It appears as if the Catholic Church has rejected yet another Obama nominee for Ambassador to Vatican City:
Vatican sources told Il Giornale that their support for abortion disqualified Ms Kennedy and other Roman Catholics President Barack Obama had been seeking to appoint.
Mr Obama was reportedly seeking to reward John F Kennedy’s daughter, who publicly gave her support to his election bid. She had been poised to replace Hillary Clinton as New York senator, but dropped out amid criticism that she lacked enough experience for the job.
The Italian paper said that the Vatican strongly disapproved of Mr Obama’s support for abortion and stem cell research. The impasse over the ambassadorial appointment threatens to cloud his meeting with the Pope during a G8 summit in Itay in July.
Not surprisingly, most of the right is supporting the Vatican on this one. Dan Riehl wonders why the Obama Administration continues to “insult” Catholicism by sending an Ambassador that disagree with Church teaching on abortion. Moe Lane asks the same question.
Personally, though, I find myself in agreement with Jazz Shaw, who asks why we even bother sending an Ambassador to Vatican City:
The broader point there, though, is the truly bizarre concept that foreign entities should be rejecting ambassadors because of policy differences between them and the person selected. Perhaps our ambassador to Venezuela should only be someone who supports Castro, hates America and wants Russian missile installations throughout Central and South America? Here’s an idea… let’s have an ambassador to England who wants the United States to forfeit its independence and go back to being a territory of the U.K.
A quick note to our Obama bashing pundits who are cackling with glee over this: ambassadors, by definition, are representatives of our nation and, in particular, of the positions and views of the current administration. The current administration happens to be pro-choice, and to the extent that should ever come up in discussions, they need to represent those views. All they really need is the ability to communicate well and be, well… diplomatic. They deliver messages, gather information and facilitate relations behind the scenes.
In that sense, then rejection of a President’s chosen representative, whether it’s done officially or unofficially, isn’t just a slap at that particular President it’s a slap in the face of the country as a whole.
Moreover, its fairly obvious that the Catholic Church is not happy that Obama is the President of the United States given his position on issues like abortion and stem cell research, but, as Ron Chusid notes quite eloquently, them’s the breaks:
The Vatican might not like it, but support for both abortion and embryonic stem cell research is the position of the Obama administration and both are legal in this country. What if the Vatican were to also demand an ambassador who believes in creationism instead of evolution?
What of other areas where countries disagree with the views of appointed ambassadors? Do Muslim nations object to non-Muslim ambassadors from the west? Should we go along if one were to insist that we only appoint an ambassador who opposes the existence of Israel?
During the cold war it would have been ludicrous for Communist nations to reject western ambassadors who did not support Communism. Imagine if the Chinese had refused overtures from Richard Nixon to begin diplomatic relations because Nixon and his potential ambassadors were not Maoists.
And, as Allahpundit notes, we don’t see a similar demand for orthodoxy from the nation that many see as the leader of the Muslim world:
If it’s true, though, that they’re turning away Catholics who disagree with them on abortion, isn’t it also true that the Vatican’s standards of religious orthodoxy in this area are stricter than, er, Saudi Arabia’s? Here’s the list of U.S. ambassadors to the Kingdom; not too many Islamic names among them, which seems to suit the Wahhabis just fine even though (a) the Koran is the country’s official constitution and (b) the practice of religions other than Islam is normally prohibited. Isn’t the “insult” of having an ambassador who thinks Mohammed was a false prophet greater than the insult of having an ambassador who disagrees about the sanctity of life?
The explanation, of course, is that Saudi Arabia is a real nation whereas Vatican City is, it’s history notwithstanding, nothing more than a Church with a big yard to borrow a phrase from James Joyner.
Perhaps the short-term solution, if there is one, is to send an Ambassador who isn’t a Catholic. Maybe then the Church won’t take the Ambassador’s views on social issues not relevant to the state of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vatican City so personally.
Personally, though, I’ve got to say I’m in agreement with Jazz Shaw. If the Vatican is going to use this issue as a wedge to involve itself in social policy debates that are solely the concern of the American people, then let’s leave that Ambassadorship vacant for a few years, or perhaps permanently.
If this were any other country, I’d imagine that even the right would be up in arms over the insult.
April 12th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Why? Simply because religion is not a political opinion. Either a Catholic accepts the Church Dogma or they are not Catholic. The people the Church rejects are claiming to be Catholic but have grossly comprised their beliefs.
It has little impact on the US government as a whole so to claim outrage is foolish. What the censure does is serve notice that the Church will protect its doctrine from political dilution of those who will bastardize their beliefs simply to garner votes.
Religion is not a smorgasbord where we can pick and chose the bits we like and leave the rest.
These supposed leaders of our government should be what they claim to be.
The higher thought should be our outrage at those that can lie so deeply that they will compromise their very soul to hold office.
Is that the quality you as voters wish hold to in the ballot box?
