Late Word

In my travels last week, I missed the most recent Word from Rome, which contains this tidbit:

The Catholic Herald recently carried an interesting item about Julian Hunte, a pro-choice Catholic politician in the West Indies who was awarded a papal knighthood Sept. 19. Hunte was made a Knight of the Grand Cross Pian Order. Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano bestowed the honor in a New York ceremony.

As the Herald story notes, the award is especially interesting in light of the debate currently swirling in the United States over the eligibility of pro-choice Catholic politicians for the Eucharist.

Hunte, the Minister for External Affairs of Santa Lucia, recently concluded his term as president of the United Nations General Assembly. The Vatican recognized him for his role in a resolution regarding the work of the Holy See in the United Nations.

Hunte was also, however, the deciding vote last year on a bill in the upper chamber of the St. Lucian parliament that decriminalized abortion in that Caribbean nation. In December, that measure passed by five votes to four, with Hunte in favor.

"I think every woman must have a choice. I am a pro-choice man," Hunte said during a parliamentary debate before votes were cast.

Comments

[mio]

The NCR piece seems to leave unanswered the crucial question -- what did Cdl. Sodano/"the Vatican" know about Julian Hunte's views and record?

We're told that Fr. Clovis is challenging the award after the fact, but not (that I see) anything about whether concerns were raised beforehand.

Maybe it's a conscious Vatican decision -- "hey, let's honor this pro-abortion guy, what a neat idea!" -- or maybe it's just an example of poor vetting by somebody at the local level.

Certainly, Fr. Clovis' prediction has come true with a vengeance. NCR seems to be using Mr. Hunte's story exactly as he feared it would be used:

"It makes a mockery of what we stand for and it compromises us because now the public perception on abortion will be: 'What are you complaining about? The Vatican does not see anything wrong with it.'"

Is that perception based on fact, is the question. Hopefully not.

[Carrie]

I think the Vatican knew. At least if this article is any indication.

[Zippy]

Beautiful. Do what I say, but not what I do. Welcome to the new springtime.

[Rich Leonardi]

Leaving aside the rush to criticize the Holy Father by some of our Traditionalist friends, the article confirms the general impression that Cardinal Sodano lacks good judgment and circumspection.

[Carrie]

Whatever Sodano's attributes or lack of them, I've done some searching on the web for information about papal orders. A History of the Papal Orders indicates that "Such honors originally conferred nobility, personal or hereditary according to the rank, but today the Papal Orders are a means by which the Holy Father might personally distinguish those who have particularly served the Church and society."

These awards are personal favors from the Pope as every article on recipients that I've read makes clear. He may not oversee each one, but he bears the responsibility for each one.

BTW, Rich, I'm not a "Traditionalist" if by that you mean someone who attends the Latin Mass. However, every Catholic who holds the fullness of the faith in their heart is a Traditionalist by nature. Catholicism is based in Scripture and Tradition.

[WRY]

Carrie, I don't see in the article you cite any indication that those who went about preparing this honor knew about the pro-abortion vote. On the contrary, it specifically states that the Pope probably didn't know. It is most heartening that an effort is being made to stop this from happening. Let us pray they succeed.

[c matt]

Hopefully, if it is a case of sloppy vetting, it will get corrected. How do you "unknight" a knight?

[Cornelius]

"How do you "unknight" a knight?"

Take his sword from him, break it over the knee, and return it in two pieces. They all get ceremonial swords.

[mio]

Carrie,

Thanks for linking the St. Lucia Star piece. Although it's not definitive, as WRY noted, on the question of whether the Pope/Cardinal/Vatican knew of Mr. Hunte's positions, it's clear that someone was at least trying to inform them before the ceremony.

At the same time, I recognize that every letter sent to a pope or cardinal doesn't necessarily make its way into the addressee's hands immediately -- or ever. (Speaking of which, if you're reading this, Cdl. McCarrick, I'm still looking forward to hearing back from you).

