In this life, it is a bad idea to idolize or demonize anyone: the best of us have bad and the worst of us good. The Church, requiring deep investigation and two certified miracles, is slow to canonize; she has never condemned anyone to hell. With Balthasar "we dare to hope!" But personally, when I contemplate the Shaol of the Jews and the devastation of the black family over the centuries of American slavery, I wonder...not "how can a loving God condemn to eternal hell?"...but "how can a just God not condemn the perpetrators of such profound evil to hell?" Nevertheless, it is for God, not us to judge and condemn.
The prevailing liberal narrative has George Floyd as a Holy Innocent and Derek Chauvin as Satan Incarnate. It seems to me to be more dense, mysterious, sobering.
Judging the Act; Judging the Person
First, to be clear: the violent act of kneeling on the neck, even as the victim pleaded to breath, was vile beyond description. Death by asphyxiation is apparently most painful; torture in the true sense. George was not only killed, but tortured to death. Observing George plead for air and call for his mother is heart-piercingly poignant. I have heard no disagreement on that; the world is in unity on that. That act as we know it from the video was blatantly evil. There is more.
1. To fairly judge the nature of the act, we need more than the perspective of that cell phone. Many questions need to be considered: What preceded it? What was George's resistance like? Was there some personal animus between them? Did Derek know of George's violent past and did that influence his judgment? What was in the mind of the assailant? What his intention? Is Derek a "systematic racist"...holding firmly to a belief system and pattern of life by which he consistently despises and violates black-skinned people? Was he, even unconsciously, influenced by fears or resentments of blacks? Does Derek have compulsive violent tendencies or is he clinically a sociopath or sadist? To what degree was he blinded by anxiety, stress, confusion? To fairly judge the act we need evidence, data, sober investigation and consideration beyond the video. Hence, the trial.
2. "Judge the act; not the person." This principle is the bedrock of my moral philosophy. For example, with passion and certainty I condemn racism, contraception, torture, sodomy and rash judgment. But I do not condemn the racist, the contraceptor, the torturer, the sodomite, or the rash judger. I cannot judge the heart and soul of another: I leave that to God. For example, many people (married or single, straight or gay) practice sodomy and sincerely think it is a good act. Some CIA agents torturing terrorists may be convinced they are saving our country from the next terror attack. It is not for me to judge the heart of another; but fiercely I judge these acts; and that judgment is at the same time an act of love, in truth, for the actor. Hate racism; love the racist. Hate pornography; love the pornographer, porn star, and porn user. Hate the sin; love the sinner.
3. However, it is more complicated and subtle: in practice we are required to judge the moral character of others. The jury for Derek will make such a judgment. I screen applicants to our homes and make such decisions constantly. If I had Donald Trump as a neighbor, I would warn my children to avoid him: to be courteous and respectful, but protect themselves from his lustful propensities, his xenophobia, his virulent narcissism, his defensive/abusive tendencies. I make that prudential judgment; as parent I must. As voter, I could never vote for such a perverse moral character, as great as his policies might be. But I don't morally condemn him. I can't look into his heart. If he were my neighbor, I would befriend him: because I am secure in myself and don't fear his immoral influence or his malice, because I see good in him, because I would pray to have a positive influence and draw him to Christ whom he needs so desperately.
Derek Chauvin
We don't know a lot about him. We will discover more, especially when he goes to trial. From the video we see a vile, violent act not merited by the evident circumstances. We see a profound lack of empathy for a man begging to breath. This strongly suggests that he is a violent man, low in compassion, possibly a sadist or sociopath. There is no evidence in the video that he is racist. To conclude that because he is violent, white and a policeman he is racist is itself a prejudice, a rash judgment, a stereotyping and an act of injustice and moral violence. He has 18 complaints against him of which two resulted in disciplinary letters. They involved: derogatory speech and violent pulling of a woman out of her car after she exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph. His Laotian wife (that does not suggest hardcore racism as a belief system) is divorcing him after the incident. The owner of the club where he provided security alleged that he would use an excess of force, especially against blacks. Did she fire him for that...or was she supportive by keeping him on staff? He has a number of medals and commendations for brave and assertive action in disabling violent criminals. He is the guy you want on your side in battle. What we know of him is not pretty. He did an evil act. He is also a scapegoat, arousing hatred, condemnation and violence to an extreme.
