A Teachable Moment?
I was struck by the following excerpt from a recent article in the NYT about Catholics and the election:
One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. “Are they going to make it the Black House?” Ray McCormick asked, to embarrassed hushing from a half dozen others gathered around the rectory kitchen. (Five of the six, all lifelong Democrats who supported Mrs. Clinton in the primary, said they now lean toward Mr. McCain.)
Mr. Madonna, the political scientist, said of the Catholic vote in white, working-class Scranton, “This is a tough area for Obama and some of it is race.”
Much has been made about the important role of the bishops in helping to “form the consciences” of the faithful as they consider their choices in this election. For my own part, I welcomed the interventions of the bishops in response to the comments on abortion from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senator Joe Biden (D-CA). Both politicians were high profile Catholics whose comments misrepresented the teaching of the Church. Their comments deserved correction. It was certainly a “teachable moment.”
I would argue, though, that it is not the only “teachable moment” in this election cycle. Evidence–both survey and anecdotal–is mounting that there are a significant number of voters–including Catholic voters–who will not pull the lever for the Democratic candidate because of his race.
It would be one thing if these voters were truly motivated by revulsion against Senator Obama’s stand on abortion. It seems difficult to believe, though, that this could be the primary motivation for voters who cheerfully pulled the lever for the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
If the bishops want their claim that they are primarily interested in “forming consciences” to be taken seriously, they need to pay as much attention to the process by which Catholic voters make their decisions as to the final product. If I may paraphrase T.S. Elliot, it is no victory for the Gospel if Catholic voters make the right decision for the wrong reason.
To vote against Senator Obama because of his stand on abortion is defensible and perhaps even praiseworthy. To vote against him because he is black is to commit an act that is evil. I think it would behoove the bishops to make this exceptionally clear.
I would hesitate to draw any conclusions or even hypotheses around the extent to which that anecdote is representative of or reflects a particular demographic. It could be, and more likely is, as they say in stats, an outlier.
“This is a tough area for Obama and some of it is race.”
That is a professionally irresponsible statement for Mr. Madonna to make given the evidence presented in the article which clearly pointed to abortion as one of the deciding factors accounting for the swing to McCain, There is more evidence to support that hypothesis given the attention in the media to Biden and Pelosi and the response of many Bishops.
George, the point is that it makes no sense for people who supported Hillary in the primaries and voted for Kerry in ’04 to switch to McCain over the abortion issue.
There’s something known to pollsters as the Bradley Effect, which “refers to a frequently observed discrepancy between voter opinion polls and election outcomes in American political campaigns when a white candidate and a non-white candidate run against each other.” (Wikipedia)
I suspect if Obama is ahead in the polls as election day approaches, but not far ahead (say, 7 to 10 points), he will lose the election, because a lot more people will claim they’re going to vote for a black man for president than will actually do so. In fact, since the effect is seen even in exit polls, it’s possible Obama could lose even when exit polls showed he got a majority of the votes.
I earnestly hope this doesn’t come to pass, but if it does, it will be difficult to say it wasn’t racism.
J. Peter Nixon: “To vote against him because he is black is to commit an act that is evil.”
Is that accurate? Is that evil? Is it a sin? Should it be? Is the opposite true? If an Italian-American voted for Mayor Giuliani in New York primarily because of shared ethnicity was an evil act committed against his opponent? I’m not trying to be inflammatory here, I honestly want to know what people think on this.
MAT – guess you could say that one is “ethnic” and the other is “racism” but I think they both apply. The point is that the vote is based on hatred of a group, race, religion, etc. and not based upon the evidence, leadership abilities, experience, etc.
For what it is worth, I experienced more outright racial hostility in my time in Catholic parishes in the large cities of Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia than I ever have in Texas or Louisiana.
MAT,
Voting for someone because he or she belongs to the same group as you do is different from voting against someone because he or she is a member of a minority group. It is difficult to believe that people were voting for Hillary Clinton because she is white and are consequently switching to McCain because he is also white. It is easier to believe that people are switching from Clinton to McCain because Obama is black, and they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black man.
It makes me think of a sketch on Saturday Night Live decades ago, in which members of a “men’s rights” group were very vehemently stating that they were going to read books written by men and they were going to listen to music composed by men. One can have sympathy for women or blacks or Hispanics who want to explore their neglected history and the like. But to claim you are voting for someone because he or she is white, or because he is a man, just doesn’t wash.
