|
Published: November 27, 2008
Fat chance
Vatican official says Kmiec unlikely to be accepted as ambassador to Holy See
Vatican City, Nov. 25, 2008 / (CNA) -- An official from the Vatican Secretary of State’s office has reacted to a recent article suggesting that Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec should become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, saying, “It will never happen.”
On Nov. 23, America magazine published an article by Michael Sean Winters describing Professor Kmiec, the former Republican pro-lifer who became President-elect Barack Obama’s top Catholic apologist during the presidential campaign, as "the perfect candidate" to become U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See.
 In his article, Winters argues that Kmiec is an ideal candidate for the post because, "He is a lifelong pro-life legal scholar who served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Departments of both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He was Dean of the Catholic University Law School and now teaches law at Pepperdine. His published works evidence a find (sic) legal mind and thorough familiarity with the natural law tradition that has been the dominant lens for Catholic social thought. Kmiec would be well known to prominent American churchmen in the Eternal City and a jewel in the crown of the intellectual milieu that surrounds the Holy See."
Winters also argues that "Kmiec’s pro-life credentials, despite some carping from the far right political fringe, are impeccable. Indeed, given that the American bishops have chosen opposition to FOCA as their greeting to the new president, Kmiec gives the bishops some satisfaction since he testified against the measure at its inception in the 1980s."
CNA presented the article to an official of the Vatican Secretary of State, who offered his reaction on condition of strict anonymity. His answer when asked of Kmiec’s chances of becoming ambassador: "It will never happen."
The official noted that prominent American Catholics at the Vatican -- such as Cardinal James Francis Stafford or Archbishop Raymond Burke -- look at Kmiec as a "traitor," and "their opinion will certainly count heavily."
But most important, the official said, is that the Holy See will not risk alienating vital U.S. Catholic organizations like the Knights of Columbus or the American branch of the Knights of the Holy Sepulcher, "whose role in the life of the universal Church is decisive, and who have already expressed publicly their disappointment with Kmiec's role in the recent elections."
The official also explained that the Vatican is "obviously interested in having a good relationship with the greatest power in the world," but such relationships usually flow "through different parallel channels and not only the embassy."
"Despite the importance of a good relationship with the U.S.," the official explained to CNA, "the Secretary of State privileges the relationship with nations with which it has concordats," that is to say, international agreements that provide some recognition and support to the public presence of the Catholic Church, such as state support for religious education.
"If the office [the Vatican's Secretary of State] withholds the 'placet' -- the official acceptance -- from the appointees from Argentina and France, it could easily do the same [to Kmiec]" because "[we] would not risk alienating many U.S. Catholic organizations."
The Secretary of State official was referring to the recent Vatican decisions to deny the ‘placet’ to a French Ambassador to the Vatican because he was openly homosexual and to an Argentinean because he was divorced and remarried.
"Of course, Mr. Kmiec is in neither of those situations, but for the Secretary of State it is far more important to maintain a good relationship with, say, Mr. Anderson (the Supreme Knight of the Knights of Columbus,) who is an active member of several Vatican dicasteries, than to please Mr. Kmiec and his friends in the new administration."
The official also explained, "Those who the article refers so disrespectfully as 'extremists on the right,' or 'the far right political fringe,' are the serious, loyal Catholics [the Vatican] precisely takes into account, because they are the ones who are there when the Church needs them."
Finally, regarding Winters’ claim that "Kmiec could do for the Democratic administration what (Mary Ann) Glendon has done for its predecessor," the official told CNA: "To be charitable, I will just say that I seriously doubt it." According to a U.S. Department of State biography, Glendon, who was sworn in as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See last February, served as Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard University before her appointment by President Bush. In 2004, Pope John Paul II named her president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, marking the first time a woman has headed one of the major pontifical academies. She was also the first woman to lead a Vatican delegation to a major U.N. conference; in 1995, Pope John Paul appointed her head of the Vatican delegation to the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing. From 2001 to 2004, Ambassador Glendon served on the President’s Council on Bioethics, which advises the U.S. president.
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:12 AM By Dan
Can you imagine Kmiec trying to explain himself to Stafford or Burke? At best he would be an embarassing pawn of Obama, representing policies the Vatican abhors. Anyway, I thought Kmiec was fishing for a judicial appointment. I can't see Obama giving Kmiec much now that he's president-elect. Kmiec has used up his usefulness, except to Mahoney here in Los Angeles.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:55 AM By Charles O'Connell
Once, Catholic political power was so respected in this country as to border on being feared. This began to decay in 1963, when the non-Catholic governor of Illinois appointed a non-Christian millionaire as chair of his population-control commission. Loyal allies of the original Mayor Richard Dailey in the state legislature easily defeated efforts by this commission to promote contraception in Cook County hospitals targeted at African-Americans - who at that time had lower rates of illegitimacy than whites have now. But, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, a high official of the Archdiocese of Chicago, riding in a black limousine, arrived at an "accommodation" with the Commissioner - who noted that Catholics were no longer having the large families they once had. So the Dailey machine, perplexed, acquiesced to the Archdiocese's flip-flop. A decade later, in 1973, Contraception's daughter Abortion became sexually active. By this time Humanae Vitae had been dissented against by 600 "theologians" - most of whom weren't; and the entire Canadian episcopate genuinely dissented. Those Trojan horses have long since vomited their contents into the culture, and today's Bishops, now finally faithful, will have to pay the price. Our present Holy Father has predicted that we will become a persecuted, perhaps an underground Church, for the first time in more than a millennium. The sins of the fathers will be visited upon the children for many generations.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:57 AM By Fr. M.P.
