Report: Vatican rejects fairy-tale princess as ambassador

posted at 4:25 pm on April 11, 2009 by Allahpundit

Too bad. If there’s one family that’s tried hard to live the teachings of the Church, it’s the Kennedys.

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…

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.

True or not? The rumors were credible enough to draw public reproaches this week from prominent American Catholics, but a Vatican spokesman tells Catholic News it’s much ado about nothing.

“No proposals about the new ambassador of the United States to the Holy See have reached the Vatican, and therefore it is not true that they have been rejected. The rumors circulating about this topic are not reliable,” the spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, told Catholic News Service April 9.

The spokesman’s comments echoed off-the-record remarks by informed diplomatic and Vatican sources in Rome, who said the reports appeared to be unfounded…

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.

There’s a lot of wiggle room in that word “proposal.” Could be that Team Barry put out feelers informally to see how Caroline’s nomination would be received in order to avoid the embarrassment of a formal appointment and rejection. The Vatican’s been leaning more on pro-choice Catholic politicians in the last few years, so it’d be hard to look the other way at having one as their official American liaison; on the other hand, publicly humiliating the princess of Camelot would cause them headaches among Catholics who still belong to the Kennedy cult. Better just to say the subject’s never come up, no?

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? Exit question: Why is Obama even bothering with Caroline here? Doug Kmiec shilled embarrassingly for him for months last year as being the logical choice for pro-life voters notwithstanding The One’s record on infanticide. How much further does he have to humiliate himself before he gets a little recognition?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I was appalled reading it.

Jvette on April 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Given that he was in a state of sin, the priest did the right thing.

Mr. Kmeic needs to repent of his sin, confess his repentance, and do the necessary penance.

As for crowing about all one’s good deads, it is better that the left hand not know what thy right hand doest.

He has gotten his reward, here on Earth.

Your son needs to understand these things.

unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:12 AM

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?

No.

Having an ambassador who subscribes to a different religion is very different than offering an ambassador who is a publically declared member of the religion/nation that is receiving the ambassador

The Kennedy swears at Mass a loyalty to the one and only holy and apostolic church but publically declares disloyalty to the highest morality of the church, and thus actively obstructs the most humane message of the church and facilitates what the church considers mass murder.

This is a very big problem. The ambassador would be trivializing a most important value of the Church at a time in History when this Pope has declared the problem is not trivial, not negotiable to Catholics, and not to be ignored

The Pope drew a line in his grand strategy of Christian decency

To send Caroline as ambassador after his public stands would be a nonproductive impediment to the purpose of sending an ambassador, which is a neutral channel for dialogue between two powers

She could go anywhere except the Vatican, assuming Obama doesn’t care how limited his ambassadors are in ability, and I suspect obama does not care much.

In fact, looking at the trail of crass Obama-snubs, leaking the Kennedy name as possible Vatican liason would be right on Target

entagor on April 12, 2009 at 3:14 AM

So according to that baptism can’t be erased. (IE,in the Church’s eyes lapsed Catholics are still Catholics. Yes, I realize the second one is Wikipedia)

Dave_d on April 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM

There is also this from the Catechism:

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:28 AM

The only thing surprising to me about this story is the fact that people who stand firmly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic church and who actively seek to tear down the ideals espoused by the church would be put forward as ambassadors. It’s like making Meghan McCain ambassador to MENSA.

Mormon Doc on April 12, 2009 at 4:41 AM

Given that he was in a state of sin, the priest did the right thing.

Mr. Kmeic needs to repent of his sin, confess his repentance, and do the necessary penance.

As for crowing about all one’s good deads, it is better that the left hand not know what thy right hand doest.

He has gotten his reward, here on Earth.

Your son needs to understand these things.

unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:12 AM

Exactly. What the priest did was an act of mercy because taking communion while in a state of grave sin compounds the sin.

Here’s a great article regarding this issue–it’s actually a few years old but I think it explains the Catholic Church’s position on this very well.

http://www.geocities.com/strawberrygrrl.geo/kerryEucharist.html

Niere on April 12, 2009 at 7:03 AM

I swear I can’t decide if Barack Obama is stupid or if he is doing all of this on purpose.
Niere on April 11, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Quid Pro Quo – Uncle Ted give dog to Omaba kids, Obama gives dog to Vatican?

Wade on April 12, 2009 at 8:57 AM

This seems to me to be suspect as a story. Anyone else tired of rumors as news?

AnninCA on April 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Strawman arguement AP: She and her family ARE catholic and known for being such ( i.e. 1st catholic President ). We aren’t a Muslim society. We are a judeo-christian society whether your non-believing sensibilities wants to admit it or not. There just aren’t that many Muslim legislaturers or elected officials to choose from to fill a spot supporting any ofour past President’s agendas in that regions. It’s not that controversial. If we sent a Muslim who said that the Koran supports women wearing tank tops, short-shorts, and telling her husband off by saying she can do what she wants we her on dang body, we might have a comparable international incident. Just watch the ACID fly then.

Sultry Beauty on April 12, 2009 at 10:56 AM

We=with; annoying iPhone

Sultry Beauty on April 12, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Your son needs to understand these things.

unclesmrgol on April 12, 2009 at 3:12 A

M

Yes, we have discussed Mr. Kmiec and other Catholics who supported Obama many times during this last election especially since it was his first as an eligible voter.

I found the story of Judas to have the most relevance to Mr. Kmiec. Judas was always the one talking about the poor. He did not realize when he was taking those 30 pieces of silver that he would have to betray the very Son of God for them.

For Mr. Kmiec to support Obama, he had to betray Jesus. My prayer is that he will see his error and repent.

Jvette on April 12, 2009 at 12:48 PM

John Allen over at NCR had a good article on the issues around U.S. ambassador appointments to the Vatican. One point that stood out is that there’s different standards applied by the Vatican when a non-Catholic is in the post vs. a member of the Church:

Since 1984, the American tradition has been to name a Catholic as ambassador to the Holy See. Going deeper into history, however, there’s precedent for an alternative. When Franklin Roosevelt named a personal representative to Pope Pius XII at the outbreak of the Second World War, for example, he turned to Myron Taylor, a lawyer and former executive of U.S. Steel, and a prominent Episcopalian.
At the time, Roosevelt’s logic was to blunt Protestant criticism. Ironically, the more compelling motive now would be to short-circuit Catholic blowback[...]
(Cardinal Francis George of Chicago)’s reply was instructive. “We have a different relationship with non-Catholics than with baptized Catholics who bring themselves to communion,” George said. “Our relationship with [Catholics] is one of authority, and that’s the word that drives people up the wall.”

tagryn on April 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2