George D and Mat,
Obviously, many are partisan of this list. But I have not seen anything as partisan as the spin both of you have put on this thread.
Having some connection to Scranton (born there, left at age 8, still visit relatives in the area on a somewhat regular basis), I was saddened but not surprised by the man’s racial comment. I don’t pretend to have a great familiarity with Scranton, but even among my own family who live there and in surrounding towns, I can think of a couple of relatives, practicing Catholics, who might make a similar comment. I have some hypotheses about why there might be such attitudes in a place like Scranton, but I’m not a sociologist, and I won’t speculate. In any event, racial intolerance anywhere is anathema and contrary to Christianity.
Speaking of Catholics and abortion, the latest Pew Forum data are out: “A Slight but Steady Majority Favors Keeping Abortion Legal, But Most Also Favor Restrictions” (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=350 ).
The survey reveals that, “despite the Roman Catholic Church’s vocal opposition to abortion, opinion on the issue is also closely divided among Catholics, with about half (49%) saying abortion should be legal and a similar percentage (47%) saying it should not.
Opinions about the legality of abortion vary considerably by level of religious commitment, as measured by attendance at religious services. Nearly six-in-ten (57%) white non-Hispanic Catholics who attend church at least once a week, for instance, oppose legalized abortion, including 27% who say it should be illegal in all cases. By contrast, among white Catholics who attend church less frequently, a large majority (62%) say abortion should be legal and just 35% say it should not. Similar divisions are seen among the public overall as well as among evangelical and mainline Protestants; those who attend religious services at least once a week are significantly more opposed to abortion than those who attend worship services less often.”
We’ve all heard of the “Bradley Effect” and I have no doubt that there will be some of that in the election. It’s also true that there has been longstanding racial prejudice in Catholic working-class neighborhoods for decades.
But there has been just as much race-baiting by the so-called intelligentsia as there has by working stiffs and rednecks. Recall Bill Clinton during the primaries. Or, recently, Kathleen Sebelius’ remarks, or Jack Cafferty’s (CNN). The two latter cited race without any proof whatsoever. It’s also a pre-emptive strike, just in case Obama loses the election. Then they’ll have a convenient reason for why he lost. Of course, it couldn’t have been because people didn’t like his policies or because he was nearly incoherent on foreign policy.
It was said years ago that the country’s worst racial attitudes were to be found in the north, not in the south. During my federal career, I served collateral duty on occasion as a federal poll observer in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana in the late 70s. I never witnessed any trouble between blacks and whites although there were occasional procedural disagreements that were quickly resolved by local elections officials.
On the other hand, I do remember racial violence in some northern states after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (under which I worked).
I’m not the least bit surprised by negative racial attitudes among white blue-collar Catholics up north (I live in the border state of KY). I can’t recall reading of any bishop condemning abortion also condemning racial prejudice and bigotry during this election cycle. Maybe their money coffers would take in less moolah? Can’t help but wonder…
Gabriel,
I wonder if I was the only one who felt a little uncomfortable reading your message about “blacks [negroes, coloreds].”
Blacks vote for the Democratic party because of Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman (who desegregated the military), John F. Kennedy (who supported Martin Luther King), Lyndon Johnson (who got the civil rights act passed), Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton (“the first black president”).
I was surprised to just discover that Eisenhower got 39 percent of the black vote in 1956, and Nixon 32 percent in 1960. But Goldwater got only 6 percent. Why? Here’s the answer according to an article extraordinarily sympathetic to Republicans from The National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george071200.html
Thank you, Mr. Nickol for a very reasoned response given the inflammatory comments by Mr. Austin.
Guess I am surprised that the dotCommonweal blog authority allows Mr. Austin’s comments to remain. I have had two responses removed – why, because I used less than noble language to describe two different Catholic bishops and when asked the second time – provided documentation to support my statement.
Mr. Austin’s comments, while indirect, are indecent in this age and time. They reveal a narrow, bigotted mindset that has no place within this blog. But, guess that is okay, because he did not attack any specific bishop by name.
Bill Mazzella said: “Obviously, many are partisan of this list. But I have not seen anything as partisan as the spin both of you have put on this thread.”
