Card. George on America’s blind spot.
Last week, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago delivered a homily at the Catholic Theological Union in which he candidly explained why he thinks the world casts a suspicious eye on the United States. Cathleen Falsani reports:
“The world distrusts us not because we are rich and free. Many of us
are not rich and some of us aren’t especially free. They distrust us
because we are deaf and blind, because too often we don’t understand
and make no effort to understand,” he said.
“We have this cultural proclivity that says, ‘We know what is best
and if we truly want to do something, whether in church or in society,
no one has the right to tell us no.’ That cultural proclivity, which
defines us in many ways, has to be surrendered, or we will never be
part of God’s kingdom.”
Persuasive stuff. Here’s a link to the full homily.
The “ugly American” which the neocons have elevated to the nth degree.
These guys are a discredit to the Republican party. Eisenhower and the Senior Bush reflect the better part of America.
The world was with us with 9/11 but it allowed hotheads to look at old grudges and they pursued a path which has finally caught up to them as the public is now disqusted.
At the risk of being hyoerrepetitive, as our sense of comunity and apreciation of the comon good decline, our sense of empathy corelatively does also.
“Persuasive stuff”? I am not so sure. This seems to tbe the heart of the matter in George’s view:
“We have this cultural proclivity that says, ‘We know what is best and if we truly want to do something, whether in church or in society, no one has the right to tell us no.’ That cultural proclivity, which defines us in many ways, has to be surrendered, or we will never be part of God’s kingdom.”
First of all, who are “we” here. Is the Cardinal a man set apart. Are the U.S. Nationals in his audience men and women set apart. He is clearly accusing some people, but why won’t he say who? Or is he accusing everyone? I don’t see myself as conforming to his picture of “us”, the ugly Americans Is this evidence that I am part of the problem? Is the Cardinal sure the description does not fit him? If he is sure, what would that say about him? What would it day about us as Catholics if the vitium Americanum shuts us all out of the kingdom.
Does the mind of the Cardinal fall short in a sense of nuance? Does he lack subtlety?
Then there is the thing about those who “know what is best” in their own conceit. Some might say this is the predominant attitude in the Vatican bureaucracy extending even to the Pontiff himself? Is it the Holy Spirit at work or is it a cultural proclivity? The Cardinal might want to think about this.
Grant, you find the Cardinal’s words persuasive. Are you pleading guilty? I see no reason why you should. Broad strokes make for a great blur. Perhaps the Cardinal has spent too much time in Rome.
I should have put a question mark after “stuff” instead of a period, since I was simply trying to get conversation going, not indicate blanket endorsement.
Still, I find value in the cardinal’s words. I assume he means Americans when he says “we.” That seems plain. And since he says “we” and “us,” he seems to include himself in the critique.
I’m not persuaded that he’s deploying the “ugly American” stereotype as much as critiquing the consumeristic aspects of U.S. culture. (It’s difficult to deny that I fail in this regard on a regular basis.) He does say, “We are in the United States of America and most of us are United States citizens. And that is something that is truly good. I believe our country has often been an instrument, I believe, of God’s providence, to help others live more freely, to conquer tyranny, and many wonderful things.” That’s not an exhaustive list, obviously, but it’s something to take into account when trying to judge whether he’s imbibed the anti-Americanism of some in the curia.
Obviously there are Americans to whom the Cardinals strictures are applicable. There are also others to whom they equally apply. It seems to me that “we know best” is especially characteristic of bureaucracies, but it is by no means limited to them. What I most object to is the Cardinal’s venture into deep waters without much willingness to explore or to illumine the depths of which he speaks so condescendingly. I have also noted that on other occasions he spoke carelessly. Those who lay claim to authority , need to worry about what others may make of therir utterances and they ought ought, in the interest of their high positions, to excercise care in their pronouncements lest they bring discredit upon the the office which they have the honor to hold.
