Bainbridge on Kmiec
Last week, Steve Bainbridge posted a lengthy discussion of rumors that Doug Kmiec might be a candidate for the ambassadorship to the Vatican. Some of his reasons for counseling against such a move made some sense — e.g., according to Bainbridge’s post, some well-connected people at the Vatican have expressed opposition to Kmiec, who is now (apparently) viewed by some there as a “traitor” (querry — traitor to what?). If this is in fact the case (and I have my doubts), it’s probably not a good idea to send an ambassador to a country when that country has already indicated that the person would be unwelcome. Point taken.
But, while some of Bainbridge’s reasons made some sense, others made, um, somewhat less. For example, as he put it in his original post:
Obama may have won the vote of a majority of America’s cafeteria Catholics. Even so, to appoint Doug Kmiec as ambassador to the Holy See would be an insult to both the Vatican and to “serious, loyal” Catholics everywhere.
It’s hard to know what to make of this line. Read in the context of the post, Bainbridge seems to be saying that only “cafeteria Catholics” supported Obama, and that “serious, loyal” Catholics are (or ought to be) offended by Kmiec’s public support for him. (Bainbridge expresses disappointment with Steve Benen for reading his post as expressing this hard a line, but I find it hard to understand how else Benen should have read it, given Bainbridge’s intemperate language.)
Henry Farrell, over at Crooked Timber, took Bainbridge to task for his analysis of Kmiec’s conduct. As Farrell put it:
as best as I understand these matters, … Kmiec is a Catholic in perfectly good standing, no better or worse in the eyes of the church than those who adopt a more conservative position on these issues (to the best of my knowledge, the general class of ‘cafeteria Catholic’ has yet to be properly defined under canon law ;) ). In principle, the appointment of Kmiec should be no more or less insulting to either the Vatican (as a state governed by the Catholic church) or to the Pope (as head of the Catholic church) than the appointment of any other Catholic. Very obviously, Kmiec’s appointment might be construed as an insult to a particular (and quite powerful) conservative faction within Catholicism – but in the absence of a formal church statement to the contrary, that faction’s opinion of Kmiec’s position is no more binding than any other opinion within Catholicism’s internal debate on these issues.
In his reply to Farrell, Bainbridge clarifies (or, perhaps, back-pedals) quite a bit. First, he admits that a faithful Catholic could have chosen to support Obama. He doesn’t expressly refer to Catholic Obama supporters as “serious” or “loyal,” but I’m willing to assume that he would concede we might be. He then says that it wasn’t Kmiec’s vote for Obama that made him anathema as an ambassador, but rather the public nature of his support:
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. Kmiec’s high profile position allows Obama to make an argument by appeal to authority to people who aren’t as informed on these issues or have failed to make a close study of the relevant doctrines as has Kmiec.
This is a new argument, as far as I can tell. Bainbridge seems to be taking the position that Church teaching permits someone to make the conscientious assessment that, all things considered, it was correct to vote for Obama, but those people cannot attempt to persuade others to make the same decision. Does the same hold true, I wonder, for those who made the conscientious assessment to vote for McCain? I assume not. So the problem is not with the attempt to guide others through a complex moral topic, as such. I might understand such an argument: i.e., that the decision for whom to vote is such a complex and uncertain one that we should not attempt to persuade others at all on the topic because to do so would be to communicate an unwarranted certainty about the correctness of our own position. I wouldn’t agree with this argument, but I could at least understand it. Instead, Bainbridge’s position appears to be a more content-based assessment that only those who reach a certain decision (i.e., to vote for Obama) should have refrained from trying to influence others to do the same, particularly if they, like Kmiec, were likely to be persuasive.
I can understand that Bainbridge disagrees with Kmiec’s prudential assessment, but I am puzzled by the notion that, while it is not contrary to Church teaching for Kmiec to have made that assessment (as Bainbridge rightly concedes), it somehow crosses the line for him to have publicized that decision and to have tried to persuade others that it was the all-things-considered correct moral judgment. I can’t think of any other situation in which this distinction has been made (i.e., it’s OK to make the decision, but not OK to try to get other people confronting the same decision — i.e., people trying to decide how to cast their vote in the same election — to make the same one). Perhaps commenters can come up with an example I haven’t been able to think of.