That is so off-base – how can you say what I said was partisan? And what spin did I put on anything? I asked some legitimate questions I had about the topic at hand. I’m not a theologian or ethicist and Mr. Nixon made quite a strong a statement about evil and voting that I have no expertise in so I asked what was on my mind and the replies by Mr.’s DeHaas and Nickol, for example, were quite informative to me – I was hoping to reflect on them and perhaps make a proffer or ask additional questions, but it is probably best I do not out of collegiality.
Bill Mazzella: Furthermore, what bothers me most about your libel against me is that I chose Mayor Giuliani (1) precisely to keep my inquiry non-partisan by staying away from race or gender which perhaps could have been construed as partisan by the partisans themselves and (2) it is a relevant example for me. As an Italian immigrant myself who went to Catholic school in the Bronx most of my life and still lives in the Tri-State Area, I know at least a dozen people (both family and friends, including my parents) who are Italian-American and registered Republicans and who explicitly voted for Mayor Giuiliani in the NY Republican exclusively because of shared ethnicity. If there is a legitimate strain of thought that that action was immoral, evil, sinful, etc. that is relevant to me. I am sorry you felt it was somehow partisan, but your defamation of me was quite intemperate.
It’s too bad we can’t have intelligent discussion on this thread – but race and ethniicity seem to bring out the worst in many Catholics.
I just mention, by the way, that I grew up in New York long ago, and racial divisions and prejudice were pretty rampant among Catholics there.
Long ago, I suggested that it would be good if folks could openly talk about the race issue.
NPR did a nicepiece of talking to folks in PA about a week or so ago.
If we could have that kind of open and less heated talk, it might help.
I must say that I agree with Bill D. that Gabriel’s post bordered on if not in fact was ugly
It’s too bad we can’t have intelligent discussion on this thread . . .
Gee, thanks a million, Bob.
Grant:
“George, the point is that it makes no sense for people who supported Hillary in the primaries and voted for Kerry in ‘04 to switch to McCain over the abortion issue.”
My hypothesis would be that the switch is connected to class/cultural issues. I would have to go back and examine the data in that area with respect to 04. If it is true that these voters went for Kerry, then I might be more persuaded that race is a factor given that Kerry and Obama share generally the same kind of remote, removed and demeanour characteristic of Yankee gentlemen for lack of a better description.
Still, I think that if he is going to extrapolate race as a factor (and not class and culture which is at least an equally valid hypothesis) he needs to support it with clearer evidence.
David:
But if the electoral college map maintains more or less as it has in previous cycles then it will be difficult to cite race.
Although if women really are the swing voters, and Obama wins it is possible to cite sexism. A recent poll showed that women are MORE and not less likely to question Palin’s credentials and qualifications.
But this is only a sub-text and not that definitive either way. The race barrier has been broken in US politics now. Gender ????? The conditions favour Obama. If he loses either he waged a poor campaign or McCain ran a brilliant one from a strategic and tactical point of view.
“I am sorry you felt it was somehow partisan, but your defamation of me was quite intemperate.”
Mat,
It just seems that your view always lands in the partisan camp. I take it as a positive that you are sensitive to my observation. I did not intend to libel you. Just hoping to engage on the matter.
And how can I get upset with an Italian American from the Bronx. “You think I want to make my sister a widow?
But if the electoral college map maintains more or less as it has in previous cycles then it will be difficult to cite race.
George D,
The point I was making was that if Obama has a significant lead in the polls right before the election (and not just the popular vote, but a lead that clearly has him winning in the electoral college) and then he loses, then odds are it’s the Bradley effect. And that would go double if he loses the election but the exit polls indicate he won.
There is an article titled “Obama: The Price of Being Black” by Andrew Hacker in the New York Review of Books that a friend told me about, and which I haven’t read but will link to anyway in case anybody is interested, that says if Obama wants to know where he really stands, he should always subtract 7 points from where the polls say he is.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21771
Bill:
My comment is not at all partisan.
The excerpt in the Times article, just above the quote highlighted by Peter reads “Mr. MacDonald said. “She is anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Big Oil, a lifetime member of the N.R.A., she hunts, she fishes — she is the perfect woman!”
Yet the article quotes Mr. Madonna as saying “This is a tough area for Obama and some of it is race.”
