As has been reported all over the Catholic blogosphere, Miguel H. Díaz was selected by President Obama for the position of ambassador to the Vatican. I’ve not studied his works, so I cannot really discuss his theology. The problem is, most people commenting on him have not studied his works either, but they are willing to criticize him for being “liberal” and “unfaithful” without knowing who he is or what he stands for. Yes, it’s a given that he voted for President Obama. Yes, he supported President Obama during the campaign. Neither of those makes one unfaithful. There is currently no political litmus test for Catholicism. One can ask why he supported Obama, why he thought Obama was the best choice, and what he thinks of those issues which Obama does not agree with the Church. But one shouldn’t presume answers, and put words in his mouth, especially if one does not know who he is, what he has said and written before. It seems the way people have already found reason to question him is because of his associations; but we need to remember, guilt by association is a fallacy, and the associations are the ones one would expect for someone chosen by Obama — i.e., an Obama supporter, which goes back to what was said above, that alone doesn’t determine whether or not one is a faithful Catholic or not (though it seems people are already thinking it does, and are all ready to attack L’Osservatore Romano of all things, because it isn’t “politically correct” — the irony of it all!)
The few things I’ve read about him do not really tell me much. He’s Rahnerian. Some people have tried to make something out of this, as if Obama is trying to insult the Pope because the two didn’t always see eye to eye. Nonetheless, if you asked Pope Benedict, you will find he has much good to say about Rahner. In theology, where a diversity of views is possible, disagreement shouldn’t be seen as a sign of hostility. Another comment people have already made is that he is into cultural theology – he is Hispanic, and so he embraces the Hispanic cultural background as the basis for his theology. Is that any surprise? The Church expects this, and has come to welcome it, especially in her missionary work. Finally, it is clear he is interested in issues of migration and immigration, and it is clear he, as with the Church, looks to the example of the Holy Family with their journey into Egypt as a prime example of this way of life. Again, the little I’ve read and seen does not tell me much, but nothing in it appears to make him some radical, anti-Catholic “Marxist wedge” theologian being used by a slick Obama to damage Catholicism in the United States. If he really wanted to cause division in the United States, he would have gone a different route, and chosen someone similar to Michael Novak (someone more than willing to consistently and uncharitably blast anyone at the Vatican – even the Pope — who doesn’t agree with his politicized Catholicism).
they are willing to criticize him for being “liberal” and “unfaithful”
I’m impressed that crowd is willing to admit those are not the same thing.
I wonder if the selection of a theologian, rather than a lawyer like Kmiec or Carfardi, was an attempt to have someone who will relate things with the pope on theological terms. If so, it would seem to miss the fact that most relations are with the Secretary of State, not the pope himself, but it is interesting nonetheless. As with Sotomayor, I am suspending judgment and holding onto hope.
There have been accusations that Obama (through his Notre Dame visit,his appointments, his “preventing unwanted pregnancy” efforts, and his rhetoric) is trying to split the church, pulling liberal-leaning Catholics (and Hispanics) away from the hierarchy in order to create a stronger center-left, socially liberal coalition. I have feared this as well, and it is very disappointing that the Church seems so divided a little over a year after the optimism I felt following Pope Benedict’s visit. But maybe he’s in to deep, and he’ll box himself into a position where he has to (or finds he wants to) do something concrete to restrict abortion.
Zak
I really don’t think Obama is capable of doing that, nor is he doing it. From what I’ve seen, it is people like Michael Novak, with their constant “Americanist-GW Bush neocon” tendencies which have created a kind of wedge in American Catholicism, and their actions have caused many ill feelings for those who don’t follow their vision of American Catholicism. Indeed, you can begin to see many are opening up criticism of the Vatican in its mild nature towards Obama, in part because the Vatican doesn’t follow their “most pro-abortion President ever” rhetoric, rhetoric which isn’t true, and only serves to cut people off from dialogue. Obama, imo, really doesn’t have much interest in intra-Catholic issues.
“though it seems people are already thinking it does, and are all ready to attack L’Osservatore Romano of all things, because it isn’t “politically correct” — the irony of it all!)”
I don’ thinkl that is the issue
I have to admit as Winters said this morning I am not sure I would have picked a Theologian. That appears to bring forth needless controversy. That being siad it will be short lived and people in a few days will prompty forget we even have a Holy See Envoy
I was shockled there was not a tad more high profile name with either Diplomatic or Political experience. A good part of this job for the Interest of the United States has nothing to do with the Church.
