The term “right wing” comes from the Estates-General of France: the king would sit in the middle of parliament, with the nobles and bishops on his right, while the representatives of the people would sit on the king’s left. As a Christian I still scratch my head about this: “What were the bishops doing over on that side?” All you have to do is look at the Gospel and the early epistles to see how little patience the Christian movement had for rich people: “the poor He hath filled with good things, while the rich He hath sent empty away;” “now weep and wail, you rich people, for the woes that are coming to you.” How in the world did we get from thirteen poor guys in a boat – with a noticeable animus against rich people – to a world where the “Christians” fight with the rich against the poor?
My mother, like many others of her generation, reads The Tablet, “The Catholic Perspective on News and Opinion from Brooklyn and Queens.” As she has gotten older and wiser, she likes it less, but she still reads a few of the columns by the priests, the ones which are more or less sermons on the topic of how to be good in one’s daily interactions with other people. I generally don’t read it at all, but the Dec.27-Jan.3 issue ended up in my pile of firestarter material in my cabin, and I started reading it. And what did I find in it but an editorial about the murder of two police officers in Brooklyn.
Before I get to the text of the editorial, let me make it clear: this newspaper is, according to its own proclamation, “Published by and in the interest of The Diocese of Brooklyn.” Its publisher is the bishop of the diocese of Brooklyn, Nicholas DiMarzio. And this is an editorial, by the editor, and not outside or even columnist commentary which may or may not represent the opinions of the bishop of Brooklyn.
The editorial is online, but I will also provide it here:
The year 2014 has not been the best of years. And unfortunately, it is ending on a sour note with the assassination of two police officers right here in our diocese.
The charlatan politicians and would-be community leaders would have us believe that the underlying problem is racism. The real danger facing us is the extreme lack of respect for authority which makes up the underpinnings of society.
The rabble-rousers leading the misguided public demonstrations in our streets would have us believe their cause is just. That is a smokescreen for arousing chaos and taking down the tenets of modern society.
The real issues of injustice begin in the homes and in families. The breakdown of family values and structures has led to a devaluation of human life. The real questions facing us center around why there are so many fatherless or motherless households in our nation. Why is there so much violence and disorientation among our young people? Why are there not enough jobs for all people? Why is our educational system failing to properly form young people? Why is there such callous disregard for unborn life?
Race is a factor but it is not THE factor. Our country has faced up to its racial divide and has been making great strides in bringing all peoples together. For the most part, people of good will live and work side by side, regardless of race, color, or beliefs.
But there are phoney leaders who seize upon every instance of conflict and turn them into racially motivated incidents. The so-called racial incidents of Ferguson and Staten Island had more to do with lack of respect for authority and how we administer justice than it did with the color of one’s skin.
We have seen devious wannabes take advantage of these tragic events and turn them into self-serving cause celebres. Where are the politicians who are asking the right questions? Where are the leaders who would bring us together rather than divide us?
The murders of the police officers on a Brooklyn street are the logical conclusion to those who would fan the flames of anarchy and those who fail to fully support legitimate authority. Words create an atmosphere and those who utter them must take responsibility for the actions they cause.
Some have called for a moratorium on public demonstrations until after the funerals of the police officers. What nonsense! Where is the call to a complete end to this civil unrest that is the work of professional organizers and dissident groups who do not have the common good as their goal.As Catholics, we look to the ideals preached by Our Lord as the guiding principles that would guide us [note: here comes the cant, which has of course absolutely nothing to do with anything said earlier]. We seek love not hatred, unity not division, peace not warfare.
At Christmas, we should be celebrating a birth that changed the course of history and instead our attention is being captured by death and destruction.
The New Year gives us all a chance to start over. Let us imagine ways to recapture concern for one another. Let us rid ourselves of self-serving mouthpieces who profit from the evil of murder and mayhem.
Let Jesus free our minds of suspicion and let us rediscover a sense of mutual respect. Let us reject timeworn slogans that pull us apart. Let 2015 be the year when we all come together and truly care about each other.
Catholic diocesan thinking is, as a general rule, atrocious, so I acknowledge that this article may not be worth overthinking. But I will point out at least a few things. The first is simply its tone; it preaches respect, love, unity, etc. but the feeling throughout – until it suddenly veers into cant, which is the homiletic indicator of a coda – is disrespectful, hateful, and divisive. Far from “recapturing concern for one another,” this piece devalues other human beings: they are “rabble-rousers,” “phoney leaders,” “devious wannabes.” It’s a bit much to have the bishop’s newspaper complain about “self-serving mouthpieces,” but I suppose nothing rankles one self-serving mouthpiece as the attention given to another self-serving mouthpiece.
