when she screws something up, might well blame a “weaker” co-worker. Perhaps someone in a junior position. Or someone of color.
No, she deserved to go, - not due to her thoughts, but due to her actions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was young, bigotry of all sorts was very common.
ReplyDeleteWhen our bishop, in a progressive move addressed a convention of some Protestant denomination, our Irish pastor was enraged. He also thought it was terrible that our eight grade graduation was held in a Protestant church, even though it was the only one in our little town.
My German maternal grandmother was also prejudiced against people of Slavic origin. At that time you had to be 21 in Pennsylvania to be married without parental consent. She opposed the marriage of my mother to my father. In order to get married at eighteen my mother threatened to get a civil marriage in West Virginia where the legal age was eighteen.
I was aware that some people were prejudiced against what were then called Negroes. But there were not many of them around so I did not collect much personal evidence of that form of bigotry.
Then there was bigotry against “homosexuals” but that was kind of mysterious because you didn’t know who they were. It just seemed to me a way to enforce masculine stereotypes.
So over the course of my life a lot of bigotry has receded into the background if not actually vanished. Much of it died off with the older generations.
Except perhaps for some gender bigotry. I would include some bigotry of women about men as well as that of many men about women.
I do think that we have an obligation to not participate in other’s bigotry when we they express it. I also think we need to change the institutional practices of discrimination that that foster bigotry whether it be racial or gender.
I also think we need to recognize new forms of bigotry, e.g. professionalism, i.e. that certain people because of their education and credentials are better than others. That some people because of their wealth are better than others. And more recently that some people because of their political party are better than others.
In terms of my personal bigotry while being relatively immune to past religious, ethnic, racial and gender bigotry, professional and money bigotry, I have recently become very tempted to regard the religious and political right as very different people perhaps not deserving of respect.
Where is the Catholic church in all this?
The real church, the People of God, are all the above. Sometimes bigoted, sometimes not. Hopefully over time becoming less bigoted. Hopefully we are able to recognize Asian, Hispanic, and African Catholics as Catholics just as we are.
The hierarchical church (the bishops) is a complex matter. They are slowly getting away from being a Roman (Italian) Church with the election of JP2 and now from being a European Church with the election of Francis. They have a huge bigotry against women and for clericalism to overcome.
Jack, I remember when it was common for bigotry to be overtly expressed also. Hard to believe that the Civil Rights Act was controversial.
DeleteI never heard my own parents use racial slurs or put other races down. But there was a kind of naivete, that we shouldn't need additional laws to make people act decently to one another.
My maternal Grandparents were what used to be called Northern Baptists, now called American Baptists. It was a matter of pride that that denomination had split with the Southern Baptists over slavery.
The species-wide variation in the human race is 0.1%.
ReplyDeleteThere is more genetic variation among individuals within a "race" than difference between "races".
Genetic analysis of remains of 8,000 BC europeans even in Scandinavia show they had colored irises but dark skin.
The original population of humans in Africa were dark skinned.
All the genes needed to make white people's skin white already existed in the original population of Africa.
I can't believe all the energy wasted by people on loathing other people, especially with the environmental problems' hot breath on our necks.
Katherine, you mentioned above that your neighborhood is about 75% Hispanic. Do your Hispanic neighbors attend your parish church? Are they offered mass in Spanish?
ReplyDeleteOne of the other parishes in town, St. Bonaventure's, has the Spanish language Mass on Sunday, which is well attended. They have a well-developed ministry. The next town down the road, which is the site of a meat packing plant, has a parish which is majority Hispanic/Latino, and has Spanish Masses.
DeleteThere are some Hispanic families in our parish, but they tend to be the ones who have been here longer, maybe 2nd generation in some cases.
Our neighborhood is actually not in the boundaries of our parish. It's a street of 1950s tract homes. When we moved in 25 years ago, it was mainly retired people, we were among the younger couples. Now we are the older people. Since it is older, smaller homes, it is less expensive for the newcomers to live here. A lot of the homes are rentals.