He (or the author of the piece) selected race to highlight and not class and culture which is as equally a valid hypothesis given the quote by Mr. Macdonald that “she is anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Big Oil, a lifetime member of the N.R.A., she hunts, she fishes — she is the perfect woman.”
Why couldn’t Mr. Madonna have reasonably said “This is a tough area for Obama and some of it is class and culture.”
Maybe he did and it wasn’t reported.
George, that does not hold water. Of course culture and class could have something to do with it, but the Madonna quote follows the disturbing “Black House” moment in the rectory. Do you think Mr. Black House was shushed by his fellow Catholics because they were afraid he might spill the beans about their cultural or class-related reasons for supporting McCain? Unlikely.
George (et. al.):
Just to be clear, I am by no means trying to extrapolate from a single anecdote. I’m taking the anecdote as illustrative of a broader issue that has received an enormous amount of coverage and analysis during this election cycle. Indeed, the racial resentments of non-college educated white voters have been a staple of political analysis going back three decades to when the “Reagan Democrats” first emerged in 1980 (see, for example, Thomas Edsall’s 1992 book Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes and Stan Greenberg’s famous study of white voters in Macomb County, MI).
And, yes, the reasons for these attitudes are complex and I want to be cautious about reducing the causes to “simple” racism. But if “class and culture” were not barriers to voters pulling the lever for the likes of Gore, Kerry and Hillary Clinton, I think hard questions need to be asked about what is going on in the minds of these voters.
I tried to make clear that my concern here is more with the formation of conscience than with a specific voting outcome. There are certainly sound reasons for Catholics and other people to resist pulling the lever for Senator Obama. But I think there is evidence that there is a subset of Catholic voters whose reasons for opposing the Senator are less defensible and less in accord with the teaching of the Church. As long as the Bishops are teaching this year, I would like them to speak to this issue.
When I read this statement I thought the same thing. The man making the comment about Obama’s race was sitting in the *kitchen of a rectory*. That he felt comfortable openly saying he wouldn’t vote for Obama because of his race tells us much about the culture here.
Racism is evil. Being racist is evil. Not voting for a man because of the color of his skin is racist. End of story.
And it seems like the Church’s leadership, for the moment, is just fine with that.
David Nichol wrote: “Voting for someone because he or she belongs to the same group as you do is different from voting against someone because he or she is a member of a minority group.”
Saying: I am going to vote for McCain because he is white or I am going to vote for Obama because he is black are both racist statements, though more subtly racist than saying “I am not going to vote for Obama because he is black” or “I am not going to vote for McCain because he is white”. The end result is the same, and I think this should give pause to Obama’s popularity in the African American community.
The end result is the same, and I think this should give pause to Obama’s popularity in the African American community.
Adam,
There is so much wrong with what you are asserting, that I can only begin to point it out.
First of all, just because two scenarios have the same end result, that doesn’t mean they are the same.
Let me ask you this. How many black people have refused to vote for white candidates solely because they were white? Black people have always given the vast majority of their votes to white presidential candidates (I dare you to challenge that!), and they don’t need to prove they are not racist now by supporting Obama less enthusiastically. Black people have voted heavily Democratic since the New Deal.
What we’re talking about in this thread is people who would vote for McCain for the sole reason that Obama is black. How many black people do you think there are who say to themselves, “This is tough! Philosophically, I’d really like to vote for McCain, since I agree with him on almost all the issues (like his fight against making MLK’s birthday a holiday), but Obama is black, so I’m going to vote for him.”
Given the racial situation in the United States today, saying you are going to vote for McCain because he is white is the same thing as saying you are voting against Obama because he is black. Saying you are going to vote for an Irish-American candidate running against an Italian-American candidate because you are Irish-American doesn’t indicate you are prejudiced against Italian-Americans. Saying you are going to vote for a white candidate over a black candidate because you are white does indeed indicate you are prejudiced against blacks.
Was it sexist of McCain to put Palin on the ticket to try to appeal to women voters? I would hope there are few if any women who will vote for McCain-Palin just because there’s a woman on the ticket. But even if there are some, that doesn’t make them sexist or prejudiced against men. It means (if I may assume what’s on their minds) that they believe it is a long-awaited breakthrough for a woman to reach such a high position, and it will be to the benefit of women as a group, opening up opportunities to them that would be difficult to obtain in other ways. Women don’t want to see a woman in high office because they are prejudiced against men. Likewise, I think it’s fair to say that for the vast majority of blacks who support Obama, they are seeing him as an eminently qualified candidate, whom they would have been happy to support even if he were white, who will break a barrier an open up opportunities for black people.