Perhaps Mr. Hunte's sword could be made into a nice plowshare?

[c matt]

break it over the knee

The knight's knee? Or the "unknighter's" knee? How about, in this case, we break over the knight's head?

[Carrie]

I don't think, politically, there is any chance of removing the knighthood. This man was President of the General Assembly of the UN, where he worked to have the Vatican accepted. The message of unknighting him, if it were even possible, would be as disastrous for Rome as the message of knighting him is.

Since he was active at the UN on Rome's behalf, it seems reasonable that he had the attention of Vatican staff who should have known about his other activities. I suspect he was knighted in spite of them, but I'm still looking for evidence of it, either way.

[Rod Dreher]

Isn't it amusing to think that if this papal knight turned up for mass in the diocese of Colorado Springs, the bishop would not give him communion? And if he were eligible to run for dogcatcher in Colorado Springs, no Catholic could vote for him, says the bishop?

According to the Catholic Encylopedia, papal knighthoods are conferred by the Vatican on men of "unblemished character" who have assisted the Church. Men like Rupert Murdoch, who gave Cardinal Mahony millions for the Taj Mahony, and was, in the mystery of providence, made a papal knight. As we have seen, however, the Vatican's definition of "unblemished character" is -- how to put this kindly? -- extremely charitable.

[Carrie]

I'd be willing to bet, Rod, that if he showed up in Colorado Springs, the bishop would have urgent business somewhere else that would prevent him from taking a stand.

As the common man thinks of "knighthood," the first thought that comes to mind is defense of women and children--defense of the innocent and defenseless. Unborn babies qualifies in spades.

If the knighthood is removed, we will bring unfavorable fallout from the UN down on the Church. This knighthood was given specifically because of Hunte's work with the UN. If it remains, it presents those promoting abortion with a convenient example of papal approval.

The only "out" I can imagine at this point is making a statement that the Church does not condone Hunte's stand on abortion, which will then end the unfortunate incident with a blemish on papal knighthood itself.

There is one other possibility...Hunte could relinquish the knighthood.

[Glenn Juday]

I’m afraid that I see the awarding of papal honors to a “Catholic” politician who provide a crucial pro-abortion vote in his home country as a symptom. I often think over the events of my life in the Church in which we went from a worldwide communion of believers, believing sinners, and people struggling to believe to become the "gorgeous mosaic" of lukewarm believers, heretics, apostates, saints, and schismatics of today. I think about why God allowed it to happen and how specifically it happened. And one thing, time and again, that I come back to is - indiscipline and sloppiness.

First of all, the virtue of discipline in the faith was denigrated. We were assured, not that God would forgive a genuine sin, but that He wouldn’t even notice (He’s so big He can take it) or He really didn’t care (Why hold yourself to account, anyway?). The fear of scrupulosity overwhelmed the fear of offending God. Nobody applied the appropriate discipline and this rising tide became a flood.

Then the teachings of the Second Vatican Council were “spun.” Self-appointed spokesmen for what the Council “really” taught came forward with unique and quirky interpretations. Theologians, priests, and bishops departed from Catholic and then Christian and finally natural law precepts. They took vast numbers of lay faithful with them. Nobody applied the appropriate discipline and this rising tide became a flood.

Catholic lay people achieved worldly success and ever greater levels of education. Then they began to rebel against even the very concept of moral guidance from a source outside themselves. The sins that elevated personal autonomy above all else and that provided sexual pleasure and wealth on cheap and easy terms were especially eagerly embraced. At first priests winked, then they rationalized, and finally a number joined in, albeit a number of them in perverted ways. Nobody applied the appropriate discipline and this rising tide became a flood.

Ironically, while discipline in moral life was evaporating into the almost completely weightless and formless new thing that went under a misappropriation of the term “spirituality,” the one point that achieved consensus was that discipline is the most dangerous thing in religion. It was a positive obligation of the modern apostles of enlightenment to be vigilant for a retrograde outbreak of discipline and to use all the tools against it – mockery, solemn warnings of political danger, a “feel happy, don’t worry God.” Whatever it took.

