Obama names Diaz ambassador to Vatican

If he just manages to stay sober while he's there he'll be doing better than Ray Flynn did....

Two books by Diaz published by Orbis Press, of the Maryknoll Order, oft-time publisher of liberation theology twaddle, refuted and eviscerated by Cardinal Ratzinger--prudent appointment! Was Rev. Jeremiah Wright not available? Might as well nominate Ernest or Julio Gallo as ambassador to France.

I'm not big on accusing people of not being Catholic... but anyone who studies "Latino theologIES" as if there are multiple true theologies, cannot really be Catholic. There is one Truth, and it is proclaimed by the Catholic (Universal) Church.

Sorry to pop your bubble, but I think conservative Catholics, would justifiably rail against a pro-Obama "Catholic" theologian who teaches at a seminary. How can a "Catholic" theologian support a politician who believes it's OK to kill a baby accidentally born alive after a failed abortion at 6-months into the pregnancy? I don't care if he's a Latino, African-American, Haitian, or Vietnamese "Catholic." If he supports the most rabidly pro-abortion President this country has ever seen, he should not be Vatican ambassador. And who is "Catholics United" to determine if someone is a "devout Catholic"? Who respects him as a theologian? Does being a good husband and father of 4 make you qualified for Vatican ambassador?

Miguel Díaz, Ph.D., Active Member and a Past President of The Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States (ACHTUS) is President Obama’s nominee for the position of U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. As a theologian and educator, Díaz embodies in his scholarship and commitments a profound respect for human dignity and a passion for justice. A Catholic layman, Díaz and his family are devoted participants in the life of the Church. As a professional association of Hispanic theologians we are encouraged by President Obama’s historic nomination of a Latino Catholic to this office. This nomination affirms the important contribution that Hispanics are making as part of the fabric of our nation.

The Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians of the United States (ACHTUS) is a professional organization of Catholic theologians and scholars of religion providing a theological voice for the lived faith of U.S. Hispanics. For more information about ACHTUS go to http://achtus.org/

We are not the American Catholic Church, we belong to the Roman Catholic Church and God willing, he will abide by the Roman Catholic Church rules.

Francis Marion, what qualified Cardinal Bernard Law to be transferred to Rome as Pastor, his hiding of pedophiles, or his "defense" of the Church's right to do what they wanted.? Did you ever rail about that?

Mike M isn't too keen on defining Catholics but that's exactly what he did...incorrectly. What makes Catholicism boastful of being a "universal" church is its adaptation to various cultures around the world. Are African Catholics, for example, who introduce native dance and music to their liturgical services not "real" Catholics, in your view? I guess Ray Flynn was OK as ambassador because he was Irish, drank lots, knew a few Latin Mass phrases, talked in soft murmurs and passed your litmus test.

I'm sure gaudete would be so surprised, but I'm simply ecstatic over this pick.

Anyone with Dr. Díaz's talents to get the word out on Karl Rahner, Cardinal Newman, and the other intellectual giants of the Catholic Faith — agree with them or not — is doing God's work, in my view.

Dr, Carmen Nanko-Fernandez -

Why is there such a group? Why can't you simply call your self "Americans" rather than "Hispanic Americans". Is there such a thing as "Hispanic Christianity" or "Hispanic Catholicism? Why can't you simply call yourself "Theologians".

Most people come from other nations. My grandparents did,

Does this group support Obama, and has it condemned his active participation is keeping the intrinsic evil of abortion legal? The abortion industry targets immigrants from Hispanic nations (and African Americans) more than any other group. In Southern California, there seems to be abortuaries in the inner city more than 7/11s. They TARGET the good people I believe you seek to serve.. Does your group participate actively in these neighborhoods to fight Planned Parenthood? After all, there can be no greater social justice issue.

Thanks, and best wishes.

It's interesting to hear from comment #2 that Cardinal Ratzinger refuted and eviscerated two books. He must have thought they were chickens; perhaps he burned them afterwards. I usually read books.