Knowledge means nothing unless it is converted to love - the journey of the longest foot from your brain to your heart. Credentials are human - faith is Divine. Obama certainly owes Kmiec, so I wouldn't be surprised of such an appointment.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:27 AM By Ron
Kmeic's chances to be selected as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican - I would say he has a much better chance to be selected as ambassador to hades. God Bless
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:46 AM By JPeterman
Sorry Kmiec,
I know you wanted to spend four or eight glorious years in Rome at taxpayers expense but loolks like you'll have to stay at your miserable "professor" job. Should have thought more clearly before you turned your back on your faith.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:48 PM By Elizabeth
We need someone who will truly represent the Catholic Church and ALL of her teachings at the Vatican!!!!!
In my humble opinion.....that is NOT Mr. Kmeic.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:52 PM By Tom Byrne
Equally welcome was the Vatican's recognition that so-called "hard right-wing" Catholics are in fact the serious and reliable ones on whom the Church depends. Could we mail that to a few chancery offices and schools of theology? Be it ever so slow-pokey, there's no place like Rome.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 1:14 PM By John F. Maguire
I am sorry to see the beginning here of the sort of the brimstone invocations against Professor Douglas Kmiec that have taken place in prior threads. Still, despite the tonalities of the article above, the truth in it can be easily excavated. Professor Kmiec's prolife credentials are impeccable, and this is so regardless of whether one differs with him on how to read the Constitution, how to strategize
the cause of the right of pre-born infants to life, or how to
read Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on proportionality voting (i.e., voting where both contending candidates are abortocrats, as was the case in this last election). I have posted on these matters in prior threads, and here would refer especially to the definition of the term "abortocrat" that I have proffered in prior posts. ~ As noted above, two decades ago, Douglas Kmiec testified against the Freedom of Choice Act when it was first proposed. He remains a steadfast foe of this gravely remissive piece of legislation. In this connection, I venture that an appointment as ambassador to the Vatican--with all due respect to the importance of such an ambassadorship from many points of view--would have the unfortunate effect of neutralizing Professor Kmiec's fighting the good fight against FOCA.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:31 PM By AnnCA
John Maguire, Kmiec's pro-life credentials are no longer impeccable. He supported and counseled other Catholics to support the most pro-abortion, pro-baby killing candidate ever. It is an act of charity to call him out on this grave sin and urge his repentance before his judgement. I'm sorry you want to protect him but you aren't doing him any favors.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:15 PM By JLS
Kmiec brought it on himself. The worst stunt yet was his statement that he'd toe the line if the Pope told him to do so. What a slap in the face of A. his own bishop, B. the Church, C. the Pope, D. God.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:29 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to AnnC: It should be clear by now that the Catholic vote for Senator Barack Obama was a vote cast within the confines of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter on the necessity of proportional-reasoning so to motivate such a vote. Compare the Catholic vote for Senator McCain. On account of his abortocratic refusal to recognize the common law right of preborn infants to life, Senator McCain would, from his safe perch, have returned the abortion question to state legislatures to vote on preborn infants' right to life on a thumbs up/thumbs down basis; in short, vote with no reference to the common law rights of preborn infants whatsoever. Indeed, the McCain-Palin position on abortion actually repeats the error of _Roe v. Wade_ , that is, by refusing to recognize the common law rights of preborn infants. In consequence, this position would have state legislatures blink away these common law rights rather than the Supreme Court do so, as it did in _Roe_. This refusal to recognize the common law right to life of preborn infants goes back to President Richard Nixon, who issued an executive order licensing abortion within the United States military despite the common law right of infants to life. The Republican Party has never renounced that order, any more than the Democratic Party has given up its own abortocratic hegemon. So AnnC, you may disagree, but given the priority status of the abortion issue, the question of proportional reasoning in the 2008 vote was a closer question than it would appear you allow for. Be that as it may, Archbishop Chabut has urged Catholics "within both parties" to renew their efforts to defend the life of pre-born infants. He did so in full cognizance of the demographics of Catholic voting patterns and also in full cognizance of the threat posed by FOCA.
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 6:55 PM By John F. Maguire
Withal, I do want to make the following connection: The universal consensus, we know, is that were it not for the hospitality of the native American Indians, the pilgrim party would not have survived its Plymouth experience. This theme--the theme of hospitality--is aborginally American. As in the last century, so in the present century, the question, then, will be: What is the compass of this hospitality? Will American hospitality, for example, include preborn infants? This question will be the test of a people. ~ Thanksgiving--today's holiday--is a civil-religious holiday, not an ecclesial one. Still, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lecture 23, provides us with a timely intertext: "For verily we are bound to give thanks that He called us, unworthy as we were, to so great a grace; that he reconciled us when we were His foes; that he vouchsafed for us the Spirit of adoption. Then ye say, It is right and meet: for in giving thanks we do a meet thing and a right; but He did not right, but more than right, in doing us good, and counting us meet for such great benefits."
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 8:03 PM By cjo
Kmiec is needed here in LA so he can continue to write articles for The Tidings !!!!!
|
Posted Thursday, November 27, 2008 11:57 PM By Victoria G.
Well, what absolute nonsense. Why would anyone even suggest such a thing?
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 1:18 AM By Sieber
Doug,
Don't worry, be happy. Malibu has a great view!
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 5:44 AM By Mark from PA
Thank you for the excellent postings, John. Good job.
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 5:47 AM By JLS
Contrary to Mr. Maguire's interpretation of then Cdl Ratzinger's letter, by which interpretation not only should Kmiec be elevated to super-pope but the Catholics who voted for Obama should be raised to the altars and make themselves available for the rest of us to worship ... contrary to this spurious interpretation is the fact that one third of the U.S. bishops have flushed this interpretation down the gutter, and also Cdl Stafford and the Pope himself have spoken to the issue ... no cafeteria Catholics can call themselves good Catholics or even Catholics in good standing or in a state of grace. I always like it when episcopal proclamations are nice and simple, and hard to mistake, such as when onehundred bishops all say the same thing ... AND when two hundred bishops do not dispute their fellow bishops. In other words ALL BISHOPS in the US are opposed by D. Kmiec, who said he will bow only to a personal directive by the Pope. That is like me saying I will only follow the Commandments if the Pope personally tells me to do so. Hopefully some day soon Kmiec and his rabel rousers will open their eyes to the simple truths, the texts of which they've all read but do not see.
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 5:49 AM By Fr. M.P.
John F. Maguire, you are quite the apologist for Kmiec. Are you on his staff, a former student, a team effort, or something similar? And you always ducked on the specific proportionate reasons, even though you claim they are there in the '08 election. Yet many Bishops, as authentic interpreters and teachers of then Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, say the opposite. But look at those credentials... Whatever impeccable pro-life stance Kmiec had (past tense), his work against FOCA just took a giant leap backward since he helped elected the most pro-death politician who's first thing will be to work on passing FOCA. Great proof of "credentials" - we'll elect a guy who wants full-scale death and FOCA as a means to reduce abortions. Uh huh. We see Jesus' words in actions - thank you for revealing yourself to the little ones and hiding Yourself from the wise and prudent. The great many little ones with no credentials whatsoever truly "get it."
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 8:03 AM By Mary Ann Kreitzer
Like everyone else, Catholics voted primarily on the economy, not on abortion. John Maguire's contentions that they were actually voting for proportional reasons is somewhat ridiculous. If you surveyed Catholic voters who pulled the lever for "the one" I suspect you would receive the same inane responses as those who participated in the Zogby poll. As for Kmiec, Ann is completely on target. His pro-life credentials have tanked. I wouldn't take his advice on what to serve for dinner much less any pro-life credentials. When Obama does what he promised and signs FOCA, will Kmiec still defend him as the right choice?
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 8:45 AM By JPeterman
Maguire you go to great and quite verbose lengths to try to justify Catholics voting for Obama but there is and was no justification or proportionate reason. Not Iraq, not McCain's position nor even Nixon's executive order 30 some years ago. This situation was plainly clear, McCain was a better choice for life vs. Obama who is the MOST radical pro abortion politician in the country. Maguire you keep trying to make this about Republican vs. Democrat when the reality is the election was about a very pro abortion guy vs. one who never voted for abortion. The choice here was clear and your liberal democratic sympathies make no difference in the argument.
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 9:06 AM By JimAroo
Thank you for your forum here at CalCatholic. I especially appreciate when dissenters make their case here. The reason for my appreciation is that I think it helps us recognize the reality in our beloved Church. There is a huge schism (I use the word advisedly) between the followers of JP2 and B16 and the dissenters. These dissenters include some bishops, priests and many lay people.
We all try to ignore this reality like in a family when no one ever says Uncle Mike is a drunk but everybody knows he is. It would do Mike and us a lot of good to get it out in the open. We need to declare the reality of the schism and force people to make a choice. It is far better to have a small dedicated purified church than to go on with this charade.
One thing we might find out is that we don't have a shortage of priests but a surplus of Catholics!
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 9:38 AM By Sister Act
In personnel matters, President-elect Obama, as standard practice, has not shown himself to be slow on the uptake. I would be surprised if Professor Douglas Kmiec--highly qualified for the position--were not on the short-list of candidates for ambassador to the Vatican. At least this: Fat chance of his being overlooked. No anonymous Vatican source--we know how reliable such sources are--can pre-empt President-elect Obama's best judgment in this matter.
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 9:53 AM By Miguel
No man can serve two masters. Selling out principles for political or personal gain will be called out. As, we see in this case.
