Forth lesson: Do not make interpretations that the original text can’t hold. At no point in the story does the source claim to be speaking on behalf of Cardinal Stafford or Archbishop Burke. He is using his own descriptor –"traitor"- to transmit the prelates’ well-known disappointment about Kmiec’s support for Obama. "Traitor" a canonical term? Who said it was? Not the source, for sure. Canon law has nothing to do with his comment. The source did say something Winters’ readers would not find without access to the original story: "Those who [Winters’] article refers so disrespectfully as 'extremists on the right,' or 'the far right political fringe,' are the serious, loyal Catholics [the Vatican] precisely takes into account, because they are the ones who are there when the Church needs them."
There is an old saying: Those who know, don’t talk and those who talk, don’t know. This is not always true or Vatican reporters would be out of a job. But, I was under the impression that Vatican officials make an oath not to speak to the press about their work. Why then are these oh, so Catholic news outlets helping someone to violate his oath?
Fifth lesson: Apply your own principles, that is, if you don’t know, don’t talk. Don’t venture into fields that are not of your domain. If you don’t know how the Vatican operates, inform yourself properly or avoid writing all together. Vatican officials do not make any oath not to speak to the press. They make an oath not to reveal information that, by its nature or by the definition of their superiors, is secret.
Not knowing the distinction between revealing a secret and talking anonymously may lead you to unjustly accuse fellow Catholics of wrong-doing.
Worst yet, it can offer further proof of what George Weigel wrote in March 2008: "By combining low-grade sourcing, a faux-authoritative voice, and leftist political spin in equally impressive measures, Michael Sean Winters and the editors of the Washington Post’s ‘Outlook’ section have won the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology (named for the Notre Dame theologian who memorably announced that Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t possibly be elected pope, less than 24 hours before Ratzinger was elected)."
You can read the rest of Weigel’s article here.
As to the merits of the argument, there is a tautology in the objections this anonymous Vatican official raises. If supporting Barack Obama is enough to get one labeled a traitor, and an appointment denied, it is difficult to see whom Obama could appoint.
Sixth lesson: Don’t unleash an argument that can easily fire back at you. Barack Obama can appoint anyone he wants. Just not the one Catholic that is perceived, justly or not, to have sold his convictions to support the man that Cardinal Stafford recently described as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic", and who according to the same Cardinal, campaigned "on an extremist anti-life platform."
"You can quote me on that."
Seventh lesson: This is not the best way to finish a shaky post on a blog. You may sound smart and ironic for a few seconds… but you could actually end up getting what you ask for.