D.C. has its first black archbishop, but what took so long?

[trotsky]

(headline cont'd)... Look to the history of black U.S. Catholicism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/04/04/dc-has-its-first-black-archbishop-what-took-so-long-look-history-black-us-catholicism/

Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory’s appointment to lead the Archdiocese of Washington is a long-overdue honor for Gregory and the long-suffering black Catholic community in the United States. Often taken for granted, black Catholics now have an archbishop who heads a storied political archdiocese and is likely to become first black cardinal from this country.

Gregory’s appointment however, raises two important questions: Why did it take so long to appoint an African American bishop to one of the most important dioceses in the country? And why isn’t he a cardinal yet?

The answers partially lie in the history of racism within the U.S. Catholic church — and in the Washington region in particular.

...Gregory’s appointment is a turning point, but this appointment alone does not mean that racial issues are resolved in the U.S. Catholic Church. Racism is the reason it has taken so long for a black bishop to be in contention to become a cardinal.

[Major Nikon]

1. Intolerance in the RCC? Impossible.

It’s just human nature. So says the apologist, and so it must be.

[trotsky]

2. The most perplexing thing about asserting such a defense...

is the tacit admission that religion does NOTHING to make people better.

Ah, doublethink.

[Major Nikon]

4. Misframing!

Religion gets the credit when a religionist does something good.

Not surprisingly this is more or less the official position of the RCC. The “deceiver” gets all the blame for the bad shit even when RCC officials are the perps. All the good shit gets chalked up for the benevolent sky daddy.

[MineralMan]

3. Not too many black RCC seminarians in the 60s and 70s.