So his theology is of little concern to me for the most part
It’s an intriguing pick. I’ve never heard of Diaz, but I like the idea of a theologian (too many lawyers in these circles!). Also, I like the idea of a Hispanic, as this is the future of the Church in the United States.
It’s interesting to say the least, MM, and I agree, the idea of a theologian makes sense, as long as he doesn’t do a Michael Novak and think he will lecture the Vatican if he is the ambassador.
JH
It’s quite clear there was a political movement aimed at Notre Dame and causing controversy over Obama’s commencement speech. The Vatican newspaper had a different take, and the result has been all kinds of American Catholics asking if the Vatican knows what it means to be Catholic?!?! Give me a break. It’s political. Anyone who has any knowledge of history knows there was nothing unusual about the event, and the people who made something out of it, did so for political gain (using failed rhetoric, and the kind which IS trying to make a divide in Catholicism in America). The best way forward is to work for unity, not to constantly ridicule people with labels for prudential disagreements. I feel many within the pro-life lobby WANTS the life policies to fail — because then they have a job for life!
Henry I do’t think the issue is American Catholics asking the Vatican what it means to be Catholics
THe issue is the Vatican Newspaper seems to have a typical limited view of American Politics that is Euopean in nature and more importantly they do not seem to realize that most Americans and the American press does not realize that an Op-Ed in the Vatican Newspaper in most cases does not speak for the Church.
We had this problem and controversy a view months back over a article on brain death.
Don’t get me wrong I like the direction in some ways the Paper is going in. THey have a variety views and Op-Eds. However I am aware when for instance there is an Op_ed by lets say on the Economic crisis by a banker those proposed Soultions he is offering is not necessary the mind of the Church
Sadly this often lost in the American Press that does not look at what other signifcant Jouranls over there are saying. Such as the Jesuit Publicans or the main paper of the Italian Bishops.
Come’ on Henry, you can’t possibly think that all those bishops were speaking out of political motivation? Having lived in two dioceses recently, and read every encyclical from two of the bishops who spoke out, I find a purely political motivation hard to swallow.
JH
In other words, if their view of American presidents are different, it’s because they are ignorant and should know better the Catholic principle of “vote only for Republicans.” Got it.
Jeremy
Look to the large number of silent bishops — as St Thomas More points out, silence means consent. It’s not that they would have voted for Obama, but they do understand the kinds of qualifications we have seen have been invalid; look to the improper use of “material cooperation with evil” as if it meant “formal cooperation” and you will see some of the problems. Look also to how this was only done with Obama, not to Republicans who have also had such honors, and also failed to represent Catholic ethics on life. Look to the rhetoric. It’s easy to see what is going on. Sadly.
Henry,
We are talking about motivation not their views.
Jeremy
Once again, we are talking about how they described the situation, and often, the responses were theologically invalid. Again, confusing material with formal cooperation of evil is one of the things I’ve seen, and that really is a dangerous confusion (as people pointed out, the Catholic Church has a history of material cooperation with evil, so the end result is we should ridicule the Catholic Church now, too, if the position is valid. Of course it isn’t, but why would people make such pitiful responses? And why only one person — one only? And why following over-the-top rhetoric which doesn’t meet with reality? The answer is obvious.).
Allrighty Henry, your blog, you win -
Good to see that ‘People of Good Will’ thing flowing free around here – sheesh.
Diaz signed the statement endorsing the pro-life credentials of Kathleen Sebelius. It strikes me that anyone who signed that would have put their name to the Act of Supremacy or the Civil Constitution on the Clergy. It was like getting in line for a plate of the food offered to idols. (For Vox Nova regulars, I should add “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”)
I’m going to do a post on what I know of his theology, and Latino/a theology in general.
The idea that he is a “Marxist” is side-splittingly funny. Is that seriously being said in the Catholic barphosphere?
The concerns about him being a “Rahnerian” are funny too. As if that even means any one thing.
Michael
The idea, from what I see, is that “the Marxist” (i.e., Obama) is using him as a wedge (I skimmed through many responses this morning before writing this, and don’t remember all of them, though I know WDTPRS, among other places, went on the attack).
Ron, you are right, Catholics like St Thomas More have died on the block to refuse to cooperate with evils such as the appointment of Sibelius. We dishonor their memory if we overlook Diaz’s collaboration with the most anti-life President in US history.
