Is the Catholic Church a racist institution?

[Ani_Ibi]

Pensees:

Enslaving and killing people is not part of spreading the Gospel.

Enslaving and killing were done by the secular authorities. The role of the Church is to save souls. Often in history secular authorities have tried to use the Church as a shield or a pretext for aggressively robbing others of their land, their wealth, and their lives. But that is not the responsibility of the Church. It is the responsibility of the secular robbers.

Pensees:

I’m still a little bothered that if in the present, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini have still not been officially condemned by the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was excommunicated for making solid criticisms of the current state of the church. But these three men were responsible for genocide.

If you are still bothered then it is not because we have not explained this to you. It is because you have not listened to our answers and – frankly – may be interested not in our answers but in lecturing to us. Are you lecturing to us? Is your intent to convert us to your faith? If so, then please take a number and stand in line.

Once again:

Hitler was not a practising Catholic and did not enjoy the public profile of being Catholic. Therefore formal excommunication was not necessary. Formal excommunication is to clear up confusion among the faithful caused by heretics. There was no confusion among the faithful in Hitler’s case.

Mussolini was an atheist. Because he was not a Catholic there was no question of heresy, but of apostacy. Again, formal excommunication was not necessary. Formal excommunication is to clear up confusion among the faithful caused by heretics – not apostates. There was no confusion among the faithful in Mussonlini’s case.

Franco? Make your case against Franco please.

Martin Luther? Martin Luther was Catholic and in fact a biblical scholar and leader in the Church. Not only did he sow confusion among the faithful, he was disproportionately rude, uncharitable, and of questionable integrity in his multiple tirades against Church teaching. He sowed widespread confusion among the faithful. Because he was a Church leader there was some confusion as to whether he was speaking for himself or for the Church. That confusion was cleared up by means of formal excommunication.

In most cases, Catholics excommunicate themselves by persisting in heresy and public scandal. The women who were ‘ordained’ in Canada last summer, for example, were automatically understood by the Church to be excommunicated by reason of their own actions. It was not necessary for the Church to move formally, because the Church had already made Her teachings on ordination clear.

As for the Church being a racist institution: What source Church documents have you read that support your insinuations that the Church is racist? Any? If so, please share them with us.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Orogeny:

Is the Catholic Church a racist institution? I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the 135,600,000 Catholics in Africa?

Or the African popes: Victor (183-203 A.D.), Gelasius (492-496 A.D.), and Mechiades or Militiades (311-314 A.D.).

Or the African saints: Saint Anthony the Great of Thebes, Saint Antonio Vieira, Saint Augustine, St. Bessarian, Saint Benedict the Moor, Saint Felicitas, Saint Perpetua, Saint Martin de Porres, Saint Monica, Saint Moses, The Black, Saint Valentine, Saint Dubatatius, Saint Victoria.

Why don’t you google up some of Cardinal Arinze’s work? He is Nigerian. He is the Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship.

 

[BillP]

I don’t believe the Catholic Church itself is racist, but since her servants are humans it is inevitable that some of them have from time to time been racist.

By the way:

The Catholic Encycopedia, while usually helpful, is not a magesterial document and so may not reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Is incorrect.

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published. In constituting the Editors the ecclesiastical censors, he has given them a singular proof of his confidence and of his desire to facilitate the publication of the work which he has promoted most effectively by his influence and kindly co-operation.

\

newadvent.org/cathen/

Which would make it part of the “ordinary Magesterium”. The same ordinary Magesterium folks were describing as “'infallible” a few weeks ago in another thread.

 

[Donna_P]

The Catholic Church never was is or will be racist. However, individual people who say they are catholic might be.

 

[Genesis315]

newadvent.org/cathen/

Which would make it part of the “ordinary Magesterium”. The same ordinary Magesterium folks were describing as “'infallible” a few weeks ago in another thread.

That’s not true at all. When an individual bishop expresses or supports opinions contrary to Church teaching, it is not considered part of the universal ordinary magesterium.

 

[St_Francis]

One of th emost touching sights I have seen is a collection of nativity scenes from all around the world. You could tell where each was from because the people were depicted as people of the culture in the place where the scene was made, and the clothes were the traditional clothes of those people. There were scenes from every continent, including Africa. Ever seen Christ depicted as a baby Inuit (Eskimo),wrapped in fur? As a baby Japanese, with Mary in a kimono?

To me, this showed the universality of the Church–that Christ is loved and lovable by all, because He came for all.

The Popes did condemn the theories of Nazism and Fascism. I think around 3 millionCatholics were also killed–some have since been canonized, including a convert from Judaism (Jusith Stein), and a priest who volunteered to take the place of a man condemned to death by starvation (St Maximilian Kolbe).

Columbus and the missionaries treated the native people well, and tried to teach them about the truths of Catholicism. Those people who went to the New World just to make money were generally not good Catholics and they did treat people badly.

Notice that the CE article you quoted also included this: From the beginning of the Africa slave-trade the popes, from Pius II, in the fifteenth century, to Leo XIII, in the nineteenth, issued encyclicals and directed anathemas against the barbarous and inhuman treatment of human beings in slavery. The traffic and its cruelties were condemned by the Holy See before the discovery of America.

