I will say from the outset I have no problems with Diaz as Holy See Envoy. But this Time Piece is kinda of light weight journalism is you ask me. See Obama's Vatican Pick: Boosting Hispanic Catholics
But another key appointment of a Hispanic with top-notch credentials and a compelling personal story also showed just how good the President is at keeping his opponents off balance. In fact, in selecting Catholic scholar Miguel Diaz to be the new ambassador to the Holy See, Obama not only neutralized potential controversy, but also highlighted a potential weakness of the U.S. Catholic Church these days.
If he has "Top-notched" credentials for this job is up to debate.
If confirmed, the Cuban-American Diaz would be the first theologian to hold the diplomatic post, and he would become one of the country's most influential Hispanic Catholics.
One of the most influential Hispanic Catholics? What? I think besides me you would only be able to fill a small auditorium with people that care what our Envoy is doing at the Vatican. I suspect Time magazine will ignore our work there for the next four years as they have done for the last twenty five years. Also is this not some of indictment of the writer that it appears he is not aware of far more influential Catholic Hispanics.
Over the past 25 years, ambassadors to the Holy See have either been Catholic politicians or close personal friends of the President who appointed them. Ronald Reagan chose California businessman William Wilson; Bill Clinton selected former Boston mayor Ray Flynn and former Congresswoman Lindy Boggs; and George W. Bush's first ambassador was former RNC chair Jim Nicholson.
Let me say these people were picked for a lot more reason than because they were "friends". Lindy Boggs for instance has a tad more of a resume than that.
Nominating a Catholic pol to the position would have been a risk for Obama. His selection of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to lead the Department of Health and Humans Services generated protests from conservatives who questioned whether a politician who supported abortion rights could be a real Catholic. A Catholic politician — even one with pro-life views — would probably have been subjected to a thorough review of her record and asked to explain any votes against abortion restrictions.
I find that very doubtful.
Pope Benedict would probably prefer to debate Rahner's theological arguments with Diaz than to speculate about his own demise. But he will find in Diaz a representative of the U.S. Catholic Church's future — and an indication that the new Administration not only intends to take its relationship with the Vatican seriously, but that it won't make it easy for conservative Catholics to attack it.
I think the writer here is overestimating how many Conservative Catholics really care about attacking Diaz. For the most case they are glad that the pick was not a certain person from Malibu and Pepperdine University and is not pro-choice.
It would have been interesting to see Time having gone into the other reasons for this pick. For instance to help with the apparent transition of policy toward Cuba(something the Holy See supports) and to have interaction with the very dynamic and important Latin America Diplomatic Corp that is assigned there. Which could allude to other things
No comments:
Post a Comment