Ambassadors to the Vatican
Six former U.S. ambassadors to the Holy See have endorsed Mitt Romney for president: Frank Shakespeare (1986-1989); Tom Melady (1989-1993); Ray Flynn (1993-1997); Jim Nicholson (2001-2005); Francis Rooney (2005-2008); Mary Ann Glendon (2008-2009). Their statement of support focused on religious liberty mentions the contraceptive mandate and the importance of the Christian conscience in the moral life of the nation (this site has the statement; news story here).
Since the Vatican seems to have operated in a cocoon about the sex-abuse crisis in the U.S. (and later in its own backyard), you have to wonder whether any of these eminent Catholics ever mentioned the issue while in Rome. Perhaps the first three had little inkling, but the last three….
Four of these Romney fans served under Republican presidents. Ray Flynn is the exception and he was a very conservative voice in Boston city politics. No news here.
I wonder if Lindy Boggs, once ambassador to the Holy See and widow of Hale Boggs, Democratic Whip of the House and herself a onetime Congresswoman, will endorse Obama. She didn’t, I see, endorse Romney, thank God.
Have any former ambassadors endorsed Obama?
Margaret – I haven’t thought about this at all, but is it the place of an ambassador to talk to the Vatican about the sex abuse crisis? They’re political/governmental appointments representing the US government, and the sex abuse crisis doesn’t seem like a US government affair.
The nuncio should be all over it, of course.
I see that these former ambassadors are organized as the leadership team of Catholics for Romney.
John Norton:
A Gentle Correction:
Five of the six former ambassadors to the Vatican were appointed by Republican Presidents. Ray Flynn, as you noted, is the exception. However, he endorsed George Bush for President and Scott Brown for the U.S. Senate.
How this group gets away with saying “We are Democrats, Independents and Republicans…,” I will never know. (a little hypocrisy?)
While I am at it, these words in the statement sent my blood pressure up:
“We urge our fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will, to join with us in this full-hearted effort to elect Governor Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.”
“all people of good will” INDEED! What hubris!
David Smith:
Your comment:
“Have any former ambassadors endorsed Obama?”
I think that the issue here is that they were ambassadors to the Vatican and thus it is thought that their endorsement of Romney will influence their “fellow Catholics, and indeed all people of good will.” (Oops, my blood pressure is rising again.)
Jim P: The lady and gentlemen ambassadors are specifically linking their time at the Vatican (by calling our attention to their roles) to their endorsement of Mr. Romney and appealing to their fellow Catholics to vote for him. I think it’s fair to ask then what they did for their fellow Americans and fellow Catholics while in Rome. The sex-abuse crisis created a national scandal for everyone. So Jim, fair to wonder what they said or did about it.
This all leaves aside the fact that not one would be widely recognizable although Mary Ann Glendon had a USCCB appointment and has had some other news coverage from her Harvard credentials. I know the Doug Kmiec had been part of a Catholics for Obama group in the past, but it seems doubtful that he or others would take that step with the current controversies.
But either way, it would seem to have little effect on those on the fence — it simply reinforces those who would vote for Romney as the best “Catholic concerns” candidate.
Ms. Steinfels – here is an interesting study that supports David Pasinski’s point…..those catholics (esp. conservative) who would have voted for Romney anyway will only find these sixs’ endorsements as confirming what they were going to do all along.
But, the study interjects an interesting suggestion that more and more educated catholics who study the issues are leaning to Obama (these are the larger group of undecided catholics).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-shows-catholics-side-with-bishops-on-religious-liberty-but-warm-to-obama/2012/08/02/gJQA9vJeSX_story.html
Money quote:
“As for Catholic voters’ presidential preferences, 51 percent say they support or lean toward Obama; 42 percent back Romney. That’s not too different from all Americans — the poll found they prefer Obama to Romney, 50 percent to 43 percent.
Though Obama certainly hasn’t locked down the crucial Catholic vote, the trend appears positive for the president. In an April Pew poll, Obama trailed Romney among Catholic voters, 45 to 50 percent.”
Related to your post: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/how-nonpartisan-coming-election
To be honest. folks such as MaryAnn Glendon sold out to the Republican/Vatican party long ago. Her behavior vis a vis sexual abuse scandal was and is deplorable (her support of Maciel). She continues to be a one issue person in terms of seeing everything through the lense of abortion.
How often and how loudly has Miguel Diaz, the current U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, spoken about the U.S. sex abuse crisisis while in Rome? The answer would provide some sort of baseline against which to compare the six (or three) ambassadors under suspicion here.
All of these former ambassadors who have endorsed Mittens Romney are essentially Republican hacks who got the ambassador job as a political quid pro quo for their political support [probably financial support, too] of conservative politicians.
Jim Nickolson was Republican National Chairman. Ray Flynn never matured beyond being an altar boy.
As noted above, Mary Ann Glendon is in bed with both Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ. She has no credibility as a spokesperson for US Catholics. [What is Harvard Law thinking having this corrupted conservative ideologue on the faculty???]
I wonder if Glendon has been corrupted and her support bought by taking money from Opus Dei and serial child abuser founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Marciel? That is the way Marciel maintained his criminal enterprise – buying influence with Vatican luminaries.
While the US ambassador to the Vatican first job is to represent the diplomacy of the Administration in power and only secondarily to speak for the interests of American Catholics to the Vatican, I do think it would be tremendously helpful to abuse survivors for Ambassador Miguel Diaz to bring diplomatic pressure on the Vatican to end the obfuscation and cover-up.
Ambassador Diaz was confirmed in August 2009. It would be interesting to know if he’s raised the issue. By March 2010 presumably the pope had heard about the issue, at least in Germany. Not sure how Diaz would be a baseline, but partisan point noted.
“I don’t expect that we’re going to become the biggest craze. If it happened, I’d be really shocked. I think people will dig it, but there will be a sea of people who just don’t get it. “
Dustin Diamond
“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
Captain Renault
I’m not sure what their being ambassador to the Vatican is supposed to prove, exactly. I could see how a Republican appointee endorsing one candidate or another in the primary would make a difference, but that a Republican appointee endorses the republican candidate–I don’t see the news in that, honestly.
Now if they endorsed Barack Obama, that would be news!
Their tone was fine–they were explaining what they were doing, and invited others to do the same.
But they also seem to recognize being ambassador to the Vatican doesn’t give them the power to bind and loosen, which was good.
I will add the Mitt Six to my thick folder of Catholics saying Catholics can vote only for Romney. They will have more street cred than the evangelical sites saying Evangelicals must vote for Romney that have been sent to me by Catholics who don’t know the difference. Then I have a lot of email from Catholics telling me that B16/Cardinal Dolan/the bishops generally have let it be known that, as a Catholic I have no choice but to vote for Mitt.
I have NO corresponding emails from Democrats. Apparently, the party of former Catholics or the former party of Catholics is satisfied to rest on the fact that its candidate is the not-Romney, just as the is-Romney, away from my email, is content to rest on being the not-Obama. And there are three more months of this nonsense to look forward to.
“Since the Vatican seems to have operated in a cocoon about the sex-abuse crisis in the U.S. (and later in its own backyard), you have to wonder whether any of these eminent Catholics ever mentioned the issue while in Rome.”
Of course the job of the US ambassador in Rome is to speak and represent the interests of the US government, primarily in the person of the President who appoints you, in Rome. What, pray tell, would you have had them do?
You can disagree with their politics, of course, but it seems unfair to me to attempt to insinuate that they are responsible for the sexual abuse crisis, and that, therefore, their credibility is to be suspect.
“Not sure how Diaz would be a baseline, but partisan point noted.”
If Diaz is unfair, then how ’bout the indomitable Lindy Boggs? She held the position from 1997-2001.
How to explain? The former ambassadors (with the exception of Lindy Boggs) are playing the moral card (read their statement: moral conscience, etc) and they’re playing the former VATICAN ambassador card and they’re playing it for Mr. Romney.
Did they play the moral card when it might have counted for something? Ambassadors have an official life and a quasi-official one (and now they have an after-life): Did they take the opportunity, say, after a papal Mass coffee hour to point to a serious moral problem in the United States in which the Catholic Church was a major player (but now we know not the only one)? Perhaps they did say something. Did they?
We will have more of this: Catholic dermatologists for Romney, Catholic Moms for Romney (e.g., Paul Ryan’s Mom), etc.; it is a strategy meant to sway Catholic voters. It will sway some, and as Mr. Blackburn points out the Dems are not ponying up their Catholics, perhaps for good reason; there may be none willing to sign on; they got bitten last time.
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the likes of Mary Ann Glendon to speak up about the sex abuse crisis considering she was one of the greatest enablers of the pervert Maciel himself, using her influence to defend his “radiant holiness” and to re-abuse his victims by stating the accusations were the result of anti-Catholicism and poor journalism.
To my knowledge, she has never publicly withdrawn her statements or humbly begged forgiveness for her calumny against these sex abuse victims. If I am mistaken, please correct me. How I would love to be mistaken on this one!
When such as she speaks on the importance of Christian conscience in the moral life of the nation, it evokes nothing but ridicule and derision from those who know about how obviously screwed up her own conscience and morals must be for her to have treated Maciel’s victims that way.
Why is citing Diaz unfair? I’ve been browsing dotCommonweal in recent years and its many voices tell me that the seriousness of the sex abuse crisis has not yet been acknoweldged by the Vatican.
To be clear, I’m not accusing Obama or his administration of being soft on sex abuse. But still. . . , what has Diaz said at the papal mass coffee hour and when did he say it? Those of us inspired by Jim Jenkins type suspiciions demand an investigation. If the administration has done nothing wrong why doesn’t it disclose the topics of conversation at these coffee hours. As Harry Reid might say, it looks very suspicious.
My “partisan point noted,” was meant to acknowledge my own partisan view as well as yours. So, we’re okay on that score, I hope.
I would like to know if Diaz ever raised this issue, though 2009 might be like bringing news of….well, what, the French Revolution???
Mary Ann Glendon is a serious scholar and as far as I am concerned a person of integrity. The idea that she would be “bought” by Opus Dei or the Legionaries is just too silly (and nasty) for this blog. On the other hand, there is a long history of intellectuals who are blinded by ideology, consumed by what they oppose, and often infatuated by their contact with great men in positions of power. Conservatives like to point out the many cases on the left, while pretending that the right is immune. Mary Ann Glendon has been a great disappointment, but I think the psychological dynamic that narrows the vision of a person of talents is a very complex one, and worth contemplating in our own more humble cases.
Who suggested Mary Ann Glendon was bought? Quite honestly, I hadn’t considered that she had actually been “bought” until you brought it up. As you mentioned, there are many factors that blind people to what is right in front of their faces.
I merely point out that her very public and effusive support of one of the worst sexual predators in the recent history of the Church (“radiant holiness” indeed!) while at the same time maligning his victims as liars motivated by hatred of the Church—without any later public acknowledgement of her egregious mistake or humble apology to those victims whose reputations she stained quite publicly—makes one doubt she is on the forefront of any efforts to support any other victims of sexual abuse in the Church. And makes more than a few people laugh with derision that she dares pontificate about consciences and morals to the masses.
You’re preaching to the choir about being blind. We worked for the cult called Legion for a decade and a half. Although we suspected Maciel was a pervert based on the 1997 Hartford article by Berry and Renner, we were fools enough to think that what was going on locally in the organization was something completely separate from its founder. Oh yes, how we can make ourselves believe what we want! But after finding out how blind and stupid I was, I have made it my mission to share what I have learned from the experience with everyone else. And I have also apologized to victims of both Maciel and the twisted “Movement” he founded at every opportunity I have had.
That Mary Ann Glendon hasn’t made a public and humble apology for her very public mistreatment of the victims (no matter how well-intentioned she may have been, the fact remains that she revictimized Maciel’s victims and also reassured many followers of Maciel and the Legion and encouraged them to keep following the spirituality of a deviant and a fraud through her glowing praise of the criminal) speaks volumes. (And again, if she has made such a public retraction and apology, I will be more than happy to admit my mistake and give her credit for it).
Accountability matters, and part of the price we all pay when we shirk it is that we lose our credibility and any moral authority we might have once possessed.
Off topic somewhat, but speaking of Margaret and Peter Sreinfels . . . Here’s an item about their attitude to the “party of death.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313111/leaning-away-d-crawling-toward-r-nicholas-frankovich
Oops, my bad. I missed Jim Jenkins’ musing about whether Mary Ann Glendon had been bought.
At any rate, when you behave as Mary Ann Glendon has in supporting a fraud and a deviant with a history of buying support and influence—-and don’t immediately make a public retraction when you find out what a blind fool you have been and apologize to those innocent victims whose reputations you shredded in the process—, as far as I am concerned, having people wonder if you were “bought” is part of the price you pay for not taking accountability for your actions. I’m sorry, but these are not the actions of a person of integrity.
Behavior has consequences.
Patrick Molloy: Reading Dissent? Wouldn’t have thought you had it in you!