Well, here we are, at a stage that represents the full fruits of spiritual sloppiness and indiscipline. Papal honors for a key functionary of the culture of death. Sure, we know exactly and specifically where Pope John Paul II and the magisterium of the Catholic Church stand on the issue of abortion, because of a wealth of eloquent, well-written, and even passionate documents. But as far as undergoing the criticism that attends the discipline of putting it into actual practice, well……

[Lee]

Now Rod, the Vatican is just using prudential judgment on deciding who should get these awards. Isn't it disrespectful to question this?

Watching Vatican diplomacy is like watching the making of cheap sausage.

The Pope gave a knighthood to Kurt Waldheim in 1994. To refresh everyone's memory on this:

From Jonathan Kwitny's bio of the Pope, "Man of the Century":

"Kurt Waldheim, the secretary-general who had first brought John Paul to the UN, was identified as a Nazi war criminal. Files from the UN War Crimes Commission showed that as an Austrian officer in Hitler's army, young Waldheim had sent Jews and war prisoners to their deaths." (p. 550)

"April 27, 1987, the US government had placed Kurt Waldheim, now president of Austria, on its no-admittance list because of his bloody Nazi collaboration as a young officer. Defending this decision, Secretary of State Shultz and Attorney General Edwin Meese said that even that year, Walsheim had lied to the United States about his record and defended Hitler's wartime murder of prisoners. All this was a powerful slap in Waldheim's face - which the pope then did what he couold to ease by welcoming Waldheim to the Vatican two months later and praising him for a lifetime's work for peace. The ceremony was boycotted by diplomatic envoys from the US, Italy, and many other countries. Why John Paul was so eager to help Waldheim that he would invite worldwide rebuke remains unclear. In 1994, he bestowed yet another honor on Waldheim, a knighthood." (pp. 568-569)

Lee

[James Kabala]

I think that Murdoch's papal knighthood was bestowed on him before he traded in his wife for a young bimbo. The fact that the wife was a Catholic was, in fact, said to be a factor in the awarding of the knighthood. However, I believe that that wife was already his second wife, which coupled with immoral programming on Fox, his cozy relationship with China, etc. still made the knighthood inappropriate.
P.S. Kudos to Rod for being willing to criticize Murdoch. I hope that no one from Fox News is reading this, or he may never appear on there again.

[Carrie]

In fairness, Carribean News reports Hunte is Anglican. His vote on abortion concerned victims of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. The decision was 5 to 4 in favor of abortion, so his vote in favor is seen as pivotal.

We all know the slippery slope abortion travels, but there is still a divide in the mind of the general public between these issues and abortion for birth control.

Does the fact that he is not Catholic somehow exonerate the Pope for this knighthood? It's a question I'm still thinking about.

[mio]

In one sense, every papal knight is going to be a sinner at one degree or another. There is, obviously no such thing (nowadays) as a truly "unblemished character."

Hopefully, though, the sinners who might be awarded papal knighthoods would be repentent ones.

[mio]

Carrie,

Interesting! I had noticed a mention of Mr. Hunte being Anglican at the very end of the first article you posted, but given the way it was phrased I thought it might be a joke. Frankly, though, I don't think it should make a difference.

I suppose that if there's a class of papal honors that's available to non-Catholics, certain doctrinal issues should not stand in the way of that honor being awarded. (For example, if a potential Baptist honoree doesn't believe in infant baptism, etc.) Otherwise, how could the honor ever be given at all? All non-Catholics will have some areas of doctrinal disagreement.

But issues that are a matter of natural law should be "written on hearts" across denominational lines. I think abortion falls in that category.

I'll be interested to hear others' opinions on this point.

[JohnMcG]

My opinion is what is all this outrage and frothing going to do to stop the 3,000 abortions that are going to take place today?