The second thing I will point out is that it really – really – is self-contradictory. Behind it – and behind all modern Catholic thinking – is the concept of the value and dignity of life. Really this is precisely the concept the protestors are upholding. In both the Ferguson and Garner cases, a human life was taken – and this did not, according to our legal system, even merit a trial. Two men died, and our justice system offers no recourse: the killers, who are known, walk free. I am not saying the killers were guilty before the law. But I am saying that our legal system is inadequate, and unjust, if it does not even deign to hold a public hearing concerning one man’s killing of another. And this was not one odd instance: it happened twice in a few short months, and has drawn attention to hundreds of other cases of potential police abuse of authority. The pro-life side of this argument is the one which claims that “black lives matter.” The only reform I want out of all this unrest is: everyone – even police – must be brought to account for the taking of human life. There may be cases of homicide where there will be no legal punishment, but the sanctity of life demands at least a trial.
And I will note that the public protests here in New York City occurred not when Garner was killed by a police officer. They occurred when the justice system refused to even hear the case. When there was no legal recourse, what good option was left for redress other than peaceable protest in the streets?
This brings me to my third observation. It is impressive to me how enduring in American life is the “silent majority” – the law-and-order people who liked Richard Nixon so much. It surprises me that people – and so many – really believe that the greatest danger of our time is “extreme lack of respect for authority.” These people think the legal system is just fine – which I think is implied in that phrase “lack of respect for authority and [lack of respect] for how we administer justice.” Our legal system does all they really require of it: 1) it is highly predictable 2) it follows wealth scrupulously. The “broken windows” theory of policing is more than a theory – it really is an American philosophy. If you don’t want to deal with the police, then you have a responsibility: your responsibility is to maintain appearances. The law will not bother you if you drive a tasteful new car, if you have a nice-looking, well-maintained home, keep all your paperwork in line (best if you hire a professional for such things), dress nicely and expensively, and have good manners and know when to shut up and just wait for your lawyer to show. For a lot of people this is the highest form of justice: they even get angry that some people are not satisfied with it. How much simpler can it get? Why can’t these black people just get it?
It is striking to me how thoroughly the Catholic hierarchy belongs to this “silent majority.” That they would have been Pharisees back in the day, and executed Jesus in a heartbeat, is obvious. The Law might have been unjust, and might have promoted hypocrisy, pettiness, and cruelty, but it was clear and obvious and predictable. What more could long-haired Jesus – from Nazareth, not a respectable neighborhood – have wanted? He got what he deserved, in the end. The Catholic Church, despite an odd glimmer of awareness from the current pope, remains what it has been since the days of Constantine: a man standing immobile in the night, wearing a headlamp which faces behind him. It illumines the way for the people walking away from it.
I would like to call attention to one last paragraph:
Race is a factor but it is not THE factor. Our country has faced up to its racial divide and has been making great strides in bringing all peoples together. For the most part, people of good will live and work side by side, regardless of race, color, or beliefs.
This is the kind of thing that white people believe until they, say, marry a black person, or adopt a black child. Then all of a sudden they see. It is mere wishful thinking. Where I live – in a blue state – white people call Martin Luther King Day “Nigger Day.” Teenage boys make fun of the fact that I have no problem with black people: “God John, are you fucking blind? I hate niggers. I fucking hate them.” Throughout large parts of this country, white people think that the country would be better off if all black people vanished the next day.
It is true that there is some evidence that the police will treat you badly if you are poor, even if you are poor and white. But since so many blacks are poor, and they are often poor because employers pass them over in favor of candidates of other races, this is splitting hairs. Any person who has walked this land cannot help but feel the immense wrong which has been done to black people, a wrong which has persisted for generations and shows no sign of stopping. And anyone who knows history knows the depth and perversity of this injustice – I just recently read Chris Rock talking about his mother having to go to a veterinarian in South Carolina to get a tooth pulled, and having to come to the back door, and slyly, because the white people in town would refuse to patronize the vet if they knew he used his instruments on black people. Things are better, fine; now a black can sue a dentist if he refuses to treat him; but let’s not pretend that “our country has faced up to its racial divide.” The slogan “Black lives matter” has impact because it’s so obvious that for the most part, in this country, black lives don’t matter. Not as much as other lives. Not even to bishops in churches which purport to follow Christ. Is it really too much to ask of them that they support a public trial for people who kill other human beings?
5 Comments