As one who grew up in the Motor City, I have long been interested in and drawn to African-American culture, including studying the subject at the University of Michigan. As a young child, I remember Martin Luther King, Jr., his stirring speeches, and the tragic day he was killed in April 1968.
Three years earlier, another black leader, not as beloved as MLK because of some incendiary and even radical rhetoric, was also murdered. While I disagree with him on some key issues, especially on Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church, I also admire this man for his ability to argue and his advocacy of the nuclear family as a natural institution essential for human flourishing (see CCC 2207ff.).
I speak of Malcolm X (1925-1965). And I wonder: what might he say and advocate in this troubled year 2020? He would certainly affirm that black lives matter, a claim only genuine racists such as the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan (KKK) would oppose. Yet, I am also convinced that Malcolm would counter the organization Black Lives Matter (BLM) for its opposition to the nuclear family and the rights of parents to choose the best schools for their children.
Going nuclear on the family
Given its Marxist and other radical roots, BLM opposes the “Western-prescribed nuclear family.” While BLM deleted the “what we believe” page from its website last month because of widespread criticism, including from black leaders (0:51ff.), the organization has not repudiated its principles and remains committed to its causes.
As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels make clear in the Communist Manifesto and related documents, e.g., “The Principles of Communism,” Marxism seeks to “educate children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage—the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents.”
BLM also opposes the nuclear family as “the original cell of social life” (CCC 2207, emphasis original):
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
The indispensable role of the nuclear family
In contrast, after his own difficult childhood and time in prison, Malcolm X ardently defended the nuclear family as fundamental to human development, realizing this institution is affirmed in cultures across the world—from China and Japan, to India and Africa, to Arab countries and the Americas. He was a faithful husband and father of six daughters, the youngest of whom—the twins Malikah and Malaak—were not yet born when their father was murdered on February 21, 1965. So the idea of abortion would’ve been anathema to Malcolm, in contrast to BLM, which is committed to “liberating lives through reproductive justice,” even though blacks disproportionately account for about 36 percent of all abortions in America.
Malcolm understood that historic racism has fueled greater family breakdown in America in the black community. The unwed birthrate for blacks was 23.6 percent in 1963, a figure considered epidemic at the time, though today it is more than 70 percent for blacks and over 40 percent for the general population.
At the same time, and in words which could apply to all men in our sexually misguided culture decades later, Malcolm exhorted blacks to live chastely in order to achieve personal and societal advancement, as he conveyed in his autobiography:
The black man will never get anybody’s respect, until he first learns to respect his own women! The black man needs today to stand up and throw off the weaknesses imposed upon him by the slavemaster white man! The black man needs to start today to shelter and protect and respect his black women! . . .
The white man wants black men to stay immoral, unclean and ignorant. As long as we stay in these conditions we will keep on begging him and he will control us. We never can win freedom and justice and equality until we are doing something for ourselves!” (254-55, emphasis original).
Marcellus Wiley, a black man and commentator for Fox Sports, agrees with Malcolm X on the importance of fathers. In response to BLM’s beliefs, he cited data that children from single-parent homes are much more likely to commit suicide, abuse drugs, drop out of high school, commit rape, and end up in prison than their two-parent counterparts. Wiley, who was valedictorian of his Catholic high school, adds that these statistics reaffirmed his lived experience of growing up on the rough streets of Compton, California:
I knew that! You know why I knew it?! Because a lot of my friends didn’t have family structures that were nuclear like mine, and they found themselves outside their goals, and dreams and aspirations.
Defending the nuclear family would cost Malcolm X his life, when he decried the hypocrisy of Elijah Muhammad, the long-time leader of the Nation of Islam, for fathering eight children with six of his teenaged secretaries. As Malcolm told Alex Haley, who wrote his autobiography, “the real reason” for his alienation from the married Muhammad was because “I had objected to the immorality of the man who professed to be more moral than anybody”. During the last year of the black leader’s life, the Nation of Islam used various means, including political cartoons, to convey that Malcolm X deserved death, and acolytes of Muhammad carried out the hit accordingly. It is an open question as to whether some have escaped temporal justice.
When politics take precedence over people
As Communism mandates the “free education for all children in public schools” (emphasis added), BLM is also committed to state-run schools, instead of supporting the taxpayer rights of inner-city blacks, many of whom have been gravely failed by public schools systems across the country. BLM is joined by its partner the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which is also beholden to national and state teachers unions.
