Some time before the publication of the USCCB's new pastoral letter on racism, I noticed that several bishops—including Cardinal Cupich and Archbishop Chaput, who are hardly on the same side of the political spectrum—had referred to racism as America’s “original sin.” I hoped that the letter could provide some insight into what precisely they meant by it. I was a little surprised when I got through the entire letter without that term even appearing, though I found it very briefly referenced in some of the supplemental materials.
I was not the only one to experience disappointment in reading the bishops' letter. I've noticed several criticisms of it, particularly as people have had more time to read and process it. The biggest criticisms I’ve seen are aimed at the failure to adequately address the Church’s role in perpetrating and perpetuating racism, and the absence of any discussion whatsoever of the term “white privilege.” Gratitude that the bishops are addressing racism collectively for the first time in a while has been replaced with disappointment in how little they managed to actually say. My disappointment was easier to get over, not least because the term I wanted to see explored is more obscure.
Regardless, I was still a bit puzzled by the proposition that racism is America’s original sin when a homily on a certain Holy Day of Obligation reminded me that Mary, under the title of the Immaculate Conception, is the official patroness of the United States. Almost immediately, the ideas began to react in my head like baking soda and vinegar in a grade school science project.1
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception proclaims that Mary was miraculously conceived without original sin, and with the help of God’s grace remained free from sin for her entire earthly life. Being free from sin was not something Mary accomplished on her own: it was God who rescued her from the consequences of humanity’s fallen condition. In doing so, God showed us what he hopes to accomplish in all of us, but we make a mistake when we assume that this work has already been completed in us. Original sin is something we inherited from our first parents, and we have to accept that we still have to deal with its consequences, even after baptism.Similar things can be said of racism. We have inherited our country's racial difficulties from previous generations. We still have to deal with the consequences of their misdeeds today: in the economic circumstances of minorities, in laws that unfairly (if sometimes indirectly or unconsciously) target minorities, and in cultural narratives and tropes that carry with them racist undertones. For Americans today, racism is as inescapable as original sin, and we should not assume that, as a society, we have overcome centuries of persecution in a few decades, all through our own efforts. Even if we were to say that either the emancipation of slaves or the Civil Rights movement represent a sort of baptism, and even if we were to set aside racism against other ethnic groups, we would still have to deal with concupiscence, a tendency to fall back into sin.
In the end, I have come to understand the connection of the theological concept of original sin to modern institutional racism as an analogy.2 It's a framework for thinking about these issues in ways that keep us from seeking simple solutions. It is not just that racism has played some part in the American story from the very beginning and continues to affect us, but that we must not act as if its consequences can be overcome by human effort alone. I should not say that I have genuinely overcome racism, and I should not say that our society has genuinely overcome racism, any more than I can say we have overcome original sin.
My interpretation of the proposition that racism is America's original sin is, in many ways, disposable. But for me, remembering that Mary was immaculately conceived reminded me that I am not, and helped me think about what the bishops actually wrote about racism being a sin in more fruitful ways.
"Open Wide Our Hearts" is not the first time racism has been called a sin, even by the USCCB, but the simple act of putting racism in the category of "sin," if we carry that proposition to its conclusion, might help lay necessary groundwork for expanding the conversation on race beyond those who are or who strive to be woke.
As the moderator of a Facebook discussion group, I've seen accusations of racism derail or outright end more than one conversation. No matter how the accusation of racism is intended, the person being accused receives it as being somewhere between an ad hominem argument and outright profanity. Many generally well-meaning people don't know how to receive or process the suggestion that their arguments or perspectives betray some form of racism without perceiving all the deeply negative connotations of that term. This is a significant obstacle to anything resembling a national conversation on race- or even just one within the Catholic Church in America.
In thinking of and analyzing racism as a sin as the bishops do, we are in a certain sense liberated from the shame-inducing connotations associated with the label: we can think of racism as we think of avarice, gluttony, lust, or pride (if we understand pride as thinking of oneself as having greater worth or dignity than others, then racism is a form of pride). We can use terms like temptation, concupiscence, culpability, scrupulosity, and vincible or invincible ignorance in the context of race conversations.
In accepting original sin as an analogy for thinking about racism in the context of American society, and even more so treating racism as a sin in itself, we can adapt familiar Catholic paradigms to help us understand and lessen the deleterious effects of racism in our society.
1 I find this analogy fitting because, compared to some other people I could name, my thoughts on this subject are probably about on the level of a grade school project.↩
2 As it turns out, the term seems to have been popularized by a book published some time ago. I haven't read the book, and don't know to what degree my understanding lines up with the author's, or either Cupich or Chaput's understanding of the term. This is just the way of thinking about the term that I find most interesting and useful.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment