Jeremiah, Obama, and Roman Catholics
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the news, delivering some fiery (the indispensible adjective with the Rev. Wright) rhetoric yesterday at the close of a meeting of the NAACP’s Detroit branch. Wright’s unrepentant talk and prophetic style are likely to make you smile if you are a black Christian or Hillary Clinton, and if they make you wince then you may well be Barack Obama or…Roman Catholic.
Yes, many have traced Obama’s difficulties in attracting blue-collar Catholic “Reagan Democrats” to his lack of working-class elan (that silver-spoon-fed Hillary can out-maneuver a community organizer from urban Chicago is a tribute to her political machine) or, more disturbingly, his race. The Pew Forum’s resident politics-and-religion mandarin, John Green, explores Obama’s uphill battle with white Catholics in this Q&A, noting that Obama lost the Catholic vote by more than 2-1 on Pennsylvania, and Indiana next week could be more of the same.
A couple points to make: One is that Obama is having trouble attracting all regular church-goers, which is odd given that he is the only regular church-goer among the three remaining candidates, a man who remains loyal to his congregation (where Wright was pastor until recently) and his denomination, the largely white UCC. But Green also turns the question around, asking whether Clinton has an “African-American problem” or an “unaffiliated problem”–two groups she’ll need to win the nomination, and the general election.
In that vein I would also ask whether the Catholic Church has an “African-American problem.” In other words, is part of the problem for Catholic voters that the Catholic Church is on the white side of the racial-religious divide–which Wright noted last night, an indisputable point–that marks American Christianity? There are just 2.5 million black Catholics out of more than 65 million American Catholics, and many of those are Caribbean or African immigrants with little in common with the Southern, Protestant, and slave-era heritage African-Americans of Wright’s congregation. Indeed, one reason there are so few black Catholics is that the American hierarchy, fearing a schism like those that afflicted other churches during the Civil War, did not speak out with one voice against slavery.
Black Catholics are a remarkable community, and one that could and should inspire the rest of the American church. Yet they are often overlooked in the focus on our enormous Latino growth, and they are often alienated by the shift back toward a more strait-laced, Old World liturgy. It is a shame that Pope Benedict could not have attended a black Catholic liturgy during his visit–now that is the holy rolling Spirit. Among other things, Hurricane Katrina also inflicted a devastating wound on the black Catholic community concentrated in New Orleans, an issue I explored, along with the history of black Catholics in the U.S., in this Wall Street Journal column.
In short, American Catholics find black Christian rhetoric completely “foreign” for all sorts of cultural and demographic reasons. They never hear this kind of preaching, and one wonders whether they should listen more closely; they might hear some familiar notes. Such as the insistence on communal spirituality and solidarity, one of the principal themes of Benedict’s own homilies this month. Or the focus on social justice–a tradition and teaching that has been so crucial to lifting up our own Catholic forebears. Or the powerful laments–jeremiads one might say–that characterize the preaching of our own Catholic leadership, albeit it in a different key.
For a good context, read Father John Kavanaugh’s insightful column on the two Jeremiahs (biblical and contemporary) in the April 14 edition of America. An excerpt:
The problem with much preaching in Christian churches is that we apply the prophetic indignation easily to our enemies, but rarely to ourselves, our church, our nation. But if we think Jeremiah and Jesus are not addressing us, we have nothing to learn from either—at our peril. Was the Reverend Wright speaking in this tradition when he gave his infamous talk after the evils of 9/11? I think so. His sermon was a commentary on revenge and the violence that returns to those who do violence, especially against the innocent. Wright recounted our national history of killing children, from the Sioux to the Japanese. All just causes, one might sincerely think. But all horrific. And this is where the preacher talked about the “chickens coming home to roost.” As Wright continued, he pointed out that violence and hatred beget violence and hatred. And then the preacher turned to something that possibly no one is aware of from the YouTube clips. Having been in New Jersey on that September day of “unthinkable acts,” Jeremiah Wright was drawn to examine his own relationship to God, his lack of prayer, his honesty. “Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show?”
One needn’t agree with Wright, or like him, or his words, or his tone. But every Catholic could ask themselves why it is that so few African-Americans find a lasting spiritual home in our church. Pope Benedict urged the American bishops to continue the church’s educational mission to urban areas, where Catholic schools have been a lifeline to many black children. Yet those schools, like all Catholic schools, labor under severe financial strains. Even so, many African-Americans graduate from Catholic schools, and appreciate their education. But they don’t become Catholic. Why?