Man, I wish the biggest problem we had to worry about was whether all the honorees of Catican kinghthood had impeccable boting records.

[Carrie]

I think, John, that the question being raised is what is this knighthood going to do to give abortion more legitimacy. And that is a question worthy of much frothing at the keyboard.

His timing is atrocious, coming as it does in the midst of a campaign being waged to a large extent over the question of whether abortion will be given more legitimacy in a nation that is still Christian in name and that is responsible for a lot of abortions. If the US votes for Kerry, the US will be voting for abortion to some extent. This knighthood will give aide to Kerry's campaign if he chooses to use it.

[Glenn Juday]

I stand corrected. It appears Mr. Hunte is an Anglican, and I called him a “Catholic” politician.

I don’t know the specifics, but Mr. Hunte may be a member of a jurisdiction of the Anglican communion that can still be regarded by the Catholic Church as fellow Christians. Perhaps I am wrong, but I still can’t understand why papal honors in such a case would be any less a mistake.

[JohnMcG]

Do you really think the probablity that Kerry would use this, multiplied by the probablity that it would sway enough voters to elect him, mulitplied by the number of additional abortions a Kerry presidency would bring about is greater than those that would be prevented by addressing more immediate concerns?

Not to mention the number of people who see us engaging in intramural food fights like this and conclude that we're not serious about saving unborn children's lives.

[Carrie]

I do think this undermines any claim that abortion-promoting politicians are not eligible for the Catholic vote. What may or will be done with that is anybody's guess.

[Zippy]

I really don't get John McG's objection. Is a moral question like this merely a matter of practical consequences? Or should we be trying to figure out what is actually, objectively right in order to guide our own actions?

If it is all just consequentialism then by all means argue consequences. Although I think if it is all just consequences then just about everything said on St. Blogs is irrelevant, since St. Blogs by itself is not likely to decide the outcome of any significant election.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

So this fellow is not a Catholic. He voted to allow abortion in cases of Rape, Incest & life of the Mother.

BTW here is a more complete definition of Pontifical Decorations from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA then the DAN RATHER amateurish single praise citation we have been treated too.

QUOTE
"Pontifical decorations are the titles of nobility, orders of Christian knighthood and other marks of honour and distinction which the papal court confers upon men of unblemished character who have in any way promoted the interests of society, the Church, and the Holy See. The titles range all the way from prince to baron inclusive, and are bestowed by the pope as *****temporal sovereign*****."

Did any of you catch that last sentence? Pontifical decorations are awards give by the Pope as the Temporal Ruler of the Vatican City State. They ARE NOT canonizations. They are not endorsements of the recipients orthodoxy or lack there of.

Can ANY of the angry people give me an official infallible definition of the praise “unblemished character”?

Could it merely mean he is regarded as an honest honorable person & is being recognized for some good that he has done the church & it’s not intended to be an endorsement of the fellow’s doctrinal & moral material heresies?

Or does it mean you have to be perfect? Note to The Angry Crowd; EVEN PEOPLE WHO ARE CANONIZED don’t have to be perfect.

But contrary to the implied propaganda here Pontifical decorations are not the moral equivalence of canonizations.

This award is a hold over from the days when you had Papal States & a Papal Army. According to the logic (or lack there of) of the people here if an award is given to a Papal Soldier for bravery under fire in the heat of battle (back in the “good” old days) he would NOT be worthy of his award for heroism if it was found out the man in question fornicated with a camp follower the night before his act of military heroism.

If the Vatican gave out awards for writing excellent term papers & I was a Pro-Choice Unitarian who wrote a killer term paper & received the award, said award in question would merely be recognition of my superior term paper writing skills and not an endorsement of my heterodox views on the Deity of Christ or ProLife issues.

It is unfair to unjustly cast aspersions on the Pope & the Vatican over this is intellectually dishonest crap from the most liberal “Catholic” newspaper in existence.
A newspaper which shouldn’t be casting stones but often does.