Yes, voting choices are complex….lesser of two evils, etc. At this moment (8:38, 8/3/12), both parties seem to me the parties of death, relatively speaking (i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, drones, etc.). On the abortion issue, let’s just say that the Republicans in power for 24 years since Roe (Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II) have done zilch except appoint a Court that has less integrity than any the Dems had responsibility for. So…. vote? no vote? Not possible.
I have no real disagreement with yolanda’s comments. My own remark was directed toward Jim Jenkins’s speculation. My real concern is our tendency to make everything so easy. Those we disagree with are wrong because they are corrupt, etc. I remember reading explanations of Avery Dulles’s conservative turn as reflecting his angling for a red hat. Or, in my younger days, hearing my fellow opponents to the war in Vietnam explain American policy as determined by oil in the sea near Vietnam. If only the world were so simple.
Patrick Malloy: On the Democrats as the “party of death,” Peggy and I have been known to hold different positions. And like most writers we may express those opinions in ways to make an impact on a particular audience. And finally I wouldn’t make too much of a supposed contradiction between something written by one of us in 1999 in Dissent and something written by the other in Commonweal more than a decade later. A lot had happened in the meantime.
My own experience in the 1990s was that Democratic candidates in the deep blue territory where we reside were trying to outdo one another in being more pro-choice than thou — which I found insulting to the point of pretty much abstaining from voting for any of them. (Not that I voted for the Republicans, if there were any.) Same with the fund-raising appeals I received.
In fact, the Democratic party has at least publicly moderated its posture as measured by primary rhetoric and fundraising appeals. To be a pro-life Dem is still to be a suspect minority, but at least you are not suspected of being a Nazi. (Actually it seems the pro-life Republicans suspect you of being a closet abortionists, i.e., supporting the Affordable Care Act.)
Contra the National Review comment, my being incensed by talk of the Dems as the “party of death” was provoked by higher authorities than journalist Ramesh, namely several cardinals of the Catholic church. It was language that was inflammatory and partisan in a way that church authorities should avoid, but frankly it’s language that I don’t much care for in any instance.
Peggy’s calling BOTH parties the “party of death” is rather catchy, however. We’ll talk about it.
A ringing endorsement of the Democratic Party: They no longer call pro-lifers Nazis!
What more could one ask for? Though they are even more tolerant – - they even allow Chick-fil-A franchises (in certain jurisdictions).
Wow- Margaret, Peter, what’s it like to be psychoanalyzed in National Review? :-)
Well, doesn’t cost a penny per 50 minutes!
To be accurate, no Democrats ever called pro-life adherents in the party Nazis. On the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the impression was simply that you were about equally welcome. And what does it say about the Republican Party that even at that it couldn’t field candidates that were more morally appealing?
Revised ringing endorsement – - Democrats to Pro-lifers: we welcome Pro-Lifers equally with Nazis though we solemnly promise never to call them Nazis and to scrupulously distinguish between the two groups in all official communications.
Patrick (8:30), thanks for
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313111/leaning-away-d-crawling-toward-r-nicholas-frankovich
Fascinating. The time to join the side you’re on may never come, though. The climate in the thoughtful, sensible center is much healthier than in the angry extremes.
The NR piece is smug. In my experience, crawling away from one disaster does not even remotely imply crawling into another disaster. In the 1980s, I was close to a bunch of Eastern Republicans who were having trouble with their own party and eventually ended up as independents, not Democrats, although some did vote for Bill Clinton. I probably would have crawled into registered independence by now if Democratic party primaries were not so important where I live. (We tried to fix that with a constitutional amendment that lets everyone vote if the primary is tantamount to election, but the parties quickly realized that a mere write-in candidate with no money in the general election would close the primaries to all but registered members. That was one of the rare assaults on the voters in which both parties really were equally guilty.)
What I am mostly crawling away from at the moment is the president’s assertion that he has a right to assassinate abroad as he sees fit. The other party says the president is risking national security, not by assassinating people but by crowing about it. Does NR expect me to crawl from the party of assassins to the party that says it can do assassinations better? Just asking.
Back to the original point – Peggy’s clarification. I guess the point of an ambassador is to communicate information discretely. So I would guess all these people used back channels to tell the Vatican how terribly the sex abuse crisis was being handled in various places.
A word for Mary Ann Glendon. Whatever you think of her book on Abortion and Divorce in Western Law, it is an example of clear thinking and a rare example of comparative study in that she does not take the US experience as normative, but examines it in the context of, say, the UK, Germany, France, etc. etc. Would that more of the punditocracy nattering on about the health care problem would cast their nets as widely, and realize that we might have something to learn from, say, Europe (and Taiwan!).
Glendon also did the book on the UN’s passage of the human rights resolution back in the late 1940s, in which she paid high tribute to Eleanor Roosevelt’s work. One can only wonder what Cardinal Spellman, who famously and foolishly accused Mrs. R. of views that made her “unworthy or being an American mother,” would have thought of this.
That said, of course she should publicly disavow her support of Maciel, and I hope that she (and the others mentioned above) were able, back channels or no, to tell the Vatican how badly the church leadership was messing up the American sex abuse crisis. A few friendly home truths, told in time, might have prevented the men in lace and scarlet from messing up the Irish, Belgian, British, German, etc. etc. crises as well. Or perhaps she and the others told those truths, but found herself speaking to those who have ears but hear not (as the prophet hath it). She was, after all, only a woman.
Thank you Nicholas. I don’t disagree about the books. I am sorry she’s gone astray.
Why should we expect the U.S. Ambassadors to the Vatican to address the sex abuse scandal to the Vatican ? Despite the fact that they are all Catholic, they are lay people, representing more than U.S. Catholic Church. They are official representatives of the U.S. government. Besides, I should think that U.S. bishops and Cardinals or the papal nuncio would have the clout to address the issue to the Vatican.
My intuition tells me that if any of the ambassadors did broach the subject with the Vatican Secretary of State, they would be told in no uncertain terms M.Y.O.B. – it is an internal Church issue.
I agree entirely with Helen. The US government would sedulously avoid giving its ambassador to the Holy See instructions to treat formally or even informally a subject such as sexual abuse by clergy and the bishops’ failures in handling the matter. Conversations on what to do regarding the present tragedy in Syria, fine.The conduct of Catholic clergy in the US, absolutely not.
It is my understanding that when the US Embassy to the Vatican gives a reception, for example, to celebrate the Fourth of July, Cardinal Law is among the US prelates in Rome who receive an invitation. He is not shunned. Some may disagree with that decision, but the US government would not consider such disagreement relevant to its reasons for having established diplomatic relations with the Vatican State.
We’re talking about US ambassadors during JP II’s reign. He is notorious for refusing to take the accusations against Maciel seriously, even when made by his own top people like Ratzinger. I doubt that he was much interested in what it was said was happening here.