None of these questions will be answered in time to help Barack Obama, I suspect. But perhaps if he is the nominee, and if he wins the general election, Obama could build a bridge to the Catholic community based on the principles they already share. And perhaps Catholics could walk across it.
Two final thoughts: Apropos of Paul Moses’ post below on the Debbie Almontaser story and Peggy Steinfels reference to the New Yorker piece on Nadia Nabu El-Haj at Barnard, we should keep in mind that between 10 and 15 percent of voters still think Obama is a Muslim–and this after all the furor over the pastor at his church. Also check out this Bill Moyers’ interview with Wright, the pastor’s first since the brouhaha erupted.
Cross-post from Beliefnet
David, You seem to be all over the place here. As I see it you are mixing some apples and oranges and then some. One thing is clear is that you are still positive on Obama and seem to think he bears no responsibility for his problems.
The second thing I would point out and not that I want to say I told you so. I stressed that Obama will have more negatives than Hillary which will prevent his election. That is becoming quite clear.
How disturbing, that someone could distort the Truth in such away as to justify the brutal murder of innocent life. Which of the victims of the slaughter of 9/11 does Mr.Wright blame for the death of the Sioux or Japanese? We should all be frightened by this distorted ideology. Let us Pray that Mr.Wright turns away from the god of violence and hatred to the God of Truth , Love and Mercy, The Blessed Trinity.
Do you think that we are fools? What did Mr.Wright mean by his comment, ” chickens coming home to roost”? Millions of innocent people lost their lives in World War 1 and World War 11.
There were many victims. There is no justification for 9/11, and anyone who tries to claim that one exist , is consumed with the god of evil, not the True God of Love and Mercy.
I was trying to edit a typo in my comment–to which Nancy is responding–and accidentally deleted it. I asked her why she thought Wright had blamed the victims of 9/11 for civilian deaths caused by U.S. nukes during WWII. Now I wish I hadn’t.
The rise of Hispanics in such numbers is a recent phenomenon in the American church. Attention to Hispanics was so bad that a number of years ago, Andrew Greeley offered to donate a million dollars if parochial schools would be built for Hispanics in Chicago. The neglect of Hispanic Catholics in the American church is huge blot of our church. That is why most of them became Seventh day Adventists, Pentecostals and the like. This trend began fifty years ago. At least in New York.
Now that other Catholics have left the city they are now getting more attention. Except for Monsignor Fox and others of New York the attention to both groups have been inadequate.
I watched some of Wright’s comments on his interview with Bill Moyers, and I noted that his words could not do anything for Obama. Likewise, some of his remarks at the NAACP were spoken in a voice that kept edging toward his trademark frothing-at-the-mouth intensity. Poor Obama; with friends like that…
Hispanics have been defecting from the Roman Catholic Church for a number of years, though the vast majority are still Catholic. The defections are based on (1) priest shortage, and especially shortage of Spanish speaking priests, and (2) style of worship.
There are majority African American Catholic congregations, and their “tone” is much closer to traditional black churches than it is to the average suburban or traditional ethnic church.
There are also a lot white evangelical congregations that have pastors that are closer to Rev. Wright than to mainline protestants. Although the “prophetic” tradition may be pervasive among African American churches, it did not originate there. My guess is that this “style” arose out of, obviously, the need for catharsis in a society that did not tolerate it in any mainstream forum, but also, the fact that black churches were hatched in an era of an ascendant prophetic tradition in the South.
Maybe because I have lived in the South for longer than I have lived in the North, now, this whole Rev. Wright thing leaves me pretty bored. Aside from the fact that Wright is not the candidate, and it’s an exercise in associational politics, it’s also a not so subtle kind of othering without reference to the sins of one’s own religious associates. Should protestants hold every utterance by the Pope deemed a bit crazy as proof of every Catholic candidate’s fitness for office? Should politicians in Massachusetts be considered complicit in Cardinal Law’s little cover up? WE are entitled to the benefit of the doubt; black politicians, not so much.