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 3:54 PM By OneoftheSheepm
I thought I had the inside track on the ambassador to the Holy See because one thing I am certain, Obama does not know any real Catholics who practice their faith. Therefore, I stand ready for the appointment!
|
Posted Friday, November 28, 2008 7:03 PM By Joan P.
JimAroo is right on about the schism. There will be The American Catholic Church and The Roman Catholic Church and it can't come soon enough. I am fed up with these so-called Catholics at every level. I keep asking God to finish cleaning His House. The sex scandals were just the tip of the iceberg and He has many more 'rooms' that need to be addressed.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:09 AM By Mark from PA
I don't know why some people want a smaller "purer" Church. Our parish is large and diverse. We have weekly Masses in Spanish and Polish, we have many black and Asian parishoners. We have gay Catholics, progressive Catholic and conservative Catholics. The Catholic Church has always been a big tent. I am thankful for the beauty of our diversity. Some of you seem to want a "white bread" Church. Why should anyone be made to feel unwelcome in our Church? Our country is becoming increasingly diverse. Some of you need to wake up.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:05 AM By JLS
If anyone wants to gain the understanding from the Catholic Encyclopedia of the theological problem with Douglas Kmiec (which is how I have seen it, and why I have consistently tried to persuade his defenders to consider that the Eucharist unites us with God in a way that is more than bringing us into a "junction" with God), then read the section on Nestorianism. It hinges on "junction" vs "union" of man and God. "Junction" is the relationship between God and the Prophets who came before Christ was incarnated. Eg, Isaias and John the Baptist were "joined" but following the Last Supper and Pentecost, those in communion with Christ are in union with God. Catholics enter a divinization which was not available prior to Pentecost. Man and wife are joined but can also be united. Perhaps even a muslim can be joined with God, but not united as a Catholic in a state of grace is united with God, ie one with God. One joins a baseball team, but the players are not one with each other in the full sense of unity. The United States are united in a limited way, and have been seeking full unity for centuries, as has man been seeking full unity with God since Adam. In the Eucharist man finds complete unity with God; sans this, then man can only (with possibly rare exceptions) find junction with God. Two railroad tracks can cross at a junction, or merge into one track which then becomes a union. Nestorius and his heresy could not come into union in the objectivity of their words. Read the Cath. Encycl. how all sorts of errors and heresies followed from the false teachings on this point.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:16 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: In the immediate sense of voting for one of two abortocratic candidates, the practical interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter was left open to the studied and conscientious judgment of the voters themselves, which was Cardinal Ratzinger's intention in the first place, with the Bush-Kerry contest in view; and, in point of fact, nothing gainsaid that same intention this year, with the McCain-Obama contest in view. If clarification of proportionality analysis is in the offing, I would welcome it, just as would Professor Kmiec. Am I student or staffer of Professor Kmiec? Fr. M.P., what if I were? Ad hominem considerations, although not always irrelevant, are not, in all strictness dispostive, at least when the issues before us are well-framed. But no, I have never been a student of Douglas Kmiec, though I envy those who are. I do, for my own part, make it a point to read, as studiously as I can, Profesor Kmiec's professional contributions to the legal debate--as it would simply be a mistake not to. In the same vein, Fr. M.P., were I to have met or spoken with or received correspondence from the good professor, I would cite the same reservations regarding your ad hominen line of speculation as I've just cited. ~ But back to the point about leaving the vote up to the conscientious judgment of Catholic voters: That ecclesial decision does not erase the distinction between (1) a vote motivated by an upright conscience and (2) a vote motivated by a conscience that is both upright AND veridical. Where, as here, the entire Catholic vote was alienated from the outset (i.e., by both political parties and both candidates), the distinction between an upright vote and a veridical vote should be kept in mind all the more reflectively.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:04 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Mary Ann Kreitzer: Your post raises a crucial question: Empirically, how reflective, how cognitively informed, was the 2008 Catholic vote? Given the priority of the abortion issue (prior because pre-born infants are never to be excluded from the compass of humanity), how reflective, how cognitively informed, was the Catholic vote? Students of voter motivation (whether they are pollsters hired by clients or survey researchers commissioned academically) distinguish, within the Catholic vote, between
"the sweat-it vote," on the one hand, and the residual "non-sweat-it vote," on the other hand. In these shop-talk terms, the sweat-it vote recognizes the abortion issue as a priority issue; and the non-sweat-it vote does not. Now although the data for the 2008 election has yet to be organized, let alone analyzed, we already know that the sweat-it/non-sweat-it distinction applies to Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. It is in this context that I suggested that the 2008 Catholic vote, taken as a whole, was "within the confines" of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter. That's a far different claim than the psychological--or rather, the psychologico-actualist--thesis you attribute to me ("John Maguire's contention that [Catholic voters] were actually voting for proportional reasons is somewhat ridiculous"]. If such proportional reasons are well-grounded in reality, then, both the sweat-it voters and the non-sweat-it voters actually do fall "within the confines" of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, though the non-sweat-it attitude, objectively speaking, is sinful inasmuch as it is a sin to underestimate the place of pre-born infants in the *ordo amoris*; that is, it is a sin to underestimate the place of pre-born infants in the objective
"order of love" (Augustine). Still, as a psychological matter, no, Catholic voters, by-and-large, were familiar neither with the terms of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter nor its existence.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 1:12 PM By Grisha
My vote for US Ambasador to the Holy See is Angela Alioto.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:56 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JPeterman: I am not a liberal democrat--not, I mean, as that term is standardly used. At the same time, against the ideologization of the term "liberal", I am disappointed to see the Aristotelian and Thomist defense of "liberality" (as one of the virtues in the organon of virtues) get overlooked. As for the term "democracy", it would be tragic were we to allow this term--which is so crucial to the American political tradition of working out the common good within the framework of a democratic Republic--to get derailed by the example of false forms of democracy. What recommends Yves Simon's _Philosophy of Democracy_ (1951 [1993]) is that this book does a good job at sorting out these false forms from those forms of democracy that comport--as genuine democracy must--with the common good of persons and institutions.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:45 PM By Roseleaf
Grisha, I've taken the liberty of seeing to it that your commendation of Angela Alioto for the post of U.S. ambassador to the Vatican gets delivered to Angela Alioto's San Francisco law office.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 9:01 PM By Anne T.