Here is a further quote from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA on the nature of these awards which was linked too but clearly not read.

“Pontifical decorations are bestowed either by motu pro prio, and then forwarded by the secretary of state, or upon petition, when they are expedited through the chancery. The most certain and expeditious mode of procuring the coveted decoration is by a petition from the bishop of the diocese of the person to be honoured. The petition must state the name, age, country, in short, a brief history of the life of the applicant, bringing out in relief the eminent labours or work in science, literature, arts, controversial or other religious writings, or generous and self-sacrificing gifts or endowments made or done for society, the Church or its head, which are deemed worthy of papal recognition and reward.”

So in short it is a reward for the good a person has done. Not an endorsement of their personal failings & insufficiencies. Also nowhere does it say a person’s deficiencies are grounds for not recognizing the good they have done for the Church.

Nothing more.

[Carrie]

Well, BanYachov, tell it to Caroline Flood-Edgar, to Sarah Flood-Beaubrun, and to Fr. Linus Clovis, all of whom have been betrayed by this award.

[BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)]

They are entitled to their opinon. Let the Holy See judge. They (ie the Nuns) are perfectly within their rights to formally Petition the Holy See to address their concerns. That is an action I deeply respect. Indeed I certainly respect it a heck of a lot more than the actions of a bunch of crabby angry people who have nothing better to do then bitch all day about how terrible the Pope & the Vatican are instead getting up off their fat overfed American butts & addressing their problems to the Holy See rather than bitch about it behind the Pope's back.

But that's just me.

[JohnMcG]

Zippy,

To illustrate my objection, imagine of "social justice" Catholic group had a goal of ending world hunger.

They pursued this goal not by actually bringing food to hungry people, not by working for legislative policies to help the poor, but by complaining whenever the Church honored someone who disagreed with them.

Would you consider this evidence that this group is serious about ending world hunger?

[Zippy]

John,
I suppose that is exactly my point. These St. Blogs discussions are about what is right and wrong, not about consequentialism. Your criticism seems to me to be assuming something false about the discussion from the outset. We don't discuss the moral badness of murder because we are "serious about ending world murder"; in fact we acknowledge from the outset that we won't end world murder. The point to a moral discussion is to guide -our own- actions, not to create the Kingdom on earth. Your criticism misses that entirely on the present issue, it seems to me. The average Catholic voter ought not worry about how he will personally affect the election, because he won't affect the election at all. No, he ought to worry about the objective moral status of his own actions. And so that (rather than consequentialism) ought to be understood as the primary object of discussion.

[JohnMcG]

So what does hurling invective at the Vatican do for our own moral status?

[Zippy]

Attempting to make coherent sense of word and deed does a lot, though the process can be frustrating and is certainly imperfect, and I am certainly subject to occasional close encounters with my cynical side.

[Mio]

Hi John,

To my knowledge, there's not anyone in the pro-life camp who's devoting significant time to scanning the globe for papal honorees to attack. I'm not sure the same can be said, however, for the pro-abort (or, perhaps more accurately, "Catholics should vote for a pro-abort") side.

I've seen a stream of stories floated in Catholic circles lately along the lines of, "It must be OK to vote for pro-abort candidates, because the Vatican ... (a) gave communion to Tony Blair; (b) gave some award to some Italian politico; (c) gave a papal knighthood to Mr. Hunte," etc. etc. Because these events are being tossed about by one side, they naturally end up on the radar screen of the other.

I mean, who really pays attention to St. Lucia politics outside of a 10 mile radius from Castries? Yet, son of a gun, there it is, right in the National Catholic Reporter -- "Vatican honors pro-aborts; you should, too."

This is not to say, of course, that some pro-life folks don't kick up a fuss on their own initiative about events a bit closer to home. "Local Catholic College to Honor Frances Kissling" would certainly grab my attention if it appeared in my morning paper, even if the NCR didn't print a story about it first.