Including under the ruse of racism, the NAACP has long opposed the rights of blacks and other parents to choose the schools they deem best for their children, whether public or private, religious or secular. As the group makes clear: “We also oppose public funding of vouchers to attend private schools.”
While he wasn’t a Catholic, I think Malcolm X would join the Church in arguing for taxpayer credits and vouchers as just means to rectify the reprehensible performance of inner-city public schools:
As those first responsible for the education of their children, parents have the right to choose a school for them which corresponds to their own convictions. This right is fundamental. . . . Public authorities have the duty of guaranteeing this parental right and of ensuring the concrete conditions for its exercise (CCC 2229, emphasis original).
In his day, Malcolm X criticized (0:43ff) the lack of black leadership in groups like the NAACP (2:52ff.) In our present day, and in words he used before, I can imagine Malcolm X ripping BLM and the NAACP for prioritizing political allegiance over the educational advancement of black people:
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro’s struggle, and they can control the Negro’s so-called revolt. The Negro “revolution” is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Thank you for your excellent article, Mr Nash. Malcolm X was a social and religious conservative and you are right to point out that he would have favoured school choice as he points out in this interview clip: https://youtu.be/P_3Eirf6aj8
Thank you, Paul B for your affirming comments re: my essay. Black parents must be empowered to choose the best schools for their kids, whether that means existing religious schools, as some have chosen in places like Milwaukee and Cleveland, or creating new ones, including same-sex schools. Obviously these schools need to basic standards, but that’s not an issue with existing Catholic schools. In addition, I remember almost 30 years ago when the ACLU opposed the Malcom X Academy in Detroit because it was all boys.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/14/education/detroit-s-boys-only-schools-facing-bias-lawsuit.html
We need to break the monopoly that state-created public schools have on the black community in particular, and also re: taxpayer/parental rights in general.
Great article
He may have been a #Metoo victim. Or possibly innocent or guilty? I’m not judging, I’ve just read different accounts of him.
Thanks, Teresa. He went through bad times as a pimp and drug dealer. That’s true. Other stuff is unfounded speculation. I wish he were today to speak to us. But we rely on God otherwise.
Meant to add, super article Thomas.
Interesting how every white “conservative” is bending over backwards to pull out even their most disliked civil rights leader and using him to justify their dislike of BLM. These same conservatives – in Malcolm X’s time – would have (and most still do) hated his guts. Now, because BLM seems to threaten white supremacy, the conservatives consider him a saint. Very strange.
On a slightly different note, why is it so hard to support the BLM sentiment and not necessarily the organization? If the Catholic Prolife movement in the US can march with atheists, pagans, feminists, wicans etc who are prolife, why cant we match with non-Catholic organizations/movements that support the dignity of black life from conception to natural death? Why didn’t we as the Catholic Church take the lead in fighting for racial justice? We have the fullness of faith and most importantly, we receive God everyday in Holy Communion, why couldn’t we have adopted Catholic Social Teaching and led the fight? Instead, we left it to secular orgs like BLM, Planned Parenthood etc.
If we had taken charge, we would not be having discussions today about BLM and Malcolm X.
Ciara,
There’s places where people who differ on other issues may agree on certain values or find common interests.
You’re right, it can be strange at times but I think it’s a good thing. We don’t want to become such idealogues that we can’t find any value in folks who differ from us or our way of thinking. That’s what brought us to the cancel culture.
Be wary of calumny, Ciara. I made it very clear in my essay that I support the claim and cause of Black Lives Matter, but not the organization BLM, precisely because it has tenets that undermine black families in particular and in general the Gospel Jesus Christ imparted to his Catholic Church. Crucial distinctions need to be made here.
In addition, I’m not a white “conservative.” I don’t belong to any political party. I’m a committed Catholic. “Bending over backwards to pull out even their most disliked civil rights leader and using him to justify their dislike of BLM”? Sorry, Malcom X was never a “most disliked civil rights leader” for me. In addition, please distinguish between white “conservative” racists back in the day, who typically hailed from a nationalist Protestant Christian heritage and thus were more vulnerable to racism, and faithful Catholic leaders, who, true to the Gospel affirmed the equality of all human beings. Cardinal Joseph Ritter, who desegregated Catholic schools in Indianapolis and St. Louis, is an excellent example.
https://www.newsandtribune.com/news/historic-southern-indiana-homes-highlighted-in-new-book/article_3d3c8a22-93d2-11ea-8d34-930c32c55abb.html
Tom,
If the Catholic Church had taken the lead in fighting systemic racism, we would have more Black Catholics today. And I don’t mean African Catholics, who immigrated here voluntarily in the last 50 or so years. I mean African American Catholics whose ancestors were brought here as slaves. When I invite my them to Mass, their common reaction is that the Catholic Church is racist. One can discuss terminology about conservatives today and yesterday and accuse others of calumny accusations etc, but it does not change the fact that for most of my African American friends, the sentiment about Catholicism is that it’s a racist Church.