Even more puzzling to me, Bainbridge says that the public nature of Kmiec’s support brought him closer to the line between material and formal cooperation. Here’s a definition of formal cooperation from Catholic Culture:
The deliberate concurrence in another person’s usually sinful action. The co-operation is formal and always sinful if, besides giving external help of whatever kind, one interiorly wants the evil action to be performed. Formal co-operation is at least a sin against charity by doing spiritual harm to one’s neighbor; frequently it is also a sin against another virtue, especially of justice.
Applying this definition, I find Bainbridge’s assertion almost impossible to understand, particularly given Kmiec’s many statements that he supported Obama despite (and not because of) Obama’s support for abortion rights.
I am already on record endorsing Cathleen Kaveny for the position. Primarily because it will be the first time that someone will express rational thoughts at the position rather than innocuous platitudes that either put one to sleep or incites to rage. This will also give Cathy a more intimate look at the distinct characters who inhabit the Vatican. With her breadth of observation the whole event should be fruitful and good for the church. The devil will certainly be in those details.
Good Lord, Bill! That’s not my charism!
The next time I go to Rome , I’ll be carting a 44 pound Latin dictionary on the 44 bus up to San Pancrazio, to study with Reggie Foster.
I am sure it is not your inclination Cathy, but your charism can fit this if you let me explain. When you gauge the massive education those boys in the Tiber need you might reconsider. Remember you will get a staff which you can carefully choose. I will pay and even take out a loan to watch you address the boys in Latin. At that meeting I want Schussler-Fiorenza, Elizabeth Johnson, Peggy Steinfels, Joan Chittister, Angela Bonaviglia, Mary Rose D’Angelo , Sr. Anne Carr, , Sr. Margaret Farley,Cristina Traina, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Sr. Miriam Therese Winters Sr. Ivone Gebara and Maria Pilar Aquino, Teresia Hinga, Sr. Mary Jong Mananzan and Sr. Virginia Fabella. There are others. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_11_35/ai_53668945/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1
You may or may not know that the great scholar, Elizabeth Schussler-Fiorenza was forced out of Notre Dame. So you can call this Schussler-Fiorenza’s revenge or justice delayed.
Think about it!!
Good post, Eduardo. I suppose it is self-evident to serious Catholics who supported Obama that one could support Obama and yet be a faithful Catholic – but there are very large and influential sectors of the church that still fail to see how that could possibly be. A lot of persuading still needs to be done. I wish you luck.
I agree a fine post. It saddens me that this kind of material continues to be put out this long post election – particularly the notion that those wh o opposed Obama are superior Catholics in any way.
The kind of thinking behind this just continues to pry open the cleavage in the Church that folk should be tryin gto bring togather.
Given the Vatican’s broader approach to civil (at least non- Catholic ) Presidents, PMs, etc, and as opposed to many in our own hierarchy or commentators who know better, the choice of Knmiec might not shake the tree in Rome that much (except among American ex-patriates like Law, Stafford, Burke.)
If Kmiec is right that voting for Obama is licit under the principle of double effect, that means that the good to be accomplished by voting for him outweighs the foreseen but unintended evil that will ensue from voting for him. In that case, not only Kmiec, but everyone should vote for Obama because, on balance, it will yield more good than evil. So, having concluded that the prudential calculus favors Obama, Kmiec absolutely should try to convince other voters to vote for Obama as well, all the while making it clear that they should vote for him not because of but despite his position on abortion issues. Kmiec did exactly what he should have done given his initial prudential judgment about whom to support. If one can reasonably and legitimately conclude that Obama is better candidate, then it makes no sense to say that one must keep that conclusion to oneself.
I start with the disclaimer that I didn’t read Steve Bainbridge’s article, but it seems to me that Obama would need no further reason not to appoint Kmiec to the Vatican ambassadorship than that he is not a good fit for one of its primary job responsibilities: PR for the Administration with the American Catholic public. The reason why he can’t fulfill that role successfully is that he became a polarizing figure during the election campaign. He was useful for the Obama campaign’s efforts to peel away pro-life Catholic voters from McCain; however, those same efforts make it nearly impossible for him to symbolically, at least, represent a broad spectrum of the American Church to members of that Church, not to mention Vatican officials. I see Kmiec as retaining some sort of formalized advisory role in Obama’s Administration, but not getting a diplomatic post with a spokesman-like role with respect to both Obama and the Catholic Church in this country.