Anything Joe Ratzinger "refuted and eviscerated" (before becoming the big cheesehead) must be good.

hey Mike
Who are you to determine who is really a Catholic? The fact that he is an academic who studies multiple theologIES within a culture (many do exist, even if you in your undying wisdom do not feel they are legit) does not disqualify him. He is a professor of theology... he has to know something about more than one.

School must be out for the summer.

KJR, in response to your questions concerning why there is such a group I encourage you to first recognize that "America" is two continents, not one country. Then, I encourage you to study the 500 year history of domination of Latin@ peoples in these so called Americas. Then I would encourage you to study the history of the political, economic, and cultural oppression of Hispanics within the land now called the U.S. Then I would ask you to study the history of exclusion, control, and assimilation of said U.S. Hispanics by their own Roman Catholic Church? Once you have walked a bit in the sandals of these people you may have some insights into why a Hispanic Catholic would desire to maintain ones identity as a Hispanic and to claim one's Christianity as one of being Christian in a particularly Hispanic way. This may at first seem difficult to understand since being "just Catholic" usually means "being Catholic in a European way" and being "just American" usually means "being American in a white way." (On this latter point you might consider when was the last time you heard a spanish language song or quote from César Chavez at a Fourth of July event.) I appreciate your inquiring spirit. Excellent books to assist you in your inquiry regarding these various topics can be found at the ACHTUS website: www.achtus.org

Thanks Jeremy, I appreciate your comments.

Why don't we simply be Catholic in an obedient way? Yes, I am a white guy, but I am the one who is advocating being color-blind...

Thanks.

Mr. Cruz,
I am afraid I have to award you a big ol' "Touche"... well done. Points very well made.

Jeremy - one other comment.

The abortionists TARGET people of color - particularly Planned Parenthood. It seems to me that groups like these should be screaming at PP (as does Dr. Martin Luther King's niece) and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH. They are murdering minorities at a far disproportionate rate (not to say any rate is acceptable) .

Yes, this white guy wants ALL abortions of minorities (and everyone) to STOP.

Why do we even need an Ambassador to the Vatican? I know its officially a country but isn't it really more of a souviner stop then a soveriegn nation. Talk about your theocracy - we jump all over Iran for being backwards in that regard. Can't think of a cushier job that this.

N.Observer wrote:

"Anyone with Dr. Díaz's talents to get the word out on Karl Rahner, Cardinal Newman,..." On my quick look, i had seen that Prof. Diaz was a Rahnerian, but I hadn't seen Newman. If he is a Card. Newman expert, great, more power to him, since Newman said that his lifelong theological opponent was liberalism. so then he would be an opponent of Rahner, which would mean there would be a war going on in Diaz' head.

Karl Rahner was too 'married' to modern post Kantian philosophy, all about the 'subject,' what's going on in my head, not enough about the objective data of Revelation, i.e., the Bible. Rahner is already passe among most Catholic theologians except the birchenstalk wearing, grey male pony-tail wearing 60's refugees.

Jeremy Cruz (Cross), yes of course you are correct, that there was much oppression in Latin America over the centuries. But at a certain point, self- or group pity is not an attractive attribute. We can't send Columbus in reverse over the Atlantic. I hope you're not a big Castro, Hugo Chavez fan? Exchanging one form of domination for a worse kind would be imprudent. Besides, Christ is the
Savior, el Liberador, not Karl, Rahner or Marx.

KJR, here is a Catholic pro-Obama group, headed by a former Reagan legal counsel, that argues that fighting for the criminalization of abortion (whether criminalizing mothers or doctors) is not the most socially or legally effective way to reduce abortions. They link this assault on life to the countless other assaults on life, safety, and health we experience, putting forward a more comprehensive approach to creating a society that protects and promotes life. I am grateful that you are not as color-blind as you would like to be, for if you were you would not recognize that abortion impacts communities of color disproportionately (as do so many other assaults on life).