Cardinal George seems to have been speaking to a group that educates priests and lay ministers and the advice he gives, in that context, seems to be the sort of warning I think missionaries today are often given. They must respect the local culture and understand it, not blindly assume they know best because of the advantages they have had. Taken in that sense, I would have no argument with it.
However, looking at the excerpt on which Grant’s posting focuses, I would say that it does present an image of Americans as bullying, ignorant know-it-alls whose efforts to have things our own way cause infinite trouble, both “in church and in society, ” as the Cardinal puts it. To what might he be referring here?
He speaks of society, so might he be referring to the present administration’s Iraq fiasco, or perhaps the partisan bitterness on both sides that has marked our present election? But he also speaks of the American we-know-best attitude causing trouble in the church. Could he be speaking about the failure of the American hierarchy to deal effectively with clerical abuse? He has had his own recent problems on that score, so is he repenting his own laissez-faire attitude toward the policies issued by the USCCB? Or is he criticizing the lay Review Committee that took him to task? Unity was a theme of his homily, so perhaps he is looking at other problems that seem to threaten the unity of the church—the tensions between self-styled “orthodox “ catholics and the rest of the faithful, or between the bishops and the laity?
The real problem about this homily is its generality and consequent vagueness. Perhaps Cardinal George has picked up in Rome the notion that it is always safe to hedge your bets by resorting to vaguely threatening admonishments and hoping that your listeners will take your words to heart as needed. (Actually, I think it is more likely they will begin to tune you out.)
Cardinal George said:
“They distrust us because we are deaf and blind, because too often we don’t understand and make no effort to understand.”
He could have said, “They distrust us because many times we don’t listen to them, and many times we don’t see what’s going on.”
Instead, he chose the “We are guilty Americans, and we ought to be ashamed of ourselves” path of genteel rabble-rousing so beloved of out-of touch churchmen trying to lay yet another guilt trip on the American citizenry. When I look at the political and cultural arrangements of the rest of the world, I say, “You can have it.”
I love America, worts and all, and I especially love the right I have of sticking my thumb in the eye of sanctimonious, child-molester-protecting Cardinals. A pox on him.
It is interesting to see some of the comments turning a homily comparing the responses of the rich young man and the “blind” Bartimaeus to Jesus’ call into a declaration that “I am not blind – I know what is best – how dare you imply that I need to be “lectured” to.” Ad hominem attacks on the person you disagree with also seems to be a part of our cultural proclivity.
Rudyard Kipling was a genius.
Here we are looking at the very same elephant and yet our interpretations are so different that one would think we each had hold of an entirely different animal.
I totally did not get the “America sucks” message from that homily and I’ve read it over several times.
What I got was a message from a man who has traveled the world, spoken with people of other nations even BEFORE 9/11 or Iraq or Dubya or “the axis of evil” or any of that stuff.
And the feedback this man got from the people that he met in these other countries was when they think of America they think of a country they do not and cannot trust because our public face – the face the world sees through our gov’t, our popular culture, our writings, our speeches – tells them that we are not listening. It tells them we’re not willing to listen because we present ourselves as already having all the answers.
A “cultural proclivity” isn’t about one administration or one political party or the attitude of every individual. It’s about the sum total of everything that we do and say and create for the rest of the world to see.
He wasn’t talking about what type of people Americans actually ARE; he was talking about who everyone else THINKS we are and why do they think that way.
He also spoke of this perception of America in the context of relationships. This nation, like it or not, is in a relationship with the other nations of the world. Like any other relationship, trust needs communication and communication needs listening as well as talking.
Nowhere did I get the feeling he was apologizing for America. Nowhere did I get that he was ashamed or embarrassed by America. Nowhere did he suggest that some other nation was so much better than America that we should all look to them as an example.
I did get the message that a little honest self-examination wouldn’t be a bad thing for improving our relationships with others and with that I can agree.
Donna:
Let’s look again. George said:
“They distrust us because we are deaf and blind, because too often we don’t understand and make no effort to understand.”