In terms of a purely political calculus, I think Obama owes Kmiec a presidential appointment of some kind or other. I don’t see an ambassadorship to the Holy See on Kmiec’s horizon, but perhaps he would be interested in an ambassadorship to somewhere that lacks any religious overtones. Or perhaps appointment to a judgeship on a federal court of appeals? I don’t see the Supreme Court as an option given Kmiec’s personal opposition to abortion. There are also undersecretary positions available if Kmiec has any interest in administration. If I remember correctly, he was once a Department of Justice official. Perhaps deputy AG would be to his liking? There are a myriad of political appointments he could likely have for the asking if he is interested in leaving Pepperdine.
It is difficult for me as a new Catholic to understand the rage of bishops and conservative Catholics against Obama supporters. Obama has stated that he would like to reduce the number of abortions by offering women affordable health care and child care as well as abstinence education for children and teens. Women who feel supported and cared for during their pregnancy are less likely to seek abortion. Passing laws against abortion without also seeking to support poor women who are pregnant is futile. Prohibition has shown us that passing laws does not stop illegal behavior. Women will still seek abortion even if it is made illegal.McCain voted against the bill that would provide health care for children. Bush and his cohorts did one of the biggest shifts of wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich and bankrupted the country with an unjust war that killed thousands of Iraqi men women and children. While I am certainly not a “pro-choice” Catholic when I looked at the whole picture including the two wars, failing economy, greed and corruption and torture all occurring during the past eight years the choice for me was clear. I voted for Obama not because he was pro choice but because he offered hope for the poor and middle class as well as an end to the Iraq war and closing of the torture camps. Poverty,war, greed and corruption are all evils which lead to post-birth abortion or infanticide. Denying health care for a child struggling to breathe or formula for a hungry baby is just as bad as abortion. When I saw the thin mother whose infant almost died because she was watering down the formula so it would last because she had no money, it all became very clear. I have no reason to repent. I voted for Obama with a clear conscience.
If I remember correctly, Bainbridge is the guy who tried to twist Catholic teaching on the death penalty to defend the mob killing of Saddam Hussein. He’s not a guy who should be giving lessons in “who’s the best Catholic.”
I am already on record elsewhere for Madeleine Albright as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. She is multi-lingual, smart, witty, sociable. They’d lover her, and she’d probably love them!
But what is this job qualification posted by Professor Currie:
“Obama would need no further reason not to appoint Kmiec to the Vatican ambassadorship than that he is not a good fit for one of its primary job responsibilities: PR for the Administration with the American Catholic public.”
Really? Is that what current ambassador Mary Ann Glendon does? I haven’t noticed her representing the Bush Administration to her fellow Catholics in the U.S. Any evidence for this.
Ambassdors to the Vatican are sent to the Vatican qua sovereign state, from the US as a soveriegn state, are they not? Why does the US have to send a Catholic as ambassador. The ambasador represents the US and its government. It is rather odd to think that the ambassador represents US Catholics. Am I missing something?
Eduardo, I think you’re right about the argument. I can’t make any sense of his argument either. Boiled down to its essence, he seems to be saying a good Catholic could shamefully vote for Obama, provided he or she does so while half-hoping he doesn’t win. And that Obama has to recognize that the only good Catholics are those who didn’t work for his election.
It’s kind of strange: the underlying ethical sensibility doesn’t strike me as Catholic, but a certain type of anguished Protestant ethic of responsibility.
I am coming to the conclusion that the Vatican should not be regarded as a nation, so I don’t think we need to send them an ambassador, and they shouldn’t be represented at the United Nations.
Joseph Gannon wrote:
“Why does the US have to send a Catholic as ambassador. The ambasador represents the US and its government. It is rather odd to think that the ambassador represents US Catholics. Am I missing something?”
Joseph, I rather agree that there is no diplomatic reason why a Catholic need fill this role. However, although I was still a teenager when the post was created, I seem to recall that even then, the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican was interpreted as a domestic political gambit perhaps almost as much as a diplomatic initiative.
