Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
INSULTS.
One of the clever things about the Catholic church has been it's ablity to maintain its status as a political force and a tiny state, and have some effect as a kind of diplomatic go-between and agenda setter.Think of the Vatican as the internationl equivalent of D.C. "Congresswoman" Eleanor Holmes Norton, say. The U.S. has an ambassador there, always a Roman Catholic, which as an aside seems to present a conflict of interests, and now people are musing about who Obama will appoint to the position.
Doug Kmiec, the Catholic conservative who supported Obama and made various pro-life arguments in favor of him during the campaign, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the role. I imagine Kmiec would be a fine Ambassador, though we have no idea if he'd be picked for the slot or if he is really interested in moving to Italy -- excuse me, the Vatican State -- for a few years. But conservative Catholics believe this would be an insult to the Pope, since though Kmiec is pro-life, he supports pro-choice Obama because he believes the president-elect will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions through progressive social policies.
Well, this is a ridiculous idea. Henry Farrell explains why. I would add two notes: One, what these critics really want is for Obama to appoint someone who didn't support him, which is highly unlikely. Second, we are way behind the French on insulting the Vatican; President Sarkozy, with what I'm going to refer to as typical Gallic brio, recently tried to appoint first a divorced man and then an openly gay man to the post, both of whom were rejected by the Papal See. Dear Catholic conservatives, considering that you see Obama as a gateway to hell, you should be so lucky to have Kmiec appointed as Vatican ambassador, considering what someone who really wants to insult the Church could do.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (13)
Since when is Kmiec Conservative in anything? Please name one conservative position he has recently espoused? The mere fact that you label him as such shows your ignorance.
Posted by: BenB | December 2, 2008 10:01 AM
Before endorsing Obama, Kmiec served on Romney's campaign.
Posted by: Ronnie P | December 2, 2008 10:06 AM
Kmiec was an Assistant Attorney General for Reagan and Bush I, also.
This seems totally crazy. If Kmiec is unacceptable, who would possibly be acceptable that Obama might actually appoint?
Clinton's nominees to the Vatican were a former Democratic mayor of Boston and a former Democratic congresswoman (Cokie Roberts's mother, in fact). Presumably, both of their crimes in supporting Clinton were as grave as Kmiec's in supporting Obama this year, and neither was turned away.
Who exactly does Bainbridge expect should be appointed to this position?
Posted by: John | December 2, 2008 10:30 AM
Also, who cares? Appointing an ambassador to the Vatican is just a courtesy to the Vatican and a gift to the appointee.
Not like the Vatican is going to send troops or money to support anything Obama wants to do.
Posted by: CParis | December 2, 2008 11:39 AM
As I recall, in Democratic Administrations, this position usually goes to a Kennedy... or someone they like. If not Caroline, wouldn't it be one of Bobby's kids? Has anyone asked who Teddy wants?
Posted by: weboy | December 2, 2008 12:04 PM
Since Kmiec supported Obama's pro-abortion and pro-infanticide policies, he is no longer considered pro-life. Liberals who still call Kmiec that are lying.
But worse, he is no longer a conservative because he spreads the liberal lie about Roe v. Wade, that overturning it would make abortion illegal or would stop legal abortions. What Roe has done is kept the debate on abortion from being opened, and has allowed liberals to demagogue the issue for 35 years while some 30 million humans have been killed.
I don't care who The One appoints as ambassador to the Vatican, or if the Vatican accepts the appointment or not, even Kmiec. But no liberal can tell me he is pro-life and a conservative because he is neither. That is just another liberal lie.
Posted by: SteveIL | December 2, 2008 2:49 PM
CParis gets to the point about the Vatican -- how many divisions does the Pope have? None!
Posted by: American Citizen | December 2, 2008 3:49 PM
The Vatican supports execution of homosexuals by stoning in countries governed by Islamists. The Church is equally hostile, of course, to reproductive rights, and would like in fact for the rest of the Western world to be governed by a rigid patriarchal hierarchy just as the Church has been for centuries. The difference between the Pope and an Iranian Ayatollah is the difference between aspiration and actuality. Catholic doctrine is no less authoritarian and theocratic than it was at the time of the Inquisition; the Church is simply less powerful now than it was then. It is too much to hope for that Obama might insult the former Grand Inquisitor (by another name).
Posted by: Jeremy | December 2, 2008 5:16 PM
"The Vatican supports execution of homosexuals by stoning in countries governed by Islamists."
No they don't. The Vatican believes all this will do is lead to discrimination of those who don't believe in same-sex "marriage". This has already happened. After the California Supreme Court overturned Prop. 22, LA County legal officials violated the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment when they stated those who worked in the county office who followed their own religious beliefs and denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples would be put on notice.
Posted by: SteveIL | December 2, 2008 5:58 PM
I'm going to start my own religion so I can totally neglect my job obligations and scream 'Discrimination!' when my boss tries to write me up.
Posted by: Josh Hueco | December 2, 2008 6:19 PM
Isn't the correct answer to not appoint an ambassador at all?
Posted by: Dilan Esper | December 2, 2008 9:47 PM
Maybe there shouldn't be an ambassador. The Church seems to think that voting for Obama is a sin, why should Obama return the "favor" by appointing anyone. Let the Vatican squirm for a while.
Posted by: Chgotchr | December 2, 2008 10:53 PM
Wait, wait, don't you progs need to Catholic votes to help you stay in power? Better stop the anti-Catholic smears that some of you have been excreting and start pandering to me and the 65 million others who hold your destiny in our hands. Otherwise we'll just keep voting for the other side in bigger and bigger numbers.
Start by saying lots of good things about the pope and by encouraging the faux Catholic Dem pols to listen to the man. Oh, shut up about abortion too. We don’t like to hear Dems supporting things like that.
Posted by: Mike | December 3, 2008 3:12 AM