In his recent article, Eric Gorski of the Associated Press discusses the often-overlooked decision of who will represent United States interests with the Vatican under Obama’s presidency. This issue is vital for a variety of reasons, as Gorski reports. Such reasons include potential disputes between the Vatican and the Obama administration over abortion, fears that dissent between the Vatican and the U.S. could encourage Catholic separatism, and also the careful decision of who the appointee should be. Gorski cites a variety of experts on the issues at hand, beginning with abortion.
In past years, the deciding factors about Vatican ambassadors have been their personal lives. The Vatican can reject any ambassador it feels does not meet the criteria of the position, which includes openly gay individuals or those they might consider to be ‘living in sin’. Though the Vatican looks more at the personal lives of appointees than their stances on relevant issues, all eight of the past ambassadors to the Vatican have been pro-life, including the Democrats. One of the possible first choices is Douglas Kmiec, a Reagan administration lawyer who endorsed Obama during the recent election. Kmiec is a professor of canon law and fluent in Italian, so he could be a valuable choice because he understands the Catholic and Italian cultures and also the issues facing relations between the countries.
While this decision is important, I dispute the notion that Catholic separatism is a real fear. In my research for my final paper, concerning the interesting relationship between the KKK and Protestant Churches, I read George Marsden’s book, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. In this book, Marsden chronicles the factors contributing to the rise of Fundamentalism in late 19th century America, including the great increase of immigration of Catholics. Protestants feared these Catholics would take over their nation, controlled from afar by the actions of the Vatican. The Ku Klux Klan arose partly out of this fear, though the Vatican undertook no real actions to try to establish this sort of control. Based on these historical events, I believe that the most important considerations for the selection of the ambassador are their understanding of both international politics and Catholic traditions and culture. Based on these criteria, the president can make a much better decision than would be possible if he were concerned wholly with the American response of Catholics to the ambassador.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I agree with Andrew that in theory and oftentimes in practice, the best ambassador is one that understands both cultures and both political landscapes of the two parties he's mediating between. On the other hand, its crucial not only to have a sophisticated understanding of the cultures and traditions, but an ambassador must be someone both sides trust, respect, and feel they share some common ground with. For that reason, i believe, sometimes the person who gets the job is not always the most qualified on paper. The Vatican and the United States must trust the new ambassador regardless of whether their concerns are founded or legitimate.
I personally believe that any country has the right to reject another country's diplomatic representation to their nation, although doing so may offend the home country of the diplomat. However, I take a small exception to the Vatican's position because I believe it is another attempt by the Church to influence public officials with religious prerogatives. If someone understands the cultures of the Vatican, both Italian as well as Catholic, I have to believe they would be an able ambassador, even if they themselves are gay or unmarried or any thing that could be construed to be "Living in sin." The person who can best carry out the responsibilities of an ambassadorship should receive the appointment, regardless of their lifestyle.
I agree with Julius that the Vatican's rejection of some potential ambassadors is hurtful and the reasons for such action are unjust. However, as Natalie mentioned, individuals that the Vatican cannot trust will make poor ambassadors, and their beliefs guide them in rejecting ambassadors for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I am surprised that they consider the personal lives of ambassadors over their views on issues pertinent to the church. In almost any other nation, the Vatican's first concern is nonexistent, or at least very suppressed. So how can the Vatican properly combine its beliefs with its political representation in other countries?
Post a Comment