Comments on: Insulting the Vatican

By: sg

sg — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:47:46 +0000

I find Bainbridge’s use of the word “impudent” interesting. Given the relative temporal power of the Vatican and the US, the idea that appointing the wrong ambassador would be “impudent” seems to hinge on the possibility that the Vatican has some other position of superiority over the US against which the appointment would offend. This makes me wonder whether in fact Bainbridge considers his true allegiance to lie with a power other than his own nation. Is this what “Dominionist” means?

By: PG

PG — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:56:55 +0000

wj,

reagankid was referring to established religious bodies. The United Church of Christ in which the Rev. Wright was a minister was created in a merger in 1957, and like other Protestant churches is much younger than the Roman Catholic Church, which traces its origins to Peter.

Of course, as a Hindu I find Christianity, Islam, etc. all to be upstarts, although Judaism may have a decent claim to being a respectable religion, with more than a mere two millenia under its belt.

By: wj

wj — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:23:58 +0000

reason misses the profundity of reagankid’s Spinozist esotericism. Obama is oblivious in matters pertaining to religious bodies, and this is related, somehow, to his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, who was during the time of their friendship the head of a religious body. This is interesting. But, further, the “liberal illuminati”—from whom, at the surface level of his discourse, regankid struggles to distance himself—will claim that Obama made overtures during the summer to another religious body, Saddleback Church. The subtlety of reagankid’s prose should not distract us from the truth that his writing portrays a multiplicity of religious “bodies” each of which is in conflict with all the rest, and none of which can easily be brought into accord. Thus, reagankid is pointing us to the inherent historico-conceptual conflict between the concept of reasoned diplomacy (which he does not even mention, but smuggles in with his closing use of the word “ambassador”) and sectarian religious belief.

By: reason

reason — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:06:11 +0000

… any appointment to a religious body …

He wasn’t making an appointment to a religious body – he was appointing an ambassador to represent the USA. And the rest of your comment is just smart allec snark. Have you got anything serious to add to the conversation?

By: reagankid

reagankid — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:05:05 +0000

Well, suffice it to say that Barack Obama showing oblivious tendencies in any appointment to a religious body isn’t all that shocking. Though the mainstream media determinedly did not dig too deeply into his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, our new President-Elect has not shown himself too friendly to established religious bodies. Yes, the liberal illuminati might counter that he did meet with some evangelical leaders towards the beginning of the summer. But he lost a lot of points in his Saddleback conversation – the word “paygrade” now has a new dimension of meaning. Perhaps appointing an appropriate ambassador to the Vatican is also above his paygrade.

By: Grand Moff Texan

Grand Moff Texan — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:26:57 +0000

Obama may have won the vote of a majority of America’s cafeteria Catholics.

Otherwise known as “the majority of America’s Catholics,” according to Pope John Paul II.
.

By: ajay

ajay — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:18:02 +0000

The point of diplomacy is that you talk to people who you disagree with about stuff.

Depends. A popular view in recent years has been that diplomacy is telling people you agree with to do stuff. People you disagree with are to be DESTROYED.

By: reason

reason — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:01:42 +0000

I find the position of “serious loyal” Catholic who despise “Cafeteria” Catholics quite strange when you know what “Catholic” means. Catholicism as a sekt seems self-contradictory to me.

By: Mordaunt

Mordaunt — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:57:30 +0000

This is from paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae:

“In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Kmiec isn’t an elected official, but AFAICS, his position pretty much matches this. It’s hardly an insult to the Vatican to appoint an ambassador whose conduct can be defended with reference to the teaching of a Pope who I am sure Bainbridge regards as ‘Pope John Paul the Great’.

But, as it happens the whole controversy is bogus. The job of the US ambassador to the Vatican is to defend the interests of the US, not to conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Now that means that you don’t want to wind up the Pope excessively, so Jack Chick or Sinead O’Connor are probably out. But there is no rule that says that an envoy to the Vatican has to buy into the whole bill of goods. The point of diplomacy is that you talk to people who you disagree with about stuff.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 07:15:07 +0000

BobN,
Change “gay” to “Jew” and the Vatican to the Third Reich. It’s all the more apropos since the Vatican is once again attempting to stop a UN resolution to recognize some rudimentary rights for gays and lesbians such as not being subject to ritual murder for their sexuality as they are in Muslim countries.

Our current Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, who is an expert on human rights and the Vatican is utterly silent on the matter. It’s as though we’ve appointed a Nazi ambassador to Germany.

By: KO

KO — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:00:19 +0000

I am a practicing Catholic, but I see no reason why the Ambassador to the Vatican needs to be a Catholic. I also see no reason why it can’t be Doug Kmiec, or anyone else that President-Elect Obama chooses to send. The American Ambassador to the Vatican isn’t going to his diplomatic post to represent the views of the host country; he or she is going there to represent the views of the United States of America. This is true whether we’re talking about the Vatican or any other country. As for Mr. Bainbridge’s comment on “cafeteria Catholics”, I wonder why it is always a certain type of Catholic who represents the rest of us (i.e. those who don’t agree with them on everything) as “cafeteria Catholics”. Pope John Paul II vigorously opposed the Iraq war (actually, both of them); I could just as easily label American Catholics who supported the war as “cafeteria Catholics” if I chose to, but I don’t.

By: Walt

Walt — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:35:35 +0000

I would go one step further, and recommend that any time a message is deleted, it should be replaced with the words “This comment deemed by the Authorities to be too deep for mortal understanding.”

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:32:42 +0000

This all becomes clear if you examine the language Bainbridge uses to describe Kmeic:

Doug Kmiec chose to turn his back on a life time of support for conservative and, in particular, pro-life causes to endorse Barack Obama.

i.e. Kmeic is a traitor.

Kmiec’s paean to Kennedy thus tells us a lot about just how far off the reservation Kmiec has now wandered. His main role in public life now seems to be giving cover to pro-abortion rights Democrats.

i.e. One facet of Kmeic’s treason is trying to disguise how evil Teddy Kennedy is.

In my view, however, there is a difference between simply voting for a pro-choice candidate and being a highly public supporter of that candidate. Kmiec went so far as to write a book trying to persuade pro-life Catholics that it was okay to vote for Obama. In doing so, I believe he gave Obama significant political cover.

i.e. Another facet of Kmeic’s treason is trying to disguise how evil Obama is.

It’s difficult not to consider someone who argues from these postulates to be a right-wing hack.

By: c.l. ball

c.l. ball — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:38:45 +0000

An ambassador is sent to support US policies; Baimbridge seems opposed to Obama’s pro-abortion positions, and any US ambassador will have to back Obama-as-president regardless of personal reservations. Any ambassador would seem to be an insult by Bainbridge’s quasi-logic.

As D2 points out, the US has appointed ambassadors to the UK who have contradicted strongly held UK positions. Ronald Reagan appointed a black ambassador to South Africa during the apartheid era; this hardly pleased the South African government. Smith Hempstone, H.W. Bush’s ambassador to Kenya, was practically at war with Moi.

By: 22state

22state — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:59:30 +0000

#64 – I agree, but he and Michelle only have 2 children. So, for Conservatives and Republicans, all of the rest of his morality is irrelevant.

For Conservatives and Republicans, it is all about what you preach. Preach small government – but implement the largest increases in government in history (Regan and Bush II), it’s all OK. Preach liberty – and implement the most far-reaching government spying on innocent Americans (just because you can), cool. Preach fiscal responsibility – throw bales of cash out the door to any crook that is passing by – so what? Just as long as you preach, you don’t need to practice. After all, Newt has had 3 wives and no children, but he’s acceptable to the “base” because he spouts the right piety.