The Thomistic View of Race and Ethnicity
The Thomistic View of Race and Ethnicity
By Professor G. Royper
Whether you take a scientific view of human origins, or a Biblically literal view, it is agreed that all humans today descend from the same distant ancestors. You will frequently hear that this common origin from Adam and Eve and the dust that they came from means that the concept of distinct human races is irrelevant. However, Genesis shows that this view is completely false, and the Bible agrees with science that humans diverged into different ethnic groups at some point. In the Bible this happens when God destroys the Tower of Babel, divides humanity into different peoples, and scatters them around the Earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.
6 And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed.
7 Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city.
9 And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries.
St. Thomas Aquinas and Biblical Principles of Race
Clearly different races and ethnic groups exist, and the Bible itself is a story of tribes. How should we act in response to this truth though? Modern conservatives tend to take the approach of being “colorblind” and attempt to ignore these differences as much as possible. It is important to remember though that race and ethnicity are not just “color”, they are the terms we use to refer to groups of people who have a genetic or “blood” connection, similar to a very large extended family.
For handling our blood relations, the Bible and St. Thomas are clear. Aquinas says that we ought to love those who are closer to us even above those who are better people, and he cites 1 Timothy 5:8:
"If any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
He goes on to say that our blood relations are those to whom we have the closest union of all. St. Thomas states that we "ought to love more specially those who are united to us by ties of blood...it is evident that the union arising from natural origin is prior to, and more stable than, all others, because it is something affecting the very substance, whereas other unions supervene and may cease altogether."
Preferentially caring for one’s own race isn’t just morally acceptable; it is a command. With his statement, Aquinas also pinpoints the inherent problem in multi-racial nations. Things might go fine for quite a long time, but because the union is not of natural substance, there is a perpetual risk that it may cease altogether. History is replete with examples of different peoples living together in harmony for centuries, but then unexpectedly erupting in a conflagration of ethnic violence.
If it seems that I am inferring too much here, St. Thomas also fortunately discusses this specific issue when he defends the everlasting wisdom and justness of the Mosaic Law. The Law commanded the Jews to accept certain foreigners slowly, whereas others were to be rejected altogether in defense of the common good:
"The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.
Blood relation was one of the most critical factors in the discernment process, as the Idumeans were acceptable on the grounds of being a cousin-people, whereas the complete absence of kin relations is a core reason for why the Amalekites were never to be admitted.
Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity."
It should simply be common sense that foreigners with whom we are more closely related are those who are most likely to have our well being at heart. However, this is more than simply prudent, it follows from the previously discussed Biblical command to favor our blood that all human beings are naturally inclined towards. The Mosaic Law system of ethnic nationalism is wise, stable, and indispensable for forming human societies.
A common objection to this is that the Jews were the chosen people, and none of this need apply now that the covenant has expanded to all; i.e. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." However, Aquinas points out that the Old Testament contains a similar verse: “If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner, and he shall be as that which is born in the land.” (Exodus 12:48)
How is it then that this verse is reconciled with the verses that exclude certain peoples from citizenship? Aquinas responds to the objection by pointing out that these verses are referring to spiritual unity, and that the laws regarding foreigners "excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul." The laws were intended to regulate "temporal matters concerning the public life of the people." This required some to be excluded from the nation, for the reason given above.
The expansion of the covenant to the gentiles is therefore irrelevant, since these laws were never intended as religious restrictions on other peoples in the first place. As St. Thomas says, these racial laws were justly laid down by God to safeguard the nation from incompatible foreigners, even those who worshiped God, and these laws are as universally just as the Ten Commandments. They are a logical extension of the fourth commandment and other Biblical commands to favor our families. As with the Ten Commandments, these principles regarding favoring our race and race-centric nationhood are the word of the Lord, part of the law that was fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and are to be dismissed at our own peril.
Interracial Marriage
The racial precepts of the Mosaic Law are of course also applied when we consider interracial marriage. While many cite the example of Ruth the Moabite in defense of interracial marriage, Aquinas describes this as an exception, where a special dispensation was granted due to Ruth’s exceptional virtue.
Later in the Old Testament, the prophet Ezra condemns the Jews for breaking the aforementioned laws, especially through mixed marriages, and most especially the officials who encouraged them:
"They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.” (Ezra 9:2)
In Tobit 4:13, interracial marriage is seen as an insult towards one's kindred:
Therefore, son, love your kindred. Do not act arrogantly toward any of them, the sons and daughters of your people, by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in arrogance there is ruin and great instability.