Here's the link: http://www.prolifeproobama.com/

Obama's appointment of Dr. Diaz is a true act of speaking truth to power. While the current Pope travels to the global south claiming that condoms do not fight the AIDS epidemic (see March trip to Africa), the theologies that Dr. Diaz is a practitioner of (personally, professionally, and soley within academia) ask with and on behalf of the global south, - - why are we starving, dying of disease, and living without clean water when God's commandments and our covenant with God command that we have that which is life giving? Why are you keeping your plenty from us? I think the appointment of Dr. Diaz was a moral/ethical slam dunk.

Jeremy - colorblindness has nothing to do with one's recognizing that Planned Parenthood TARGETS specific ethnic and racial groups.

Why don't we all just melt into American society? This multicultural push reinforces divisiveness and segregation and has been a failure. The richness of multicultural influences would be best served melting into one American culture, as great spices make a great soup.

Again, there is no such thing as Hispanic Christianity.

Posted by Mike M May 27, 09 11:01 PM

Sorry, Mike, but there are multiple theologies (or mythologies, as the case may be). There are even, believe it or not, opinions (and it's all opinion) that differ from yours. Grow up and get over it.

KJR,
Because you say there is no such thing as Hispanic Christianity doesn't make it so. You are usually well thought out, but that statement is pretty arrogant of you. Why don't you live and let live....or does that diminish your Catholic experience in some way? And your thoughts to "melt" the country are all well and good. You do realize this would entail living on reservations and residing in tee pees don't you? They were here first after all. Shouldn't we assimilate with them?

"Why don't we simply be Catholic in an obedient way?"
Posted by KJR May 28, 09 10:11 AM

KJR, for those of us who have been and left, the answer to that is another question. Why would one simply obey the word of self-declared authorities, self-declared monarchs? Keep in mind that the early church functioned in some ways as a democracy - bishops were elected, for example, and needed approval from their communities. Pope Leo I once observed that “he who is to preside over all must be elected by all”. Now, for a number of strictly political reasons, the church became a monarchy, a ringing example of Lord Acton's 19th century dictum that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He, of course, spoke that about Pius IX, as you are no doubt aware.

"KJR, here is a Catholic pro-Obama group, headed by a former Reagan legal counsel, that argues that fighting for the criminalization of abortion (whether criminalizing mothers or doctors) is not the most socially or legally effective way to reduce abortions. They link this assault on life to the countless other assaults on life, safety, and health we experience, putting forward a more comprehensive approach to creating a society that protects and promotes life. I am grateful that you are not as color-blind as you would like to be, for if you were you would not recognize that abortion impacts communities of color disproportionately (as do so many other assaults on life).

Posted by Jeremy Cruz May 28, 09 11:11 AMHere's the link: http://www.prolifeproobama.com/

Posted by Jeremy Cruz May 28, 09 11:12 AMObama's appointment of Dr. Diaz is a true act of speaking truth to power" posted by Kitty O'Shea 78

Jeremy Cruz, you sound well meaning, but you act as if your mere posting of a link to a website is the triumphant conclusion of a winning argument. It isn't, especially not on the internet today. I could refer you to my website "gaudete-is-infallible.com;" would that prove anything? nada. the mere fact of the existence of a group called prolifeproobama is a counter-argument for us, it takes away from your argument. What we dispute is the right of those, even with the paper and personal credentials (I'm sure he's a fine fellow) of Dr. Diaz, who support the pro-abortion Obama, to call themselves Catholic, at least in the fullest of senses. maybe minimally, or cafeteria Catholic.

Kitty O'Shea claims that Obama is speaking truth to power by appointing Diaz to the Vatican--as if Obama were powerless! Diaz may speak while he has his 4 or 8 year Italian vacation, but he will not be listened to, he will be bypassed, he will be humored, patted on the head, smiled at. Unless he tries to engage the Pope in a theological debate, and then he will rue the day he came to a battle of wits unarmed. but i hope he and his lovely family enjoy the tax payer funded sabattical, and i'm betting that he will come out more Catholic, which means more pro-life, which means more anti-Obama on this issue, by the time he departs.