Angela Alioto's father was pro life from my understanding, but she is not.
|
Posted Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:54 PM By Verkola
In reply to Joan and JimAroo: Since it is schism that is the topic of both your posts, I am wondering why you fail to distinguish between the sin of schism and the sin of heresy?
Isn't the specific malice of schism that, even where there is no division on account of heresy, nonetheless a break from Catholic unity is deliberately pursued? *** Here's why I do not accept your overdrawn characterizationn of the present situation as a situation in which "the American Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church" are pitted one against the other. However proto-schismatic American Catholic culture might be (I think these proto-schismatic tendendies are real but exaggerated), the word *Roman* in the title of the Catholic Church answers the question, Where can Catholicity be found? Catholicity can be found in union--and only in union--with the Bishop of Rome. From within this perspective, there can be no such thing as an American Catholic Church that is not Roman Catholic, anymore than there can be an English Catholic Church that is not Roman Catholic. *** Furthermore, why, although schism is more gravely sinful than heresy, do you want schism to come anyway ("...it can't come soon enough")? Why do you give yourself license to hope for such an evil as schism? Why else other than that you're hooked on the notion of chiliastic purging? But Holy Church herself does not permit us to hope for schism--for this theologically confused reason or, for that matter, any other reason.
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:16 AM By JPeterman
Maguire, you're again spinning off into pointless jargon. Lets stay on the fact that Obama is the MOST pro abortion politician in the US. Catholics had a clear choice in this past election and should never have voted for him. Kmiec directly opposed the teaching authority of the Church and is thus properly defined as a heretic. Any Catholic who voted for Obama with full knowledge of the issue of abortion, cooperated with evil.
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 2:27 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JPeterman's rejoinder: (1) A correction to my post at 11/29: 2:56 PM: The actual title of Yves Simon's study of democracy is _Philosophy of Democratic Government_. (2) Mr. Peterman, in rejecting jargon (mine), you appear also to be rejecting--as jargon--the classical distinction to be found WITHIN the category "cooperation
with evil", namely the distinction between (1) immediate or proximate cooperation with evil and (2) remote material cooperation with evil. (1) and (2), to be sure, are technical terms but they are not pointless jargon. (3) Nor is the phrase *common law* pointless jargon. Why is the common law important in this discussion? Summarizing the common law on abortion, Francis Wharton wrote: "There
is no doubt that at common law the destruction of the unborn infant is a high misdemeanor, and at an earlier period it seems to have been deemed murder" (1 Francis Wharton, _The Criminal Law of the United States_ (5th rev. ed. 1861). Presently however, neither political party adheres to the common law on abortion. (4) Nor yet, in this same context, is the term *abortocrat* jargon. This term includes all those, including those pro-lifers who would return the abortion issue to the states on the false notion, however, that the common law right of preborn infants to life can be abrogated by a legislative vote. From within this perspective, then, we can readily see that a politician can "oppose _Roe v. Wade_" yet remain an abortocrat.
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:15 PM By JLS
Mr. Maguire, legal precedents are one thing; unanimous proclamation by the bishops, the Cardinal in charge of faith, and the Pope weigh against common law, Roman law, U.S. law, UN law, sharia law, and all other laws. It is not a legal issue. It is not an issue of policy. It is the fundamental issue of life, and Kmiec has railed against it.
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:18 PM By JLS
Verkola, what do you mean that schism is more sinful than heresy? Heretics are not admitted to Communion, although schismatics such as the Orthodox churches are, and we to theirs. So, it seems you've stated it backwards ... correct me if I'm wrong, which of course will require absolute proof.
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 5:19 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Grisha: You seem to favor Angela Alioto for the post of U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. First, no one should suppose that this office is (informally) reserved for Catholics. Second, included in former supervisor Angela Alioto's city-legislative accomplishments is the passage of Resolution #447-96. This Resolution put the City of San Francisco on record against the federal Defense of Marriage Act (HR 3396). The Defense of Marriage Act allows the federal government and state governments the option of not recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, the position of one state's or many states' decision to gender-neutralize marriage to the contrary notwithstanding. For a series of considerations running contrary to Angela Alioto's general position on this matter, see Douglas W. Kmiec, "The Procreative Argument for Proscribing Same-Sex Marriage," _Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly_, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2004).