“The most anti-life President in US history” is not the proper way to refer to him, unless of course, you can provide statistics of comparison by every President, on every life issue, and demonstrate this as a fact and not a mere rhetorical flourish. Can you do so? And I mean real stats on EVERY issue.
You’ve got it backwards. Thomas More made a point of working with a regime he knew was deeply flawed, because it thought it the best way to serve the common good. He had fulsome praise for Henry VIII, right until the end. He died a martyr, not a political prisoner. That distinction is critical.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/more-cua-anniversary-event
I think this gives some good insight — even the Vatican Nuncio has said he was a good choice! Now let the malcontents continue to prove who is splitting the Church.
All the rhetoric and rush to judgment is rather sad. It betrays the fundamental ills of radical shortcomings of a large segment of the Catholic blogosphere.
A basic question :how does one ever to build a culture of life with that type of modus operandi.
Again, very sad.
JH, I believe you are largely incorrect regarding the authoritativeness of L’Osservatore Romano regarding anything relating to foreign–that is, non-Italian affairs.
I’ll take Rocco Palma as a better authority on the Vatican than you or almost all other Americans:
As Vian himself has confirmed in the past, however, Osservatore pieces that touch on international relations must be cleared by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State before they can run in print.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/
The most preposterous charge I’ve seen lodged so far is that because one of Diaz’s specialties is Karl Rahner, therefore his Catholicism is suspect.
These people do not seem to realize that, although Balthasar and Ratzinger’s theologies are “hot” right now, the post-Vatican II Church has been deeply and officially influenced by Rahner. The people that criticize all things “Rahnerian” (which does not mean one thing!) are themselves “Rahnerian” although they are not aware of it. There is no turning back from many of these insights — legitimate Rahnerian insights, mind you, not distortions or misunderstandings of his thinking like the many ways “anonymous Christianity” gets misrepresented, both by Rahner’s supporters and his critics.
Michael
Yes, so few who criticize Rahner know him, and, as you said, so many have abused him on issues like the anonymous Christian, it’s quite sad. The thing is, I think the same is true with Balthasar and Ratzinger — their fans know them as well as Aquinas, which isn’t that much.
I think it’s a little silly that people say, I’m suprised someone with a higher profile wasn’t picked when I think very few people could indentify the two ambassadors between Ray Flynn and Mary Ann Glendon, and even fewer would have been able to say anything about them when they were selected other than, “wow, they raised a lot of money for George Bush.”
I think it’s a greater scandal that the U.S. sees diplomatic posts as an opportunity for rewarding campaign donors. I had hoped Obama would be better on this issue than Bush, but the ambassadors to Japan, France, and UK are all remarkable chiefly because they were large donors to Obama’s campaign.
Henry,
You say that it’s only Novak et al who are dividing the church through criticizing the Vatican (although generally criticism has been limited to the laypeople running and writing for L’Osservatore Romano or, at most, some members of the Secretariat of State). Certainly, the intemperate rhetoric used by some can ahve that effect.
But look at Obama’s rhetorical style. How did he respond to Republican opposition to the stimulus package? He said they were playing politics, dismissing their objections. How do he and his supporters respond to opposition to his appearance at(or his honorary degree from) Notre Dame? By saying opponents are trying to divide people and play politics.
Furthermore, the attempt to use the Vatican’s impulse to cooperate on issues of agreement as a wedge to divide the local church in the face of opposition from the local hierarchy was a common tactic of anti-clerical forces in Europe – in 1890s France, in pre-Franco Spain, in 1930s Germany, in the Communist bloc. First you make the most outspoken leaders in the local hierarchy appear isolated. Then you build up forces in the Church that are most congenial to your agenda. Then you try to make your supporters the sole legitimate voices of the (faithful?). Other common tactics are to undermine the Church’s role in education, to reduce the amount of money it gets (through, perhaps, reducing tax deductions for charitable donations?) and to offer support the charitable activities of the church, while treating their religious roles as an extravagance.
“The most preposterous charge I’ve seen lodged so far is that because one of Diaz’s specialties is Karl Rahner, therefore his Catholicism is suspect.”
Bingo, Mark.