This is why folks like Gloria Purvis was getting push back even from white Catholics on EWTN when she spoke out against racism. These same white Catholics only came out to condemn BLM the organization and the protests, but were silent when Armaud Arbery was pretty much lynched; when George Floyd was suffocated on national TV. Instead, my white Catholic “prolife” friends posted videos by Candace Owens et al denouncing George Floyd’s character to justify his death. Some prominent EWTN folks had her on their show to discuss racism and she’s not even Catholic!
This is why lots of African American Catholics are angry. And hurt. We are pained by the inaction and racism inflicted on us by our fellow white Catholics, but where else would we go? The Catholic Church has the words of eternal life.
PS, I am not condemning all white Catholics; A few prominent folks have courageously condemned racism. As my African American brothers and sisters would say, folks like Stephen Graydaunus and Sam Rocha are invited to the cookout anytime!
Let’s see if I understand this correctly: white Catholics cannot understand racism because they aren’t black, but a black woman such as Candace Owens shouldn’t be talking about racism on EWTN because she’s not Catholic. Got it.
There are plenty of black Catholics who do not support the BLM organization. For example, see this August 2020 CWR article about three black Catholics. From the section about Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers:
You write: “I am not condemning all white Catholics…” That’s heartening. Because I think any reasonable person recognizes that the vast majority of white Catholics are not racist, while also recognizing that the BLM organization spouts rhetoric that is racism, anti-Christian, and anti-family.
Carl –
No, Candace Owens should not be dragged out to discuss racism on EWTN when there are tons of Black Catholic speakers around. For example, Gloria Purvis, Richard Lane, Damon Owens etc. We all know that the only reason she was invited is because she says a lot of things that the white EWTN folks agree with, which I think is a shame.
Once again, it is possible to support the sentiment of the BLM without supporting the organization. I don’t understand why this is so hard to get. It is possible to condemn racism without supporting the organization. It is possible to say that it was wrong for a human being’s life; a fellow child of God’s life to be snuffed out on national TV without supporting the organization. It is possible to condemn the hunting and killing of a young black man by 2 white supremacists without supporting the BLM organization. Why on earth is this so hard for self-professed pro-life white Catholics to understand?
Most of us – solid, orthodox, prolife, pro marriage and family Black Catholics – have marched with these white folks yearly at the prolife walks in San Francisco and DC. We call them friends. I had listened to you when you appeared on Catholic Answers and admired your discussions. We thought we were all on the same side. Why can’t these white folks march with us in our fight against racism?
So no, right now, lots of Black Catholics do not see Catholicism as unifying. Thanks for hearing me out. Peace.
…One more thing, if you’d indulge me. If something like this happens again (God forbid), rather than post or view a Candace Owens or Larry Elder et al video on social media or send said video to a black friend, my advise would be to call up him up and walk with your fellow brotha in Christ.
Ciara,
I can’t speak about other parts of the nation but in south Louisiana black people are as likely to be Catholic as white people. Ditto for Latin America.
The Catholic Church is one thing that unites us. Other things may separate us it’s true, but not our faith.
Amen and Amen! Well said, Mrs. Cracker: “The Catholic Church is one thing that unites us. Other things may separate us it’s true, but not our faith.” Only when Jesus Christ and his authentic truth is betrayed is it otherwise. But, at that point, we’re not talking about authentic Catholicism anymore, only a counterfeit nefariously masquerading as the truth.
It is probably meaningless to ask what such-and-such a person would have supported or opposed if he had lived longer, but perhaps the best guidance is what those closest to him actually went on to support or oppose. This is very different from imagining that he was, I dunno, abducted by aliens and kept in suspended animation for 55 years, or that he stepped through a magic doorway that shot him unchanged 55 years into the future. The fact is we are all largely shaped by the times we live in.
Thank you for your kind words Mr. Nash.