This is what I was getting at in another thread, but not saying it quite so succinctly. Two Popes and the US Bishops have spoken out against the Gulf War and the Iraq War, and their message is basically the same as Reverend Wright’s: Violence begets violence. The message of the Church about war is much the same as about capital punishment: It should almost never happen. Now, Catholics are bound to consider statements by the popes and bishops much more seriously than Obama was obliged to listen to his pastor’s political opinions, yet I don’t think many people, including Catholics, would assume Catholic candidates to be as close to being pacifists as the recent popes and the current bishops. I doubt that most Americans, and indeed most Catholic Americans, would vote for a presidential candidate who was as reluctant to start a war as the current leaders of the Catholic Church insists he or she should be.
If the pope or bishops said “God damn America” or the “chickens came home to roost” at 9/11, there would and should be, a monumental uproar. GDA and CCHTR are phrases which are more emotionally charged than saying that violence begets violence, wars denigrate people, etc.
Which shows that if the pope and bishops really wanted to make their point they should go after Bush, and Catholics like Novak and Weigel, the way they went after Kerry and others politicians who vote for abortion.
Grant, why do you wish you hadn’t ask the question you asked?
Grant, I meant to type, why do you wish that you had not asked the question you asked? Could you please clarify what you meant by this? Thank you.
Let me just add that although the Rev. Wright acknowledged it briefly , the fiery brand of liberation theology was created within the Catholic Church by Cardinal López Trujillo in Colombia in the late 1960’s and later radicalized by Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez who combined Marxist thought with Social-Catholic teachings. This same strand of activism would cost Oscar Romero his life, solely for advocating for the poor so to criticize the Rev. Wright to much by Catholics is a bit disingenuous. Even later with Pope John Paul II criticized the radicalization of the Church in Central America leaders of the Catholic Liberation movement renamed it Reconciliation Theology. Sound familiar?
Regarding Mr.Wright’s comments on 9/11: On September 11, a group of terrorists, who had distorted the Muslim Religion to justify their desire to murder those they considered to be infidels, did willfully slaughter and murder innocent life. This had nothing to do with any policy of the American Government. This had to do with their intent to destroy those they considered infidels and their belief that they were justified in doing so.
F.Y.I., Just Google, Rev.Wright-America’s Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost.
It starts with “do you think we are fools?” and goes south from there. P.S. You’re radically simplifying the motives of Osama Bin Laden.
This is from the American Bishops website. http://www.usccb.org/hispanicaffairs/studygomez.shtml
The loss of Hispanics to other faiths
According to a recent article by Andrew Greeley (America 09/27/97), the “equivalent of one out of seven Hispanics has left Catholicism in a little more than a quarter of a century. The annual loss is approximately one half of one percent. If this hemorrhage should continue for the next 25 years, half of all American Hispanics will not be Catholic.” Greeley estimates that 600,000 Hispanics are lost to the Church every year. This loss, in his view, “exceeds that of early Irish immigrants to the American South. It is the worst defection in the history of the Catholic Church in the United States.”
While data available in this area is insufficient at best, there is a generalized attitude of concern among the laity. There were several problems which informants identified as making Hispanics feel not welcomed in the Catholic Church and, as a result, making them more open to alternative religious denominations. Many informants believed that, in contrast to evangelical Protestant churches, excessive administrative tasks and rules in Catholic churches often override a spontaneous, personal, and warm reception. Some Hispanics complained about having to fill out complicated forms and produce evidence of being registered (such as showing contribution envelopes) before they could receive the sacraments. In many of these cases, Catholic ritual becomes almost commodified, subject to a kind of bureacratization that blunts its spiritual power. Often times, rituals and sacraments under these conditions do not serve as the basis for evangelizing, for bringing people closer to the Church.
Finally, other informants reported that Hispanics are attracted to evangelical Protestant churches by a powerful preaching that skillfully links the Scriptures with examples from everyday predicaments and by the notion of church as an extended family in Christ. Family is here equated not only with intimacy but also with a strict ethos that provides clear orientation to its various members.
” Do you think we are fools”, is refering to the fact that I believe most of us realize that Militant Islamic Extremism was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. The biggest threat to our World today is the militant attempt to spread Islam through the use of force and terror. Osama Bin Laden as well as other militant Islamic leaders , have spread their ideology in Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, Afghanistan, iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Algeria, kosovo, Chechnya, Kurdistan, Somalia , The Philippines… The threat is very real. These militants have hyjacked Islam. P.S., I grew up in Long Island.
I thoughtt his thread was about race and the Church. The analysts seem to all agree that Rev. Wright is bombastic, that he speaks for only a portion of the black Church – liberation theology,generally AME style (in which he is much respected) and that his sound byues , by being repeated will hurt the Obama candidacy.