George Floyd
George apparently was a career criminal and life-long drug user. He was in prison four times and arrested regularly, mostly for theft and illegal drug use. His death was consistent: high on two drugs; allegedly passing a fake $20 bill (he may not have known it was fake; we are not sure he even did it); and resisting arrest. With four other men, he broke into a home and held a gun to the stomach of a black, pregnant woman as his buddies ransacked her home. He pleaded guilty. That act might well be contemplated as we consider the entire case. It is, in my view, vile beyond words: woman! black! pregnant! gun to her child-bearing womb! But we don't know: was he under the influence? Was she herself a drug dealer or criminal competitor? Maybe she had stolen from him! He apparently fathered children by different women and it isn't clear that he was living with any of them. He seems to sadly fit the stereotype of the black male who abuses a woman and then abandons her and his children. But we don't really know much. And it is not for us to judge and condemn him. But we do need to make prudent, practical decisions. For example, do I want to kneel for eight minutes in his memory? He was greatly loved as "a gentle giant" by those who knew him. He had apparently repented of his life of crime and seemed to be trying to amend it. The tape of him imploring black youths to give up violence was very sincere and heart-rending. His end-of-life is replete with moral ambiguity: high on drugs, resisting arrest, possible theft; but he did not deserve to die of such merciless torture.
Rash Judgement
Perhaps 1980, deeply involved with the charismatic renewal, I listened as our friend Vic spoke sincerely of the change in his live due to receiving Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior and receiving the release of the Holy Spirit. It was the classic witness story familiar to all "born-agains" whether evangelicals, 12-steppers, or weight-watchers: this is what I was (bad), this is what happened (the event) and this is what I am now (much better if still far from perfect.) When he finished, a wise and seasoned pastor, himself connected with Cursillo and AA, Monsignor John O'Brien, softly spoke: "You were not as bad as you think; you are not as good as you think." A distinctively Catholic point of view! One which nicely balanced my own "born again" narrative. So similarly, in regard to the prevailing liberal narrative: George may not be as good as you think; Derek as bad as you think! We will learn more. Not for us to condemn either. But we know enough to make tentative prudential judgments: I would not send my grandchildren off on a camping trip with either of these men.
Above all: we must avoid RASH JUDGEMENT! My experience is that of all sins, the most pervasive, invidious, and unrecognized is that against the 8th commandment ("Thou shall not bear false witness."): rash judgment. I encounter it many times daily in my work. Someone will tell me, with certainty and passion:
-"The mustard is missing and Matilda took it!"
-"How do you know it was Matilda?"
-"I know it was her. Everyone knows it was her. It was her."
-"How do you know that."
-"I know it. She did it. It's certain."
-"Okay, but how do you know?"
-"Well...Everyone knows Matilda steals. And Matilda had a hot dog yesterday and she always has mustard on her hot dog. And Matilda stole the mustard."
Lying, another violation of the 8th commandment, contrasts with rash judgment. Lying is a sin of the will: one knowingly and intentionally tells a falsehood. The intention can be more or less malicious: for example a child saying "I didn't break the window" is defensive; but intentional slander to destroy another's intention is grave sin. By contrast, rash judgment is less a sin of the will than of the intellect: it is a false judgment, but not necessarily intentional. The accuser really thinks Matilda took the mustard. There may be less than fully conscious resentment, jealousy or fear by which the will is darkening the intellect; but the defect is in the intellect, not the will.
Many police shootings involve rash judgement: mistakes; reactions of panic and miscalculation in the fog of stress, violence, and confusion. Derek, in anxiety, may have "rash judged" George as a threat; or.... he may have intentionally hurt him out of malice. Objectively, Derek tortured George. Was that his subjective intention? Surely he was not homicidal by intending his death: to do this in front of a crowd with cell phones would have been an entirely insane act.
The moral certainty that Derek is a racist is itself a rash judgement. There is not at this point evidence that he was racist by belief and life habit; nor even that he harbored strong racial animosity to blacks. He may have, but we don't know this. The logic is itself prejudiced: he is white, a cop, violent...therefore we know he is racist. Just like we know Matilda took the mustard.
