Undoing the Knots: Five Generations of American Catholic Anti-Blackness by Maureen H. O’Connell

Abstract

Reviewed by: Undoing the Knots: Five Generations of American Catholic Anti-Blackness by Maureen H. O’Connell Ki Joo Choi V Let me begin by acknowledging the significance of Maureen O’Connell’s book. It takes enormous courage to air the disquieting truth that white Catholics like her family were hardly innocent bystanders to racism but were, in actuality, its enablers. The question that I wish to raise is how we should think about the nature of that enabling. Though O’Connell’s discomfort with her family’s complicity in anti-Blackness is made clear, she never finds positive proof that their anti-Blackness was by design or intentionally malicious. This does not excuse their complicity, but it leads her to cast repeated dismay at church leaders: had only they preached a genuinely liberating ethic, and resisted assimilationist pressures, then her ancestors would have more likely inclined toward racial inclusivity. Her frustration testifies to how identities and agency are not separable from social structures. But the slippage from saying that her family is complicit to saying that their complicity is a function of the influence of the anti-Blackness of church leaders, as well as governmental policies (190), makes me wonder: Does this mean that her family—and, by extension, most white Catholics—are off the hook? Consider O’Connell’s response to anti-Blackness. She calls for structural change within and without the church. But what about at the personal level? O’Connell explicitly admits that her family directly benefited materially from the very structures that she believes— rightly—needs upending. That benefit is evidenced in the real estate success of her grandfather Bill Gallagher, which is noted as the “foundation of [her] own financial well-being” (194). Her admission affirms the extent to which the material prosperity of many Americans is attributable to anti-Blackness even if they lack clear lineage to slavery itself. That underscores why talking about reparations only in relation to slavery is limiting; it should also be tied to slavery’s afterlives (e.g., housing segregation, educational inequality, etc.) But if that is the case, then can calling for structural change be enough? The church failed on multiple fronts—this much is clear. Also clear is how this failure turned into a material boon to many white Catholics. [End Page 68] Thus, it is not difficult to see how incentives for families like O’Connell’s to demand better from the church were hardly there. This underscores how the resilience of structures depends on persons continuing to benefit from them. If so, then structural change will have to be more consequential than the “racial reconstruction” (versus “reconciliation”) that O’Connell proposes (110). Re-envisioning the church is necessary (196–197). Yet how successful can that be if a reconstruction of everyday lives is still lacking? After reading O’Connell’s book, I cannot but wonder if calling for structural change—however important— ultimately becomes the easier path. Is structural change possible so long as “affluent” neighborhoods exist, property is the basis for the good life, and families retain the wealth that was/is generated because of anti-Blackness? Can the knots of racism be undone, in other words, if there’s an unwillingness to undo them where it would really hurt, in the pocketbook? [End Page 69] Ki Joo Choi Princeton Theological Seminary Copyright © 2022 American Catholic Historical Society