Bill Mazzella: Was that a good example? Didn’t Clemenza garrote Carlo Rizzi anyway?
George D: While I do not subscribe to the Pauline Kael Syndrome aspect to what J. Peter Nixon said, I do think he is correct about the class / culture argument. I mean Senator Clinton is no Brad Ellsworth or Heath Schuler – if guns or cultural issues are your main determinate in voting, there is just no way you were voting for her in the primary, so if you switched I don’t think you could reasonable attribute it to those issues.
Mr. Jaglowicz,
It is not only in this election but many [Catholic and Methodist] bishops have denounced racism beginning with Abp. Ritter of Indianapolis and St. Louis leading the way from 1934 on. Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans acted similarly although Louisiana law prohibited non-segregated schools. He excommunicated Catholics who opposed him on the issue. Cardinal Spellman made a point of opening a large parochial school in Harlem, insisting that it not be segregated. And so on.
Mr. Nickol,
Mr. Gallichio has written me privately asking about my “black [negro, colored]” designation. I referred him to friends of mine who use any of the designations, indiscriminately. [Think of the United Negro College Fund, of the NAACP]. Many of them despise being called Africans. Several have objected to having Kwanzaa forced on them, as non Christian. Kwanzaa was created from whole cloth by the black nationalist, Maulana Karenga [Ron McKinley Everett] and first celebrated from December 26, 1966, to January 1, 1967. It was not a traditional “African” feast. [It could not be, as Africa is not a place or a culture, but a continent consisting of many cultures]. Maulana was later convicted of torturing two women.
Mr. DeHaas,
You write of me: “Mr. Austin’s comments, while indirect, are indecent in this age and time. They reveal a narrow, bigotted mindset that has no place within this blog”.
It seems to me that bigotry, like beauty, may be in the mind of the accuser.
I continue to maintain that if black [etc.] voters vote for Mr. Obama because of the color of his skin, it is a racist act. And, as Justice Thomas remarked, it is those who would segregate black [etc] voters into a bloc, as though black [etc.] voters have no minds of their own, who show signs of racism.
Peter:
I appreciate your comments completely and I do agree that hard questions do need to be asked regarding people who supported Hillary and defecting to McCain.
I fully understand that race is a huge issue and certainly needs to be addressed squarely and I am not trying to minimize or obfuscate the issue by raising other possible factors accounting for the defection.
Just trying to broaden the scope of possibilities. All could be true but if there are dark corners in collective consciousness these need to be illuminated.
I continue to maintain that if black [etc.] voters vote for Mr. Obama because of the color of his skin, it is a racist act.
Gabriel,
How many black people do you think there are who would vote for McCain if, say, Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination or if Barack Obama were white? You seem to be mystified why blacks would vote for Democrats. Are all the black people you know Republicans?
Although many bloggers have managed to criticize the Bishops for their silence about the racism issue, I think the Bishops have actually been quite clear in identifying racism as a violation of human dignity. Here is but one of many excerpts from their 2007/2008 document on Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:
Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as
human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically
evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human
life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the
targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.
You can read the entire document here: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
In light of the Bishops clear statements about the evil of racism, comments like the one above by Joseph Jaglowicz seem perplexing (and perhaps irresponsible): “I can’t recall reading of any bishop condemning abortion also condemning racial prejudice and bigotry during this election cycle. Maybe their money coffers would take in less moolah? Can’t help but wonder…”
Perhaps, as Catholics, we should exercise more charity and prudence before making snide remarks about our Bishops.
I think we need to understand that the racist comments of a Catholic parishioner in a journal article are substantially less scandalous than the pro-abortion public policy position of many Catholic politicians , and consequently, deserve a different response from the Bishops. When a politician publicly states that “I am a Catholic and I support abortion rights,” then the Bishops are right to publicly criticize that politician’s position. I cannot remember a time in this election when a politician publicly stated that “I am a Catholic and I support racism.” If a Catholic politician did so, I suspect we would see a response from the Bishops similar to the one we’ve seen on abortion. Let’s be fair to the Bishops: they have clearly stated that racism is evil, and they have publicly condemned the pro-choice policies of Catholic politicians. The Bishops are right on both of these issues – let’s work with them instead of against them.