The allegation of "systemic racism in police departments and society at large" is itself, in my view, a mega-rash-judgement. A grave one. That there is white racism in our society is certain; that any expression of racism is excruciating for the recipient is also certain and not to be dismissed. But that systems (deliberate and collaborative patterns of policy, practices and protocols) motivated by racism ("...ism" being a system of beliefs and values; and racism being such a system that consciously and coherently demeans and violates a specific race) operate in USA 2020 is, again, in my view a mistake in judgement...and one with grave consequences. As a rash judgement it is a failing of the intellect, not the will; it is largely well-intended, as a redress to real suffering that is due to far more complex interactions of history, class and culture. However, underlying that judgment are dark forces of the will like guilt, resentment, inferiority, self-righteousness, and of course the horrid past history (pre-1970) of racism.
Presumption of Innocence vs. Sacred, Scapegoating (Girardian) Violence
Working in hyper-macho environments like UPS where the herd instinct is to condemn and then strike hard ("I will kick his ass!"), I was always contrarian in my propensity to presume innocence and investigate thoroughly in reaching a decision. Thus, my allergy to rash judgement! The presumption of innocence is sacred to me. Even in the face of the nauseating George/Daryl kneeling video, I withhold judgement, presume innocence, and await evidence.
My compulsion to defend the scapegoat was only heightened by my contact with Rene Girard through his brilliant disciple Gil Baile. Every social group channels its mimetic jealousy, insecurity, rage, and violence by targeting a scapegoat. Jesus on the cross is the ultimate Scapegoat. The goat may or may not be guilty of offense. Derek Chauvin is certainly guilty of something; but he is also a scapegoat. The volume and intensity and mimetic violence erupting around the nation is sheer Girardian sacred violence.
And so, I am unashamed to protect the person of Derek Chauvin, from the stampeded of violence, even as we await due process, investigation, and determination of the nature of the act and the corresponding punishment. I want him to get what he justly deserves, no more and no less. Across the country no one dare defend him. Police unions are notorious for defending their own. That is their job in this system. The head of the police union in NYC was screaming at a rally: "I am not Derek Chauvin. They (pointing to surrounding police) are not Derek Chauvin!" He alleged their common innocence and righteousness by distancing from and condemning the goat. Do they know much about the man except for that 8 minutes? I think not!
In past blog essays, I have had good words for Bernie Madow, Saddam Hussein, and Osama Bin Laden. Before the throne of God, Satan is always the accuser; the Holy Spirit is the Counsel for the Defense. I will roll the dice and side with the defense!
Was George a Holy Innocent? Was Derek a Herod-like Murderer of the Innocent?
In that 8 minutes of torture, George was an innocent. Overall, George was less than holy. In that 8 minutes Derek was a killer from what we can see; but probably not a murderer in the sense of conscious, deliberate, premeditated homicide.
The 8-minute-kneel thing is in principle a good thing. But not if it is an expression of broad rash judgement, or virtue-signalling, or hysteria and sentimentality. A good thing would be to pray for the soul of George; he could use the help. Another good thing would be to pray for Derek; he could use the help.
Before the throne of the Crucified Goat, each of us is Holy Innocent and each is Herod the Murderer. Each of us is an innocent victim of violation and trauma; each of us has inflicted the same on others. The worst Herod's are often also the most violated of innocents. Catholics believe in the "Particular Judgement" each of us face immediately after our death, as we face Christ and judgement: heaven, hell or purgatory. In a marvelous piece of theology, Gil Baile develops Balthasar's theology of Christ's descent into hell on Holy Saturday to elaborate on that doctrine in a splendid manner. He suggests that at the moment of death, each of us...great saint or miserable sinner...meet the Merciful, Crucified One; we see his wounds endured for our sins; we see that he descended to the deepest spot of hell to release us; we see Him offering his Mercy. And precisely there we make our final choice: to accept, humbly and contritely this Mercy, and to extend that Mercy in forgiveness to those who have harmed us...or, to refuse. It is a final, ultimate, eternal choice. At that split second, each is Holy Innocent, victim of violation by another, and able to forgive Herod the Great. But each is also Herod the Great, offered Mercy for all my murders.
Derek and George and you and me...we are all the same. Innocent and Murderer.
May your Mercy be upon us as we place our trust in you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment