The Vatican has rejected yet another potential U.S. ambassador — Caroline Kennedy this time — because even though she’s Catholic, she isn’t anti-abortion. And as if to drive home the point, the Vatican chose Easter to express its outrage at Washington’s “calculated insult to the Holy See.”
Washington’s previous nominee, a former lawyer for Reagan and Bush Sr., was vetoed because he said Catholics didn’t have to vote for pro-abortion candidates in America’s November election.
It’s understandable for countries to hope that the ambassadors they receive will share some of their philosophical ground, and as a rising-star member of America’s most prominent Catholic family, the White House seemed to think Kennedy fit that bill. But should we really expect ambassadors to share all the religious views of their host countries?
An ambassador is supposed to represent the values of his country, not the values of his host government. Should being Jewish or Anglican — or for that matter a practicing Catholic who generally follows the dogma — exclude an otherwise capable ambassador from a diplomatic post? And should we require, by the same token, that ambassadors to Beijing be atheists? Or that Canadian representatives to Bhutan adhere strictly to the Vajrayana strain of Buddhism, and not some other kind?
Jazz Shaw over at the Moderate Voice — maybe not so moderate in this case — has an idea. I don’t know if it’s a good one, but it would sure be interesting:
With that in mind, I would suggest to President Obama that he simply not send any additional names to the Vatican for the next year or two. Leave that office empty for a while and see if the Vatican begins to feel a bit differently about the situation. What? The world is going to end because we don’t have an ambassador to a church?
With abortion a constant on the Vatican’s agenda, the U.S. ambassador there needs to represent the pro-choice views of her pro-choice president. I know the Vatican is considered “special,” but at what point does catering to the Catholic Church’s doctrine interfere with an ambassador’s ability to represent her country?
The Vatican wants an ambassador who disagrees sharply with his president on a subject that’s important to both countries. Imagine if Washington demanded a Vatican ambassador who opposes the Pope’s recent declaration about using condoms to fight AIDS in Africa.
Besides, if ambassadors and their host governments agreed on everything, what would they have to talk about at cocktail parties?
Image via the (very strange) People’s Cube.
4 responses so far ↓
1 B // Apr 14, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Not sure what they talk about at Vatican cocktail parties, as I’ve never been to one. But I imagine that if abortion is comparable to murder then that would be a pretty big issue to overcome.
2 mark // Apr 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It is indeed a huge issue — but no more for the Vatican than it is for the U.S., where abortion has an enormous, constant place in the public dialogue.
If abortion is a big enough issue that it makes Vatican diplomats refuse to deal with Caroline Kennedy, does that also mean the Pope can’t talk to Obama? I think that would hurt the Vatican a lot more than the U.S.
3 B // Apr 14, 2009 at 8:12 pm
If the Pope is genuine in his opposition, presuming the story itself is even accurate, then the points you’ve mentioned aren’t serious considerations for him.
4 Asher Vijay // Apr 18, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Clearly, they’re not serious considerations for him, or else he wouldn’t act this way. The point still stands, though: how do you talk to someone who disagrees with you? Do you wait for them to agree before you engage in dialogue? (That actually sounds pretty un-Christian.)
Leave a Comment