In his recent article, Eric Gorski of the Associated Press discusses the often-overlooked decision of who will represent United States interests with the Vatican under Obama’s presidency. This issue is vital for a variety of reasons, as Gorski reports. Such reasons include potential disputes between the Vatican and the Obama administration over abortion, fears that dissent between the Vatican and the U.S. could encourage Catholic separatism, and also the careful decision of who the appointee should be. Gorski cites a variety of experts on the issues at hand, beginning with abortion.
In past years, the deciding factors about Vatican ambassadors have been their personal lives. The Vatican can reject any ambassador it feels does not meet the criteria of the position, which includes openly gay individuals or those they might consider to be ‘living in sin’. Though the Vatican looks more at the personal lives of appointees than their stances on relevant issues, all eight of the past ambassadors to the Vatican have been pro-life, including the Democrats. One of the possible first choices is Douglas Kmiec, a Reagan administration lawyer who endorsed Obama during the recent election. Kmiec is a professor of canon law and fluent in Italian, so he could be a valuable choice because he understands the Catholic and Italian cultures and also the issues facing relations between the countries.
While this decision is important, I dispute the notion that Catholic separatism is a real fear. In my research for my final paper, concerning the interesting relationship between the KKK and Protestant Churches, I read George Marsden’s book, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In this book, Marsden chronicles the factors contributing to the rise of Fundamentalism in late 19th century America, including the great increase of immigration of Catholics. Protestants feared these Catholics would take over their nation, controlled from afar by the actions of the Vatican. The Ku Klux Klan arose partly out of this fear, though the Vatican undertook no real actions to try to establish this sort of control. Based on these historical events, I believe that the most important considerations for the selection of the ambassador are their understanding of both international politics and Catholic traditions and culture. Based on these criteria, the president can make a much better decision than would be possible if he were concerned wholly with the American response of Catholics to the ambassador.
Showing posts with label catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label catholicism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Shifting Left?
Over the past twenty years or so the Republican party has been able to count on winning a large percentage of the Catholic vote because of their stance on the abortion issue. Conventional wisdom has held that, because of John McCain’s pro-life stance, this Catholic support would continue into the upcoming election, but this may not be the entirely true.
In an October fourth article in the New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick reports that many liberal Catholics are fighting back against the official church policy that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful. The main argument of the conservative Catholics is that “Being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.” This argument, put forth by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania has been the standard policy of Catholics for years, but recently it has come under fire by organizations of liberal Catholics such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. Kirkpatrick mentions that these organizations emphasize a “Broader spectrum of social justice.” The article goes on to provide statistics on the number of Catholics registered to vote, and claims that this movement among Liberal Catholics to push back against the church-wide policy of voting exclusively pro-life has the potential to effect the results in several swing states.
I think that this article is interesting because it shows a shift in the voting patterns of a significant portion of Americans. The article mentions that nearly a quarter of registered voters are Catholic, so a swing from right to left among even a few of these Catholics is very significant. It also is important to note the reason for the shift. Many Catholics are sick of voting against their principles and interests because of one “Non-negotiable issue.” The focus of the liberal Catholic groups on social justice shows a concern for a broader spectrum of issues that has been missing from the Catholic Church for years. Another very significant factor is the historical one. For years now, ultra-religious groups of all denominations have had well-deserved reputations for being very conservative institutions. The fact that many Catholics are now considering issues other than abortion may be signaling an end to at least the Catholic Church’s total support of conservative candidates.
I think that this should be viewed as a good thing no matter which candidate you support. The fact that at least some religious institutions are asking their constituents to look at a wide range of issues rather than pressuring them, sometimes with the threat of eternal damnation, to vote based on one issue, is a positive step forward for the relationship between politics and religion in America. I believe that Jefferson and Madison would have wanted voters to consider their religious beliefs when voting, but would have been appalled by churches labeling candidates unelectable based upon their views on one moral issue.
In an October fourth article in the New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick reports that many liberal Catholics are fighting back against the official church policy that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful. The main argument of the conservative Catholics is that “Being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.” This argument, put forth by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania has been the standard policy of Catholics for years, but recently it has come under fire by organizations of liberal Catholics such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. Kirkpatrick mentions that these organizations emphasize a “Broader spectrum of social justice.” The article goes on to provide statistics on the number of Catholics registered to vote, and claims that this movement among Liberal Catholics to push back against the church-wide policy of voting exclusively pro-life has the potential to effect the results in several swing states.
I think that this article is interesting because it shows a shift in the voting patterns of a significant portion of Americans. The article mentions that nearly a quarter of registered voters are Catholic, so a swing from right to left among even a few of these Catholics is very significant. It also is important to note the reason for the shift. Many Catholics are sick of voting against their principles and interests because of one “Non-negotiable issue.” The focus of the liberal Catholic groups on social justice shows a concern for a broader spectrum of issues that has been missing from the Catholic Church for years. Another very significant factor is the historical one. For years now, ultra-religious groups of all denominations have had well-deserved reputations for being very conservative institutions. The fact that many Catholics are now considering issues other than abortion may be signaling an end to at least the Catholic Church’s total support of conservative candidates.
I think that this should be viewed as a good thing no matter which candidate you support. The fact that at least some religious institutions are asking their constituents to look at a wide range of issues rather than pressuring them, sometimes with the threat of eternal damnation, to vote based on one issue, is a positive step forward for the relationship between politics and religion in America. I believe that Jefferson and Madison would have wanted voters to consider their religious beliefs when voting, but would have been appalled by churches labeling candidates unelectable based upon their views on one moral issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