""Why don't we simply be Catholic in an obedient way?"
Posted by KJR May 28, 09 10:11 AM

KJR, for those of us who have been and left, the answer to that is another question. Why would one simply obey the word of self-declared authorities, self-declared monarchs?" posted by On The Left @ 6:15

KJR, my comrade whom i've never met, I hope you don't mind if i come down somewhere between you and Ontheleft on this one. Of course, if push came to shove, i agree with you on the substantive questions 100%. But to me, this is more a tactical, prudential question, not involving truth per se, but rather how to arrive at the truth.

In a way, you are right: to be simply Catholic (Christian) in an obedient (to God, Christ, and ergo the Church) way would be wonderful, but that is the saintly way, which is a very rare way. And even in the case of Mother Teresa and many other saints, they asked questions, but asked them always from the background of faith, with the presumption that they would receive a consoling, salvific answer.

On the other hand, there are those who intentionally life to unnecessarily complicate things, by asking questions just for the sake of asking questions, to be a pain in the derriere. These are 2 year olds, 15 year olds, and those of the post-enlightenment culture who subscribe to the 'hermeneutic of suspicion,' e.g. 'don't trust anyone over the age of 30, although most of those 60's folks are now
double that age. When I see their cute bumpersticker, "Question authority," I always say, 'ok, I question the authority of the person driving that car.'

Onthe refers to "self declared authorities," but he must be referring to himself, becuase St. Peter and his successors are not self-declared, by Christ-declared authorities, in Matthew 16:13 and ff, and church history passim.

"Keep in mind that the early church functioned in some ways as a democracy..."
to sufficiently comment on this would take about 10 volumes. Suffice it to say that it is well that ontheleft used the weasel words "in some ways:' that meant that he knew that it was no where near a complete democracy. All throught the Acts of the Apostles, we hear of a couple of Apostles laying hands on this one or that, with no American style election--probably a consultation with his family and friends. Were there a few places where bishops were 'elected?' Probably. (Keep in mind, the
word elected only means 'chosen,' it does not refer to the mechanism by which they were elected/chosen. At most, the priests might have had a vote, and that would have always been subject to them not electing a total nut-job, in which case the surrounding bishops or the metropolitan or yes, the bishop of Rome would have said 'no way.' And on theleft, of course there is some human moral truth to the Acton quote, but by calling it a "dictum", isn't that making Acton infallible, ergo
absolutely powerful, ergo absolutely corrupt?

Liberals: Question authority.
Conservatives: Fine, question authority. But first, question the credentials of those who question authority. Sometimes they're just itching to be the authority.

Eric - my point is that the very essence of America is that people come from all over the world to be one E pluibus unum, remember? Were the founders arrogant too, I am just reiterating the foundation of the country.

Multiculturalism is directly contraindicated to e pluribus unum. It causes divisivness and conflict, and most regrettably, isolation. That idea competes directly against the very idea of "we are one...." blah blah blah....

ontheleft -

Thank you for responding to me without calling me some vile characheture.

You know the answer to your question, which is a red herring. The essence of the Church is teaching authority. If you don't accept it, don't call yourself Catholic. It is not a democracy. If you don't like it, fine. But don't call yourself something that by your very actions and position directly contradicts that which you claim to be.

That is the point. For those, like you, who reject that authority, blast away.

gaudete:

If I told you Rahner, following Heidegger (and to some degree Husserl), exploded the subject/object distinction from the inside, would you believe me?

And that, as a result, he is to contemporary Christology what Einstein was to physics?

"If I told you Rahner, following Heidegger (and to some degree Husserl), exploded the subject/object distinction from the inside, would you believe me?"