“…because we are deaf and blind,…” The “we” is either Americans, the American nation, or both. So, in a nutshell, he said that Americans are deaf and blind; he did not say that we are only perceived as such. He said WE ARE deaf and blind.
And while we’re at it, why is it only America that is required to engage in navel-gazing?
I hate to disagree with the Cardinal, but I think his underlying premise is incorrect. The rest of the world does have a problem with us because we are rich and free (and therefore powerful). This does not mean that we are not also deaf and blindl, but in this we are pretty much the same as everyone else.
In other words, I think it is a myth that the US is somehow unique in its cultural chauvinism. I have seen this characteristic just about everywhere I have lived or visited overseas and in working with people from foreign countries. What makes the US different is that it is big, rich, free, and powerful, so what it does matters a lot more, both for good and for ill. Does this place a different or greater burden America – maybe, but I think it wrongheaded to see us as uniquely bad in this regard.
No one has commented on this, but what do you suppose George meant by the starred words below?
“‘We know what is best and if we truly want to do something, whether ***in church*** or in society, no one has the right to tell us no.”
Whether he said “we are” or not to main thrust of the message remains exactly the same.
The public persona by which others view the US is a persona that suggests the collective “we” does not listen to others.
And why must a call for us to contemplate our navels include a demand that everyone else do it too?
Are you not capable of examining your own conscience without being assured that everyone else is doing the same?
God forbid that any church official should say something that gores the American ox!
It’s almost like the parody of that old campfire hymn, “Jesus Love Me”:
“Jesus loves me; I’m impressed. For I am better than the rest. Yes, Jesus loves ME; yes Jesus LOVES me.”
Seriously, why do you folks hate America so much? And that is NOT a rhetorical question. We all know America has faults, but so does every other nation on earth. If I criticised and berated my father the way you guys do America, people would definitely think I hated him. Did he have faults? You bet! But then so do I, so what’s the point?
So perhaps you all would be willing to share with me why you apparently think America is so bad compared with the rest of the world?
Bob – I disagree with your verdict. I think rather we are all, left, right and center, frustrated that we are not better and how difficult it is to improve. Notwithstanding that, I certainly do not know what the Cardinal is trying to say.
Let me start by saying that George has got it correct. Donna has described it well and Sean’s comment adds the important element of power.
Those who say not me as individual’s are also correct in their own dissent about themselves but George’s comments are not about individuals in the collective. They are about what the world sees of the collective voice of America.
Donna’s words bear repeating:
“when they think of America they think of a country they do not and cannot trust because our public face – the face the world sees through our gov’t, our popular culture, our writings, our speeches – tells them that we are not listening. It tells them we’re not willing to listen because we present ourselves as already having all the answers.
A “cultural proclivity” isn’t about one administration or one political party or the attitude of every individual. It’s about the sum total of everything that we do and say and create for the rest of the world to see.”
Yesterday you had a change in government but to the rest of the world nothing will change. The fundamental face the ‘deaf and blind’ aspect of America doesn’t change with political parties.
I only partly agree with Sean. George is right about the word free. America thinks it is the freest country in the world. It is a founding part of its mythology. It is one tiny thing American’s collectively are blind to. Other countries and peoples consider themselves just as free as Americans do.
I will agree with Sean about the collective wealth of America. When that GNP/GDP etc is added to the deaf and blind component one gets an arrogant America born of bigness, self-centredness, power, and internal politics first.
As a participant of the Commonweal discussion group since 2000 I know how as individuals you are not like this description but as Donna so apply says that is not the face the world sees.
Dubya added a dimension few other Presidents could match. His was a government that was deaf, blind and stupid. Now that was unique.
There is one thing the rest of the world does have a great deal of trust in about America and it happened yesterday. When Dubya’s come along, as they occasionally do, the American people will eventually right themselves. We do trust in the wisdom of American democracy. Collectively you may be deaf and blind to the outside world but eventually you are not deaf and blind to your internal collective goverance needs. Sometimes a little slow as in 2004.
Well done, my faith in America remains high.