I’m not certain why the United States has an ambassador to the Vatican. I suppose it is a nice gesture but its also a giant waste of money. If they refuse to accept any ambassador that is personally pro-choice then I don’t think there is any need to continue the tradition. If we want to talk to the Pope, we have his phone number. And he has ours.
Update [2009-4-12 0:20:43 by BooMan]: If the Vatican hasn’t actually objected to the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as Ambassador, I apologize for taking a UK Telegraph article at face value.
.
I’d missed this until now, but apparently the trustworthy folks at Newsmax have been circulating a report claiming that the Obama administration has submitted three separate ambassadorial candidates to the Vatican for approval and each has been rejected for being “insufficiently pro-life.”
You’ll be shocked to learn this is not true.
John Thavis at Catholic News Service actually called over to the Vatican to ask about the rumors. Here’s what he found:
Vatican sources said not only was the report inaccurate, but that its premise was faulty. The Vatican has not been in the habit of vetting the personal beliefs or ideas of candidates before accepting them as ambassadors, they said.
There have been occasions in the last two years when the Vatican has objected to ambassadorial candidates — from Argentina, in the case of a divorced Catholic with a live-in partner, and from France, where the candidate was an openly gay Catholic in a union with another man.
“For Catholic ambassadors, there is the question of their matrimonial situation. But outside of that, I don’t think there are other criteria,” said one Vatican source.
Catholic group slams possible Kennedy post
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Wouldn’t be the first time that the UK Telegraph printed garbage.
I’m not real impressed with their criteria either way, to be frank about it. But if they haven’t objected to Caroline Kennedy that I’ll update the story.
That sounds like a big loophole to me.
Tough love – yes.
I’d suggest the Vatican’s blocking the appointment of Caroline Kennedy as US ambassador will backfire as much as ASU not giving an honorary degree to the President.
What is the Catholic hierarchy thinking? Blocking the daughter of John F. Kennedy. Wanting to block President Barack Obama’s speaking at its premier institution. Merci.
We have an ambassador to the Vatican City because it is a sovereign state, and we have ambassadors to all sovereign states except in cases where we wish to express a very serious degree of disapproval, e.g., Iran and Cuba.
That said, it is highly unusual for a state to reject another state’s choice of ambassador — I’m straining to think of the last time this happened — for any reason, much less the personal beliefs of the person in question.
So I have to agree, let them do without a United States ambassador. I don’t think it should be a big deal, a matter of “tough love”; we should just leave the office empty and move on to more important things than the latest hissy fit from an inconsequential city-state that is neither a significant trading partner nor even a democracy. Non-Christians won’t give a shit, Protestants won’t give a shit, and, I’d be willing to bet, most Catholics won’t give a shit, either.
Pope Benedict will just have to learn that America is not a country where job discrimination on the basis of personal belief is permitted, and therefore we cannot offer him an alternate choice. It’s a shame, since I’m sure Ms. Kennedy was looking forward to an all expenses paid furlough in the middle ages, but those are the breaks.
I’m not certain why the United States has an ambassador to the Vatican. I suppose it is a nice gesture but its also a giant waste of money.
Given that 1/6th of the world’s population is Roman Catholic, I don’t think it’s a waste to have a diplomat at the Vatican.
Do we have an embassy to the Shiite Ayatollah? To Sunni religious heads? We have an ambassador to Israel, but that is to the sovereign state, much like our ambassador to Italy. Do we have an ambassador to the high rabbinical council that decides religious matters (my apologies for not knowing the proper name of this organization)?
So why to this one religion that is increasingly involved with partisan politics in the USA (and many other countries)?
.
Nothing unusual for government representatives to meet religious leaders at any time and place. Pope John Paul advocated a strong opposition to the Iraq war.
Pope Benedict also praised Australia’s “active support of the Millennium Development Goals, numerous regional partnerships, and initiatives to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
He also highlighted Australia’s readiness “to respond to a growing variety of exigencies in a principled, responsible and innovative manner.”
“Not least of these are the menacing threats to God’s creation itself through climate change.
US State and gay diplomats
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Obama, inclusive of the US government, has an ambassador to the vatican.
If it’s stupid, well then it’s stupid.
Reasonable thinking is that Ambassador to the Vatican is a plum job.
I’m sure that it is. Rome would be nice!
if it’s true they’re rejecting her, my guess is that the Vat doesn’t really like girls.
there, i said it, lol.