New US Ambassador to the Holy See: stick to diplomacy, not theology

Paolo Rodari of Palazzo Apostolico has a note in Italian about the reception by Pope Benedict of the credentials of the new Ambassador of the USA to the Holy See.

Rodari makes the observation:

Doing theology, in fact, to intervene on Vatican questions from a theological point of view, is not a matter of diplomacy, and this pertains also to ambassadors which are accredited by the Holy See.

So… when it comes to matters of the Church’s teaching, the Liberation theologian and now Honorable Miguel H. Diaz, paid operative of the Obama Administration, can smile and remain diplomatically with pie hole closed as he receives his pay check from Sec. State Hillary Clinton.

It will be interesting to read what Pope Benedict says as he receives Diaz’s credentials.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Father Bartoloma says:

    “pie hole” LOL

  2. Supertradmom says:

    Can he restrain himself? I mean Diaz, of course.

  3. Bill in Texas says:

    Perhaps we will see a Papal Smackdown.

  4. Parochus says:

    Another possible translation:

    To meddle theologically in Vatican issues from a theological viewpoint is not a matter of diplomacy, and that also applies to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.

  5. GOR says:

    Good for Rodari! His headline set the tone: “The Pope and Diaz: Why Benedict XVI wishes diplomacy and not theology from the US Ambassador”

    Just in case Diaz had other intentions, Paolo sets him straight right from the start!

  6. Hidden One says:

    I’m too tired to look up quite all the Latin for “Shut up and pay attention: I’m the theologian, you’re not,” but if I wasn’t, I could answer as to what it would be really, really fun to read in the newspapers.

  7. Is it not a shame that Cdl. Ratzinger was not the Pope thirty years ago rather than piddling away his time as Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith? As someone wiser than me has said of him: It is as if he were coming out of a coma.

  8. Sol says:

    William, if card. Ratzinger had been Pope, it is possible that card. Wojtyla might have been the doctrine watchdog in his stead. Maybe it’s not so bad that Ratzinger was the Prefect. Who knows what would have happened to the Liturgy and doctrine if B16 hadn’t been where he was in those post Vatican II days.

    By the way, I am NOT suggesting Pope John Paul was doctrinally wayward. He happens to be my compatriot and I respect and admire him for what he did as a person, for the man he was(and no doubt he indeed was a great man, both intellectually and in spirit) and for one or two encyclicals he wrote. But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, the Liturgy and theology were not his particular area of concern. He was more inclined to think in terms of bringing faith closer to the people and reaching out to the faithful, as well as forcefully speaking out on moral issues such as the evil of abortion and Communism. Unfortunately, the destruction of Liturgy and music of the Church continued unabated in the meantime. Perhaps John Paul’s sincere and laudable wish to bring all the people closer meant he had to turn a blind eye to some disturbing expressions of the misguided ‘ecumenism’ of the day.

  9. Sol says:

    *also meant

  10. ssoldie says:

    These next four years will be very interesting, as were the last fourty five +.

Comments are closed.