Diaz was pre-approved by the Vatican before Obama made the announcement. Too bad the Vatican was unaware that Diaz had studied Rahner in depth before they approved of his pending appointment. I’m sure if they knew he was messing around with Rahner, they too would be howling like cats in a dog pen at the appointment.
What’s with this anti-intellectual Catholicism (Isn’t that a non sequitur?)? What are its origins? What does it say of the future? It’s more like a theocratic/political movement than anything that resembles Catholic thought and judgment. Like all movements rooted in opinion, this one is dangerous. For America, it is particularly so. Fear does have a grip over people’s minds.
“For which I burnt in inward, swelt’ring hate,
And festered ranking malice in my breast.” — Marston
There has been all too much speculation on a very, very minor diplomatic post. We didn’t even have an ambassador to the Vatican prior to Reagan, if memory serves. Too many people care passionately about an issue not worth caring about.
The ambassador to the Vatican played a significant foreign policy role during the Reagan Administration. It could play a similar role today, especially in deepening a dialogue with the Muslim world.
I agree with Gerald that there specific areas (and he has cited one) where a good ambassador to the Vatican can achieve something.
I disagree that hostility to Rahner is anti-intellectualism. I think it’s driven by opposition to what is perceived as a theology that has been abstracted too much from its roots in tradition and scripture. Whether Rahner is an example of this I am unqualified to judge, and many theologians who have faced accusations like this in the past have been vindicated. I would just say that anti-intellectualism is a cudgel with which to beat opponents rather than an accurate characterization of the concerns.
I disagree that hostility to Rahner is anti-intellectualism.
Gerald did not say that “hostility to Rahner is anti-intellectualism.” He said that dismissing a scholar and questioning his Catholicism because he studies Rahner is anti-intellectualism.
Henry Karlson Says May 28, 2009 at 10:12 am
“Jeremy
Look to the large number of silent bishops — as St Thomas More points out, silence means consent”.
I fear you have been seeing too many movies. St. Thomas never said so silly a thing, for he knew its falsity. You have but to consider Our Lord before Pilate.
The notion is one of English lawyers used to condemn the Catholics who refused to accept fat Henry’s headship of the Church in England.
Our amendment that a person may not be called to testify against himself was directed exactly at this idea.
Zak,
Michael stated my meaning correctly. Perhaps I used poor wording.
At any event, if you’ve read anything I’ve written over the past year or so — not the political stuff but the philosophical stuff — you see mentioned the question of anti-intellectualism over and over again. I do this not as a cheap shot at anyone. Quite the contrary. I believe it to be the most serious issue facing the Church today. If this issue can’t be address forthrightly little else will be resolved.
What I’m actually referring to is the place that philosophy, the intellect, and the intellectual order occupy in arriving at truth. The American Catholic Church is in an especial predicament in this regard. Our culture is fundamentally Protestant. Indeed, we are the only nation fundamentally grounded on Protestant principles. All other nations were built on, or evolved out of, other cultural forms. But Protestantism is our basic culture and, at the core, it is anti-intellectual. Why? The Fall. Because of the Fall, the intellect was so maimed that it lost its capacity to know truth. This means that the intellectual order is beyond our grasp. This means further that there is no room for the analogy of being in the reasoning process. The analogy of faith is all there is.
This poses considerable difficulty when ethical and political challenges are discussed in the practical order. Catholics today not trained properly in the discipline of philosophy. In Catholic universities, the study of philosophy has been transmuted into the study of the HISTORY of philosophy. But these two curriculums are not the same. The methodology of history does not flow from ontological principles. It is grounded in some form of relativism.
You might recall an article referenced on Vox Nova from First Things about a year ago. I don’t recall its title right now. But the point was that theologians today are not philosophically grounded as was the case with Henri de Lubac and others. Earlier theologians were well ground in philosophy AND theology. Without such grounding, their ability to do theology was severely limited.
Something similar happens in the practical order. Catholics on the blog tend to discuss ethical and political issues primarily in the abstract. The inclination is to reason directly from moral theology (or principle) to public policy. But this is nonsense. What is discounted in such thinking is the entire realm of the contingent.
Unless greater care is given to comprehending the intellectual order — and how that order is analogically manifested from the lowest reality to the highest — the Catholic contribution to the national dialogue will continue to remain abstract. But this will severely hamper their impact. For when dialogue is reduced to a question of normative vs. secular principles, the secular will generally win out.
To be persuasive, Catholics need to focus their attention to the concrete where the act is actually being made.