Brendan – not sure that you got Mr. J’s point. There are many statements about the common good and elimination of societal evils in Faithful Citizenship. I believe he was referring to the recent aggressive comments by bishops in response to the Biden/Pelosi interviews. Those bishops seem to focus primarily on abortion even when interpreting Faithful Citizenship.
On August 4, 1964 LBJ made two momentous announcements:
a) he bought into the tragic mistake of the Tonkin Gult incident and began bombing N. Vietman and escalating American troops into S. Vietman (58,000 Americans would die);
b) that same day three beaten and shot bodies where found near Philadelphia, Mississippi – they were two white workers for the Congress for Racial Equality and one black. This incident spurred LBJ to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over immense objections.
In speaking about this moment, LBJ taked about the “secret of the American Heart” – for him that was the quest for racial equality and not discrimination. He agonizely recalled that these bodies showed the world and Americans that there was a darker secret of the American Heart – racism. That act resulted in more than 175 riots in major US cities. He bemoned the fact that this secret would be revealed over and over again.
For fear of trying to project the future, history is again repeating itself. Four months from now, it is very possible because of voting patterns in this election, that Americans will again reveal the “secret of the American Heart” – a societal flaw that we still struggle to overcome. Many of you have stated or alluded to this type of voting pattern specifically among Catholic white voters. I would leave you with a question – has any US bishop spoken out about this secret? Has any US bishop addressed this issue with any of the passion of anti-abortion? Are US bishops even aware that this might happen?
Bill DeHaas: I am not disputing nor affirming your point, but I don’t think the 1964-69 Race Riots are a good example of the “secret of the American Heart” – the rioters were the victims of the racism, not the racists.
Bill –
I was responding to Mr. J’s comment that the Bishops who aggressively criticized pro-choice politicians had not spoken out during this election cycle about the issue of racism. I responded to that claim by arguing (a) that the very same Bishops who spoke out about pro-choice politicians also approved an official statement in this election cycle condemning racism as a grave evil, and (b) that certain Bishops may have responded differently in the public square to the pro-choice issue than the racism issue because no Catholic politician is running on a “pro-racism” platform, in contrast to the many politicians who are running on a “pro-choice” platform. You may disagree with this analysis, but I think your claim that I was “missing the point” misses the point.
I was also responding to Mr. J’s comments that the Bishops had not spoken out about racism because their “money coffers would take in less moolah.” Snide and uncharitable comments like this one about the Bishops do not help to build up the Church, and I think they should be refuted by Catholics – especially Commonweal Catholics – who want our civil discourse to be mature and thoughtful. As you stated in a previous post, you have had two responses removed by the Commonweal authorities for using “less than noble language to describe two different Catholic bishops.” Perhaps, then, my comments about the unhelpful effect of snide and uncharitable statements apply as much to you as they do to Mr. J.
In response to the question you posed in your post, I think the answer is obviously yes: the Bishops have collectively and consistently spoken out about the evil of racism. For many years, the Bishops have been issuing formal statements and pastoral letters on the evil of racism. A quick google search will reveal many. In this election cycle, the bishops have issued a very strong statement condemning racism as a grave evil – a statement approved by the full body of Bishops. Although the media doesn’t like to admit it, these official statements are more significant for Catholics than the comments or letters of a few Bishops acting alone.
In Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops state: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” Calling a vote based on racism “cooperation in grave evil” is about as clear and passionate a statement as the Bishops can make. Note, as well, that the Bishops put racism alongside abortion as an electoral issue that raises concerns about grave sin. In doing so, the Bishops have clearly highlighted the issue of racism for voters in the upcoming election cycle. Of course, the Bishops have not spoken out in the popular media about racism as much as they have about abortion, but it is much harder for the Bishops to use the media to criticize a “secret” (as you described it) than to criticize a published pro-choice policy statement issued by a Catholic politician. The fact that the popular media (and many Catholics) ignore these official statements of the Bishops about racism does not suggest (as your rhetorical questions imply) that the Bishops are unaware of the issue or have failed to speak out about it with sufficient passion.