I had the privilege of regularly attending Latin Mass years ago along with the late president of our local NAACP chapter. We both chose to be there because of our love of that liturgy and would chat about it afterwards at coffee and doughnuts.
The Catholic Church does unite us. And beauty and transcendence speak to our souls not our differences.
God bless!
Thank you for your feedback, Howard. My thoughts are not based on whether Malcolm would’ve lived until today. My essay is based on making logical inferences from the strong convictions he manifested through the actual words and deeds of his life.
In addition, I need not invoke the fantasy world of alien abduction or passing through a magic door doorway. Instead, beyond the evidence of his life, I can infer from the the perfect enlightenment he gained after dying (see CCC 1021-1022), including encountering Jesus Christ as Lord and not simply a prophet.
Because of the way he lived his life and the postmortem insight I’m confident he’s gained in Christ (see CCC 1024-29), I would submit my essay is not “Just my imagination, running away with me.” All we need, I submit, is the omnipotent Lord to permit Malcolm X to appear to us. Absent that, I submit, as noted, that my inferences are well-founded.
In the real world, Malcolm X is unavailable for comment. You might as well claim that, were he alive today, Abraham Lincoln would have been a staunch supporter of D.C. over Marvel and Microsoft over Apple.
As for me, I claim that Howard Hughes would want the remnants of his fortune turned over to me, and without a supernatural apparition to prove either of our assertions, mine is as good as yours. Let’s see how much the bank values my claim.
Howard,
I am grateful we seem to agree on the reality of God, based on your comment about the possibility of God-enabled apparitions.
However, in reading your latest response otherwise, I’m inclined to ask when your show starts tonight at the comedy club.
Abraham Lincoln taking sides in comic book-debates? Or on computers? Things about which he knew nothing, let alone commented, in his real life? C’mon. And, yeah, I don’t think you’d get very far in any claims on Howard Hughes’ estate just because you share the same first name.
In significant contrast, Lincoln did know a bit about racial strife. Consequently, we can make logical inferences, based on his real-life actions, that Lincoln would reaffirm his choices—if he could speak to us today—that helped free the slaves more than 150 years ago.
Similarly, we can make logical inferences re: Malcolm X, based on his real-life convictions, comments and actually-lived-out choices and how they would apply to the related issues I addressed in my essay.
If you don’t see the substantive, qualitative difference between logical inferences drawn from a person’s words and deeds, vs. silly conjecture about Lincoln, comic books and computers, well, at this point, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
First, let me say as a white heterosexual male, the most privileged species in the history of American society, you are nonetheless courageous to address what Malcom X would think in 2020. Believe it or not, the nuclear family in times of slavery… segregation, did not translate the same as it does today. Your quote of “…disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another…” isn’t new and did not originate with BLM. I’m pretty certain that started with the slave masters using their will to do with black women what they wanted and without consequences, that began the “erosion” of the black nuclear family. You didn’t address how perhaps this “model of family” has been passed down from generation to generation. I’m certain Malcom X would understand that legacy. I would love to sit down and share with you the stories of my ancestors. For my family, my grandparents were the first generation not born into slavery; my grandparents! Please let that statement digest. Have you ever asked a black person who has lived in or is living in the inner city why their neighbors, peers, or even themselves might oppose schools of choice? What happens to the students without reliable transportation or funds for public transportation? Do they simply get left out or left behind where education is concerned? You didn’t mention Malcom X’s quote “…to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society…which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.” Do you think Malcom X would still adhere to those beliefs? I would not dare get into a conversation with you on the Catholic church and reproductive justice. I’ll just say I’m grateful that women had and have the option not to birth an unwanted child, and choose not to add to the warehousing of unwanted children. I’m grateful that the role of the nuclear family is different these days. Otherwise what would happen to all of the LGBTQ children…abused children …handicapped children, transgender children that are usually warehoused in foster care and are transported like an item on an assembly line from one foster care home to the next, until they manage to run away? I can appreciate the changes in the nuclear family. It doesn’t have to be for everyone but for those that the changes work for, blessings to them. While I love the Catholic Church and it will always be a central part in my life, when it comes to speaking up on behalf of the marginalized, it usually has to be something in it for them. Just sharing…
(Part One in response to Catrina)
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Catrina. It’s always good to hear from a former classmate and graduate of St. Mary of Redford Grade School in Detroit. I only found out in recent days about your response to my essay.
