John Allen On Kmiec and the Vatican Ambassador Controversy

The very good Vatican reporter John Allen has a good piece up on this at Vetting possible ambassadors to the Holy See

Let me clear that my objections to Kmiec have nothing to do with him supporting Obama. I was not in a uproar over Lindy Boggs or Flynn both Catholics of good standing that supported President Bill Clinton.

As pointed out this post by Notre Dame Prof Rick Garnett at Mirrors of Justice-

.......First, as I contended (many -- too many? -- times), here and elsewhere, the problem with Kmiec's arguments was not their pro-Obama-all-things-considered conclusion, but their failure (in my view) to correspond with and take account of the relevant abortion-policy-related facts and history. Second, I do not believe Kmiec provided (and, because he is not a reluctant, "hold my nose" Republican but a longtime conservative public intellectual and partisan, I think it was incumbent on him to provide) an admission that he was changing his mind (on a number of issues) and an account of why he was changing his mind. (Remember Mitt Romney?) .

This is and has been my main objection. The 180 degree turn he took on several issues is troubling. This goes far beyond he voted and supported for Obama in the public square. Also how he conducted himself is a issue to me. His martyr act really got old, his taking important documents out of context, and way he characterized those had a opposite point of view. I think that last point exasperated many of his allies in the conservative camp (for instance many people at the National Review jumped to his defense when they though he was treated wrongly in the infamous "communion incident"

In this very interesting article this jumped out to me:

I spoke to a senior Vatican diplomat myself this week about the possible appointment of Kmiec. He declined to speculate about whether the Holy See would demur, but his basic reaction was: "I think Obama is revealing himself to be wiser than that."

I actually agree with that. Though how much Obama realizes this is a huge issue I do not know. The whole Kmiec thing might be still sort of inside baseball to a large degree and the thoughts of the Vatican Envoy might not have crossed Obama's mind very much

Returning to the article it is a good read and I think makes a good case where this is a delicate situation for all involved including the Vatican. Of interest is the last part of the Allen Column

As a final thought, all this offers an illustration of why it might be worthwhile for the Obama people to "think outside the box" and consider a non-Catholic.

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.

One insight in this regard cropped up during the recent meeting of the U.S. bishops, during discussion of a statement from Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the conference, on abortion and politics. The draft made an indirect reference to Catholic politicians, prompting Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul-Minneapolis to suggest that it also include "an invitation to non-Catholic politicians and to all men and women of good will."

George'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."

Whatever one makes of that, it's a reminder that Catholics in public life walk a tightrope in their relationship with the hierarchy. There are plenty of jobs, of course, where a Catholic pol can basically steer clear of the hierarchy, but ambassador to the Holy See isn't one of them. It might be less complicated for everyone to name someone not caught in this bind.

Now I think the appointment of a Non Catholics might be an interesting idea. Though it does have drawbacks especially as a special link to the American Catholic community in Rome but is not out of the question by any means.

That being said I think Allen is slightly missing the point here. We have been down this road before with Bill Clinton and the appointment of Flynn and Lindy Boggs , both Pro-Life Catholics in a very Pro Choice Administration did not ruffle feathers. Kmiec though has a history the other two do not.

I would have no problem with a Pro-Life Democrat being appointed. In fact at least that gives something a little symbolic to the Pro-Life Democrat Community by the Democrat party. Though I would not like explaining to the Holy See why the U.S. has done a complete 180 in the U.N. on several issues but it is part of the job.