Quote for the day: Ellen Degeneres on her Cinco de Mayo show last week,
There’s nothing wrong with two adjectives in a row, especially when the word is “wonderful.” I don’t know why there should be any rules against that.
Still hosting a house guest, and since hospitality is a sacred obligation (Let every guest be received as Christ), I haven’t found much time to blog today. I have, however, continued to follow and participate in the discussion on the Commonweal thread to which I directed readers yesterday.
I’m intrigued by the argument of some American Catholics of the right (and the religious right in general) to try to play interracial and same-sex marriage against each other. The argument goes as follows: Catholics (or, in some cases, Christians in general) never opposed interracial marriage.
And so it is illegitimate to argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is based in prejudice akin to that which outlawed miscegenation for many years. The church has rightly supported marriage of a man and a woman across racial lines. And it rightly rejects the marriage of two people of the same sex. Both are positions rooted in fidelity to the Word of God and longstanding church teaching.
I’m fascinated by this argument for all kinds of reasons:
1. It distorts history. The history of the churches’ response to racism in general and interracial marriage in particular is much murkier and much less admirable (and uniform) than this argument suggests. And that’s true of the Catholic church as it’s true of other Christian churches.
2. During the many years in which miscegenation was outlawed throughout the U.S., the American Catholic church did not valiantly work for the eradication of laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It did what churches always have a tendency to do, at any point in history: it went along with the law, lived comfortably with it, for the most part.
3. There have been at all points in Catholic history admirable prophetic groups who moved against the consensus of the mainstream when that consensus was cruel and uncharitable, and in many cases, these groups challenged the culture’s prevailing racism. I’ve blogged repeatedly about those groups, and, in particular, about the tendency of some Catholic churches in the American South during integration to move more quickly to integrate than many other white Christian churches did in the South. As I’ve noted, this tendency is part of what drew me to the Catholic church as a teen coming of age in a small Southern town in the Civil Rights movement.
4. But there was also widespread apathy among many American Catholics about racism in American society, and active resistance to integration among Catholics in some areas of the country.
5. There does seem to be some historical evidence suggesting that some Catholic countries were quicker than Anglo countries to accept interracial marriage or unions, when they colonized non-European areas of the world. This tendency has been studied in French colonies including Québec and southern Louisiana, and in Spanish colonial areas, where racial mixing (between Europeans, native peoples, and Africans) appears to have been much more widely accepted than in Anglo colonial areas.
6. But in those same areas, laws prohibiting actual marriage between people of different races were sometimes also in place, and the church abided by and did not protest those laws. What was often accepted as part of the everyday life of these Catholic colonies was the fathering of children by European men who took native women or women of color as mistresses,while marrying white women.
7. And if we’re going to argue that the Catholic witness to the validity of interracial marriage somehow forms a basis for playing interracial marriage against same-sex marriage, when we note Catholic acceptance of interracial marriage and Catholic rejection of same-sex marriage, what are we to make of the fact that same-sex marriage has been enacted in countries with a strong, long Catholic heritage, while some countries with a Protestant heritage are proving most resistant to same-sex marriage?
8. Polls show American Catholics favoring same-sex marriage or unions at a rate much higher than that of American evangelical Protestants, who are the group in American society most resistant to same-sex marriages and unions. It appears one can argue for a positive correlation between the beliefs of many lay Catholics (as opposed to the hierarchy) and support for same-sex marriage. This correlation may reflect a strong support for social justice teachings among Catholics—despite what the hierarchy chooses to say and do.
These are some of my reflections as the religious right—including some Catholics—try to play interracial and same-sex marriage against each other, as though the history of the churches about racial matters and interracial marriage is noble, and should cause us to bow before current official church teaching forbidding same-sex marriage.
The historical record is far less uniform and admirable than this revisionist historical approach wants to admit. And support for same-sex marriage or unions among many Catholics is far stronger than these same right-leaning Catholics want to note.
And so it is illegitimate to argue that opposition to same-sex marriage is based in prejudice akin to that which outlawed miscegenation for many years. The church has rightly supported marriage of a man and a woman across racial lines. And it rightly rejects the marriage of two people of the same sex. Both are positions rooted in fidelity to the Word of God and longstanding church teaching.
I’m fascinated by this argument for all kinds of reasons:
1. It distorts history. The history of the churches’ response to racism in general and interracial marriage in particular is much murkier and much less admirable (and uniform) than this argument suggests. And that’s true of the Catholic church as it’s true of other Christian churches.
2. During the many years in which miscegenation was outlawed throughout the U.S., the American Catholic church did not valiantly work for the eradication of laws prohibiting interracial marriage. It did what churches always have a tendency to do, at any point in history: it went along with the law, lived comfortably with it, for the most part.
3. There have been at all points in Catholic history admirable prophetic groups who moved against the consensus of the mainstream when that consensus was cruel and uncharitable, and in many cases, these groups challenged the culture’s prevailing racism. I’ve blogged repeatedly about those groups, and, in particular, about the tendency of some Catholic churches in the American South during integration to move more quickly to integrate than many other white Christian churches did in the South. As I’ve noted, this tendency is part of what drew me to the Catholic church as a teen coming of age in a small Southern town in the Civil Rights movement.
4. But there was also widespread apathy among many American Catholics about racism in American society, and active resistance to integration among Catholics in some areas of the country.
5. There does seem to be some historical evidence suggesting that some Catholic countries were quicker than Anglo countries to accept interracial marriage or unions, when they colonized non-European areas of the world. This tendency has been studied in French colonies including Québec and southern Louisiana, and in Spanish colonial areas, where racial mixing (between Europeans, native peoples, and Africans) appears to have been much more widely accepted than in Anglo colonial areas.
6. But in those same areas, laws prohibiting actual marriage between people of different races were sometimes also in place, and the church abided by and did not protest those laws. What was often accepted as part of the everyday life of these Catholic colonies was the fathering of children by European men who took native women or women of color as mistresses,while marrying white women.
7. And if we’re going to argue that the Catholic witness to the validity of interracial marriage somehow forms a basis for playing interracial marriage against same-sex marriage, when we note Catholic acceptance of interracial marriage and Catholic rejection of same-sex marriage, what are we to make of the fact that same-sex marriage has been enacted in countries with a strong, long Catholic heritage, while some countries with a Protestant heritage are proving most resistant to same-sex marriage?
8. Polls show American Catholics favoring same-sex marriage or unions at a rate much higher than that of American evangelical Protestants, who are the group in American society most resistant to same-sex marriages and unions. It appears one can argue for a positive correlation between the beliefs of many lay Catholics (as opposed to the hierarchy) and support for same-sex marriage. This correlation may reflect a strong support for social justice teachings among Catholics—despite what the hierarchy chooses to say and do.
These are some of my reflections as the religious right—including some Catholics—try to play interracial and same-sex marriage against each other, as though the history of the churches about racial matters and interracial marriage is noble, and should cause us to bow before current official church teaching forbidding same-sex marriage.
The historical record is far less uniform and admirable than this revisionist historical approach wants to admit. And support for same-sex marriage or unions among many Catholics is far stronger than these same right-leaning Catholics want to note.