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 7:32 PM By JLS
I have to modify my statement because Bishop Blaire of Stockton Calif has opined that informed voters can morally vote for any candidate no matter how evil as long as the reason for the vote is some promise that times will roll better economically. What about the sin of failing to vote for a candidate who will stop abortion, is my question?
|
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:24 PM By JLS
Jesus could have applauded the devil when being tempted, since the devil said some good things, namely quoting Scripture. That is the situation with the Obama vote. But Jesus did not give the devil any due at all; this is an example for us to follow.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 5:09 AM By Fr. M.P.
John Maguire says "If clarification of proportionality analysis is in the offing, I would welcome it, just as would Professor Kmiec." How about all those Bishops' statements? How about Fr. John Corapi? Why do you ignore those? Why don't you comment on those and prove to us how (in your opinion) they are wrong? But you still duck the question. Always ducking. Always hiding. Still ducking, still hiding. Why is that? Jesus says that a man doesn't put a candle under a bushel but upon a candlestick so that all in the house have light. As to ad hominem, you take a simple question as to your background as an attack? Can't I ask about your credentials? Why is that wrong?
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 8:46 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Your alignment of President-elect Obama with Satan on the ground that Satan "said some good things, namely quoting Scripture," even as Barack Obama has said some good things, is not only ludicrous, it is symptomatic of malice, since *demonizing alignment* is a species of malignment. If however, in another direction, you are looking for a model form of colloquy with President-elect Obama, one good place to begin is with the Obama-Kmiec colloquy in which the question of the objective moral order and the natural rights of preborn infants is indeed addressed--addressed by Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec "face to face" (to quote Emmanuel Levinas). Speech that is face to face, we are given to understand by experience and sacred scripture alike, is the model form of speech.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 10:19 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: The common law protections afforded pre-born infants are not "policy" but rather binding law. There is no sense, then, in your counterposing this common law, on the one hand, and Christendom, on the other. The common law on abortion was arrived at by right reason regarding the high good of human life. Right reason has always been cultivated by Christianity. Whence Francis Wharton's summary of the common law of abortion: "There is no doubt at common law that the destruction of the unborn infant is a high misdemeanor, and at an earlier period seems to have been deemed murder." I hardly need say that you are flatly wrong when you claim that authoritative Catholic statements "weigh against...common law" on the matter of abortion. You need only read Francis Wharton's summary of that law to see that, despite case-specific ambiguities and deficiencies, there is no conflict between the common law protections afforded by Anglo-American law prior to _Roe v. Wade_ and Catholic Christianity's thematization of the high value of human life. Nor does the distinction between (a) feticide as a high misdemeanor and (b) feticide as murder, warrant your claim that Catholic teaching weighs against the common law. It was _Roe v. Wade_--not the Catholic Church--that weighed against the common law.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 12:35 PM By Verkola
In reply to JLS: Thank you for your excellent question.
"What do [I] mean that schism is more sinful than heresy?"
(I like the size of these CCD post-boxes but sometimes they are two small for theological elaboration.) JLS, I suggested at the outset of my post at 11/29/10:54 PM that I was examining the schism/heresy question from the point of view of the "SPECIFIC" malice of schism. I was not comparing heresy and schism generically, but only specifically--and this, in the case of two bloggers who lust after schism ("...it can't happen soon enough"). St. Thomas writes: "Now it is evident that unbelief is a sin against God Himself, according as He is Himself the First Truth, on which faith is founded; whereas schism is opposed to ecclesiastical unity, which is a participated good, and a lesser good than God Himself. Wherefore it is manifest that the sin of unbelief is GENERICALLY more grievous than the sin of schism, although it may happen that a particular schismatic sins MORE GRIEVOUSLY than a particular unbeliever, either because his contempt is greater, or because his sin is a source of greater danger, or for some other similar reason" (ST II, Q. 39, Art. 2) [emphases mine]. Here we come to the crux of the matter: How does St. Thomas handle the objection, "[A] greater good is opposed to a greater evil... Now schism is opposed to charity, which is a greater virtue than faith to which unbelief is opposed.... Therefore it seems that schism is a greater sin than unbelief"? I give Thomas's answer--to which I concur--in my next post.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 12:48 PM By Verkola
In further reply to JLS on the question of schism: Thomas Aquinas writes: "Charity has two objects; one is its principal object and is the Divine goodness, the other is its secondary object and is our neighbor's good. Now schism and other sins against our neighbor, are opposed to charity in respect of its secondary good, which is less than the object of faith, for this is God Himself; and so these sins are less grievous than unbelief. On the other hand, hatred of God, which is opposed to charity in respect of its principal object, is not less grievous than unbelief. Nevertheless of all sins committed by man against his neighbor, the sin of schism would seem to be the greatest, because it is opposed to the spiritual good of the multitude (ST II, Q. 39, Art. 2).
