New Ambassador to the Vatican: Miguel Diaz
May 28, 2009, 6:19 am
Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
Miguel Diaz is the new ambassador.
We have a Hispanic theologian as an ambassador to the Vatican! He’s a Rahner scholar and an ND Ph.D.
By the way, I was misquoted. I said he wasn’t a “big donor or a big politician” . . . not “professor”!
I have read the St. John’s/St. Benedict’s press release, and it seems a very inspired choice. There will undoubtedly be shrieking and groaning from some quarters, but it is hard to see how they can mount a plausible case against Dr. Diaz’s confirmation by the Senate. I would expect that a “no objection” has already been received from the Vatican State. I do not, however, see how it will be possible to have Dr. Diaz in place in time to arrange a possible meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and President Obama when the president attends the G-8 summit in Italy in early July. I suspect that these talks are already well under way, and have been very competently handled by the charge’, a career Foreign Service office, and her staff. All in all, happy news!
Cathy, I hope you complained! Although I don’t know whether online AP articles get corrected. Anyway, buena suerte, Ambassador Diaz…
I wish I could celebrate this as undiluted good news. From the AP story:
“One potential point of conflict is Diaz’s support for the nomination of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic whose abortion rights record angered conservative Catholics. Diaz was among 26 Catholic leaders and scholars who signed a statement hailing Sebelius as “a woman of deep faith” and citing her a record on immigration, education, health care and reducing abortion rates in Kansas.”
That Professor Diaz voluntarily signed this public statement – went out of his way to attach his name to it, in a sense – is troubling, and signals that he fits the pattern that the Obama administration has already established: to serve in this administration, a Catholic must have pro-choice credentials.
This is a disheartening development.
Jim Pauwels, Are you suggesting that the Vatican has raised an objection to the nomination? And that the administration has turned this aside? With respect, I just can’t see how taking Professor Diaz’s endorsement of Secretary Sibelius based on her record of commitment to an admirable list of Catholic social justice issues trumps the considerable resume’ that he has built up in service to the Church, let alone the clear evidence of a very committed Catholic family life.
I don’t have a lot to say about this particular nomination. I do have a question more generally and will be curious to see whether I am vindicated and then the reaction of folks on this blog and others. Professor Kaveny stated: “What you see is President Obama taking seriously not just Catholicism as a political force but as an intellectual force.”
Perhaps, or perhaps we see President Obama shrewdly exploiting divisions and using Catholics to his advantage. I have no doubt that President Bush did this — and I believe some conservative Catholics got much too close to the Administration. I even seem to remember — perhaps I am misremembering — some on this blog calling them out for this. Are your eyes open to the very same possibility playing out here? And if not, why not? Is it because you just like President Obama so much and he is so good and so thoughtful? And will you add to your praise of Obama similar portions of criticism or has nothing he has done thus far on abortion concerned you or been troubling? I ask these in all seriousness. Because what I see is folks here repeating the exact — the EXACT — things they criticized, in my mind often quite rightly, those on the Catholic right for doing.
Cheeky Lawyer, do you think there’s a problem with having an academic as an ambassador? Mary Ann Glendon was / is an academic. I think this is good–because I think that theologians and academics will be appreciative of the rich and rigorous intellectual tradition that Catholicism can bring to the table.
Obviously, Obama is going to have someone who supports his administration act as his ambassador.
What I think is exciting is that Diaz is an intellectual, and his scholarship is familiar with the growing segment of the Church–Hispanic Catholics. What I hope happens is that the new ambassador will help us all truly recognize, among other things, the changing demographics of American Catholics. We’re not all Irish or Italian–far from it.
Can Catholics get too close to one or the other political party–yes, you’re right, that’s always a danger. The kingdom of God is not of this world.
Hi, John Page – no, afaik the Vatican has not objected. This is my own comment, and it was based on the AP story, not on anything the Vatican said. We can assume that the Obama administration cleared the nomination with the Holy See before announcing it, so I don’t expect that there will be any Vatican blowback on this. That doesn’t mean I can’t comment on something that I see as troublesome, though.
Yes, Governor Sebelius has an admirable record on some social issues. I’d admire that record much more if it extended to life issues. Her record is so besmirched that her bishop felt constrained to publicly rebuke her for it. It doesn’t seem possible that Professor Diaz was unaware of that background when he put his name on that letter of support. So I do see it as a blemish on his record.
Until today, I had never heard of Professor Diaz, and know nothing about him except what was in the AP story. Perhaps he’s an exceptional Catholic. But at the very least, it’s unfortunate that he signed the statement.
And the Obama Administration’s pattern is troubling. On another thread on dotcom there is unanimous agreement that one can be both pro-life and pro-social justice. So why does the administration insist on foisting nominees like Governor Sebelius on us?
Prof. K wrote, “What I hope happens is that the new ambassador will help us all truly recognize, among other things, the changing demographics of American Catholics. We’re not all Irish or Italian–far from it.”
Yes, I’ve heard too that although the number of Vietnamese immigrants is small in comparison to other ethnic groups, they have provided a number of Catholic dioceses with priests and religious.
On a different note, may I briefly interrupt this conversation & call attention to Nick Kristof’s column today, provocatively entitled “Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal.” Well, would you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28kristof.html?em
JP: “Yes, Governor Sebelius has an admirable record on some social issues. I’d admire that record much more if it extended to life issues. Her record is so besmirched that her bishop felt constrained to publicly rebuke her for it. It doesn’t seem possible that Professor Diaz was unaware of that background when he put his name on that letter of support. So I do see it as a blemish on his record.
“Until today, I had never heard of Professor Diaz, and know nothing about him except what was in the AP story. Perhaps he’s an exceptional Catholic. But at the very least, it’s unfortunate that he signed the statement.”
I know you are a smart, sweet man, Jim (didn’t you once say you went to Loyola, Chicago?), but….. I wish you’d give some thought to this matter of 20 times removed from material cooperation question (that Kathleen Caveney has illuminated many times here). I did a certain amount of due dillegence on Kathleen Sebelius last summer when her bishop was on the case. Mostly she vetoed bills that would never pass constitutional muster in Kansas or at the Supreme Court. Isn’t it prudent for a governor to save her state the trouble and money of court fights the state was destined to lose?
FYI: I also signed the letter on behalf of Sebelius.
Mrs. Steinfels beat me to it! I too would have signed on.
“So besmirched” is the classic overkill that folks put out in what they see as a defense of life but just turn many away as a lack of perspective.
It’s good to have a Rahnerian, a representative of the growing 9if not already majority) face of american Catholicism and appatrently a respected profesional theologian.
As with the SC nomination, we seem to nitpick our Catholic expectations with a pittance of appreciation for the craft and intelligence one brings, even if their views do not coincide exactly with our putatively superior ones.
Margaret, all I can say is, you sure know your Rambler men! :-)
I accept that you’ve researched Sebelius’ record more closely than I have, although I’ve also looked into it a bit, cetainly enough to have run across her rationale for repeatedly vetoing pro-life legislation.
Without boring everyone with specifics, suffice it to say that, in my opinion, and based on what i have read about her and her record, she can’t credibly claim to be pro-life. Really, the most accurate short hand tag for her on life issues is “pro choice”. NARAL Pro-Choice America and the National Organization for Women enthusiastically agree – both issued giddy statements hailing her nomination and confirmation for the Obama cabinet.
In my opinion, it’s hard to see that the governor of a state is remotely situated from material cooperation. The laws of a state are an important piece of the puzzle. Governors and state legislatures work together all the time to pass worthwhile legislation that makes a real difference in people’s lives. Presumably that could have happened in Kansas, if the governor were committed to the program and was concerned that a proposed bill might not pass constitutional muster.
Quite a few Catholics in public life apparently have thrown in the towel on opposing life issues. Most of them are Democrats. I’m a former Democrat because of that. I wish it weren’t so, but I can’t justify accommodation. If something is gravely wrong, we shouldn’t accept it. We should oppose it, and work to change it.