The history of these appointments bears out my thesis. Every single one has been a Catholic. (And, if I’m not mistaken, all eight have been pro-life Catholics, even the two appointed by pro-choice President Clinton.)
At this point, it’s probably too late to re-brand the position. Even if it were possible, you wouldn’t do it by appointing another public figure primarily associated with his Catholicism, as Prof. Kmiec has become.
That being the case, any President is going to look for someone of stature and bi-partisan esteem — preferably earned in pursuits not tied closely to religious activism. People like Reagan’s Frank Shakespeare, Clinton’s Ray Flynn and Lindy Boggs, and Bush’s Mary Ann Glendon. Or at least an inoffensive business executive like most of the others.
The problem with Kmiec is that he was little known outside narrow academic circles before he achieved notoriety as Obama’s point person with the pro-life Catholic electorate. So, now, he is known mostly for his role in an internecine religious battle. He is still useful to Obama, but it is hard to see how he would be in a post in which he would be perceived as a polarizing figure, not a mediating one.
Probably not a good idea in terms of achieving diplomatic objectives in Rome, certainly not one in terms of broadening Obama’s political coalition at home.
Chris Currie (not Professor, although flattered by Margaret’s calling me so)
There is nothing bi-partisan about the fact that Human Life begins at Conception. I would hope that President -elect Obama would nominate someone who professes to be Catholic which would mean they would obviously have to be Pro-Life.
I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but technically there is no U.S. ambassador to the Vatican as a city-state. The ambassadorship is to the Holy See, which encompasses both the episcopal jurisdiction of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope in his capacity as the sovereign who governs the Vatican. The Vatican as a city-state goes back to the 1920′s or so, while the Holy See goes back to the first millenium of Christianity. I’m sure these technical distinctions have important ramifications in the diplomatic world as to protocol, etc., but it appears to a person untutored in such distinctions like me that the ambassadorship to the Holy See contains an aspect that involves being an emissary to the Pope himself.
(I seem to have a faint recollection that the Holy See/Vatican distinction was addressed on this blog in the past.)
Another example comes to mind. Many Catholics publicly supported Bush in 2004, in spite of his support for torture. They reasoned him to be the better candidiate. And many of these were quite public and vocal in their support. If Bush had chosen one of these as Vatican ambasador, would Bainbridge be calling this “an insult to both the Vatican and to “serious, loyal” Catholics everywhere”?
I’m beginning to think that it will be a badge of honor to be publically vilified … or even being declared excommunicate … for having voted for Obama.
Another example comes to mind. Many Catholics publicly supported Bush in 2004, in spite of his support for torture.
That’s not a good analogy. In 2004, the Abu Ghraib incidents had been publicized, but they had also been widely condemned to the point of being the subject of several prosecutions. Waterboarding didn’t become a public issue until November 2005, from what I can tell. I’m fairly sure that in 2004, no one really knew of Bush’s “support for torture.”
Stuart, the reason I switched to a hold my nose and vote for Kerry vote in 2004 was that I had read the torture memos. I knew this was a high level problem then.
“so now, he is known mostly for his role in an internecine religious battle”
Chris, by internecine, I assume you mean” involving conflict” and not, “mutually destructive”, since one side believes that the Truth is absolute, which would mean that even if someone does not believe, this does not change the fact that the Truth IS the Truth.
The primary definition of “internecine,” Nancy, is (in the words of the American Heritage Dictionary) “of or relating to struggle within a nation, an organization, or a group.” No value judgment is implied; it has nothing to do with which side believes what. Just the fact that they’re arguing internally.
Cathy —
The analogy is still problematic. First, 31% of Americans can’t even identify Dick Cheney as the Vice-President. I can’t believe that more than a relative handful of people even know what OLC is, let alone actually read the memos. Especially in 2004, Bush’s position on torture just wasn’t as prominent as Obama’s position on abortion.
Second, torture memos? I’m aware of one memo that was published by the Post in 2004, and then quickly disavowed by the Bush administration. There were other memos released later (including April of this year), but were there any torture “memos” that the Bush administration proudly stood by in 2004? Was Bush promising to pro-torture interest groups that the first thing he’d do as President would be to sign a law overriding any anti-torture provisions in existence?