But would it have been proper for the ambassadors to talk about the US Catholic Church at all?
Given that the Church is a major political force here, ISTM it would have been remiss *not* to mention it. The Vatican is interested in the sufferings of all people everywhere — or it’s supposed to be, Sigh.
Glendon was ambassador to Benedict. Given her support of Maciel and Benedict’s early criticisms, they were worlds apart on that particular matter. So I wonder just what they would have said to each other about any of the scandals.
Honestly!!! Doesn’t gossip make the world work?
As far as I am aware, the only Maciel supporter who publicly apologized for calling Maciel’s victims, Jason Berry and Jerry Renner liars was Fr. Owen Kearns, who temporarily led the Legionaries of Christ in the United States. George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon and all the other “good” Catholics who supported Maciel have never apologized for their errors.
” — the Dems are not ponying up their Catholics, perhaps for good reason; there may be none willing to sign on; they got bitten last time.”
How, exactly, have Catholics been bitten by Obama? Because he hasn’t pushed for repeal of RvW? Did he ever say he would? The contraception thing? Seriously?
The Catholics I know don’t vote for/against the President beause of their religion. They do so because they do/do not agree with what he has accomplished so far as well as his outlook and philosophy about government and what it is here for. Religion has nothing to do with that.
Any Catholic who tells me that I should vote for/against Obama or Romney because of my religion/lack thereof will hear from me in short order that their opinions about my “religious obligations” are of no concern to me.
Glendon as a Marciel supporter?
Jason Berry in NCR adds;
“The centerpiece of Maciel’s plan to secure his legacy in Rome was the Legion’s university, Regina Apostolorum, where Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, taught courses. She has been an advisor to the Legion, which has expanded in America with the University of Sacramento in California.’ [closed now]
so as they say in MLB ‘bought is bought’
What does the Ambassador to the Holy See do? From the US site:
“The U.S.-Holy See relationship is best characterized as an active global partnership on a wide range of global issues. There is frequent contact and cooperation between the United States and the Holy See on many important international issues of mutual interest, including human rights and human dignity, inter-religious understanding, peace and nonproliferation, development, and environmental protection.
Holy See priorities for 2011 included freedom of religion and protection of Christian minorities where they are threatened; the re-evangelization of traditionally-Catholic countries in Europe; inter-religious dialogue; aid for developing nations; protection of the environment; peaceful resolution of conflicts, particularly in the Middle East; defense of the traditional family; and nuclear nonproliferation.”
Is it a waste of money?
Come to think about it:
Who will this group of ex-ambassadors to the Vatican influence to vote for Romney? They must really think that they are important. What hubris!
“George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon and all the other “good” Catholics who supported Maciel have never apologized for their errors.”
Andrew Sullivan agrees, but also notes that “To his credit, Weigel has since reversed himself.” The statement includes a link to one of a couple of pieces that Weigel has written in First Things’ “On the Square” blog. Those pieces leave no doubt as to where Weigel now stands with regard to Maciel and the Legion.
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/03/maciel-disowned-by-his-own-cult/188800/
To the Steinfels:
That you are proud (and vocal) Democrats is your prerogative, as is, it seems to me, Mary Ann Glendon’s et. al. Each has a “reading” of the issues in light of various commitments, including their Catholic faith. Furthermore, their statement reads to me no different than statements or comments by “Catholics for Obama”, who included several dotCommonweal contributors, at least in 2008. Or for that matter, the claims to authority from the Georgetown professors with respect to Paul Ryan’s appearance there. Is any appeal to moral authority foreclosed by those with whom we disagree?
But what seems different, at least to me, about this post is the tying their political judgments re: Romney to the sexual abuse crisis. To say, “Glendon doesn’t understand X issue, and here’s why” is one thing, but, to me, to say “we can’t trust these people because of the sex abuse crisis” smacks of attack by insinuation, of “tarring and feathering”. And just as I am uncomfortable with some fellow Catholic Republicans doing this with, say, Doug Kmiec’s legal and political analysis, I would think this would be something dotCommonwealers would be sensitive to. To use another example: Card. Roger Mahoney is well-known for his support of immigration reform bills proposed by the President. Yet he also clearly failed to act with respect to sexual abuse of minors. His is judgment on the former issue weakened by the latter?
In short, I don’t see how this post escapes Mr. Steinfels’ expressed concern above, namely: “My real concern is our tendency to make everything so easy. Those we disagree with are wrong because they are corrupt, etc.”
Jeff,
You may be making jumps. Again. Nowhere did either Steinfels nullify the good features of Glendon while they fault her for her support of Maciel. In fact Peter makes that point most explicitly. I could quote chapter and verse. But your stretch is so outrageous that it is clear that you are not reading all the posts. Read the posts before you jump again.
You owe them an apology.
Jim P. –
JUst because Weigel admitted that his estimation of Maciel was wrong does not mean that he owes no apology to Berry and Renner for calling them liars. And that goes for Weigel’s friends too. That is the decent thing to do.
“You may be making jumps.”
The original argument is that because of some un-specified non-action while serving as US ambassador, their political judgment is to be suspect. I don’t find this type of argument very fair. Furthermore, I find this type of argument as distasteful to me when Republicans do it – and I have given the example of Doug Kmiec’s service in the Obama administration & Card. Mahoney. I AGREE with Peter Steinfels when he said that we too often reduce our intellectual and political opponents to their worst features, but also don’t see how the line of argument here avoids that reduction. Finally, I said nothing at all (in either of my posts) about Maciel. Glendon (among others) attitude with respect to Maciel extremely disappointing to me. But that doesn’t mean I don’t agree with her argument on various topics. Anymore than I think anyone’s opinions reasoned and express opinion ought to be discounted on account of a personal failing.
Can I get back to the question of whether it is the business of the US Ambassador to the Vatican to engage the sex abuse crisis? Perhaps it is, after all. Here’s why.
In the church, as currently constituted and governed, we are dealing with an organization that is strongly hierarchical, believing that it owes only an upwards accountability to the next higher in line — a belief that inevitably leads, for good or ill, to Rome. It also insists on an extraordinarily high level of obedience to authority, whether that authority is the next in line in the US Church, or all the way up the ladder in Rome.
The victims of abuse, however, are US citizens (most of them, anyway, I assume). The abuse presumably violated their rights, as did the cover-ups at various hierarchical levels in the church’s governance structures. Victims, it seems, were ordered by priests to keep quiet, priests were ordered by bishops to keep quiet, and ultimately it would seem that Rome, whether or not it told bishops to keep quiet, ignored the accusations until the press and public opinion forced them to begin to face up to these crimes.