Notice also that *Under the law of Virginia as it was in 1705, **Catholics, Indians, and negro slaves **were denied the right to appear “as witnesses in any case whatsoever, not being Christians”. *

And notice too that the CE writes: *It is almost impossible to obtain the exact number of Catholic negroes in the United States. *Why was this? Because *While a great number live in coloured parishes and have their own churches, to the number of about sixty, **many others are mingled among whites in widely separate parishes, where no report is ever made of the colour of the members. ***Notice that race was unimportant to the Catholics. I notice here (in the south), that Protestant churches are *still *almost completely segregated, and that if a new person comes into town, only members of his own race will invite him to church. In the Catholic churches I have been to, there have always been very integrated populations. (I don’t know where you are from.)

It is unfortunate that in the time that the CE online was published, it was assumed that cultural differences were caused by “nature;” however, this was due more to the limitations of science than to any “racism” on thepart of the Church, which has always been universal.

 

[deb1]

One of the paradoxes of humanity is that while we are capable of horrendous acts of cruelty, we also have the ability to sacrifice ourselves for other and commit amazing acts of charity and kindness. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that the Catholic church, being made up of humans, has examples of both extremes. This doesn’t mean that the church itself promotes prejudice but that some of its individuals within it might.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

BillP:

I don’t believe the Catholic Church itself is racist, but since her servants are humans it is inevitable that some of them have from time to time been racist.

By the way:

Is incorrect.

\

newadvent.org/cathen/

Which would make it part of the “ordinary Magesterium”. The same ordinary Magesterium folks were describing as “'infallible” a few weeks ago in another thread.

Peace be with you!

An Imprimatur doesn’t make something an official Magesterium document. It just means that a bishop has deemed that there is nothing in it contrary to Church teaching. However, like another poster said, some bishops, from time to time, may not be in line with Church teaching. That would mean that what they teach during that time would not be representative of the Ordinary Magisterium. Remember, the Ordinary Magisterium is only the Ordinary Magisterium when it teaches what the pope has infallibly taught. That’s what makes it infallible.
Along these lines, I have many books that bear an Imprimatur and most of them are written by lay-people. They are great books but they are not Magesterial documents.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Gearoidin]

One of th emost touching sights I have seen is a collection of nativity scenes from all around the world. You could tell where each was from because the people were depicted as people of the culture in the place where the scene was made, and the clothes were the traditional clothes of those people. There were scenes from every continent, including Africa. Ever seen Christ depicted as a baby Inuit (Eskimo),wrapped in fur? As a baby Japanese, with Mary in a kimono?

I got a small wallet calendar from our church and Mary is dressed in a kimono with very Japanese features.
We have priests from Japan, Korea, The Philippines, Central America (not sure which country) and Italy. At the seminary there are people from Ecuador, Guatemala, Colombia, Mexico, Spain, Italy, Vietnam, The Philippines, and Portugal.
At Sunday Mass you will see people from many countries in South America, The Philippines, Korea, US, Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Uganda, Nigeria, Australia and New Zealand. The Catholic church is truly international.

Gearoidin

 

[Benno]

read the thread “the church and fascism” - it deals with this issue. recently i’ve discovered that there IS a very racist element of people within the church who justify their sinfulness WITH catholic ideas and quotes!

i think this is a very small number of those on the ultra-right, many of whom probably belong to schismatic groups that claim to be catholics.

one thing i know is that the church itself says racism is sinful, but some (maybe many) people within it (and claiming to be within it) are apalling racists, and believe they are being good catholics for holding their twisted beliefs.

whoever asked for the case against franco, please look at that thread too. (i should say i don’t know if he was a racist exactly, because i doubt he regarded the basques as a “race”, but he certainly scandalized the church by persecuting people in the name of Catholicism.)

 

[David_Zampino]

Pensees:

Enslaving and killing people is not part of spreading the Gospel.

I’m still a little bothered that if in the present, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini have still not been officially condemned by the Catholic Church. Martin Luther was excommunicated for making solid criticisms of the current state of the church. But these three men were responsible for genocide.

Your understanding of history seems to equate to your understanding of biblical languages.

Much evil took place during the time immediately preceding and throughout WWII. Many people (of many different church affiliations) bear guilt.

BUT . . . if an honest historian compares the behaviour of Catholics (in general) during the WWII era vs the behaviour of Orthodox (in general) during the same period . . . Orthodoxy does not come out looking all that nice . . .

Blessings,

 

[Zerith]

bear06:

In a word, no. BTW, Christ was Jewish not African American, Irish, Chinese, etc. Pictures of Christ as anything else always crack me up. It’s called history, not racism. I’m Irish. He probably didn’t look like me either! The important thing is that Christ came and died for all.

Ah who knows, maybe he did have red hair*, pale white freckled skin and went around preaching, with a shamrock in one hand, and a pint in the other?

*Actually, that stereotype is fairly incorrect, very few have red hair here… :\

Christ’s physical appearance is not at all important. The thing is, is that he’s from the Middle East, therefore, his skin would be darker, though not as dark as an African.

Hitler was condemned by the Catholic Church. Franco fought anti-Catholic Communists, who ran around crucifying Catholic Priests, they chose to support him than anarchist rabble.
Mussolini wasn’t big on the genocide, he tried to avoid anti-semetic laws, but was forced by Hitler to bring them in, neither he nor the Italian people liked them, and they made him extremely unpopular (Though, amazingly, he still ranks as the “33rd Greatest Italian” in a nationwide poll in Italy), and even then, it was only 8,000 in comparison with other countries (Hungary, Slovakia and Vichy France, the Fourth Republic)

To go into the topic you brought up in detail would take far too long for me, so I’ll just leave it here, and leave it up to the others, as I know they’ll do a good job, if not better.

 

[Eileen_T]

St.Eric:

Ditto! I also chuckle when I see a black St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas was a white man- that’s a historical fact. We have several black priests in our diocese who are from Africa. We also have several from South America and other eastern countries. The Catholic church is the most diverse in the world.

The image of herself that Our Lady (of Guadelupe) imprinted on Juan Diego’s tilma it looks Indian rather than Jewish. But then, she was appearing to an Indian. At least we don’t see God the Father as an upper-class English gentleman.

 

[BryPGuy89]

I wouldn’t say that the Catholic Church is racist as one of the growing groups in the world is the Africa populations. I remember myself there was a deacon from Africa who would come and partake in mass acationally. The Church allows all races into her and doesn’t reject them for their color.

 

[anarchocatholic]

bear06:

Interesting. How do you think it does this? Why in heaven’s name would it help my children to understand the Incarnation better to have Christ portrayed as a black person or a fair skinned, red head? This, in itself, would seem a little racist to me and certainly a little anti-semitic. Was Christ any less because he was Jewish? Are we ever going to get a portrait of Christ perfectly? No but he wasn’t black and he wasn’t a red-headed Irishman nor a Swede. For the record, I wouldn’t be happy if St. Martin De Porres was depicted as a blond hair blue-eyed guy either.

Here’s an interesting article
wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37298

But pictures of a white Jesus aren’t anti-semitic?

 

[anarchocatholic]

bear06:

In a word, no. BTW, Christ was Jewish not African American, Irish, Chinese, etc. Pictures of Christ as anything else always crack me up. It’s called history, not racism. I’m Irish. He probably didn’t look like me either! The important thing is that Christ came and died for all.

So you’re planning to get rid of all your “white Jesus” pictures, I assume?

 

[anarchocatholic]

The term racist is a technical term that refers to a systematic oppression of one racial group by another. Members of the oppressive group can and often do participate in the systemic reality of racism and also benefit from their participation in it. That’s important to understand.

I think that although the Church obviously condemns racism in its documents and teachings, it suffers from racism in various ways, much like it condemns sexism but suffers from sexism in various ways. In other words, the Church knows it’s calling is to transcend and oppose racism and sexism, but because of its human nature (of course it has a divine nature too) it cannot avoid racism and sexism and other elements of the fallen-ness of creation.

Therefore to say “the Church is not racist but individuals are” doesn’t cut it because the Church does suffer from systemic racism, i.e. a white European worldview that is imposed on various cultures around the world. The Church also suffers from systemic sexism – not only sexism by individuals – in its unwillingness to allow women into the ranks of ordained ministry.

I think the individual vs. systemic distinction is key here.

Pensees – The picture in your signature – I have a framed version of it in my home. Bought it in Jamaica.

 

[anarchocatholic]

bump

 

[KBarn]

Mainly, what I am talking about is European Catholicism. Was Hitler ever officially condemned within his lifetime?

Pope Pius XI wrote and distributed the only encyclical primarily written in German *MIT BRENNENDER SORGE *in 1937 condemning Naziism. Additionally, Cardinal Pacelli made 39 speeches on German soil condemning Naziism as Neo-Paganism. Hitler’s actions certainly were condemned.

As for so-called abuses of missionaries, Catholic missionaries, the Jesuits especially, treated the indigenous people very well. They believed that they were sent to serve the indigenous peoples. It was only when the Protestants came that the idea of serving the indigenous peoples was lost. Learn the history of Catholic missions in the Americas.

Additionally, the word ‘negro’ at the time of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s publication was the common and accepted word for black-skinned people of African origin. Nothing of what you posted constitutes racism because the article was speaking more in praise of the Africans than anything, saying that they are amiable and kind and receptive of gospel values.

Please learn history before you make other wild accusations. You were not asking the question, you were positing a fact.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Forgive me for resurrecting a long-dormant thread, but I want to address the actual content of the OP, which was meant to be rather inflammatory.

“Pensees” claimed that the CE was racist from its description of blacks as acting a certain way. First of all, the article in its first paragraph says: “It is a mistake to hold, as some do, that all negroes have common traits.”

Racism is insisting that one race is inherently better than another. The excerpt said nothing about blacks being inherently inferior. In fact, it was overwhelmingly positive. Perhaps the CE was guilty of overgeneralizing, but as there are a great many devout Catholics in Africa, and American blacks seem to be noted for their piety, I don’t think the characterization was far off the mark.

“Pensees” needs some further education, it seems.