“Cheeky Lawyer, do you think there’s a problem with having an academic as an ambassador? Mary Ann Glendon was / is an academic. I think this is good–because I think that theologians and academics will be appreciative of the rich and rigorous intellectual tradition that Catholicism can bring to the table.”
No, though I think appointing a theologian is an interesting and perhaps a problematic choice given that he has certain responsibilities as a theologian in the Church (more than even a lay woman like Mary Ann Glendon, though she may have had similar conflicts given her position with the Pontifical Council she is president of). My problem is more that Diaz, as far as I can see, hasn’t shown any propensity to speak out on the question of abortion or publicly challenge the President on the question. And like Jim I do find the support of Sebelius to be problematic. Couldn’t we find an academic with the firmness of say a Ray Flynn, Bob Casey Sr., or non-Catholic Senator Ben Nelson?
Stepping back, look at all of these things — the letter for Sebelius, the honorary degree, various appointments, etc. — they show how fractured and divided on this the Church is. Where is our common moral witness? What does it say about the Church that we have people so pained and hurt by the fractured witness on life and others praising the (shrewd) choices of the President? What does it say when someone as smart as Fr. James Martin S.J. can describe how some folks opposed the invitation without mentioning that those some people included our bishops, including the simple-hearted and beautiful Bishop D’Arcy? It is almost as if people reduced the opposition down to kooks or conservatives. But what about the bishops? All of this suggests there is a deep problem of eccleisology in the contemporary Church.
Where have Diaz, Rougeau, Kmiec, Kaveny, Steinfels, and others spoken truth to power vis-a-vis the Democratic party and this President on abortion? (And frankly the same question needs to be asked about folks like Robby George, Novak, Weigel, and others vis-a-vis the war, torture, etc. (Even admitting that good people could disagree on the question of Iraq, it would still be nice to see some questions asked about it.))
Cheeky Lawyer, there are different rhetorical styles. “Speaking truth to power” is a characteristically prophetic style–not a characteristically academic style (Read O’Malley’s Four Cultures of the West.”) So different people are going to address questions in different ways, and approach conversations in different ways.
I don’t think being a theologian is a permanent ontological state—I assume that in this position, he’s going to be an Ambassador of the United States to the Vatican with theological training and a deep familiarity with the history of the Church.
I think the pain is on both sides.
Are there any other issues in the teachings of Jesus that are important other than abortion? I do not want to start another tedious discussion on abortion. Both the appointment of Sotomayor and Diaz seem to me to be excellent. They both represent the new demographics of the church, and would seem to be very logical 21st century appointments.
“And the Obama Administration’s pattern is troubling. On another thread on dotcom there is unanimous agreement that one can be both pro-life and pro-social justice. So why does the administration insist on foisting nominees like Governor Sebelius on us?”
Given the controversy over the Obama Notre Dame appearance, can anyone imagine the bile that would be thrown at a pro-life catholic who agreed to serve as ambassador to the vatican?
Cheeky Lawyer: Bishop D’Arcy has an admirable record. But, the other nite he was interviewed on EWTN by Arroyo. Sorry to say, but the bishop came across as old, tired, and not at all able to articulate thoughts, ideas, etc.
He rambled on as Arroyo threw him softball questions – why Jenkins and ND made mistakes – he mouthed the usual ideological platitudes without any attempt to explain his stance, why, etc. except to state that he is the bishop; it is the bishop’s call; and we, catholics, including ND must respect catholic authority, Rome, and the hierarchy.
It actually got to a point where I was embarrassed for this man. There was no in depth examination of various positions; there was mention of the Catholics in a Public Life but only in reference to it as a document from the bishops and thus the Pope that every catholic and university must obey. Nothing about the fact that the document is unclear; draft; not a finished product; confusing on points such as non-catholics who are invited, etc.
Finally, would suggest that there is partisanship; there are divisions in the church. It is a question of ecclesiology. But, to define ecclesiology as a vision of the church as a hierarchy, a royal institution, a triumphant church that only has certainty is not the ecclesiology of Vatican II. That “old” ecclesiology is currently on display in Ireland and now we see the result. Your singular focus on abortion is the issue – it negates the value of our gospel message; it usually comes across as negative, condemnatory, and threatening. My hope would be that Diaz, who obviously supports the consistent ethic of life, will work to make his theological faith have an impact on public policy, current administration policies, etc. realizing that an ambassador’s role and duty is to pragmatically work in areas that require patience, articulation of ideas, and building relationships that make eventually result in CEL policies.
What started out as a great appointmen thas already been soiled by the rght to lifers here.
I concur with Fr. Martin over at America.
Making the rounds on the internet is the NCR excerpt from Bishop Weakland’s new book anout his treatment by the curia in ad limina visiots and how there were those watching his every word and act to report if not in strict compliance with curial wishes.
Surely our (and bishops in most places) are under the same pressures -some quite willingly and willing to apply it down the line to all clergy, even deacons -from what I can see of deacon training.
Fall in line or get smacked, power and control.
They’re tring to get the nuns in line to owith a visitation.
And the universities – Only the purest speakers.
The most obvious power and control techniques.
And this is why I beleive our Church continues out of balance and the divvy line between clergy(and their lovers of clericalism) and laity will only grow into drift and implosion as the “company man” model goes on.
The problem was, is and will be exacerbated by the political interplay such as we see here -and ar wrapped in declarations of their loyal orthodoxy in their critiques of all who don’t want to follow in every detail low the patrty line poltically. there is only one mode of response they will tolerate.
The recent Obama/ND broohahha makes me think the continued potical approach will only lead to more of the perception of Catholics hating rather than loving each other, as Fr. Kavanagh pointed out and more of the “sectarian Catholicism” editorialized about in America.
On one of David’s blogs , the point of view was summed up commenting by one of those neat individuals who really doesn’t want to identify himself fully”"There’s no right or left in the Church, only orthodox or not.”
I could go on about “poisitive orthodoxy” and “muscular “Catholicism” but I’d become tedious about poweer and control and clericalism!
I apologize if I have contributed to “abortion drift” in yet another thread here. It seems to be a consistent feature recently around here. So long as we discuss topics related to the intersection of the Catholic church and the Obama administration, it seems likely to be a permanent feature of discussion. So I hereby vow to not overdo it (while not ignoring the topic, either).
My overall perspective is that I have no reason to suppose that Professor Diaz won’t make a fine ambassador.
The nerve that the AP story struck in me had to do more with the Obama administration than with Professor Diaz. I am concerned by what I view as the administration’s attempts to divide the church for reasons of political expediency. Pitting bishop against theologian, or conservative member against liberal member, may be good politics, but it is bad for the church.
For that reason, I’m glad to see that ecclesiology has been raised as a discussion point, because this does go to the character of the church. I agree with Bill D. that Vatican II gave us a wealth of resources to understand the church. In that regard, I generally think of the church as the People of God, and as the Body of Christ. Both of those metaphors are capacious enough to encompass a diversity of political allegiances, and point to the deeper things that continue to unite us. Of course Christ is at the heart of our unity; but it is Christ mediated to us many different ways, including through such things as the pope and the college of bishops, doctrine, and other ways that take a pounding here from time to time.
Our unity needn’t be uniformity, but it should be real, and it should be visible. I don’t take kindly to politically manipulative attempts to undermine it.
There is much to respond to here and of course this isn’t the most conducive forum to such a discussion.
Bill DeHaas writes, “But, to define ecclesiology as a vision of the church as a hierarchy, a royal institution, a triumphant church that only has certainty is not the ecclesiology of Vatican II.”