Don’t know anyone here who is unaware of the horrors of 9/11, the ugly atrocities in killings, mutilations, displacement that happen in Iraq. There has and will be debate here on the “fear card” and how we should extricate ourselves from a war we should not have begun there.
But I had hoped that David’s post would geenerate some really serious discussion on Catholics and the black church(es) and other minority churches.
I found Sr. Jamie Phelp’s reflection on the 2007 Catholic Charites report on poverty and racism provocative and ad rem. Listen:
“Our Church did not have laws privelging whites.But the same dynamic of oppresion that characterizes the black experience in the social orderinfect the Black Catholic experienc ewithin the social structure. The social struggle against marguinalization, devaluation and dehumainization that was waged throughout the history of Native American, Black and other marginalized people in the social political contexts of the UNited States, has historically been paralleled by the struggle for inclusion and recognition within the U.S. Catholic Church.”
Bill M. is right that there were betterdays for Lartino Catholics in the days of Msgr. Fox and Ivan Ilych – a friend who’s knowldgeable says therewas a real program then of gettingbright priests who would serve the total community.
Now(presumably under fiscal constraints) those parishes are closing as their priests age.
And in tthe Harlem community, St. Charles seems to be the only real parish wher eseveral once flourished.
And where are we? Easy enough to take the sound bytes and talk about the terrorists.
But is race in the church, as in our society a real question? Do we want to keep pretending that this is not another area of division that we have to come to grips with?
Bill, one of the most perceptive comments on church (all churches) in America that I have read came from a journalist for the Irish Times, which I used to read to get across the pond perspective in English (until it went behind a firewall). He noted that in many places in the U.S., because of geography and social organization, church is basically one of the only truly organic social structures that people participate in. The problem for the Catholic Church should be evident: it’s not organic. If you happen to be in the mainstream of the social group that makes up the parish, you’ll feel at home. If you don’t, and you don’t have enough fellow Catholics to create your own service or at least your own prayer group, you will not. And importantly, your alternatives to create a parallel social structure outside of church are limited.
Black Catholics are a minority within a minority, and I doubt if the church will ever be truly appealing to a significant number of Blacks for this reason. Because the majority of Hispanics are Catholic and speak a different language from English, it’s politically palatable to create separate Hispanic services. This helps a lot. But those who try to create a cohesive parish by incorporating Hispanic parishioners into “mainstream” church activities are always rowing against the current.
I actually disagree that the loss of Hispanics from the Catholic church will continue apace, because I assume that there will be a period of critical loss that will plateau, and then stabilize. In subsequent generations, Hispanics will be more like other Americans, and the losses may continue but they will be more likely to be loss to “no denomination” than to “another” denomination. The social impetus for the loss will be different.
Thanks to Bob Nunz for trying to pull the thread back round to where I hoped it would start. And thanks to Barbara for good insights–”good” meaning I think you are right.
This post wasn’t meant as a social science experiment, but it would have worked quite well. The outrage expressed seems to point up what difficulty Catholics and most of us–we are almost all white Catholics here, I presume–have in engaging cultural differences. Obama certainly, and Wright to a lesser dergee, perhaps, are heroes, or at worst intelligible to African-American Christians. The Catholic Church could do better, I think, in reaching out to this community and at the same time changing ourselves as we do so.
I am just wondering , has it occured to you that this ” Christian rhetoric ” may be foreign to BLack Christians as well?
Nancy: Has it ever occurred to you to speak to others in a decent manner? You might want to try it sometime.
As to your “question,” I think it is beyond argument that Obama’s rhetoric, and even Wright’s, appeals to African-American Christians, and to a good number of white Christians. Polls and voting results would seem to confirm that.
Nancy, they may disagree with it, but I assure you that most Black Christians are familiar with the “prophetic tradition” represented by Rev. Wright. Any exposure to church in the south includes a significant dose of preaching by insult. If you substituted “rich” for “white” Rev. Wright might as well be using the Letter of James as his script. Think how often the prophets did the equivalent of damning the Jews, and yet, operated within a framework in which the Jews were incontrovertibly the chosen people. For this reason the prophets considered it essential that the Jews live up to their calling. I am sure they inhabited a precarious place within Jewish society for all their acknowledged importance and power.
