www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Vatican rejects proposed USA ambassadors

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/04/mr-obamas-predicament-an-ambassador/

Very interesting reading.

How the times do alter. It isn't that long ago that US Catholics were up in (metaphorical) arms because the American government declined to have direct diplomatic relations with the Vatican at all. When Reagan cut the Gordian Knot and re-established (yes, I said "re-established" diplomatic relations with the Holy See, it seems most unlikely that either the President or anyone else even envisioned and particular religious qualification for future American ambassadors to the Vatican - any hint of such a thing would have precipitated a strong and severe anti-Catholic reaction in the USA.

Suggestion: President Obama has not asked my advice on the matter, nor is he likely to do so - but if he did, I would propose that he appoint someone who has no connection with the Catholic Church.

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge's suggestion is an excellent one. After all, the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See represents the U.S. President, not the U.S. Catholic Church. Therefore, there is no reason why the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See should have to be a Catholic at all.

Part of the problem may be that many U.S. ambassadors are political appointees, not career foreign service personnel. That's why you tend to get ambassadors who are friends or benefactors of the president or his party, and who have some sort of connection with the country or organization they are sent to.

A guy I regular argue with on a non-religious forum, has stated that extremists with a 16th Century mindset are now in control of the Vatican. I pray he's right.

Interesting and sad. This is a diplomatic mission, an ambassador, that the pope is refusing to recognize. The purpose of an ambassador is to foster communication between governments, in agreements and especially in disagreements. Refusing to meet with the representative of someone you disagree with is not the way to foster communication.

-- John

When Australia established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1973 (some would say to shut the Australian bishops up) the first ambassador was rejected, as he was divorced. Until the last year or so the representaive was also ambassador to Ireland as well. Australia is upgrading it's level of contact with the Vatican by having a separate ambassador to Ireland.

I'm not sure what the ambassador to the Vatican does, but it is interesting that the names offered have been rejected. It could just be a matter of a lack of communication, which would "fail to improve relations".

As far as appointing someone who has no connection, I can imagine how that would be less of an insult. Is the Catholic connection part of the reason that the criteria is strict? That in some why this person's pro-abortion Catholicism would be condoned by the Church.

The United States and the Holy See maintain full diplomatic relations, so there is no question of not wanting to meet with each other's representatives.

But the Vatican has the right to reject any nominee for ambassador to the Holy See for whatever reason.

Similarly, the White House can reject any proposed ambassador to Washington for whatever reason. The same is true for every other country and government in the world.

This process of seeking agreement from the host country is an important and necessary part of diplomatic protocol. It is meant to ensure good communications between countries.

Therefore, you don't propose a pro-abortion candidate for ambassador to the Holy See, just as you don't propose an anti-Semite as ambassador to the State of Israel, or a Taiwan independence activist as ambassador to the People's Republic of China, or a non-French-speaker as ambassador to France, or an anti-whaling lobbyist as ambassador to Iceland.

Most countries make an effort to find a candidate for ambassador who will be acceptable to the host country. Indeed, failure to do so can be seen as a deliberate insult.

Good for the pope! President Obama is purposely proposing ambassadors who support his pro-death policies. He does this to send a very loud message to the pope to get with the morals of the 21st century. The Holy Father has no responsibility to accept such arrogance. Those who think that standing for Christian values is a sign of the 16th century mindset need to study the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not murder" is still there and Obama supports taxpayer financed murder both in the womb and even after birth.

Exactly, Terry! The Catholic Church expects that Catholics in public life should try to follow the teaching of the Church in their public as well as private life. If they don't do so, the Church cannot condone it. A non-Catholic, however, obviously has no obligation to follow or support Catholic teaching.

Even so, any kind of pro-abortion candidate would probably be unacceptable to the Holy See. According to the Catholic Church, abortion is against the natural moral law, and not just against Catholic teaching. Therefore, everyone, both Catholics and non-Catholics, should be able to see that abortion is wrong.

As for what the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See does, I can recommend taking a quick look at their website: http://vatican.usembassy.gov/english/

The Pope (it may have been John Paul II) personally raised the issue of same-sex marriages - which are legal in Spain - with His Most Catholic Majesty King Juan Carlos. HMCM explained to His Holiness that if he wished to raise this with the Spanish government, the Pope was at liberty to do so, but that the King takes no part in politics.

I have not noticed the Holy See refusing to accept the Spanish Ambassador, let alone breaking relations with Spain.

Fr. Serge

Interesting point, Fr Serge, but I think all Spanish ambassadors are career diplomats, meaning that they usually would never publicly express their personal opinions about moral or political issues. The problem with some of the candidates mentioned for U.S. ambassador to the Holy See is that they are not career diplomats, but public figures who have publicly stated their views on various moral issues.

The fact that the candidates are not career diplomats, but public figures, also mean that they would be much more like the personal envoy of a medieval emperor than just a bureaucratic servant of the modern state. That makes the choice more significant and more symbolic.

Anyway, are there really no pro-life Democrats left in the party at all?

There are still quite a few of us left in the party...http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

With all due respect Father, is the ambassador from Spain a practicing same-sex married person? If so, I am sure the Holy See would be rejected. Those that promote and openly support and excourage pro-death policies such as these, are practicing in the act IMHO.

Great news, Erie Byz! So Pres. Obama could appoint pro-life Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia [democratsforlife.org] as the next U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, and presumably Ambassador Kaine would be made very welcome indeed. The only trouble is that it sounds like he is probably doing more good in Richmond than he could in Rome.