Why was interracial marriage damaging to the temporal life of the Jewish nation? We already established that racial groups do and should favor their own, and that they will sometimes conflict with each other. Interracial marriage fosters dual loyalty and undermines the cohesion of a people and its ability to remain united in the face of potential threats from competing peoples. The collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia have shown that territories with a strong and distinct ethnic identity tend to be the ones that are the most capable of resisting outside domination. Nations that lack this unity are vulnerable to be preyed upon by other nations, and the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah go on to describe the many toxic cultural influences that result from this racial mixing.
As a modern example, Jews in the 20th century United States were rivals with European-Americans for dominance over the American elite. Jewish organizations worked hard to overturn laws against interracial marriage in the American South as well as immigration restrictions, almost certainly aware of the damage this would do to the cohesion of their rivals.
This all raises a question. If interracial marriage is sinful, why does the Church allow it? And should it do so? I believe the answer to this question comes down to the natural ambiguity of defining extended family and race. The Bible makes clear which people are close enough to the Jews so as to be unproblematic, but this varies for different peoples, cultures, and time periods. The marriage of a European and an African clearly constitutes racial mixing, but what about a Scotsman and an English woman? Or a European and someone who is 10% African? Explicitly attempting to enforce a ban on interracial marriage would bring the Church into many complex cultural and political dilemmas that are not really its responsiblity.
A useful analogy is the age of consent. In the Church, it is technically licit for a 14 year old girl to marry a 50 year old man, and there were many times in history where this was acceptable. However, I doubt anyone in our culture would consider that moral, and I doubt the Church has any issues with age of consent laws imposed by the state that require a girl to be 18. Similar to marrying the very young, laws regarding interracial marriage are highly entwined with the temporal situation and are therefore probably more of an issue of the state which is responsible for safeguarding the common good. However, I do believe it would be wise for a future papacy to reemphasize the Biblical principles that we have covered, and to especially condemn officials who have encouraged this.
As a final concern, we should consider what the logical end point is of large scale racial-mixing and why God created separate peoples through the destruction of the Tower of Babel.
"Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed."
In the same way that a unified race is more able to rebel against an empire, a unified humanity is more able to rebel against God. Fundamentally, a unified humanity is an evil thing. Given that most nation states are based around ethnic groups, a humanity that becomes one race is one that is much more likely to bring about the sort of one world government that the anti-Christ will take advantage of.
There is also an element of respecting Gods creation here. I think everyone would acknowledge that we should preserve the natural environment, biodiversity, and endangered species to the extent that we are able. If all birds mixed into one generic pigeon-esque bird, everyone would see that as a great tragedy for the natural world. Why would this principle not also apply to different peoples, especially given that man is Gods greatest creation?
-USCCB
Racial Superiority
Condemnations of "racism" frequently fail to define the term and conflate the natural racial in-group preference that we discussed above with a strawman argument that says any discussion of this implies the existence of a "master race" or the superiority of one race over others. While this is mostly irrelevant for handling our modern issues, it is useful to examine the concept given its outsized presence in our discourse.
When discussing individuals, no one has any problem with saying that one individual has a natural advantage over another in a certain field. Someone who is left-handed is going to be a naturally superior baseball pitcher to someone who is right handed, if all else is equal. The same goes for a basketball player who is 7 feet tall, compared to one who is 5 feet tall.
In this same respect, some racial groups have advantages over others in various ways. People with dark skin are superior at avoiding skin cancer, but inferior at absorbing Vitamin D. The East Asian epicanthic eye fold gives them an advantage at reducing snow blindness. Tibetans have larger lung capacities which makes them superior at high altitudes etc. These examples of racial superiority and inferiority are uncontroversial, but rage tends to appear when you point out that these differences also apply to the brain. It is undisputed that European and East Asian populations score well above African populations on IQ tests, and the evidence is substantial that this is heavily genetic and therefore immutable. Does the importance of intellectual capacity mean that some races can be called superior to others?
Not necessarily. Ultimately, the most important thing for a person is to make it to heaven, and it's not the case that more intelligent populations are more devout. High intelligence can give someone a greater understanding of God, but it can also give someone the capacity to adopt complex but immoral ideas that may lead them astray, such as Marxism or Liberalism. So it's probably wrong to suggest that one race is generally "superior" to another, but it's simply denying the truth to suggest that races don't have superiority over each other in some specific areas.