I’ve tried to think of an analogous situation with another country. If, for example, a US citizen were killed by another US citizen who happened to have close ties to one of the Mexican drug gangs, would the US ambassador in Mexico City be acting properly in raising the question of how to handle this crime with the government of Mexico? I should think so.
Here’s a real example. In 1984, before Taiwan became a democracy and was still under the single-party dictatorial rule of the Guomindang, an outspoken critic of the party, Henry Liu (a journalist) was gunned down by assassins in California, trained and sent by Taiwan government intelligence. The FBI discovered the connection, partly through a tape carelessly made by the chief assassin, the US thereupon brought pressure to bear on the Republic of China (Taiwan) government to bring the killers to justice (as indeed they did).
Subsequently (to quote Wikipedia, whose account I think is pretty accurate), “Helen Liu, Henry Liu’s wife, filed suit in United States federal district court against the Republic of China. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (Liu v. Republic of China) that the ROC government was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior;[6][7] a petition for certiorari from the ROC government to the U.S. Supreme Court was subsequently rejected.[8] The suit was later settled out of court.[9]
I’m not a lawyer and I don’t pretend to understand these things. But what is the difference in principle between an assassination and a violation of one’s person? What is the difference between the US pressuring Taibei to bring Liu’s killers to trial, and the US ambassador to the Vatican pressuring Rome to order the American bishops to cease their cover-ups?
Or, for that matter, simply to offer in a friendly, diplomatic way its help to the Vatican in taking steps to prevent any such violations of persons in the future?
Here’s another real-life example. In the 1930s, the US ambassador to Berlin, William Dodd, was increasingly concerned by the Nazi treatment of Jews and (it seems) was told to do what he could to ameliorate their treatment, but not in his capacity as ambassador. In that capacity he could intervene only to protect American citizens who were Jews. Perhaps the analogy is no good, but might not a US ambassador to the Vatican intervene if he or she thought the Vatican’s policy (or non-policy) was useless in protecting American citizens in America from violations by men whose ultimate source of authority lay in the Vatican?
Nothing like good analogies; reminding me that in reading George Kennan’s memoirs, the reader has the distinct impression that one of our most serious and sober diplomats may have spent more time at informal than formal diplomacy (winking and nodding at diplomatic receptions). I think it is safe to assume that the departing U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, didn’t spend all his time berating President Karzai for his kleptomaniac relatives, but got on with informal remarks, quips, advice, news, gossip, etc.
So too William Dodd, about whom there is a recent book, according to which his informal pleadings in Nazi Germany drove the State Dept. establishment to a frenzy. The book: In the Garden of Beasts, is more novel than biography but apparently based on “facts.”
I have a problem with Margaret O’Brien Steinfels’ opening post.
In the terminology that Aristotle uses in his treatise on civic rhetoric, I would say that the six former Catholic ambassadors to the Vatican are in part making an appeal through their ethos to their fellow Catholics. (Aristotle identifies three appeals that civic orators use: (1) logos, (2) pathos, and (3) ethos. The part about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate would be an appeal based in part on logos and in part on pathos.)
So in response to their appeal to their fellow Catholics through their ethos, Margaret Steinfels want to examine and question their ethos. She wants to know what they did, if anything, as ambassadors to the Vatican regarding the priest sex abuse scandal in the United States. Moreover, she claims that it is fair to ask them about this.
In general, I would agree that it is usually fair to examine and question an orator’s or a writer’s ethos when the ethos is clearly part of the persuasive appeal.
However, in this case, the six authors are not standing in front of us speaking.
In theory, we could assign Grant Gallicho to contact each of the six former ambassadors and question them carefully about this matter and then report back to dotCommonweal what they have said about this matter.
However, how could we verify if the ambassadors were telling the truth?
I hasten to say that I am opposed to Mitt Romney because he is a Republican. So I am not trying in a roundabout way to agree with their endorsement of Mitt Romney.
Jeff Landry: Just to assure you: I am not a proud and vocal Democrat…I am an ordinary dis-spirited one…sounds like you’re the same vis a vis Republicans. I did not sign onto Catholics for Obama. Glendon’s Maciel connection was one I had completely forgotten about until brought up here. So that ground cleared, let me contest your point above:
“But what seems different, at least to me, about this post is the tying their political judgments re: Romney to the sexual abuse crisis. To say, “Glendon doesn’t understand X issue, and here’s why” is one thing, but, to me, to say “we can’t trust these people because of the sex abuse crisis” smacks of attack by insinuation, of “tarring and feathering”.”
My point: playing the high moral ground card (conscience, religious liberty, etc.) raised this question (in my mind): when, if ever, did the ambassadors take the high moral ground in their capacities as ambassadors to the Vatican to call attention to the clerical sex abuse crisis. Maybe they did (as I suggested above), but no one seems to have heard about it. If they want to come out for Romney because they think his economic policies or foreign policy will be better, fine; they probably know no more than the rest of us and their authority counts for little. My reaction: their appeal to high moral ground, implying that Romney will support “religious liberty” in the vein of the bishops’ campaign (to which Glendon is an adviser), and their use of their ambassadorial appointments to bolster their endorsement, seems a bit disingenuous.
Nicholas Clifford:
Fascinating to point out that the victims of our clerical abuse scandal have rights to justice under our law!
However, after reading your analysis, a thought just occurred to me: These ambassadors from the U.S. are Ambassadors not to the Vatican but to the HOLY SEE, the seat of the government of the Roman Catholic Church, which happens to reside in a territory known as the Vatican City State.
So, to present the issue of the clerical abuse scandal by the Catholic Church in the U.S. to the head of that very Church presents a diplomatic challenge that appears to me at least to be different from the examples that you quoted.
Not that I do not think that it would have been the right and just thing to bring up, but I still think that such diplomats would have been graciously told by the powers to be in the Vatican to M.Y.O.B. (as I wrote above). Perhaps, they would have been reminded – In the U.S. you have separation of Church and State even though that is not the case here in the Vatican.
Perhaps Ms. Steinfels and I should file for a formal decree of separation on dotCommonweal. I entered this discussion only to defend Mary Ann Glendon as a scholar and (with some consequent qualifications) as a person of integrity, and then to comment on a link to a National Review observation about the Steinfelses and the “party of death.”
Other than that, I took the original post to be an obviously partisan jab at an obviously partisan and, some might say, religiously presumptuous endorsement. The truth is that the original partisan poster, who is now sitting about eight feet away causing I know not what partisan mischief elsewhere, did not really even know the answer to her own question. Perhaps some of those ambassadors did indeed informally alert Vatican officials to the seriousness of the sex abuse scandal. We really don’t know, and at the rate that the Vatican is opening its archives not even the youngest among us will ever know. (I’m presuming that in the next life we won’t care.)
But just to tie up some look ends:
Yes, I am now and always have been a Democrat, but whether I was a proud and/or vocal one has depended a lot on the issue and the political context. I have sometimes been an angry, betrayed, critical, or sullen Democrat. I have frequently got similar vibes from the other side of the marital bed, but that side should speak for herself.
Yes, I believe that real diplomats engage in sending and receiving all kinds of messages that are not strictly written into their orders. Any study of almost any episode in diplomatic history confirms this.
Yes, I agree that citation of the sex abuse scandal is all too easily used as a proof of all kinds of things that are related only by a strenuous stretch of logic or imagination. It’s become an all-purpose trump card for backing up whatever point you want to make.
And speaking of trump cards, who cares about a Romney endorsement by Vatican ambassadors when he already has one by the Trump himself? Now there’s another partisan jab for you.
I see that the other side of the marital bed was busy posting the comment just above as I was writing mine. So on the point of being a Democrat I guess she has spoken for herself. And not, I suspect, for the last time.
Vatican ambassadors are like bat boys in MLB. You gotta know somebody anf you have no imput in the outcome of the game.
Helen — you’re right that the ambassador to the Vatican is accredited to the Holy See. But I don’t think that means it’s to the Pope as head of the R.C. Church. There were battles over this some years ago and whether it violated the separation of Church and State, as would (presumably) a US Ambassador to the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Churches.
Here’s how the State Dept. sees the position:
• Embassy Vatican is the U.S. representative to the world’s smallest city-state,
whose leader, the Pope, exercises immense influence throughout the world
and often has an impact on U.S. policy objectives. The Vatican is actively
engaged with a number of areas of interest to the United States, including
the Balkans, the Middle East, and China, as well as on global issues affecting
human rights, population, terrorism, and trafficking in persons.
So, if we see part of our mission there as coordinating work affecting human rights and trafficking in persons, it seems to me that the sex scandal is fair game: NOT because it violates church teaching, which is none of our business, but because it violates the person of our citizens.
I agree that the sex scandal would be fair game because it is a violation of a U.S. citizen, but color me skeptical. Our U.S. bishops hid the perpetrators from civil prosecution for years.
While I do not pretend to read the mind of any Cardinal in the Vatican, I can make an educated guess that any overture about the topic would be looked upon as an interference of a state in church affairs (and certainly not worth anything like a “Fortnight for Freedom” protest in Vatican City).
Why do we need an ambassador to the Vatican anyway? As a state, it’s insignificant–as a religion, why isn’t it inappropriate? Why doesn’t it create a dangerous ambiguity, as the messages of these ambassadors may indicate. What they say holds sway, not because of they represent the STATE of the Holy See, but because they somehow claim to have justified moral authority over those who hold the Catholic faith. But what exactly does/should the choice of a (non-Catholic) president of a person to serve as ambassador say about someone’s status in the faith?.The ambassador is supposed to represent the US’s interest in the target country, not vice versa.
Or maybe, if its the state that is in question–the representative of the US to the Holy See, maybe we should have a non-Catholic be the representative, to make it clear that the point os to represent US interests to the Vatican, not Vatican interests to the US–that’s the Nuncios job..
Some people thought it was courageous for Mary Ann Glendon to refuse to be on the stage with Obama at ND. I was very troubled on grounds of political principle–the outgoing ambassador of the US (who took an oath to represent the US to the Holy See, not vice versa) refuses to be seen on the same stage with the
incoming, duly elected President of the United States. )
Why, exactly, is it good for the faith of American Catholics to have a political ambassador to the state of the Vatican? And why is it good for the nation to have a Catholic in this post? Would we expect every ambassador to a Muslim country to be a Muslim? Every ambassador to Germany to be of German heritage? Would we accede to demands, tacit or explicit, in this regard? I hope not.
I’ve really never thought about this question, but the answer isn’t self explanatory.
Why is the Holy See considered to be a state that has ambassadors to other countries and that has ambassadors from other countries?
Because the Holy See is considered to be a sovereign government, shouldn’t bishops, archbishops, and cardinals appointed by the head of a foreign power be considered to be agents of a foreign power?
Should the Holy See be downgraded from the status of a sovereign government to a lesser status that would not allow it to send ambassadors to other countries or receive ambassadors from other countries?
One of the reasons we may have an ambassador to the Holy See, other than domestic political reasons, is that the Vatican Diplomatic Corps is highly regarded in the diplomatic world–or so I was once told by a U.S. diplomat. I am sure they’re great at the kind of gossip that keeps the world going.
I have also read that the Vatican diplomatic contacts are particularly valuable ones for other nations. I wonder whether it’s because the Vatican has no national interests to speak of, except maybe keeping its independence from Italy. That would give its diplomats a certain objectivity and trustworthiness of judgmenet that other nations might not have. True, it has problems with some nations with religious persecution, but otherwise it would seem that the Vatican doesn’t have many diplomatic axes to grind.
The irony is that those who made abortion the litmus test got infected by the test of their negligence of children. We know that a crisis does not create character. Rather it reveals it. Mary Ann Glendon is a legitimate scholar who neglected to use her skills in the Maciel case and the abuse of children in general. We cannot ignore any part of the law of God because to break one is still contrary to God’s will. In the case of children, Jesus made the harm of children the most horrendous. This is why that even in Ireland the bishops lost the respect of the people. Even Mahoney is scarred by his actions toward the abusers. Yes he did a good job with the immigrants. But they have their advocates. And Glendon took the road where she piled up honors from the Ethics and Policy Center to the Vatican. Both failed in the area where the politics was without reward since the children could not help build cathedrals and give honorary degrees.
This is why the neglect of children stands alone.
Wait- didn’t the nuncio- the Vatican ambassador to the US- say that all Catholics have to be loyal to the bishops? Why isn’t this a matter of church, not state? And how would we feel if the ambassador from Iran said that all American Muslims had to be loyal to their Shi’ite mullahs? It wouldn’t go down as well, would it?
Didn’t Ireland just get rid of its ambassador to the Holy See?
On the whole it seems likely that the US Government could / would / should summon the Nuncio in Washington to hear from the US government about the US concerns regarding the rape of children and molestation of young people by clerics all of whom benefited from their episcopal enablers.
It would be good if the Secretary of State Clinton made a point of requiring the Nuncio to report on what the Holy See / Vatican City State has done to punish bishops here and in the Vatican City State who contributed to the episcopal scandal of secrecy which enabled the structures conducive to the rape of children and molestation of young people almost all of whom are US citizens.
In as much as the Holy See / Vatican City State pleads international law as protection from law suits, it behooves Secretary Clinton to treat the Nuncio in the manner required for countries who fail humanity. Also, the State Department should confiscate all passports, whether US or Vatican, held by bishops in the US thereby preventing the bishops from entering the Vatican City State until such time as the Holy See / Vatican City State provide full disclosure of everything in the Vatican City State and in the archives of dioceses in the US not already made available to the US courts.
Clearly, the scandal of episcopal secrecy which is subsequent to the crimes of child rape and molestation of the young perpetrated by clerics can be traced to decisions in the curia of the Vatican City State. Thus it is reasonable to expect Secretary Clinton to begin discussions with other nations the goal of which is the bringing of the Vatican City State and the Church therein to accountability before international law and the local laws of each of the nations.
Since gossip is unwelcome, I’ll try to avoid it, though I was once invited to the US Embassy to the Holy See’s Fourth of July reception, and went. I think Francis Rooney was ambassador. I’m not good at those kind of things, and wasn’t.
The Holy See, the Vatican (City State), the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church. Father Joe Komonchak would probably offer some needed cautions with respect to terminology.
Before I entered the world of liturgy, I was making my way through the hoops that led to advanced degrees in Modern European history. (How I wished I had stayed in that field!)
My MA thesis dealt with Pius XII’s considerable efforts in August 1939 to bring the contending parties to peace talks. We all know the outcome. This to say that I know something of the story of modern Vatican diplomacy. I learned about the topic principally through the volumes of the Actes Et Documents Du Saint Siege Relatifs A La Seconde Guerre Mondiale and the irreplaceable writings of the late Father Robert Graham, SJ.
Cathleen Kaveny’s question seems to me right on the mark. Why do nations, including only fairly recently the US, feel it worthwhile to enter into full diplomatic relations with the Holy See? Margaret Steinfels has named one of the often-cited justifications. The Vatican through its well-trained diplomatic corps of papal nuncios and apostolic delegates is said to be a vital listening post regarding questions of international relations. (Only secondarily, and very much depending on the specific country, internal Catholic Church matters. [Italy, for sure.])
The Vatican Secretariat of State has two equal sections, both presided over by an archbishop, both deputies to the Cardinal Secretary of State. One deals with external questions, international affairs and politics; the other, with internal Church questions. The diplomats accredited to the Holy See relate to the former archbishop (at present, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti) and his monsignor and priest assistants. (Diocesan priests who work in the Curia are customarily named monsignors after five years’ service.) Accredited diplomats rarely meet with the Pope, normally only on beginning and ending their service. And also, very infrequently with the Cardinal Secretary of State.
A number of countries have a named ambassador, but he or she actually has another and primary post, for example, ambassador to the Netherlands or Switzerland. They come to Rome only periodically.
The history of US relations with the Holy See is quite complex. Franklin Pierce, I believe, tried to establish relations in the 1850s. “No popery” put paid to that. Franklin Roosevelt went around Congress by naming Myron Taylor, an Episcopalian, as his “personal representative” to Pius XII during WW II. It was a very effective relationship. Truman, in 1950 (?), was intent on having normalized formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican. He named General Mark Clark, the liberator of Rome, and also not a Catholic. The Senate would have none of it, and Truman backed down.
When Ronald Reagan, in the early 1980s, succeeded in establishing diplomatic relations with the Holy See, Catholics had at last come of age, and there was political mileage to be gained. (A simpler time?) So, Reagan’s Los Angeles friend, William Wilson, a Catholic, was named first US ambassador to the Holy See. The Senate agreed. And the then “apostolic delegate” to the Catholic Church in the US, Archbishop Pio Laghi, became in addition “papal nuncio,” a title which signified that his duties now included also diplomatic relations with the US government.
I agree with Peter Steinfels that seeing everything with respect to American Catholicism since 2002 through the the sex abuse by Catholic clergy prism has its limitations. But was the Vatican really altogether unknowing of this sad story? Was it really sheltered in a cocoon? I think not entirely, but that’s a topic for another time.
In the vast majority of diplomatic postings, there is inter-action on an informal basis, not just between the diplomats at higher and lower levels and government functionaries, but also between their families. The same isn’t altogether possible, I think, when “the government” is made up of priests, monsignors, and bishops. Coffee after Papal Masses just isn’t on. After close to three hours everybody is ready to go home.
Thanks, Margaret, for
http://www.amazon.com/In-Garden-Beasts-American-ebook/dp/B004HFRJM6/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1344235835&sr=8-1
Ambassadors are human beings, and human beings, unless they’ve died in their souls, have consciences, which must out. But mature humans must also know how and when to form their protest.
From Peggy’s original post: “Since the Vatican seems to have operated in a cocoon about the sex-abuse crisis in the U.S. (and later in its own backyard), you have to wonder whether any of these eminent Catholics ever mentioned the issue while in Rome.” I took this to be a question. Is it being presumed here that the answer is negative?
Re John Page’s invitation: The only thing I can offer is that the Vatican or Holy See is not the Catholic Church, which is rather larger.
John Page, thanks for the summing up of diplomatic issues. Am I correct in thinking that Vatican “ambassadors” often stay put in one country for a long time, making them the deans of the diplomatic corps in that country and also knowledgeable relative to other ambassadors who have relatively short tenure?
John Page: many thanks for the background of the embassy to the Vatican. Nothing like a whiff of history to clear the air. Though I’m not quite old enough to remember Franklin Pierce’s attempt to establish relations, from the later 1940s I recall vaguely some of the largely Protestant anger over FDR’s having done what was seen as an end run around Congress and the Constitution in appointing Myron Taylor as his “personal representative” to Pius XII during the war. And I certainly remember the major flap over Harry Truman’s failed attempt to appoint Mark Clark to a real diplomatic post there.
Incidentally, Myron Taylor’s second in command during the war was Harold Tittmann, a distinguished career diplomat, and earlier, a heroic aviator in World War I. Like Taylor, he was an Episcopalian. His son (also Harold Tittmann) published in 2004 Inside the Vatican of Pius XII: The Memoir of an American Diplomat During World War II (Image Books). Though I haven’t read it, I believe it is very pro-Pius (see the review in First Things
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-the-unsilent-pope-15
though obviously it has not put to rest the controversies over Pius and the Jews.
(full disclosure: the diplomat-aviator was the grandfather of my son-in-law, in whose house hangs the framed certificate of the Croix de Guerre that Tittmann was awarded for tangling with a flight of Boche aircraft in 1918.)
“My point: playing the high moral ground card (conscience, religious liberty, etc.) raised this question (in my mind): when, if ever, did the ambassadors take the high moral ground in their capacities as ambassadors to the Vatican to call attention to the clerical sex abuse crisis. Maybe they did (as I suggested above), but no one seems to have heard about it.”