April 12th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
So, it would be okay to send a pro-choice Protestant ?
Or would the Pope then tell us that the representative must be Catholic ?
April 12th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I think the special status of the Vatican as both state and religious capital makes it acceptable to expect that the ambassador be a Catholic. But with that having been said, I would be much more comfortable if the Vatican were to demonstrate some testicular fortitude and simply excommunicate those to defy church teaching as the Kennedy’s have done for generations. I may be a Lutheran, but that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the principle that you have to follow the rules if you want to be a member of the club.
April 12th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
A pro-choice Protestant would be better than a pro-choice “Catholic”. It’s better to have someone who is straightforward about his beliefs than some who says one thing, but does another.
April 12th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Joseph Stalin asked a similar question — How many legions does the pope have? Russia found out that without any legions, the Vatican could still take down that wall in Berlin.
Sounds to me like you want to bash Catholics. Take an asprin and rest.
April 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Tomor,
I am Catholic.
I’d feel the same way if any other nation purported to dictate who our Ambassador could be.
April 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Disagreeing with Church teaching on abortion is not grounds for excommunication
April 12th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Well, Doug, the Kennedys (for instance) have gone well beyond mere “disagreement.” To the contrary, they have championed abortion (as well as divorce which — to be fair — does NOT apply to Caroline, if memory serves), and promoted it in the United States and worldwide.
There is a fairly substantial distinction there.
And I’m not sure that there’s much left which is “grounds for excommunication.” But I’m hardly in the best position to know.
April 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I am Catholic and have Catholic creds as I went to Catholic school for 12 years.
The Catholic church has become obsessed with issues around sex. Abortion, gay marriage, condoms, etc. I know the New Testament very well and there is no mention of any of these issues.
Catholics like commenter Patrick O’Connell (above) can point to the fact that Pope Benedict and the current Catholic hierarchy has focused on these issues and made them a litmus test for being Catholic, and thus conclude that Catholics who disagree with church policies are cafeteria shopping. But I can point back to Jesus’ own words, as told through his apostles, and find nothing to justify to church’s obsession with any of these issues.
We Catholics do believe in the Ten Commandments. I would like to see Catholics focus on those true sins, such as lying, stealing and adultery. Perhaps they do not because they are guilty of those sins and it is so much easier to throw a tomato at gays than examine your own life.
April 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
My perception is that the insult to the Vatican is in trying to have it both ways – saying loudly that we’re sending a “Catholic”, while having it be someone who’s actively opposed to actual Catholicism.
It’s not in the best interests of the Catholic church to let themselves be used to further Caroline Kennedy’s political ends, helping her to provide cover to other Catholics that are trying to split with the Church’s doctrine. I don’t know if we’ve done that sort of thing to other countries.
April 13th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Uh, Jessice, I wouldn’t presume to question your “Catholic creds,” but it strikes me as intellectual dishonesty of the worst sort to accuse the church of “becom[ing] obsesses with issues around sex” when it is merely RESPONDING to the licentious agenda of the far Left concerning “Abortion, gay marriage, condoms, etc.”
It is not “obsession” to respond to the arguments and activities of your enemies.
April 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
James,
But why does Vatican City feel the need to get involved in American domestic politics to this degree ?
We wouldn’t accept it from any other nation
April 24th, 2009 at 1:44 am
“But why does Vatican City feel the need to get involved in American domestic politics to this degree ?” would be a very good question if Rome were simply raising objection to an American officials political views and not as it were about the views of one who claims to be Catholic, supports abortion and is being offered as an ambassadorial candidate.
The issue as I see it is that Ms Kennedy publicly supports abortion. Being who she is her views are expressed on the world stage and that draws attention to her disunion with the Church.
As far as I know, Rome had not commented on her until she became an ambassadorial candidate to the Vatican.
The way I see it the United States should have a right to approve or disapprove of an Ambassadorial candidate from another country. The Church should have the same right.
To be fair to Ms Kennedy, none of the current potential Democratic diplomats were considered fit by the Vatican so this is not just about her. I think because she is the daughter of America first Catholic President that the focus has shone more brightly on her.
The best explanation I have found was reported by The Catholic News Agency (CNA) on Apr 9, 2009 – Obama’s candidates for Vatican ambassador failing ’simple standard’ http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15656
****
“While some observers of the Vatican-Obama diplomatic debate have said that the Holy See is being too demanding, the Secretary of State official contacted by CNA dismissed the notion.
“The Holy See has always set a very simple standard: the person should not be in opposition to fundamental teachings of the Church that belong to our common shared humanity. He or she may not believe in Catholic dogma if he or she is not a Catholic, but we could not accept someone who is in favor of abortion, or (human) cloning or same-sex unions equated to marriage,” the official said.
“That is a fairly simple principle that governments like, say, Spain and Cuba, or Mr. Clinton’s administration, have been able to understand without a problem.”…
****
That seems fair enough.