Particularly since we're speaking about Hispanic theologians, I should point out that Xavier Zubiri did a much better job than Rahner with a much more rigorous metaphysics. And he studied under both Husserl and Heidegger, not to mention learning physics under Heisenberg. Moreover, he managed to remain faithful to the Magisterium and traditional Christology. Besides, what would a "contemporary Christology" be anyway? It can't be different from the Christology of the ecumenical councils.

It sounds to me like people are just rationalizing dissent, just like Kmiec did at proobamaprolife.com. I'd be surprised if the Pope accepts this appointment.

KJR:

1) There are at least two ways to view the "unum" in "e pluribus unum," not just one.

One is the unity of a melting pot, where individual ingredients (and identities) come together to sacrifice that individuality in the service of forming a new one. The other is the unity of a tossed salad, where the unity of the collective depends critically on the individuality, identity, and integrity of each ingredient.

In the first model, identity is the enemy of unity. In the second, it's its handmaiden.

Now I trust you would no more wash a packet of soup mix down with a glass of warm water than you would eat a pureed tossed salad.

I also think this applies no less to the "unum" before the words "e pluribus"as it does to the "unum" before the words "credo in." How you understand "unity" is going to affect your view of God, this nation, and the Church.

2) On teaching authority: I accept the teaching authority of my physician on health matters, but that doesn't mean I always do what she says. Sometimes that's because I recognize her wisdom in a particular matter, but fail to live up to it. Other times she and I disagree on quality of life issues. Fine.

Accepting the teaching authority — of the Church or anyone / anything else — doesn't have to mean obedience. It can also mean giving a particular entity a privileged, honored, supreme, or otherwise special place in an ongoing conversation.

Emphasis on the word "ongoing."

Posted by KJR May 28, 09 07:18 PM

Ah, but, as I mentioned, KJR, the fact that power was usurped does not mean that your church is required to be a monarchy. It certainly was a democracy until power was seized by those with no authority to seize that power. And, as someone has pointed out above, anyone baptized Catholic who has not quit or been excommunicated is, in fact, Catholic. They need not leave simply because they refuse to agree with the viewpoints of anyone, no matter the position.

JP: Gotta sign off (catching a flight), but:

1) I'm ashamed to say I don't know Zubiri. I'll look into him right away.

2) There's all sorts of rigor in thought. Continental rigor is different than Analytical rigor. Saying one philosophical style has a monopoly on rigor is like saying only natural science can speak with truth and the humanities are just fluff (yes, theology too).

3) We may disagree profoundly, but I've always felt dissent is no less a sign of grace (or gift from God) in ecclesial matters as it is in political ones. See my thoughts on unity above.

Thanks everyone for what has been, for me at least, a very enlightening conversation.

KJR,
Our forefathers fled to this country mainly for freedom of religion and the ability to retain some semblance of identity to their roots. Since you mention our forefathers, I will say that people's differences (both religious and ethnic) were cherished by them as well. Case in point, the oldest Jewish synagogue was founded in Newport, RI. In 1790 George Washington visited the Temple and assured the congregation that they could enjoy full citizenship to this country. He later penned a letter to that synagogue part of which reads "...as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights." Our forefathers were unique in the world when they wrote freedom of religion into the laws of this country. They sought a heterogeneous society. Plain as day.

There are plenty of countries where people are all the same. Off hand I can name a few. Let's see... there is North Korea, China, Cuba, the former USSR, pre 1992 Albania etc.... I think you can see my point.

"And, as someone has pointed out above, anyone baptized Catholic who has not quit or been excommunicated is, in fact, Catholic. They need not leave simply because they refuse to agree with the viewpoints of anyone, no matter the position.

Posted by OnTheLeft May 29, 09 09:58 AM"

Simple disagreement, you are correct, they are still Catholic. I am not speaking for others but I believe most (including myself) say that more to make a point that they are hypocritical, or dissenters.