I agree that seeking to disrupt the nuclear family in the American black community didn’t begin with BLM. Indeed, it began with slave masters.
And that’s just it: Any and all deliberate efforts to undermine the nuclear family, whether in the black community or elsewhere, should be strongly opposed, given that various and serious problems are more likely to manifest among children raised in single-parent than two-parent homes, as noted in my essay. Yes, family breakdown does occur in or broken world, but I think everyone can—or should—agree that such breakdown shouldn’t be deliberately promoted.
Unfortunately, in recent decades we have seen further marriage and family breakdown, to the point where many countries have legally redefined marriage (and family) by formally recognizing problematic lifestyles, in particular same-sex relationships.
The importance of having both a father and mother in a child’s life, if at all possible, can’t be emphasized enough. And particularly fathers, including because they’re the parent most likely to be absent. The absence of fathers, irrespective of one’s ethnic heritage, is a major problem in America today, and I distinguish between children who have tragically lost their fathers to death vs. a man who has abandoned his wife/girlfriend and children to one extent or another. Here’s a recent essay to further show how growing up without a father has detrimental effects irrespective of one’s ethnic heritage.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/12/the-fury-of-the-fatherless
Extended families are certainly good, but we should do all we can to support the basic nuclear family, given the greater vulnerability of children raised in single-parent homes. And strong nuclear families enable extended families to be more effective in their supportive care.
As you said well, Catrina, “The slave masters using their will to do with black women what they wanted and without consequences, that began the ‘erosion’ of the black nuclear family.”
You also add, “You didn’t address how perhaps this ‘model of family’ has been passed down from generation to generation.”
I did address this sad reality when I wrote, “Malcolm understood that historic racism has fueled greater family breakdown in America in the black community.” Spatial constraints prevented me from going into more detail, yet I thought it imperative to note the societal harm black families have experienced in America, which obviously include the various grave misdeed\s of slave owners.
I would love to get together and spend time to learn more about your family history, Catrina.
(Part Two in response to Catrina)
Regarding school choice, Catrina, if a parent still wants to choose a nearby public school, that would remain an option. So there need not be an issue re: reliable personal transportation or funds for public transportation.
In addition, there could be an existing Catholic or other private school that serves their general geographical area, or one which could be developed in the educational marketplace if parents got to choose their children’s schools, instead of government bureaucrats imposing the schools they must choose. And bussing to nearby Catholic schools can be integrated with existing public school routes, as that was done when I was a student at Father Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor.
Also, parents could network with the school to make carpooling arrangements, and/or they could hire a part-time bus driver to pick up students. Creative arrangements are possible when parents and schools are given the freedom to devise them.
Again, why not empower parents in poor communities to make the best choices for their children, instead of continually imposing upon them public schools that have often failed them? Surely Malcolm X’s slogan “by any means necessary” includes empowering parents to make the best educational decisions for their kids. And surely empowering parents by providing authentic school choice is in keeping with Malcolm’s words that every person, beginning with each child, is “to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society.”
Another school-choice option can be a worthwhile charter school, e.g., the successful Jalen Rose Leadership Academy in Detroit.
Regarding abortion, the sad reality is that many women—white and black—have embraced abortion as part of their life options, and in significant part because men have failed them; and also because premarital chastity has largely been abandoned by many men and women in the last half century. And so when men and women engage in uncommitted intimate relationships, and when men often fail to be real men when a child is procreated, the wrongdoing is tragically transferred to the most vulnerable person in the relationship: the unborn child.
You mention reproductive justice. It’s a gravely misguided euphemism if it means justifying the killing of unborn children. Genuine reproductive justice must entail recognizing the right to life of unborn children. And this would entail a societal sea change regarding premarital and extramarital behavior that far too few are willing to embrace at present. Yet, let us pray for a societal conversion.
Women have the option of not bearing a child, and that begins with premarital chastity and not associating with uncommitted men. Indeed, there’s something to said about preemptive behavior, i.e., not dating problematic men. At the same, as noted, and something which can’t be emphasized enough, men need to be real men, which necessarily includes embracing premarital chastity and taking responsibility for any children they procreate.
On a related note, some Christians in modern times say they’re committed to having a relationship with Jesus without being encumbered by religion. What this often means in reality, however, is that they remake Jesus in their own image, conveniently viewing him as accommodating of various vices, often of a sexual nature; they also often view legalized abortion as a legitimate remedy to their problems or those of others.