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 2:02 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: I am defending the major portion of the Catholic vote--the Catholic vote that went for Senator Barack Obama--as not necessarily involving voters in immediate or proximate cooperation in evil; and I am defending the minor portion of the Catholic vote--the Catholic vote that went for Senator John McCain--as likewise not necessarily involving voters in immediate or proximate cooperation in evil, though Senator McCain too is an abortocrat. At the same time, I recognize (I hope) that a vote for either candidate *because* that candidate is an abortocrat is indeed a sin. Further: I regard deliberate carelessness--to the point of violating one's transcendental obligation to be morally intelligent in how one votes--as also a sin. ~ My other point is to underscore the common law tradition on the rights of pre-born infants as the measure of whether or not a politician or judge is an abortocrat. ~ I should add, Fr. M.P., that I'm puzzled why you are asking me for my credentials; I am not asking you for yours, even as I have the utmost respect for your priesthood. You ask for my credentials, by the way, even though you habitually discount credentials as worldly things. I hasten to say that my primary credential in this matter is that I am a registered voter. ~ You've also asked me what "team" I'm on. In all cordiality, Fr. M.P., I'll tell you what team I'm on if you tell me what religious order you're in. ~ In the meantime, Fr. M.P., I do want to thank you for your reference to Fr. John Corapi's contribution to this discussion. No, I haven't read Fr. Corapi but hope to do so soon.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 2:54 PM By JLS
Maguire, Jesus has freed us from the bindings of common law. Jesus warns us not to dance to the tunes in the marketplace ... which is what Obama is piping for us. You advocate abortion if not directly then indirectly by preferring the marketplace over the unborn lives who are being aborted by the likes of Obama and his fellow money dancers and power pipers.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 7:49 PM By Anne T.
JLS, it is my understanding that the Orthodox do not allow Catholics to take Communion in their churches, but the Majesterium of the Catholic Church has said it is all right to do so if the bishops of the Orthodox give their permission. As far as I know, the Orthodox bishops have not given permission.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 9:20 PM By JLS
Why is it that some people, supposedly educated Catholics, hold the belief that they can get to Heaven via a good legal argument? The only ministers of the Law mentioned in the Gospels who followed Jesus were the ones who gave up running their legal-ease on Him. St Paul had the law down as well as any almost any other Jew in history, and when we read his epistles do we find legal arguments trying to avoid some Commandment or trying to find a clever way to gain a chunk of this world? No, what we find is his total reliance on faith. Notice that his arguments never try to convince according to some camel going through the eye of the needle nonsense as was common among the temple rulers who challenged Jesus? But St Paul used all his arguments to point to the need we have to believe Jesus, even though Jesus had ascended and the Holy Spirit had descended ... which facts no one could see, but only believe and hope that God would keep them from error.
|
Posted Monday, December 01, 2008 11:42 PM By Michael
"No anonymous Vatican source--we know how reliable such sources are--can pre-empt President-elect Obama's best judgment in this matter."
True, but irrelevant. The nation an ambassador is sent to must accept that individual as an ambassador before he is recognized as a valid representative of his nation. Obama can appoint him, but the Vatican need not accept his credentials.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:15 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: Unless you're still wedded to the ultra-Lutheran doctrine that grace is something always opposed to law (whether that law is eternal law, natural law, human law, positive law, common law, etc.), how is it that you can still claim that Christ "freed us from the bindings of the common law" precisely in that aspect of the common law that affords pre-born infants the right to life? Whether Catholic or Protestant, English and American Christians have always honored the common law, that is, insofar as that law partakes of the natural law and the right reason that adumbrates it. In this connection, let's not forget that _Roe v. Wade_ was a grave attack on the common law rights of pre-born infants. So too is FOCA.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:56 AM By JPeterman
In reply to Maguire.: Maguire, when Obama passes the FOCA, (which he's promised he will do as his first action as president) will you still post here, spouting your senseless arguments about Nixon's executive order etc? There was/is NO proportionate reason for Catholics to vote for Obama, when he passes the FOCA we'll all see that.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 6:04 AM By TJG
To John MacGuire and all other new age Socialists...you and the other Obamamites who troll websites seeking to change the thinking of faithful Catholics are wasting your time and rationalizations. Thankfully the Lord and over 100 stand up US bishops are steering the Church through these times of madness!
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:06 AM By JLS
Anne T., then I stand corrected, thanks.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:43 AM By Grisha
Anne T: You are correct. Russian Orthodox believers are welcome to receive communion in our Church. A friend of mine, a Orthodox priest from St. Petersburg actually took communion at our parish a few years ago. It would be OK with the Church for us to receive communion from them. HOWEVER, their teachings restrict distribution of the Eucharist to their own faithful. I've been told by several priests that, on a pastorol basis, we should respect their wishes and not take the communion when attending their services.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:55 AM By Fr. M.P.
