“I Am Not a Racist!”

In our highly politicized culture, sin is rarely discussed as a violation of God’s law. Even more rarely do we acknowledge sinful inclinations as the interior sources of sinful acts. Instead, we often reduce moral questions to political positions, confusing theological anthropology with ideology.

Authentic and orthodox Catholic moral theology, however, provides the conceptual clarity necessary to distinguish between inclination, action, and moral responsibility.

The judicial system offers an instructive example. So-called “hate crimes” are punished more severely than the same offenses committed without passionate motives. Institutionally, politically, and judicially, certain expressions of hatred are singled out as uniquely contemptible. One might imagine a defendant testifying, “Your Honor, I committed the crime, but not out of hatred. I acted coldly and without passion. I am a psychopath. Please reduce my sentence.”

Whatever one thinks of hate-crime legislation, it is at least arguable that crimes of passion reveal something recognizably human, whereas psychopathic violence reflects a deeper moral disorder.

Catholic theology teaches that original sin is the source of every sinful inclination. Every human being suffers from its effects. Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary were preserved from original sin; nevertheless, they willingly bore the suffering present in a fallen world—Christ redemptively through the Cross, and Mary through her unique participation in His suffering.

Each of us carries a range of disordered inclinations corresponding to the capital sins. Some remain mostly dormant; others dominate our moral struggles. Yet none is absent. Dormant inclinations are often the focus of temptation, as the Devil seeks to awaken them through occasions of sin. Claims of immunity from particular sins are themselves expressions of pride—and pride always precedes a fall.

Racist bigotry must be understood within this framework. It is a sinful inclination rooted in pride, and racist actions violate the demands of justice articulated in the Ten Commandments by judging persons according to racial characteristics rather than their inherent human dignity as images of God. This does not mean that noticing racial or cultural patterns is itself racist; nor does it exclude reasonable situational judgment in the Burkean sense—that is, prudential judgments guided by experience and context—provided such judgments do not lead to deliberately unjust treatment. Criticism of a nation’s policies is not necessarily racist.

Most people neither openly embrace nor consciously acknowledge racist tendencies. Occasionally, racism is explicit, as in organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. More commonly, however, racist inclinations are concealed and sometimes even rationalized, perhaps unconsciously, as moral virtue, as can occur in the misuse or abuse of policies such as affirmative action. In such cases, injustice may persist under the guise of moral progress. When policies classify persons primarily by race and assign benefits or burdens accordingly, they risk perpetuating precisely the racial injustice they claim to remedy.

Sinful inclinations are also obscured when they are publicly celebrated. In much of the Western world, June is designated as “Gay Pride Month”. Catholics who promote LGBTQ ideologies—including some within the Church’s hierarchy—often frame objections as vague “judgmentalism,” implying that moral critique itself is sinful because it presumes that individuals act upon disordered inclinations.

Yet the question remains unavoidable: why is disordered sexual pride celebrated in one domain of vice but condemned in others? We do not designate months for the celebration of gluttony, greed, or wrath. The selective celebration of disordered sexual desire (or lust) reveals a confusion about the nature of sinful inclination rather than its absence.

Every human being struggles with sinful inclinations in some form. Some are predominantly prone to arrogance, others to miserliness, and still others to sins of the flesh. The central moral question is not whether these inclinations exist—they do—but whether we acknowledge them honestly and resist acting upon them.

When people insist that they do not have “a racist bone” in their bodies, they reveal a serious deficiency in self-knowledge. Such claims implicitly deny the doctrine of Original Sin and misunderstand the nature of moral struggle. This denial is characteristic of a distinctly modern mindset, illustrated by familiar claims:

• If I had lived in the Old South, I never would have owned slaves, because I am not a racist.
• After the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, I never would have referred to Germans as “Huns,” because I am not a racist.
• During World War II, I never would have used racial slurs to describe the Japanese, because I am not a racist.
• Had I lived near concentration camps, I certainly would have objected to the Holocaust, because I am not a racist.

Such assertions presume moral superiority detached from historical, social, and spiritual realities. They deny the effects of original sin, underestimate the power of cultural pressure, and overestimate personal virtue. Racist behavior, like all unjust behavior, is rooted in pride—the disordered belief in one’s own superiority.

It is sometimes said that a white supremacist is defined primarily by racism. More fundamentally, however, such a person is a “me supremacist”—one who believes himself superior to others. This disorder of pride is not confined to any race or ethnicity but is a universal temptation of fallen humanity.

Catholic organizations frequently promote programs aimed at combating racism. But opposition to racism—like opposition to wrath, lust, and avarice—is already central to the mission of the Church. Who needs another program?

Rather than investing primarily in sociological programs, we might more fruitfully emphasize integral confession, frequent reception of the sacraments, and faithful participation in Sunday Mass. Authentic conversion of heart, not ideological formation, is the Church’s most effective response to sin.

A renewed understanding of sin, sinful inclinations, and the effects of Original Sin would dispel much of the confusion and dishonesty in contemporary moral discourse. “There, but for the grace of God, goes I.” I acknowledge my own tendencies toward pride and racial bigotry, as all fallen human beings do, and I strive to identify them, resist them, and refuse to act upon them.