I am not endorsing Rev. Wright, I don’t like this style of preaching no matter how it’s directed. I actually don’t even care for it when it’s done by a master like MLK or William Jennings Bryan (do you think he wasn’t insulting the power structure of his time?).
I was driving by a local church and it had put up a sign to the effect of “A thankful heart is never bitter.” This plays great to people in my silver spoon suburb, but it doesn’t exactly acknowledge that ingrained injustice significantly undermines a spirit of thankfulness. The Rev. Wrights of the world have to instill thankfulness and optimism in a context where people have frequently internalized the unbelievably negative environment in which they live, and don’t receive the usual rewards for good behavior that we take for granted. I doubt if anyone could do that without recognizing the unfairness of the circumstances in which many of his congregants find themselves. How can he lift them up if they are led to believe that they deserve only what they have gotten?
David, I respectfully disagree, that the majority of Black Christians , agree with Rev.Wright’s rhetoric. I think the polls will now reflect this.
What polls would that be?
I’m amazed at how many folk know how the black church thinks about Rev. Wright – my guess is that it’s complex.
I return though to the issue of the thread, what about us, our Church and our society and race?
David asks –
“many African-Americans graduate from Catholic schools, and appreciate their education. But they don’t become Catholic. Why?”
Many years ago I taught hundreds of black Protestants in a Catholic university, and I think it’s safe to say that while many of them found Catholic liturgy less than satisfactory, they also would have been loathe to leave their their Protestant churches. Those churches were essential for most of them for overcoming American injustice towards them. Their ancestors, not having much if any individual freedom, grounded their hope of liberation on group action, specifically action by the black church. Because of their illiteracy they were dependent on the preachers even for information about the world around them, so preachers often earned great respect and trust in their communities, and preachers became leaders for change. Notice how Obama defends not only Rev. Wright (to some extent) but also the Trinity community, which he doesn’t seem about to leave.
For older black Protestants to leave their churches would, I suspect, be very much like a Jew converting to Catholicism — wrenching in fundamental ways.
Now, with all the social changes since I taught their parents, no doubt young black people are, like white young white ones, also subject to the same social and theological pressures against becoming Catholic.
By the way, does anyone know if young black folk are leaving their Protestant churches at the same rate as the young white ones are leaving theirs?
I think there are two questions here. One question is a normative one; does the Catholic church have a problem relating to African-Americans? Quite frankly, I think the answer is no.
The second, and more pressing, question is a politically imminent one. How will Barack Obama fare with Catholic voters in the fall? I think the answer is simpler than many people realize. He’ll do well. There are 2 main reasons. First, once Catholics in the general electorate get to know Barack Obama, his record of working with Catholic churches as an organizer in Chicago, his message of hope and unity over division and fear, they will flock to him. Second, Hillary Clinton’s Catholic supporters will, in large part, go to Barack Obama. There is no reason to suspect that those voters who support Hillary now won’t support Barack when he is the nominee. In fact, polls show that they will. They may choose Hillary because they know her better as she’s been in the public eye for longer; but they will move to Barack when they have a choice of McCain or Obama.
As a Catholic voter, I’m impressed by Obama’s message, record and character. I’m also hopeful that many more Catholics will see what I do come November.
Colin:
You said Second, Hillary Clinton’s Catholic supporters will, in large part, go to Barack Obama.
Recent polls seem to indicate that since the Wright flap, Obama has lost support, and Hillary has gained (in the general election).
That is, polled against Mcain.
I’ve said it before, but why not say it again? This is a blog after all!
No matter what Rev. Wright or anyone else says, this whole controversy has to do with race only tangentially, or so it seems to me.
Rev. Wright is an albatross around Sen. Obama’s neck because he is a harsh and uncompromising critic of America as it was and is, and such an attitude–from a white or black or brown American of any religion–is simply not acceptable–it is totally out of bounds–to the the great majority of the American electorate and its leaders.
Never mind, for instance, that obliterating a couple of Japanese cities with A-bombs seems to the casual observer to be in the same general neighborhood as obliterating a pair of office towers in New York City (admitting the differences in ends, the means appear to be equally blameable)–it remains that politics in American runs on the premise that we are the good guys, period, and those who oppose us are the bad guys, period.
It’s just too bad that a real prophet like Rev. Wright (note: said without irony) has in his prophetic zeal to some extent slipped into the role popularly assigned to him (the nutcase America-hater) by adopting some ideas (concerning AIDS, for instance) that seem to be truly whacky.