Instead, Christians must make Jesus the true Lord of their lives, beginning with premarital and marital chastity, as sexual sins are often the vice of choice in the modern world. In addition, even if they don’t participate in a vice, many Christians sadly go along to get along with friends and family, instead of charitably taking a stand, e.g., charitably reproving friends and family re: cohabitating, remarrying without an annulment, standing up for the unborn, etc.
You also noted the issue of “warehousing children.” In addition, to encouraging authentic premarital chastity, something most public schools stopped promoting decades ago—which is another key reason to support school choice—we should also be promoting adoption more vigorously, efficiently and inexpensively, and thus shifting away from foster homes when possible. Also, too many parents have selfishly turned away from adoption, insisting that they have their “own kids” via immoral practices like surrogate mothers and IVF, the latter of which inevitably involves the “reduction” of embryonic human persons who don’t make the genetic grade in the reproductive laboratory.
Also, handicapped children are much more likely to be welcomed into intact nuclear families, precisely because there is a greater existing support system. And particularly in families who practice their faith and thus see God as leading them to a deeper relationship with him and each other by welcoming a handicapped child
Further, the way to help children who experience same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria is to love them unconditionally, including helping them work through their experiences of same-sex attraction and gender-identity crises. Sadly, the transgender movement calls into question one’s God-given bodily identity and instead incoherently says a person’s gender is somehow “assigned” at birth.
A great Catholic group for supporting those who experience same-sex attraction is Courage.
https://couragerc.org/
Courage also has produced a poignant documentary on those who have experienced same-sex attraction: “Desire of the Everlasting Hills,” which can be viewed online.
https://vimeo.com/101135437
In addition, supporting homes like Boys Town in Nebraska is a worthwhile way to serve marginalized children without homes, instead of leaning on the existing foster care system.
https://www.boystown.org/Pages/default.aspx
And we should also explore cultivating other faith-based initiatives to serve homeless children.
But we can’t embrace abortion as a means of getting rid of unwanted children. Indeed, subjecting a child to an abortion is the cruelest way of conveying to them that they’re unwanted.
(Part Three in response to Catrina)
Further, I don’t think it’s accurate to say re: the Catholic Church, “When it comes to speaking up on behalf of the marginalized, it usually has to be something in it for them.” From the time Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and despite the periodic misdeeds of some of her leaders and other members, the Church has stayed on mission in reaching out to and serving the poor and other marginalized people.
For example, during the AIDS crisis, the Church encouraged the truly liberating virtue of Christ-centered chastity, while also ministering to those who contracted AIDS, e.g., through the hospices of Mother Teresa and her Missionary Sisters of Charity.
The Church has always been committed to the poor and other marginalized persons, including providing authentic ministry to those who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, instead of affirming those individuals in morally problematic lifestyles and/or via psychologically misguided “remedies.”
Further, regarding my being a white heterosexual male, I don’t see myself as “white,” although I am proud of my mainly Irish and Polish heritage. In addition, being a Caucasian heterosexual male, and striving to be a faithfully Catholic one at that, can actually be socially disadvantageous in many circles today, given the steady societal decline in recent decades and the aversion—and even antipathy—toward Christianity that has accompanied it.
In addition, regarding my purported privilege, consider simply my educational journey in life.
I had to work hard in school to gain admission to the University of Michigan. In addition, while at Michigan, I lived at home and worked at a Kroger grocery store in Ann Arbor, so that I could graduate debt-free. Similarly, I worked hard to get a scholarship at the University of Missouri School of Journalism for my master’s degree work, which enabled me to pay in-state vs. out-of-state tuition. Further, when I earned my master’s degree in Theology and Christian Ministry from Franciscan University of Steubenville, I again lived frugally and kept my accrued student-loan debt to $23,500 from 1993-96. Then, while earning a modest salary in working for a lay Catholic apostolate and also having several Catholic roommates at a time in the same home, I managed to pay off my loans in less than 3.5 years. As might be said good-naturedly within certain inter-ethnic conversations,
“Not bad . . . for a white boy.”😊
On a more serious note, from my own educational experience, we can see that there’s a lot of desire, discipline and determination that are requisite for any person, whatever their ethnic heritage, to have any measure of success in America—and then to sustain that success as well. We can’t afford to lose sight of that reality, because increased opportunities alone will never be sufficient to achieve one’s short-term goals, let alone one’s long-term hopes and dreams.