WHY DON'T THEY BELIEVE ME ABOUT RACISM?

Does racism really exist?  Should we still be talking about racism today?  Why don't we instead speak about human sin rather than the colour of one's skin?  Shouldn't we talk about human life and dignity instead of which lives matter?  Isn't this a cause of further division instead of uniting us?  Don't we all bleed red and have basically the same DNA?

These are some of the questions some of my friends have asked in response to the on-going focus on racism following the death of George Floyd.  I think that these questions betray a twofold struggle that many are having with confronting the issue of racism:  

• Some don't genuinely seem to believe that racism and particularly racism towards Black people exists at all or to the extent reported. 
• Others believe that racism exists, but they would prefer to speak about it in broader terms of evil and sin, human dignity and unity, rather than dealing with the specifics of race and skin colour. 

And yet for me, it is as clear as day that racism as such (the adverse treatment of a person based on prejudices about their race) exists.  For me, especially as a Black man living in the USA, albeit an African and a Catholic priest, it is as clear as a bell that prejudicial treatment towards Black people still exists in the USA today.  This clarity is based not just on what I hear but also what I personally experience. 

And so, I have been scratching my brains out to try to understand why my friends don't believe me and others when we say that racism exists.  Of course the easy answer would be to call them racists.  But I know many of them to be good and honourable, kind and generous people.  Many of them are good Catholics, some are even members of the clergy.  How can they not hear the loud cries of their bishops about racism, the urgent concern of Pope Francis about racism?  That is why I think that there is something else going on in their minds that is producing this dissonance. 

Obviously there can be legitimate differences of opinion on contingent matters such as what happened, when and where and to whom.  Good people can legitimately interpret statistics regarding the racist intent of actions towards Black people differently, especially since as the cliché reminds us that "there are lies, damn lies and statistics."  But what I am focusing on here is the denial that racism and systemic racism towards Black people exists. 

I would therefore like to suggest three possible explanations for this difficulty that some people are having with seeing racism particularly as it exists today. 

Philosophical obstacle 

The first reason I think people do not believe this reality of racism and its particular expression today is that they see reality through a philosophical lens that sees the big picture and not the details, the genus and not the species.  That is why they argue that the problem is not racism but simply bad policing, sin, evil etc.  And that is why they recommend that the only solution is a return to fundamental Christian values such as respect for human dignity, love for each other, unity. 

Sixteenth century Reformer Martin Luther (not King) thought the same thing.  In rejecting the Catholic sacrament of confession, he criticized the requirement to confess mortal sins, not just generically, but very specifically in kind and number.  For him the consideration of circumstances, kind and number was simply creating "mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers-and sisters-in-law, branches and fruits of sins . . . a kind of family tree of relationships and affinities" (Babylonian Captivity 4.16).  Instead he argued: "My advice would be to ignore all circumstances utterly. With Christians there is only one circumstance – that a brother has sinned. . . . " (Babylonian Captivity 4.17). 

I think it is this Lutheran philosophical paradigm that drives people to think of the sin of racism in the aforementioned generalities and not the particular circumstances of this sin, which is the treatment of someone negatively because of their race or skin colour.  They don't want to get involved in the weeds, because these extra circumstances of "who" did "what" to "whom," "when" and "how" are just details.  In fact, some argue that the prodigal son did not confess any particular sins but simply said, "‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son'" (Lk. 15:17). 

And so while acknowledging that treating somebody adversely based on their race (or any other characteristic) is wrong, they don't see the need to name it racism, but simply call it sin. 

Psychological obstacle 

The second possible reason for "the denial of racism" is psychological.  I suspect that some people understand the fundamentally evil nature of this sin of racism, but are too ashamed to speak its name.  This phenomenon is quite common in the sacrament of confession regarding others sins too. 

Many a newly-ordained priest in Uganda, perhaps hearing confessions in a language they are just learning will be surprised when the penitent confesses to having "pulled a rope."  The baffled young priest will wonder how this is a serious sin, since a rope costs only a few cents.  And, respecting the seal, he will keep this epidemic of rope-stealing to himself.  Fortunately, perhaps in spiritual direction with a senior priest, he will learn that "pulling a rope" is a general way of confessing the sin of theft, because there is usually something valuable at the end of that rope, perhaps a goat, a sheep, a cow, even the more valuable pregnant cow.  Armed with that knowledge he will then on ask the penitents to be more specific in their confession.

Similarly priests throughout the world quickly learn that sometimes in confession they must seek further clarification, especially with sins surrounding the sixth commandment.  Many of us are too ashamed to name the sin and will use general euphemisms like "I fooled around with my secretary/boss" instead of "I committed adultery or fornication," or "I committed an act of impurity," instead of saying "I masturbated."  For the sacrament to be fruitful and performed in more than a merely perfunctory manner, the penitent needs to name their particular sin since there is wide spectrum of sexual sins, and the confessor needs that specificity so that he can provide the appropriate counsel.  That is why the Code of Canon Law obliges all the Christian faithful "to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism" (CIC 988).  And the Council of Trent teaching on which this canon is based highlights secret sins and sins against the last two commandments as needing to consider circumstances in a particular way (DS 1707). 