I haven’t defined it as that and I am not sure how you could infer that from what I said. Nor is it clear that you have a clear grasp of what the Vatican II documents said on ecclesiology either. I have read Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes, and have watched and listened to Pope John Paul II and now Benedict, interpret the Council and apply the Council. I would suggest that the former — a father of the council — and the latter a peritus at the Council probably are probably pretty good guides for an authentic and true understanding of ecclesiology as taught by the Church. That ecclesiology of course is a living tradition and Vatican II did not disrupt it, but accented certain things, helped clarify, etc. But one has to read Vatican II in light of the Tradition and then has to follow the Church as she leads us to an authentic interpretation of the Council in light of the Tradition. I believe the Church is a communio. And yes bishops are part of that communio and an element of this communio is hierarchical. To deny that, is of course to deny the Creed. This isn’t some vision of the Church as triumphant or as bishop as king. It is an understanding of fatherhood, bishop as father in faith, united with his presybters and people. The bishop is to be the loving father of his people, not someone laying down the law. I believe Bishop D’Arcy despite his alleged inability to articulate things the other night on EWTN — I didn’t see it — has lived just such a fatherhood. Anyone who has observed him and the way he runs that diocese will be hard pressed to deny that. So this idea of fatherhood, shepherds laying down their lives for their flock is what I have in mind. We aren’t mindless children, but we do approach our shepherds with true childlike wonder. (On this point more generally might I suggest Balthasar’s final book, “Unless You Become Like This Child.”) Undoubtedly some of the bishops acted not like fathers, but boorish autocrats in this whole thing. I can think of the Bishop of Springfield. But many lived this fatherhood, gently and beautifully. Here I have in mind D’Arcy, Dolan, George, and even Trautmann of Erie (whose statement might have been the best of the bunch — imagine that Trautmann whose liturgical views are crazy in my mind).
In this whole controversy of Obama, the invitation, ND, this sense of fatherhood, this sense of the Church has been missing here at Commonweal and at America for the most part. No one can suggest that under Vatican II’s understanding of the Church, the bishops don’t matter or their words are just mere opinions or that we can blithely disregard them. What we have seen here and at America are approaches that evince just that. And that is a huge problem going forward.
Let me then turn to Professor Kaveny’s fair points. Perhaps I was too strong in using the speaking truth to power line. I agree there are different modes of approaching things. There are even different modes of being an academic. What I was trying to drive at, and admittedly I wasn’t as clear as I might have been, is where have those who have advised Presidents/Candidates Bush and Obama — whether they were academics or not — spoken up for the truth? Are they using their access to make the case, to try to change the President’s mind on (insert issue here, abortion, torture, war, etc.)? Have those on the Obama Catholic Advisory board pushed back on the administration’s view on abortion, not in a controversial way, but as friends? Have they used their access and influence to proclaim the Gospel, to give witness to Christ and his Church, or have they simply allowed themselves and the institutions they teach at to be nice Catholic window dressing for the President? (Again this is a point that can be made for academics on either side of the political debate.) Those may be hard words, but for all of us our call at baptism is to witness to Christ.
What is the academic model? It can’t simply be hand-wringing, discussing things to death, going over every last nuance and jot and tittle. If that is the model, none of us should aspire to it. So I do think we need to flesh out that. There are plenty of academics who both function as wonderful academics — they are thoughtful, engaging, able to dialogue — and able to stand up strongly for positions (whether one calls it prophetic or not): Mary Ann Glendon, whom Professor Kaveny has praised, John Finnis comes to mind (here’s a man who engages with the heaviest of heavy hitters in continental philosophy); our current Pope (his subtle thinking and ability clearly to articulate lines is a great gift).
The other thing is that we aren’t talking about a minor policy difference — and perhaps therein lies the rub. Does one believe abortion a big deal or merely one among a plethora of issues? Sometimes one gets the sense that folks over here at commonweal wish the question would just go away. It won’t.
And yes I agree we cannot reduce the Church down to abortion. In fact, we shouldn’t start from questions of morality in thinking about the Church. Here are several of my favorite quotations: Pope John Paul II said, we “shall not be saved by a formula, but by a Person, and the assurance which he gives us.” In fact, he wrote “[b]efore being a sum of doctrines or a rule for salvation, Christianity is the event of an encounter.” Or as Pope Benedict has stated, “Christianity is not an intellectual system, a packet of dogmas, a moralism,” but, rather, “Christianity is . . . an encounter, a love story; it is an event.” This means, as Benedict has written, that being “Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”
The question for all of us begins from that encounter. Where does that encounter happen? Within the Church, a church which is a communio.
How all of this relates to the question of Diaz is simply whether he will use his influence to speak up for the little ones. While advising Obama, did he bring this up, or did he simply shrug his shoulders and say, whatever? That’s what concerns me. I think he seems to be a very smart and good man.