Although modern media is a reality the Church has to deal with, I think it would be a disaster if we expected the Bishops to play politics in the media on every issue. We should not expect (or want) the Bishops to disseminate Church teaching through sound bites. The Church has a tradition of offering thoughtful and comprehensive statements on matters of faith and social teaching, and I think the Bishops have rightly elected to teach us about the evil of racism in a manner consistent with that tradition. The fact that a few Bishops use the media’s obsession with controversy to highlight the abortion issue (a topic for another string of posts, perhaps), does not mean that those Bishops – and the Bishops collectively – have failed to speak clearly and passionately on this issue of racism. It is a shame more Catholics do not take the time to read what the Bishops are actually saying about it.
I think that we Commonweal readers may want to ask another question: at what point do we stop criticizing the Bishops and start taking responsibility for sharing the gospel message with the world? If the Church is “the people of God,” don’t we – the Church – have as much responsibility as the Bishops for making these teachings known in the world?
The man who made racist comments (as quoted in the NYT) has probably never read the numerous statements from the Bishops condemning racism. Why not? Because the Bishops didn’t make them available in the public domain? No. I suspect it is because lay people, working with their pastors, didn’t share and proclaim those teaching in their parishes, in their homes, and in their workplaces. If you’re like me, you have probably never put on a presentation at your parish on Faithful Citizenship, started a small group reflection about the document (an 11-week course is available on the USCCB website), or asked your parish priest to preach about it. That’s my fault – not the fault of the Bishops.
J. Peter Nixon began this thread by making the following statement: “If the bishops want their claim that they are primarily interested in “forming consciences” to be taken seriously, they need to pay as much attention to the process by which Catholic voters make their decisions as to the final product.” This seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to me, but what good does it do for us to have post after post making cheeky comments about the Bishops and complaining that they don’t do enough. If we want the Church to be taken seriously, we should spend less time complaining about the Bishops and more time living out what they have taught us. This is as much our opportunity to teach the gospel as it is the Bishops.
To be clear, I don’t think the bishops should be immune from criticism, or that they have no responsibility for disseminating more effectively the Church’s teaching on racism and other issues in the public square. I am merely suggesting that as American Catholics we frequently prefer to criticize the Bishops and cast the first stone in their direction, rather than looking in the mirror and taking responsibility for being the Church in the world. Until we do, I think we will continue to be like children who insist that our parents make the world right, rather than adults who take responsibility for ourselves and our communities.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response. I agree with your comments but we probably disagree in terms of the role bishops play and the interpretation of focus.
In fact, I sponsored a parish retreat last summer on numerous issues – primarily to re-write a parish mission statement as a traditional white, upper middle class parish was confronting a new reality – 20% of registered parishioners were spanish speaking immigrants. We involved well over 500 people, numerous parish organizations, paid staff, and an outside organization development company to arrive at a new mission statement; implement a bilingual liturgy and small sacramental preparation in spanish; support a Honduran mission – at the retreat, we called it the “elephant in the room” – folks were well aware of the change but unwilling to discuss it. Despite that, the pastor continues to make his own unilateral decisions; morale suffers, parishioners are leaving. Why? Open discussion is not tolerated and lay opinions are not respected.
Where I disagree with you, is that bishops behave the same way. Yes, we have remarkable documents from the USCCB on racism but no bishop has raised their voice to address the potential pattern of catholics using their vote to support discrimination. Sorry, but your quotes and naming of documents and challenge for folks like me to speak up is NOT supported by the official church. I also raise my voice in terms of the scandal of clerical sexual abuse – another pro-life area. Clerics especially bishops do not want to hear you on this issue and with a few exceptions refuse to dialogue and if you try to organize and hold meetings e.g. Voice of the Faithful, bishops/pastors kick you off church property.
So, yes, I agree with your statements but your goals are not realistic. I have looked in the mirror and some of my participation in this blog is an effort to allow my thoughts and voice to speak out in a part of the church that the bishops can not silence. Not sure you understand that reality.