Is it possible that some people like the aforementioned penitents just cannot bring themselves to name the sin of racism, perhaps due to the shameful baggage it carries and so retreat to the clouds of abstraction and generalities?  Can any of us really say that we are exempt from the temptation of racial prejudice? 

Experiential obstacle 

A third possible explanation for denying the existence of racism or at least its particular manifestation is perhaps based on people's lack of personal experience with racism.  Such naiveté or innocence about evil is evidenced in other situations too. 

About 2010, eight years after the stories of priests sexually abusing children broke, I heard a pious, elderly nun boldly declare that the whole thing was made up.  She argued that priests could not do those things people said they did.  It was all a set-up by enemies of the Church.  Similarly a few years earlier, I was speaking to a young seminarian about to be ordained a priest and encouraging him to be a good priest.  His response surprised me. He was very upset by my suggestion that there could be anything other than a good priest.  He just could not believe that bad priests existed and took great umbrage at my hinting at the possibility of bad priests. 

Like this naive nun and innocent seminarian, I am wondering if some people have never experienced racism (as perpetrator, victim or observer) and cannot fathom such an evil happening in the 21st century.  I believe it is this kind of naiveté of which Martin Luther King spoke in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, written to those (particularly fellow clergymen) who were questioning why he was carrying out protests, albeit peaceful ones, for nothing really. 

The naiveté surrounding racism might perhaps be due to the shame surrounding this evil, not equipping people to deal with it and instead  sweeping it under the carpet.  Real discussions about the reality of racism are rare and often badly done.  Like sex, racism is not usually a subject of intelligent discussion.  Like sex, any discussions about it are held in hushed tones among people who don't know what they are talking about, and often passing on wrong information.  If discussions about racism are held in the open at all, they usually take the form of some Black person sharing his or her experiences of racism and everybody feeling bad for a day or two and then that is it.  Alternatively issues of race are the staple of jokes and stereotypes, particularly bad jokes that make everybody uncomfortable.  This discomfort, for example is seen in a lack of consensus on what adjectives to use in describing the various races: Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic, Indian or Native-American, White or Caucasian? 

This naiveté surrounding racism might also arise from the belief some people have that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s resolved everything.  For others the election of President Obama as president was a sign that America's original sin of racism had been consigned to history.  They don't realize that like the initial original sin which is ontological to human nature and thus needs a supernatural solution to eliminate, centuries-long systemic racism is going to need fundamental and long-term solutions.  A story I heard recently was how the adverse effects of the diversion of an interstate highway in Minnesota from a rich white neighbourhood to a poor Black neighbourhood in the 1950s is still affecting the descendants of those Black families decades later.  Such systemic (not systematic) racism is not easily seen or understood. 

And so, either due to a lack of personal experience, or due to the failure to understand systemic  racism, perhaps some people genuinely do not get what they see as much hullabaloo for nothing is all about.  It is a phenomenon C.S. Lewis has described as the difference between knowledge acquired by looking at rather than the experiential knowledge of looking along. 

Unity: Universality not Uniformity 

And so, I think some people have the best of intentions when they don't see racism and when

they argue that to promote Catholic unity and unity in society, we should be colour blind.  And yet despite being well-meaning colour blindness will not solve the problem. 

More seriously they are operating out of a misapprehension of what Catholic unity or true unity anywhere really means.  Catholic unity does not mean uniformity but universality.  The Latin origin of these two words can help explain the distinction between these two kinds of unity. 

Although both uniformity and universality contain the Latin word unus which means "one", the second word further qualifies what kind of oneness is being described. 

• In uniformity, to unus is added the word forma which means "form or shape."  And so uniformity means "of one form", the kind of unity where everybody is the same, with distinctions minimized or eliminated, such as "colour blindness." 
• In universality, to unus is added the word vertere, versum which means "to turn towards."  And so universality means "turning diversity into one", the kind of unity where everybody is one without losing their individuality and distinctiveness. 

And so instead of looking for a Catholic unity that has no races or colours, or any other differences we should look for a Catholic unity, which has various races and colours, and various differences, but where all these races, colours and differences are gifts and none of them is an object of derision or disdain.  Universality is the same kind of unity foreseen by the motto of the USA, e pluribus unum, "out of many one." 

Catholic universality and e pluribus unum is not an utopian unity where everything is hanky-dory, but one which requires hard work on everybody's part, requires a discussion of not only the present and future but also the past, and one which avoids putting our heads in the sand and thinking that there are no problems or that they will magically disappear. 

May the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one God in three persons, with their unity in substance and their equality in majesty, be a model for how we too can be one even as we retain our unique races and colourful gifts, working for the common good of all people.