Racism in Heaven
While protecting our race is important in this world, the same as protecting our family, it's worth asking if any of this will matter in heaven? Aquinas answers that it will, although to a lesser extent because no one will need protection in heaven. Our love for those who are better will be stronger in heaven, but "it will however be possible in heaven for a man to love in several ways one who is connected with him, since the causes of virtuous love will not be banished from the mind of the blessed."
Therefore, if we are to define "racism" as a preference for ones own race, then there will still be some degree of "racism" in heaven. The fact that in Marian apparitions, Our Lady tends to appear as the race of the people she's appearing to supports this idea of divine approval for racial in-group preference.
Solutions
In the first section of this article, we established a few principles. The first is that we are morally required to preferentially care for those who are closer to us in blood, and so we have an obligation to protect our race. We also established that God barred the Jews from admitting distant races, either as citizens or in marriage. Aquinas clarifies that these laws were not related to the Jews status as the chosen people or to the religions of these distant races, but were implemented to protect the people from those who may not have the common good at heart, due in large part to the lack of a blood connection.
With that in mind, legal immigration policy is simple. Immigration should return to the pre-1965 status quo in America, where only racially European immigrants are admitted. To do otherwise would be to make our children into a vulnerable minority in their own nation, which would be a gravely sinful abdication of our duty as well as a disgrace to our ancestors. For industries that genuinely need migrant labor, only temporary worker visas should be utilized. Illegal migrants should obviously be deported without exception.
There is the question though of how to morally handle “refugees” or other migrants who claim to be in distress and present themselves for admission at the Southern border. The first thing we should ask ourselves is if we can let these people in without damaging the common good of our own nation and threatening our families, after considering the previously discussed principles. In the case of Ukrainian refugees, the answer would probably be yes if not for the fact that they’ll most likely support a foolish policy towards Russia. In the case of Central American economic migrants, the answer is almost certainly no.
While most migrants are in no actual distress, there are situations where there is a war, famine, or another temporary disaster in their home country. In these cases we should assist in ensuring that they have a safe area to stay in a neighboring ethnically compatible nation or within their own nation, which would allow us to help vastly more people than providing them with expensive American housing and services.
A similar principle should be applied when considering international adoption. The average child costs $250,000 to raise in the United States, where as a child in Africa can be fed from birth until adulthood for just $2000. The cost of providing one African child with SUV's and a McMansion in America could save the life of roughly a thousand African children in Africa. If one’s intention is purely humanitarian, international adoption is a grossly negligent way of going about it.
Along with that, those in the media who have promoted interracial relationships should be arrested, and these relationships should never appear in media, advertising, or entertainment, in line with the "Hays Code" that was enforced in Hollywood until 1968. States should also be allowed to reimpose laws against new interracial marriages, heeding the warning of Ezra.
These policies will prevent the situation from getting worse, but we still need to figure out how to handle the racial diversity that our country already has. Freedom of association would solve most of this problem. People who do not want to live in our current society need to be allowed to separate and form autonomous communities that are allowed to be racially exclusive. Remigration should also be encouraged.
When considering race, as with any moral topic, it is important to look outside our own time. Some of the things I am suggesting and prescribing may seem radial, but they were completely normal for almost all of human history up until roughly the 1960’s, when America’s government was hijacked by a racial minority with a vested interest in pushing “anti-racism.” Many say that banning abortion and contraception are extreme and reactionary, but we know that such policies are based on eternal principles and are a requirement for us to pursue. To those used to living among error, normalcy can be percieved as extreme. Race is an extension of the family and all attacks on race as a concept and organizing principle should be seen as attacks on the family and therefore the Catholic faith. As with many things, St. Thomas can guide us out of this darkness as well.
In closing, here's a quote from Pope Pius XII:
“The Church readily approves of, and follows with her maternal blessing, all regulations and practical efforts that, in the spirit of wisdom and moderation, lead to the evolution and increase of the potentialities and powers which spring from the hidden sources of life of each race. She does, however, lay down one provision, namely, that these regulations and efforts must not clash with the duties incumbent on all men in virtue of the common origin and destiny of all mankind.” (Pope Pius XII, Summi pontificatus).