At any rate, Douglas Kmiec seems to be a faithful Catholic. He is universally acknowledged as being pro-life. He has significant government experience. He has had a prominent and successful academic career. And he has provided substantial campaign assistance to the President-elect.
Sounds like ambassador material to me.
“The ambassadorship is to the Holy See, which encompasses both the episcopal jurisdiction of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, and the Pope in his capacity as the sovereign who governs the Vatican. The Vatican as a city-state goes back to the 1920’s or so, while the Holy See goes back to the first millenium of Christianity. I’m sure these technical distinctions have important ramifications in the diplomatic world as to protocol, etc., but it appears to a person untutored in such distinctions like me that the ambassadorship to the Holy See contains an aspect that involves being an emissary to the Pope himself.”
But surely it is that the Vatican City – and before that, the Papal States – is a temporal realm that “qualifies” it for diplomatic embassy? I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that this is a primary reason why the Church maintains the Vatican as an independent city-state: because it enables its involvement in diplomatic affairs.
Recently I read that the Catholic Church, with its contacts in countries all over the world, was one one the first international information gathering entities in the world, sort of like CNN As such it was no doubt valuable for countries to be tuned in there, so to speak.
Regarding the possibility of candidate for the ambassadorship to the Vatican, has Mr.Kmiec made any public statements that would imply he would challenge President-elect Obama to change his view on abortion and the definition of Marriage?
Jim–
After I posted yesterday, I went to the Department of State’s website to learn more about the U.S.’s diplomatic relations with the Holy See. There’s a wealth of info at the following site, including both the State Department’s conception of what the scope of its diplomatic contact encompasses and the history of such contact:
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:z9boFHPcqY0J:www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3819.htm+state+department+%2B+vatican&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Here’s a nugget of info from that website that jumped out at me:
“The term ‘Holy See’ refers to the composite of the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisers to direct the worldwide Roman Catholic Church. As the ‘central government’ of the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See has a legal personality that allows it to enter into treaties as the juridical equal of a state and to send and receive diplomatic representatives. The Holy See has formal diplomatic relations with 177 nations and the Order of Malta, including the United States and some predominantly Muslim countries. The Holy See also maintains relations of a special nature with the Russian Federation and the Organization for the Liberation of Palestine.”
The Holy See is “the juridical equal of a state.” The fact that the Holy See can enter into treaties as the “‘central government’ of the Roman Catholic Church” would make the Holy See, it seems to me, a much more desirable diplomatic partner than just the Vatican itself. Again, though, having no grounding in diplomacy, I’m running on speculation. Obviously, whatever the scope of the U.S.’s diplomatic relations with the Holy See, it likely doesn’t change the issue of whether Prof. Kmiec will become the ambassador to the Holy See.
At NCR on line today, Dr. Thomas Patrick Melady, US Ambassador to the hOly See from 1989=1993, a McCain supporter, offers a sensible view of how we ned as catholics a policy of negagement, not attack, with the obama administration.
Except, as I’ve already noted e;sewhere, the postitions of some expatriate Bishops/Cardinals, it struck me that probably the Holy See would also like to engage rather tha attackas well.
That may bot play well in Steubenvile and Scranton, say, hiwearchically speaking, but represents a sensible course.
Whoever is chosaen to fil the slot (apart from the consideration of the Kmiec role in the Obama campaign), a loyal supporter of the USCCB may not be the most desirable then.
Interesting stuff, William. It does make sense that a nation’s relations with the Holy See would encompass more than the hundreds of square feet that comprise Vatican City.
I can’t think of another organization that is given type of treatment. I guess we’re special :-)
The primary reason for formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See is its diplomatic relations with many other countries. In tough diplomatic situations, the Holy See can be a formal or informal conduit between the U.S. and other nations. It is regarded by most if not all countries as neutral in international affairs. Even when the Holy See addresses serious moral issues in the secular arena, it does so in a way that generally does not offend “targets” of its criticism.
I would like to see a non-Catholic appointed to the ambassadorship, if for no other reason than to reduce/eliminate even the appearance of Vatican interference in our country’s domestic politics. Short of such a move, I’d like to see Kmiec appointed to the position as a symbolic sign that the new administration will regard the Holy See as a sovereign state, not as the world HQ of the Catholic Church.