Also, Professor Kaveny makes a fair point about whether some is ontologically a theologian. Obviously there is no ontologically change, but what is the relation between his license to teach theology — he may have none, I cannot remember how mandatums, etc. work — and his work as Ambassador. That is all I was raising.
I agree that we shouldn’t make a big deal about this appointment. In many ways it seems like a very good pick and I hope and pray that Dr. Diaz does well and serves as a wonderful intermediary between the US and the Vatican.
Jim P.
The rub comes, of course, in how one defines an “exceptional Catholic.” I’m sure there are more definitions than the number of people who regularly, periodically or accidently post on this blogsite.
And I do accept that the hierarchy has the right to define the term for me or you or anyone else.
Correction before I go down in flames!
“And I do NOT accept ….”
“How all of this relates to the question of Diaz is simply whether he will use his influence to speak up for the little ones.
Cheeky Lawyer –
In the first part of your post you tell us we should approach our bishops as children approach loving fathers.
I assume you mean that such loving fathers are men who “speak up for the little ones”.
However, if recent history has any message for us American Catholics it is that the typical Americna bishop is not a man who “speaks up for the little ones”. Rather, the typical American bishop is a man who coverup the crimes of child molesters.. IOr are the unborn the only little ones bishops should speak up for?)
No, we’d be foolish children indeed to approach these flawed men as loving fathers.
Cheeky Lawyer, if you want to read my position on abortion and the law, see my Thomist article (1991).
The question for me is what one does about abortion and the law in this particular society, at this particular time and place. That requires phronesis (prudence, practical wisdom, judgment)–an ability to apply moral principles to particular situations. Evangelium Vitae recognizes that law-making on abortion in western democracies is an incremental business.
You might want to read John Finnis’s debate with Colin Harte on abortion law in Watt, ed., Cooperation, Complicity, Conscience.
I don’t believe the parent/child model is appropriate–certainly the Council recognizes the legitimate role and autonomy of lay people in lay spheres of life.
At NCR today, there’s a nice essay about “Catholics in Pittsburgh” by Prof. Kelly of St. Vincent’s Colege in PA.
I thought it neatly captured the ecclesiology problem somewhat anonymously written off as misunderstood by those awful Commonweal and America folks.
I refer once more that a year ago, post BXVI’s visit, Peter Steinfels writing in the NYT that in America, the issue of Church was primary.
What I think Kelly’s essay (rightly) underscores is that I and my fellow Catholics will not go back to being children to the supposedly loving fathers of the hierachy.
In another thread, I noted the excerpt from Weakland’s book on how local bishops are to be under the thumb of the curia and to similarly rule their see or be reported by those who (think) they know better.
One may think that kind of top down is the best beauracracy, but they’d be hard put to prove it.
A careful balance between up and down the line is needed without either oversimplification and marked by mutual respect.
The latest thread on the forum on conscience and Kmiec’s quote there, I think, quite rightly points to the imbalance we live in.
So I think the Church is not a communio of adults (clergy) and children (laity) with a paternal tip of the hat to the laity should have some role in lay spheres(Like politics?).
A real Eucharistic community embracing a “broad tent” is the universal Church that strugg;les in the not yet/already.
We are a long wasy from the Diaz appointment, which I welcome, and would hope others, even with a single frame of refernce, would do and more than grudgingly.
Professor Kaveny,
I will take a look at the sources you cite.
Professor Kaveny writes: “I don’t believe the parent/child model is appropriate–certainly the Council recognizes the legitimate role and autonomy of lay people in lay spheres of life.”
I agree wholeheartedly that the Council recognizes this. I don’t see how the father/child model is mutually exclusive of the idea of a lay sphere of autonomy. I don’t see where that question is involved in the invitation question or the disregard of the bishops’ response or the bishops’ document as poorly written as it may be. President Obama was invited by a priest to come to a Catholic university.