I guess that tells you we don't live in the high priced part of town. But we like our house and don't have any problems with our neighbors. They tend to move in and out a lot.
I think we can argue all day about what is or isn't white privilege. But the bottom line is, how can we level the playing field? I think Cardinal Cupich said it best: "Surely a nation that could put a man in space, his safety assured by the brilliance of black women, can create a fair legal system, equitable education and employment opportunities and ready access to health care. Laws do not solve problems, but they create a system where racism in all its forms is punished and playing fields are leveled. "
ReplyDeleteWell, I tend to accept the African Americans understanding of what "white privilege" means, based on their personal experiences.
ReplyDeleteFr. M's interview strikes me as a very good explanation - perhaps one that could be shared in homilies by white deacons and priests. It might be a bit more easily shared than articles, blogs and FB comments, simply because he is a Catholic priest.
The FB post of the young father also resonates with me, partly because of the experience of my son's closest friend - who is black, which I have related in other comments, and the experiences of my daughter-in-law and her family and friends.
Leveling the playing field will require the efforts of a lot of white people - people who do understand that their skin color automatically gives them "privilege" that is not automatic for people of color. If too many white people deny the existence of white privilege, it will make the going harder.
A couple of interesting articles at the Religion News Service site.
https://religionnews.com/2020/06/09/racial-resentment-varies-widely-among-religious-groups/
https://religionnews.com/2020/06/08/when-christians-wont-acknowledge-racism-protest-becomes-church/
"Throughout history it seems that the official church can't decide which 'side' it is on. God and angels? Or with the powerful and wealthy?"
ReplyDeleteThe first three sentences at the top. Remember? I've been tangled up for two days trying to do things I never did before, but I am going to try to respond now.
Pope Francis, naming George Floyd, said, ""My friends, we cannot tolerate or turn a blind eye to racism and exclusion in any form and yet claim to defend the sacredness of every human life." Similar thoughts were uttered by Cupich in Chicago, USCCB head Gomez and other mitred heads. Archbishop Gomez, for example: "It is true what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, that riots are the language of the unheard. We should be doing a lot of listening right now."
As Time magazine summarized the bishops' position: "The Vatican has long spoken out about racial injustice, and popes dating to Paul VI have voiced support for the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr.’s message of nonviolent protest. History’s first pope from the global south is no different. He quoted King at length during his historic speech to the U.S. Congress in 2015 and met with King’s daughter, as his predecessor had done."
So we know which side they are on. Straying from this country, we recently canonized an archbishop who was shot and killed while saying Mass for being on the wrong side of the PTB.
But the implicit knock on the U.S. bishops is not without substance. They are, in fact, harping all the time on abortion. (They also harp a lot about punishing asylum seekers at the border, but the media do not find that harping very interesting.) I would suggest that abortion is an outlying issue because the brain dead Democrats made it non-political in the bishops' eyes. They are not pro-GOP because the GOP is pro-life (it isn't, or Roe would have been repealed decades ago). They are anti-abortion, and everyone knows the Ds wrapped their loving arms around abortion and will never let go until the issue is pulled from their lips with a burning forceps. That makes it appear that the bishops are all wrapped up in politics. But that it not how they see it.
As they see it, separation of church and state keeps them from sounding off on partisan politics. The Catholic Church has a few outliers, like "that crazy bishop in (name of diocese)," but it is probably the most discreet church in the USA about staying out of politics. As bishops see it, you can find some Republicans who are right with God about racism and immigration, but you will never find a Democrat who won't profess that everyone should have an abortion, whether he needs it or not. The bishops don't see any politics at all in talking about that. Another four years of Gen. Bonespur, and the bishops won't be able to find any Rs who are solid on race and immigration, and then you may see a change in media coverage and in appearances.
