This had better be a false report. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Vatican claims it has squashed President Obama's desire to appoint Caroline Kennedy as ambassador to the Vatican on the grounds that she is pro-choice. This is very wrong and offensive. It must be bottled up in the Senate somewhere.
The US constitution explicitly forbids any religious tests for office, which means that a pro-life religious stand cannot be required for any office, including ambassador to the Vatican. We also do not have any tradition of bending or weakening our values to suit others in such appointments. It is unacceptable to preclude Jews or women from being ambassadors to Arab countries. During Apartheid, the US sent a black amabassador to South Africa - Ronald Reagan did this in 1986. It is particularly important, when dealing with the Vatican, to have someone who is able to represent the interests of the United States, not merely a pious church member. Among the other things the USA supports - against the wishes of the Vatican - are the following: the right of men and women here and abroad to have access to contraceptive devices and engage in family planning, no-fault divorce, no gender discrimination, the death penalty, the right to die (in some places), and toleration for gays and lesbians unions and anti-discrimination laws for gays and lesbians (in some places). We must not allow any foreign government or a single religious leader to demand that any ambassador to them disavow some or all of these values. Shame on the Obama administration if it gives into such pressure.
We really need an ambassador in the Vatican who will deliver sharp words when the Pope opposes condom distribution in Africa despite the horrific AIDS epidemic there, not someone who will kneel, kiss his ring, or even applaud. We need someone who will tell the Pope that it is not "okay" to promote holocaust deniers. Angela Merkel cannot be the only one with balls here.
16 comments:
I agree that Obama should appoint whomever he feels is appropriate--including the possibility of a "protest" ambassador as in the one to South Africa you mentioned. However, Obama is probably not interested in picking a fight with the Vatican right now. He's more interested in improving our image abroad, and the Vatican can help in some quarters. And not to be too picky, but one can be "pro-life" without being religious.
I have a better idea. Leave the post vacant and insist that all communiques from the Vatican go through our ambassador to Italy. By continuing to pretend that the Bishop of Rome is a sovereign government unto himself we give him far more importance than he is due.
By the way, that's more or less what we do with San Marino - the other micro pseudo state completely surrounded by Italy.
"One can be "pro-life" without being religious."
Perhaps it is possible, but no one is. Just like it is possible to disbelieve the biological theory of evolution for non-religious reasons, but nobody does.
If picking a Kennedy is a fight with the Vatican, woe betide the Irish-American community. What to do?
LTG: pro-life / non-religious - it is possible, and there are plenty of people who object to abortion on "don't kill the baby" as opposed to "don't play God" grounds. Comparison to the whole evolution thang isn't appropriate here.
Back on the US ambassador / Vatican thang: The Age has this report, which has a bit more detail than the Daily Telegraph piece, including the apparent Vatican assertion that they haven't rejected anyone, because no-one's been formally nominated yet. Provocative yes, but not as outright provocative as the Daily Telegraph / LTG's paraphrases from it make out - certainly more 'political'.
I kinda like RbR's idea, except that San Marino has practically no sway over the rest of the world, whereas the Pope/Vatican have a *huge* impact, particularly in some regions. Plus, refusing to give the Pope the respect he believes he is due would cause problems with Italy - whilst very few people attend church regularly, they'll all tell you they're Catholic if you ask, and speak very highly of il Papa (his weekly address to the people is always packed). Now, granted, Italy's maybe not the most influential country in the world, but it's one of the original EU members, and upsetting them in that manner could well have knock on effects that Obama doesn't want to deal with right now. Germany can get away with it due to having similar longevity within the EU, but of course more influence due to their stronger economy.
I'm guessing that Obama will bend over this time, just because he needs as many friends as possible to rebuild America's image, with a view to giving the Pope the kick up the arse he needs at some future date if possible.
Italy is an important country. In addition to being a founding member of the EU, they are in the G-7.
Of course the Vatican has influence. I just meant to suggest that if we TREATED them like San Marino it would be an appropriate way to smack His Holiness Benedict "Benny the Rat" Ratzinger with a rolled up newspaper.
I'll resist the temptation to ask how many tanks the Pope has.
How many divisions, you mean.
Well, the question I asked after seeing the Vatican was how many of the poor and needy that they apparently care about could be fed and clothed from the wealth held in the Vatican, and indeed housed in the buildings. I'm sure the Pope has insisted upon very modest living arrangements for himself and his staff though...
"Well, the question I asked after seeing the Vatican was how many of the poor and needy that they apparently care about could be fed and clothed from the wealth held in the Vatican, and indeed housed in the buildings. I'm sure the Pope has insisted upon very modest living arrangements for himself and his staff though..."
Heretic!
As much as I love dumping on the Vatican, the purpose of my post was not to be an anti-Catholic screed, but to point out (1) that we don't permit foreign potentates to determine our officials or our values and (2) that the values promoted by the US government today and the Obama adminstration actually differ substantially from the positions taken by the RC church.
Pombat: as I see it, the belief that a 16-cell blastocyte is a 'baby' is almost always based on the religious notion that a new human life begins at conception. That must be a religious notion because it is not based on science. Science has no definition for "new human life" - that's a philosophic or religious notion. You can't test for that.
Bottom Line: The ambassadorship is a political appointment, not a religious one. MY suggestion is that Obama pick either a confirmed agnostic or a confirmed atheists.
I am fed up with teh Church preaching politics from the pulpit.
"Heretic!"
Thank you. -bows-
LTG: just because something doesn't have a scientific basis doesn't automatically turn it into a religious belief. It is entirely possible for someone to not identify with any religion, yet think that it is wrong to abort a pregnancy.
For example, I am not religious (see above), but if I found myself pregnant, even if by only a few weeks, I would say that there was a new life inside of me. And I would also say that having an abortion, aka termination, would result in the termination of that life. I could get all nitpicky, and say "potential life" until such time as the pregnancy would result in a viable human life if immediately delivered, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't. Maybe that's a philosophical belief - maybe we're just arguing about semantics now.
It would be interesting to see what the Vatican would do with an Ambassador who agreed with them about abortion but disagreed with them about just about everything else. We could appoint a Muslim or a Jew. I still like the idea of leaving the office vacant though. Refusing our ambassador is the high point of the Papacy's political influence this Spring.
Benny's probably annoyed at not being included at all these summits.
I think, Pmbt, that further examination will reveal that your beliefs about the meaning of pregnancy are cultural and philosophical conceptions derived from the Christian overlay on our culture. I also think very few people hold to those strongly enough to call themselves "pro-life" without an even more specific religious basis.
Of course, this does not include the broad realization that being pregnant is a substantial step to the creation of a human being. But that realization is different from believing that it is morally wrong for any person to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy, nor does it logically or inexorably lead to that conclusion.
Not sure about the "Christian overlay on our culture" bit, given that I've lived in the UK and Australia, and whilst they're nominally Christian countries, neither are religious in the manner of the US. But anyway. You clearly have a very strong belief here, so I'm happy to leave you with that.
Of course, whilst I would say that having an abortion would be terminating/killing the pregnancy, I also hold very strongly to the point of view that everyone should have safe, legal access to safe, legal abortion. I think that the people who claim that legalising abortion (where it's not already legal) would lead to a huge jump in abortions and the breakdown in our societies are talking rubbish, and abortion certainly wouldn't be used as a convenient contraceptive method (as I've seen some commentators say). So that's where my morals sit - no-one should be forced to have a child they don't want to have, because it would be bad for all involved.
Post a Comment