I am truly astounded that any Catholic theologian or not could reject the father/child model or maybe better described as the shepherd/flock model. This IS one given by the Council and Church tradition. It isn’t like I am making this up out of whole cloth. Church Fathers, the Good Shepherd imagery, etc. That our fathers in faith have failed us deeply doesn’t mean the image or model is wrong, just like when fathers and mothers screw things up royally in families, this doesn’t mean the model of family suddenly loses its normative power. So when folks deny these models/images, I think they are denying the normative ecclesiology of the Church. One other point, these images are directly tied to the Eucharist. The Church is a communio centered around the Eucharistic banquet and the Good Shepherds are integral to that vision.
Here is St. Ignatius of Antioch on the bishop: “Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop.”
While I don’t think I am going to get through to anyone who is obstinate on this, let me quote just a few passages from Lumen Gentium to show that I am not making this up out of whole cloth:
20. That divine mission, entrusted by Christ to the apostles, will last until the end of the world,(147) since the Gospel they are to teach is for all time the source of all life for the Church. And for this reason the apostles, appointed as rulers in this society, took care to appoint successors.
For they not only had helpers in their ministry,(4*) but also, in order that the mission assigned to them might continue after their death, they passed on to their immediate cooperators, as it were, in the form of a testament, the duty of confirming and finishing the work begun by themselves,(5*) recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit placed them to shepherd the Church of God.(148) They therefore appointed such men, and gave them the order that, when they should have died, other approved men would take up their ministry.(6*) Among those various ministries which, according to tradition, were exercised in the Church from the earliest times, the chief place belongs to the office of those who, appointed to the episcopate, by a succession running from the beginning,(7*) are passers-on of the apostolic seed.(8*) Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors down ln our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested (9*) and preserved.(10*)
Bishops, therefore, with their helpers, the priests and deacons, have taken up the service of the community, (11*) presiding in place of God over the flock,(12*) whose shepherds they are, as teachers for doctrine, priests for sacred worship, and ministers for governing.(13*) And just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles, is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*) Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.(149)(16*)
27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern.(59*) Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it,(60*) since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.
A bishop, since he is sent by the Father to govern his family, must keep before his eyes the example of the Good Shepherd, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister,(170) and to lay down his life for his sheep.(171) Being taken from among men, and himself beset with weakness, he is able to have compassion on the ignorant and erring.(172) Let him not refuse to listen to his subjects, whom he cherishes as his true sons and exhorts to cooperate readily with him. As having one day to render an account for their souls,(173) he takes care of them by his prayer. preaching, and all the works of charity, and not only of them but also of those who are not yet of the one flock. who also are commended to him in the Lord. Since, like Paul the Apostle, he is debtor to all men, let him be ready to preach the Gospel to all,(174) and to urge his faithful to apostolic and missionary activity. But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that all may be of one mind through unity,(61*) and abound to the glory of God.(175)
Once more I thank the anonymous attorney for his lengthy disquisition on why maybe we don’t need to be good children, but certyainly good sheep.
BAA!
See the threads on conscience and previous discussions on “infantalization”.
A slight tip of the hat here to grace building on nature, but mainly a continuing paeon to clericalism.
The point of Kelly’s article (actually a book) is that Catholics have moved away from the Bishop as authority, because the hieracrchy failed to exercise it properly.
So I am “astounded” by this last post also.
I will say no more when all my fellow poster wants to hear is (another), “Baa.”
To reduce what I am saying down to “baaing” is truly saddening. I am just sad to read this and other threads where anyone pointing to the normative teaching and the Tradition are simply disregarded or dismissed with caricatures. I was going to say that we are two ships passing in the night on this, but that would imply that we swim in the same theological water (and are no the same planet). But it is clear we inhabit two different theological planets. I don’t see how the planet you inhabit and the sun you orbit is compatible with the Tradition, with the Second Vatican Council, what Pope Benedict and others have written and continue to write. I think in our two different approaches we see in full view what Pope Benedict so eloquently spoke of in his Christmas Address to the Curia in December 2005 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html):
Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or – as we would say today – on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.
On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call “a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture”; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the “hermeneutic of reform”, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.
There isn’t anything else to say. I will listen to your arguments, but I am not sure how we can even hope to find common ground.