The Church is clear that there is an automatic excommunication for those who procure or directly enable an abortion. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, which, I believe includes most former Catholic politicians whose names include Kennedy, Kerry, Harkin, Dodd, Leahy, Mulkulski, Biden, blah, blah, blah.

Dr Diaz will be the United States Ambassador to the Vatican. The Vatican sets some very stringent limits as to who can or cannot represent the views of the US Government to it, generally requiring that the Ambasssador be a very loyal Catholic, which interferes with one's job as Minister Plenipotentiary of you are more loyal to the state that you are accredited to as opposed to the state that you represent.

Dr Diaz is going to be representing a secular republic to the Vatican. I think that he will be a good choicce

On Hispanic Christianity
FYI: I'm a Black Catholic. I always laugh to myself when white people advocate colorblindness. I am Black (ethnicity), and I am Catholic (religion). I live my Catholic (universal) faith as a Black man. As a self-identified Black man, I completely understand why someone who lives his or her Catholic faith as a Hispanic person would want to be called a Hispanic Catholic.

Moreover, I wonder if anyone has a problem with the term "IRISH Catholic." Ignoring race and ethnicity does not make it go away.

I thought about it, and I decided to clarify a previous statement. "White" Americans, i.e., individuals who do not self-identify with a particular ethic group, are the only group (as oppose to individuals) who advocate color blindness. Color blindness and the melting pot theory are repressive ideologies. The majority always defines the culture of a group or nation. Historically, the melting pot theory required ethic, WHITE minority groups (the Polish, the Irish, the Italians, the Germans) to give up their identities to fit in with the Anglo-Saxon majority. Historically, certain groups like Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks have dismissed the melting pot theory and retained their ethnic identity.

The good news is that within my lifetime there will no longer be a racial or ethnic majority in the United States. Nevertheless, a diminishing White majority is advocating colorblindness as a refashioned version of the melting pot theory. I personally reject it. If you cherish (or for that matter, even self-identify with) your ethic history (e.g., Black, Hispanic, Irish, Italian, Asian), you seldom see multiculturalism as an attack on unity. If fact, you relieve that our differences force us to pay attention to similarities.

Eventually, multiculturalism will rule the day. In fact, in Catholic Church after the Vatican II Council, multiculturalism is the rule. Pope John Paul II spoke of the Catholic Church as Body with two lungs, which includes the Roman rite and the Eastern rites. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church chose multiculturalism over a superficial sign of unity when it allowed the faithful to hear the most Holy Mass in all languages. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also recognizes the importance of multiculturalism. The USCCB has a Department of Cultural Diversity that officially recognizes the rich religious perspectives of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Island Americans.

Brian - very well said. I think your response is in response to a post from KJR. That being said, here are my thoughts on that poster:

I think KJR can not get over the fact that people are different, have different experiences and upbringings and experience religion in a way that differs from his own. He is one of the most conservative voice on these blogs and has previously argued ad naseum about the perils of homosexuality, abortion, "cafeteria catholics", any and all poiticians who identify as being a Democrat with particular emphasis on the Kennedy's, as well as the kids in the neighborhood that keep hitting baseballs into his yard (...OK I made up that last part but you get the idea). He comes across as an old crotchety throwback to more innocent times. I picture Archie Bunker in my mind when I read most of his posts. I think he means well, but is stuck in a time warp.

Oh, Eric, surely you can do better than that. Archie could be my grandfather. Am I really only "that poster" Eric. Where is the respect?

I have news for you, the Woodstock generation which has infected the Church will be gone in a short period of time, and the new generation won't think bend with every new trend. The orthodox seminaries are busting at the seems, and the "dissenters" are dying. It is just a matter of time.

"He comes across as an old crotchety throwback to more innocent times" Aside from the insult, I agree with your statement that times in the past have been more "innocent". Thanks for pointing that out.