But the situation, for now, is the bishops are trying to keep politics out of religion while living in a country where everything, including what it says on your hat and facemask, is politics. Thy are trying, not because of religious conviction but because of what they, as Americans, view as fidelity to the Constitution (a very politically controversial document itself).
I think.
Tom, I think you're basically right about that. I would add that the history of the Catholic Church, before our lifetimes, is that it positively was *not* aligned with the rich and powerful - that was Anne's church back then :-). The Catholic Church used to be the church of discriminated-against immigrants, and the church that defended the rights of working people to organize.
DeleteThe political parties realigned during the 20th century, and apparently they're realigning again. The GOP has been becoming the working man's party (at least the white working man's party) since, oh, at least Ronald Reagan's presidency. Now white working men are its base. And Catholics, who no longer are downtrodden and are *more* successful than the average American, are following other professional and entrepreneurial and investor types into the Democratic Party. Their kids, off on summer break and with no summer jobs this summer, have plenty of time on their hands to paint signs and organize protest marches against racism and police brutality.
Anne took the liberty of dredging up some facts about the town I live in (which I don't mind; I've seen those numbers before, or similar ones, and they're publicly available). It's true that I live in a mostly-white - well, to be accurate, nearly-all-white - community. In the community's defense, I will point out that, according to the prior census, it was *even more* nearly all white a decade earlier; over the ensuing 10 years, it became slightly more Hispanic and slightly more Asian, albeit not really more African American than before. It has diversified - a little. And I expect the next census to illustrate taht it has diversified again compared to the decade just ended.
ReplyDeleteI didn't pick the town because I only like white people. We ended up living here because it seemed like the people were nice, the schools are outstanding, the property values tend to appreciate over time, it offered an easy way to get into the city and for our parents to visit us - it just made good sense from a lot of angles.
To be sure: I suppose what I've just described is a big, well-trimmed and beribboned package of White Privilege. I can believe that there are many Americans who would say, I wish my family and me could pick where to live based on those criteria, rather than, say, 'I'm less likely to get beaten up by a mob of neighbors or the police.'
Setting aside my critique of the term "privilege" - I don't disagree. And as I said before: I would wish that everyone could enjoy these blessings. And I'm willing to speak up to make that happen. I have spoken up - even from the pulpit. I am preaching this weekend, and may speak up again.
FWIW, as a young adult after graduating from college, I lived for a few years in a truly multicultural neighborhood on the North Side of Chicago called East Rogers Park. It's where Loyola's Lake Shore Campus is situated. At that time, East Rogers Park was *really* multicultural - something like 60 languages were spoken by the school kids in its local schools. There were also black families, Middle Eastern families, immigrant families from many different countries and continents - it was polyglot.
And I have to say, at least in those days, it was a *tense* place to live. There wasn't a lot of trust among neighbors. Neighbors tended not to know one another well. It wasn't neighborly. It wasn't relaxing. When one went out onto the street, one had to be ready for disagreement and conflict. No doubt, part of this is just the stress of too many people packed into too tight a geographic area. But a big part of it surely was the stress that comes from trying to bridge different races and cultures, with histories of conflict between them.
We didn't want our children to grow up in that kind of a tense and conflict-prone (and high crime, and with a street gang presence) area. We were fortunate to be able to relocate to where we did. If that is privilege, I'll cop to it. And as I say: I'd like to extend it to everyone.
Why isn't my town more multicultural than it is? I don't know. I don't believe that there is any conspiracy, along the lines of redlining, to keep African Americans or any other group out. I'd like to think that anyone who will be a good neighbor would be welcome.
But I can easily believe that Shola M Richards would be made to feel uncomfortable walking down the street here.
Jim, I will get back to you on this when I have time. As far as our respective communities go, the demographics are not that different, except for our 19% Asian neighbors. I need to give a complete response, not on the fly and I don’t have the time right now.
ReplyDeleteNo problem at all. I just want to thank you for raising the issue, pointing us to the Massingale article - and for pushing me on these questions!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete