US Bishops on George Floyd Killing: ‘Racism is Not a Thing of the Past’

[PetraG]

I’m not going to measure President Trump’s action of going to The Shrine in a negative way. I am thankful that he and Melanie went and I assumethat he and Melanie went in good faith. The First Lady doesn’t strike me as one to make such an effort in selfishness or vanity.

I’m not talking about going to the Shrine. I’m talking about using force to break up a political protest so the President could have a spur-of-the-moment photo opportunity in front of a church he doesn’t even belong to–and a church that apparently was not even informed he was coming, actually–in spite of his own executive order directing that all executive departments respect and protect political speech “to the greatest extent practicable.”

Why was taking a pass on that unscheduled photo op not “practicable”?

 

[pnewton]

It was not generic. It is a specific context. Nonetheless, I lack your cynicism.

 

[josie_L]

It has nothing to do with cynicism, simple realism will do.

I respect the hierarchy but they are not beyond criticism I would hope.

 

[PetraG]

It has nothing to do with cynicism, simple realism will do.

I respect the hierarchy but they are not beyond criticism I would hope.

Are the laity beyond taking criticism from the bishops? One would hope not, true?
Still, if the only criticisms the laity are willing to hear from the bishops are those criticisms they deemed to have been leveled at someone else, it is a fair question.

 

[josie_L]

I agree it is fair, and it should be done, but if all bishops where of one mind and spoke the same truth we wouldn’t have a laity so confused and disillusioned!

 

[PetraG]

I agree it is fair, and it should be done, but if all bishops whereof one mind and spoke the same truth we wouldn’t have a laity so confused and disillusioned!

Confusing? Which bishops are defending the treatment received by George Floyd at the hands of the police? Did I miss something?

 

[josie_L]

I thought you were speaking in general terms when you asked me that question.

 

[Donkey]

Are you defending what was recorded on that video

No

especially if that treatment MIGHT be compounded by unjust prejudice

‘Might’

Words are very powerful.
I actually read on a social media post “don’t be more disgusted by looting than a black man murdered by police”

Emphasis and sway in our words matter. Words can inflame or bring peace.

At any rate, what is done is done now. Nothing goes unnoticed under God’s Watchful Eye.

 

[PetraG]

‘Might’

Words are very powerful.
I actually read on a social media post “don’t be more disgusted by looting than a black man murdered by police”

Emphasis and sway in our words matter. Words can inflame or bring peace.

At any rate, what is done is done now. Nothing goes unnoticed under God’s Watchful Eye.

My point, however, is that the treatment is inappropriate and deserves objection in the very strongest terms whether it came out of prejudice or not. If it did come out of prejudice, that only makes it that much more intolerable. If it didn’t, it is still intolerable.

 

[Donkey]

My point, however, is that the treatment is inappropriate and deserves objection in the very strongest terms whether it came out of prejudice or not. If it did come out of prejudice, that only makes it that much more intolerable. If it didn’t , it is still intolerable.

I get what you are saying but you have gone from ‘might’ to ‘if’. That is okay.

 

[PetraG]

I get what you are saying but you have gone from ‘might’ to ‘if’. That is okay.

It is one thing to come to a conclusion about the prevalence of a motive when there is a prevalence of a certain kind of offense against a certain class of people. It is another thing to come to a conclusion about the motive in a particular case. For instance, if someone lives in a very racist society in which a certain kind of offense actually is committed out of racist motives, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that a particular instance came out of another motive altogether.

 

[silentwitness]

I get what you are saying but you have gone from ‘might’ to ‘if’. That is okay.

I think part of the problem is that victim politics is a religion and it is mis-used for political advantage.

All religions seem to ‘freeze in time’ key concepts which define their religion.

So for us Christians we might meditate on the cross (or crucifix) at the suffering and wrongful punishment of Jesus. That is, we are freezing in time that happening and it is affecting how we see the world and ourselves today. We do a similar thing when reading the bible or participating in the stations of the cross. We do it when we say the Hail Mary or the different meditation decades of the rosary or reciting the Lords prayer that Jesus taught us. At mass (whenever we are allowed back) we re-create the last supper and reflect on all that the New Covenant means in our life today. Similarly when we recreate the nativity scenes or the passion plays on Good Friday.

The Jews do a similar thing when reading the psalms or celebrating Passover. That is, we have a strong connection with the past and we ‘bring it into the present’ as a guide to live by.

Now the Christian religion does this in a healthy way. No one is being blamed except ourselves and that is done to make us a better people and closer to the ultimate plane of existence, which is God. There is no animosity towards others and because God is always and everywhere present we can connect with Him now today through holding in our heart and being those great moments of salvation history of the past.

But there are other religions not based on God which have unhealthy outcomes. The secular politically correct victim politics (or identity politics) is one of those. I grew up in such a religion. I was taught about past injustices that some people had done to my ancestors and i was taught to view the present through that unhealthy prism. It is a very narrow minded and unfair prism and because it is a religion those key aspects of the past were never satisfied or changed. It taught me to treat others uncharitably based only on their ethnicity and that because of past injustices i was always right and validated in my descriptions and criticisms of others. In essence i could never be wrong about todays reality because in my mind they were always tied to the narrow minded recollections of the past where ‘I’ was a clear victim. The two were always the same and they could not be separated. Similar to a Christian’s refusal to help a suffering person today is tied to the past whipping and crucifixion of Jesus.

 

[silentwitness]

… continued from above.

The secular victim politics is a replacement religion. It is an unhealthy religion and i think the church should be mindful of that. When the bishops make a statement like ‘racism is not a thing of the past’ that is fine viewing it from a Christian perspective where racism is not seen as a core aspect of its own religion. But this is where i argued above that i pray the church distinguishes and disentangles its social justice efforts from Leftist victim politics where victimhood is seen as a core aspect of its own religion. I would like to see the bishops articulate an awareness of the dangers of this replacement secular religion and be brave enough to point out and criticise its unholiness when contrasting and promoting the better religion of Christianity.

I only overcame my religion of victim politics when i realised that i was being unfair to others and incorrect in how i tied a narrow minded view of the past to today. I saw that my secular religion directly opposed the Christian one and i had to make a choice. I tried very hard to see the other in the best possible light and celebrate their achievements and culture. I am a much better person because i chose Christianity. That does not mean that past injustices did not happen but that i was wrong to bring them into the present so as to see others today as being unjust and complicit and owing me their stuff with never ending apologies.

It is also the time i departed the Left wing side of politics because i realised my emotional values were being created, shaped, used and abused for others political advantage.

Finally and perhaps off topic the best chance i see that the United States will get past this never ending unhealthy situation is when certain people choose Christ over victim politics and at least in the short term, go back to the historic home of justice and freedom which is the Republican Party.

That is the only short term way i see the curse of victim politics being stopped. The structures that create and feed off victim politics have to be collapsed and the church also will be much better off when that happens.

I will not respond to activists posting in bad faith.

 

[JonNC]

You’re upset because our bishops are addressing racism… I suggest taking this to your spiritual director.

Question: has there been evidence uncovered that racism was the motivation of this cop?
Does he have a history of racist comments, actions, posts on social media?

This is apparent: The police officer was an agent of the Minneapolis government. He violated the individual rights of Mr. Floyd, an American citizen. When government violates the rights of individuals, protests are appropriate and should be supported.

We as Christians have an obligation to not bear false witness. Until we know his motivation was race, calling his actions racist is bearing false witness.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Bishop Gregory welcomes Nancy Pelosi with open arms near the altar just months ago, and remains silent on the Executive Order on religious freedom and an event that was planned well in advance, but has an issue with Trump even existing? So he decries politicizing situations, and as a religious cleric does just that. Living next to him, I have never been a fan of him, and this confirms that. Thank goodness he is not the head of my diocese. He reminds me of Cupich, Mahoney, or McCarrick in the things he says.

 

[JonNC]

The leader of the Republican Party has fanned this fire. And people are supposed to’ come home’ to that?

Those flames were started, again, as usual, by government agents working directly for a progressive Democrat mayor.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Those flames were started, again, as usual, by government agents working directly for a progressive Democrat mayor.

I’m sure the Democratic mayor is thrilled with the performance of his police department in this case. Darn shame that police don’t weed out the bad apples on their own, and I’m sure the citizenry is losing patience with it.

That is a scary thought.
The police work under the direction of the mayor. I’m frankly tired of these things happening under progressive Democrat rule and they are not held to account.

 

[JonNC]

That was sarcasm. If you want to give the qmayor sweeping powers to better control their police departments, then I think you would see less of this. They really do not have the power to control this as the system is set up now.

Of course they have the power. They seem to to have control of having police stand down so
Minority businesses can be burned and looted. They can exercise their authority to police properly. That’s why they’re elected, to provide services to the city.

There is a lot of racism on the city police departments and that needs to be weeded out, but that may require looking more deeply at the individuals.

Who is supposed to do this if mayors can’t?
This should have been done decades ago.

Maybe they could turn over their cell phones and social media accounts so we can get a better sense of their views and determine if this is the sort of person we want as a police officer.

Not sure requiring them to give up their 4th amendment rights helps protect the rights of others.

 

[Ender]

There is a lot of racism on the city police departments…

This is easy to assert, after all, even bishops are saying it; the difficulty exists in actually demonstrating that it is true. Where is the evidence? And by evidence I don’t mean individual anecdotes, but actual statistics. If police are racists then that ought to show up in the records. Does it? Actually, no.

It is quite depressing to see bishops use single instances of misbehavior to condemn not only the police but essentially all of white society (“Racism is a pervasive social evil…” - Bishop Kevin Rhoades). One can only imagine how strenuously he would (properly) object to someone taking the next instance of sex abuse by a clergyman to assert “Sex abuse is a pervasive evil in the Catholic Church.”

Real studies into the actions of police do not support the facile assertion that racism is pervasive, and everyone who simply repeats that canard has done us all a disservice.

 

[JonNC]

You are vastly overestimating the power of the mayor in the face of police silence and police unions.

Is it your claim that the unions defend racism?

There is a blue wall of silence where bad cops are allowed to stay on the job.

That’s why mayors are elected, is it not?

Then you can see the mayor doesn’t have as much control as you see to think.

So, the only way to control people in government is to require them to give up their rights?
I’m sorry. I think it is quite possible to preserve individual rights and effectively govern.