John Maguire - defending the major portion of the Catholic vote? The major portion voted for Nazi Hitler too at one time. St. Augustine said wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. While majority works for human "law" it does not work for God's Law. Unfortunately, but expected in this time of apostasy, is that only a minority of Bishops did speak out. But our debate on proportional reasons is unresolved. There has never been a proof of the error of those minority of Bishops (and priests like Fr. Corapi) who said there is no proportionate reason for this particular election. And there has never been any proof how electing a 100% pro-death man who promises FOCA is going to reduce abortions. But the pharisees, who were well-credentialed and wise in a human sense, "didn't get" Jesus either. In any case, my own credentials are merely to follow Jesus Christ as His disciple, and to speak boldly in spite of any unpopularity - in season and out of season. It is clear that you are a disciple (whether self-appointed or friend or business partnership or other means doesn't really matter) of Prof. Kmiec and promote his teachings .
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 1:55 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P. I said, I was defending the minor portion as well the major portion the Catholic vote. So your *ad Hitlerum* comment straightaway misfires. What needs to be remembered, I think, is that it is an affront to the Catholic vote as a whole to be stuck in a position in which, as a practical matter, only one of two abortocratic candidates are in a position to win the office of President. Consequently, we as Catholics participate in such a vote at our sufferance (whether we know it or not). My posts on the Catholic vote as necessarily an alienated vote, addressed this point, albeit inadequately. ~ Fr. M.P., I've also posted that I've never met Professor Kmiec. Why, then, do you persist in floating such suggestions as that I might be involved in a commercial enterprise with a man whose primary work is teaching and scholarship? ~ On another matter: First, you had me down as an "apologist" for Professor Kmiec and now you have me down as a "disciple". My views on abortion law, which are close but not identical to those of Douglas Kmiec, were formed decades before I had the pleasure of reading Professor Kmiec's work. That work, in particular, has helped me recognize several aspects of Constitutional law--as that law relates to abortion but also marriage--that I had not fully appreciated.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:13 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JPeterman: We have to work and pray hard that FOCA not pass. But please understand, the premise of FOCA is Nixonian inasmuch as both FOCA and Nixon's executive order (allowing abortion in the military) constitute attacks on the common law right of pre-born infants to life.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:29 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to TJG: Your post, which associates me with "all other new age Socialists," puzzles me--even the capital S puzzles me. That I am not a "new ager" should be clear from two posts of mine that discuss the millenialist heresy that informs new-ageism. See 11/20: 10:40 (citing both Thomas Aquinas and Eric Voegelin in their rejection of the notion of a new (third) age that supposedly supercedes Christ's dominion over the present age); and 11/20: 4:13 PM (citing the CCC to the same effect). As for socialism, it comes in many variations. A big subject, but let me just say that it is Catholic social doctrine that takes the measure of various socialisms, not the other way around.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:24 PM By JLS
Kmiec may be inspiring to many highly educated and intelligent people, but he is a false prophet.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 10:26 PM By Roseleaf
Pray tell, JLS, what has Professor Kmiec prophesied?
|
Posted Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:43 AM By Fr. M.P.
John Maquire, you were "defending the minor portion as well the major portion the Catholic vote?" Now truly double-speak. Marxists claimed their revolution was for the working guy, but used their own double-speak to practice tyranny and godlessness. It is obvious to all here you have been defending an Obama vote. Lots of sophisticated sentences and confusion and double-speak. You must be a lawyer. I don't insist that you are in any commercial relationship with Kmiec, I merely asked based on your continued promotion of Kmiec's views. But with all the words you still sidestep the proportional reasons and proof of the Bishop's "errors" who said there were no proportionate reasons this particular election. Bottom line, it is clear to the little ones who never read on word of Kmiec's legal work what the right answer was. Just like the Bible said. Well, time to move on to the next topic.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 03, 2008 11:05 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Fr. M.P.: Proportionality analysis *in exercito* was left up to the Catholic voters. I'm not going to gainsay the voters who engaged in that analysis and drew the conclusion that a vote for Senator McCain was well-motivated "within the confines" of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter; nor am I going to gainsay the voters who engaged in that analysis and drew the conclusion that a vote for Senator Obama was well-motivated within those confines. Nor yet--and here I think we might agree--am I going to gainsay "the little ones" (I want to use this term in its sacred meaning, i.e, free of any *en haut au bas* accent)--"the little ones" who've never had the occasion or inclination to read Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter, let alone, as you say, the occasion or inclination to read a single "word of Kmiec's legal work." ~ Fr. M.P.: Here is a sentiment I do subscribe to: "Well, time to move on to the next topic." The time within which we live, however, is out-of-joint...
|
Posted Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:56 PM By JLS
Maguire, many there are who have risen to important positions and then erred fatally. But on the point of then Cdl Ratzinger's letter you continually refer to, it seems that both you and Kmiec are better at interpreting it than is the Pope, who wrote it.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 03, 2008 10:40 PM By JLS
Roseleaf, Kmiec is a false prophet because he is defying one hundred bishops, the cardinal in charge of Catholic faith, and the Pope, by insisting that we can stop abortion by means of Obama.
|
Posted Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:36 AM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: To the contrary, Cardinal Ratzinger left his 2004 voting-instruction letter to be interpreted *in exercito* by the Catholic voters themselves.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|