Black Liberation Theology And Black Catholics: A Critical Conversation

Theological Studies, Dec, 2000 by James H. Cone

Whose Separatism?

(3) Why do Black Catholic theologians feel the need to assure White Catholics that in naming themselves Black Catholics "we are not repudiating the universal nature and mission of our church?"(17) It never ceases to amaze me when Whites accuse Blacks of separatism because Blacks insist on valuing Black culture in a White society and Church that denigrate it. The people who invented legal segregation in the U.S. accuse the victims of being guilty of the evil that Whites themselves spent 400 years perfecting. I get angry every time I hear Whites accusing Blacks of being anti-universal when no other people in the modern world have been guiltier of that sin than Whites. The sin of separatism is deeply embedded in White culture and White theologians still continue to perpetuate it by rendering Blacks invisible in their discourse.

I also get a little bothered when Blacks respond to the separatism issue as if Whites have a genuine point of concern. Of course, there are Black separatists as despicable as many Whites. The main difference between them is this: Black separatism is a reaction to White separatism, while the latter arises from its own power to dominate. Power breeds separatism, and Blacks do not have much of that, at least not power over Whites.

It is important to note that not all separatism is bad. In a world where oppressed people are trying to survive, separatism may be necessary. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., recognized that point. Speaking to Jews (a people who know something about separatism as a means of survival) in the context of the Black Power movement, King acknowledged the necessity of "temporary segregation."(18) "There are times when we must see segregation as a temporary way-station to a truly integrated society.... We don't want to be integrated out of power; we want to be integrated into power."(19)

Separatism is always temporary, never permanent, never the goal to be achieved. Our calling as Christians is to create one community--Blacks and Whites, men and women and all other expressions of humanity. The beloved community is the goal of the Christian life. But we cannot get there unless all of humanity is treated with dignity and respect. That includes Black people's history and culture being acknowledged in White Catholic theology as essential to its understanding of the Christian faith. I have yet to read a White Catholic theologian who regarded Black history and culture as essential to their articulation of the faith.

The same is not true of Black Catholic theologians. White theology is acknowledged. Perhaps too much. That is why the separatism question is so inappropriate. Black Catholic theologians are just coming to voice. They need independence and freedom to speak out of their history and culture without having to answer White theologians' questions about reconciliation.

Loving blackness does not mean the same thing as loving whiteness. Loving whiteness means glorifying White supremacy, and American history is replete with the devastating consequences of that affirmation. Loving blackness means valuing Black history and culture in a White society and church that refuse to acknowledge Black existence as worthy of respect. It means affirming the blackness that Whites rejected as "dirt and filth, evil and sin, guilt and moral degradation, death and the diabolical."(20)