Brian - I cannot speak for a man of color, because I am a white male of european decent. With that said, and as I white male, I see multiculturalism as very divisive in my experience. I fully accept that people obviously have different backgrounds, cultures, etc, - but we all are Americans, and until people are simply comfortable with that, there will always be racial tension.

Eric - time warp from when? Which century, which decade, or which year?

Brian - to follow up with my last post regarding multiculturalism and in my view, its vast deficiencies... I simply point to the current nomination of Justice Sotomayor, her past statements regarding the "more qualified" judgment of a Latina woman than a white male. Why can't she simple be a great and intellectually honest justice? Her comments are clearly racist and divisive, and exposes the problem with the idea of multiculturalism - instead of becoming one culture - American.

Respectfully, KJR

gaudete, my sister in Christ -

I am sorry I did not respond to your post referencing one of mine... just missed it.
I am not sure we are in any disagreement on that point. In order to make my point, my language was probably stretched a little. Regards,

KJR,
"The orthodox seminaries are busting at the seems, and the "dissenters" are dying. It is just a matter of time."

Just a matter of time until what? World domination? Joking aside, dissenters are good, they keep everything in check and keep religion out of the policies of this country just as our forefathers envisioned. What are you so scared of? There will always be people that do not agree with you or your like minded friends. That's what makes this country the best. Agree or not, the freedom to speak one's mind is, in my view, the greatest right we have as Americans. And the Woodstock generation may be fading but as a Gen X’er I can say that I’m not going anywhere. My point being that as one dissenter dies, another replaces them. And also, I thought the Orthodox seminaries were having a hard time attracting new priests due mainly to the vow of celibacy. I could be wrong, you would know better than me on this one.

“Eric - time warp from when? Which century, which decade, or which year?”

1950’s. My reason being: 1) homosexuals were in the closet 2) conformity was the norm 3) women’s rights were guaranteed as long as they stayed in the kitchen. Perhaps I’m over stretching here, as I only know you from your posts. But I think it’s safe to say you are what the Woodstock crowd would call “square man.”

Apologizes for the Archie Bunker reference, but it is truly what I picture in my mind reading your posts. I meant no disrespect. I have no idea how old you are.

I’ll say this though, I enjoy reading your entries, as I like to hear views that differ from my own and especially yours are you obviously very intelligent and well thought out.

Respectfully,

Eric - I am much younger than the Woodstock crowd. Also I appreciate that you self-identify as a "dissenter". That to me demonstrates sincerity and intellectual honesty. The worst of the worst are those who argue that they are not dissenting, yet directly assault her teachings in speech and practice. Its one thing to dissent, it is quite another to claim one is not dissenting. It is self delusion. I don't see you in that camp at all. So, again, I appreciate your intellectual honesty.

As Archbishop Sheen once said, "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

What am I scared of? Not sure "scared" is the word, but anyone can see how people of faith, particularly Christians and Catholics are increasingly being attacked for their beliefs, opinions and thoughts. Miss California is probably the best example of that. One would think the ACLU and women's groups would have defended her, but they joined the assault. Wait a minute - maybe I am scared. The "thought" police are getting stronger and stronger.

Look at the joke Canada has become with its so called "human rights" commission. San Francisco has condemned the bible as hate speech.

Orwell, Brave New World, all prophetic.

Hugo Chavez yesterday described himself and Castro as being more conservative than Obama.

Obama has nominated a candidate for the Supreme Court who has the worst record in being overturned and voted as worst courtroom demeanor by the bar.

Are you not scared? Maybe scared is the right word.

As a graduate student who has had the pleasure to study under Dr. Diaz, I can personally vouch for the fact that he is an extremely gifted theologian, a leader in the community, and one who is not afraid to challenge our sometimes complacent ideas of how we view philosophy, God, and our faith. While I have not always agreed with his theology I have never questioned his loyality to both the church and the Church. Read his writings before you condemn him and do not judge any book by its publishing house. He will be a fine representative to the Vatican on behalf of our country, not just the president.