Mr. Wilson: allow me to expand on my comments and respond to yours:
a) the title of this thread is AGAIN “A Teachable Moment” (earlier blog had the same title) – it ends with these sentences: “To vote against Senator Obama because of his stand on abortion is defensible and perhaps even praiseworthy. To vote against him because he is black is to commit an act that is evil. I think it would behoove the bishops to make this exceptionally clear.”;
b) my comments (you deem them too negative and always attacking/blaming the bishops) picked up on the title “Teachable Moment” and the phrase – “it would behoove the bishops to make this exceptionally clear”……so, the blog was actually asking for a response about the role and responsibility of bishops to respond to an identified pattern (e.g. interview in a parish rectory) that revealed catholic white bigotry. It clearly used the words – “exceptionally clear”. My response was an attempt to respond to that initial thread request;
c) you seem satisfied that Faithful Citizenship provides the education and direction that all Catholics need in this area. In fact, I disagree and I think the intent of the blog question was to say that bishops have already aggressively responded to the abortion issue but have they in terms of this potential pattern of racism? You then move things to the role of the laity to discuss, make public, and hold their fellow catholics to the ideal that racism is evil. Many catholics have done this in the area of abortion + bishops – so why do you feel that racism is different – the blog asked about the role of bishops?
d) depending upon what diocese you live in, you will find pastors/bishops that continue to quote from JPII (circa 1998); make no reference to Faithful Citizenship; or quote from Faithful Citizenship but pick and choose so that only abortion is highlighted. As recent as 2004, some catholic bishops allowed a separate brochure on voting to be passed out to their dioceses in direct opposition to the USCCB directives on voting; there is now a bishop committee meeting after the November elections to discuss this incident with Pelosi/Biden and some bishops’ responses and application/interpretation of Faithful Citizenship – it is obvious that, although the document passed almost unanimously, there is real division in terms of what/how it says things;
e) here is an article today that talks about US voting and racism: Shortcut to: http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-race-in-america;_ylt=AuIOMFm4Rm.u41N0apoZdOCs0NUE
f) given this information, I would have to say that no bishop has identified or spoken out about racism (catholic or US total) with the aggressiveness as some did on abortion;
g) my quote from LBJ comes from a 3 volume biography by R. Caro on the life of LBJ – his statement that America has a “secret in its heart” appears to continue to be a truthful statement but we live in denial;
h) would go a step further and say that racism lives in the US catholic church – it is rarely spoken about. Have you ever wondered about the huge exponential explosion of catholic growth in Africa but less than 8% of all catholics in the US are african-american? would love to hear Bishop Terry Steib talk after his retirement in terms of the pattern of discrimination in the US church (he is african-american in Memphis).
i) has there ever been a USCCB document on racism?
j) in our diocese over the last 12 months, decisions have been made to close two predominantly black catholic elementary schools while committing $8 million to opening a new high school in north dallas (almost 100% anglo); this diocese makes each parish support its school so when you are in an economically strapped parish/neighborhood – the school struggles to survive. Why doesn’t the diocese make all schools diocesan and tax each parish accordingly?
Sorry, but the more I reflect on what you wrote, the more I think you paid lip service to the original post.
Bill DeHaas is quite right. Here we have the teachable moment. It’s their job as pastors of local churches, none moreso, to know about this “secret of the heart” that needs cleansing. If they paid attention to this issue now, it would increase their credibility. As it is, everyone believes they are stumping for the Republicans, and that diminishes their credibility.
Thanks, Rita.
Brendan – here is a link to a current article that lays out the depth of racism and current state by state voting laws that restrict, limit, and curtail black voting. 24 states currently maintain some sort of poll restrictions. Shortcut to: http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/1945
Has any bishop spoken on this beyond the words in Faithful Citizenship? Words are nice; action counts. Don’t see any in the USCCB. My guess is – bishops are clueless on this issue.
Did anyone see the letter to the editor by the bishops of Brooklyn and Rockville Centre printed in the NYTimes today? Buried in it they gave a very feeble reference to racism — so obscure and muted, in fact, that if you hadn’t committed the original article to memory you could scarcely be able to tell what they were talking about! This is the kind of approach that fails us as a community of faith. Much more clarity is needed. “The episode in the rectory kitchen” just isn’t enough, for people who read that article, now how many days ago?
Someone in my neighborhood was talking with me yesterday who intends to vote against Obama because he is black. This person is a Catholic, and sees nothing wrong with his position. Who is thundering from the pulpit to make this man see the intrinsic evil in this? I can make disapproving noises, but when authority in the church doesn’t speak, it gives tacit approval.
That letter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/opinion/l24bishops.html?_r=1&oref=slogin