I take the point of the clarification, but it seems to me a little-too-like a “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” question.
I leave town for a few days and Jim Jenkins is allowed to spew his ad hominem attacks all over the place. Jim, this is your final warning. If you can’t shape up, you’re done here.
Margaret Steinfels, papal nuncios are moved from country to country after six or seven years. They usually receive their first head of mission assignment around age fifty. Then they are gradually promoted to a “more important post” with assignments like Paris, Washington, Rome, Berlin being the last stop on the cursus honorum before retirement (or sometimes an end of career appointment in a Curial position). I believe this is the same system followed by most countries with respect to their Foreign Service assignments, though the US tends to name a number of “political appointees” (usually “donors”).The British Foreign Service would never do this.
Some countries in Europe and Latin America recognize the papal nuncio as the dean of the diplomatic corps from the moment of his appointment. (That is often secured by a concordat between the particular country and the Holy See.) (John XXIII, for example, was the dean during his time in Paris, 1944 to 1953). I think this tends to be dying out, but not entirely.
Cathleen’s question is legitimate, but there are some more basic questions needed for an answer to be coherent. I think, and I am no expert, the first question is who gets to contract treaties. I do not think I can negotiate a treaty with Australia, or that anyone would recognize it if I did.
So why can the Holy See? It is because nations recognize that they can. This probably comes down to the negotiated Concordat with Italy(1929, 1984) establishing a precedent. If Italy recognizes them, we should too say other countries. And the treaty is with the Holy See, which operates from the country of Vatican City, not with Vatican City. (I think both VC & HS issue passports)
Prior to 1929, the Papal states covered central Italy, including Rome. The Pope was a temporal ruler like any king or president in the world, and so was in a position to negotiate with others. In 1870 Italian nationalists took the Papal states and made them part of Italy, which chose Rome as its capital. The Pope refused to recognize this until 1929, holing up as the Prisoner of the Vatican during those years, and I am sure some countries supported his claims. This is important for understanding the current anomalous status.
To add to John’s excellent account, Pierce tried to establish diplomatic relations with the ruler of the Papal states who represented the Catholic Church. FDR worked with an entity newly established by agreement with Mussolini, while Truman was dealing with post-war Italy, ie post Mussolini how does the Vatican fit in. It is not until 1984 under Reagan that Italy, the Vatican and the US were settled enough for US to establish relations with the Holy See without sparking too much anxiety about the Pope’s claims to universal temporal authority. It was not simple anti Catholic bigotry, but a complex political muddle.
Some fascinating points here about the diplomatic corps, etc, but back to the essential point. Will ths endorsement make a difference? Perhaps for a very few on the fence Catholiics, but more important issues that involve both the bishops and laity will emerge before “the Catholic vote” will be determined– especially in swing states.
I am still wondering if Obama will have any susbstantive “Catholic xxxxx for Obama” other than led by Martin Sheen (whom I appreciate much! Still wish Bartlett were president!).
Waiting to see if any bishops go off the deep end before the election… or if, in someway, whatever happens with the LCWR will play into any Cathollic voting…
I knew Pio Laghi, having met him several times through my uncle. In the 1950’s they worked together as secretaries in what was then known as the Apostolic Delegation in Washington DC. Owing to that personal connection, I have followed Pio Laghi’s “not always so illustrious” diplomatic career.
Since he was named the apostolic delegate (1980) and later (1984) Pro-Nuncio to the U.S., he is said to have established a warm relationship with vice-president and then president George H.W. Bush and family.
As a result, in 1993 Pio Laghi conveyed to president George W. Bush a request of Pope John Paul II to reconsider the war against Iraq. The president is quoted as having referred to him as “an old family friend.”
Now, to my point: A lot of diplomacy involves personal connections. Sad to say, Pio Laghi’s mission to Bush proved to be unsuccessful.
TANGENT: Given that some people are convinced that the Pope controls all bishops and clergy in every way, it is very interesting that the Secretary of State’s office has two divisions, one for external relations/diplomacy and another for internal matters, and, further, that the Holy See and the Vatican state are no one and the same. I assume that the latter fact has something to do with the internal-external division at State. This probably has important ramifications for anyone trying to sue “the Vatican” (whatever it is) over the misbehavior of Catholic clergy. It probably makes it easier to maintain that “the Vatican” shouldn’t be held legally responsible. But that’s another thread.
John Page:
Thank you for providing me with some great information on the history of our country’s relationship with the Holy See.
This statement of yours has got me wondering:
“When Ronald Reagan, in the early 1980s, succeeded in establishing diplomatic relations with the Holy See, Catholics had at last come of age, and there was political mileage to be gained.”
Could the establishment of relations be connected with the strong anti-communist stances of Reagan and John Paul II? Could that be part of the political mileage?”
Yes, Helen. That came to me later. The influence of John Paul II and particularly the encouragement he was giving to the overthrow of the Communist regime in Poland were certainly factors in Reagan’s decision.
Was your uncle Bishop McDevitt?
About diplomacy and personal connections –
Yes, it seems that the diplomatic web is cast very wide. Probably needs to be. I just read a review of a new book that maintains that if you want to know what is going on in a country, research its art scenes, that the artists are the ones who determine which way a country is headed. Sounds like the Vatican might agree: the late novelist and playwright Gore Vidal seems to have been born with connections to all sorts of powerful folks, cultivated such connections on his own, and was an inveterate gossip. He was also a terribly cynical atheist who said some terrible things about Christianity. A couple of his obituaries say that he often entertained cardinals from the Vatican at his beautiful Italian villa, along with all sorts of other people. Hmm. Made for each other.
(Now there’s a meta-question for moral theologians: when is gossip not gossip?)
A question for those with knowledge of the Vatican. Does the Vatican have detectives?
(I’m thinking of reading The Trinity Game, and the conceit seems to be that the devil’s advocate — whatever it’s called now — has detectives.)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Trinity-Game-Sean-Chercover/dp/1612183506
John Page:
See my email for the answer to your query.
Well, it didn’t prevent the ousting and killing of Sadaam Hussein, but it sounds certain that the President listened seriously, and it may well have had effects that didn’t make the headlines. Almost none of the important things in life make the headlines.
David Smith:
David Smith:
Perhaps, this anecdote might explain some of the reasons why I wrote what I did.
I viewed the live stream of the meeting of the U.S. bishops this past June. I heard the impassioned plea of Chaldean Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni of Baghdad who described to the bishops the persecution of the church in Iraq since the U.S. War in Iraq.
I heard him say: “As leaders of the church in the United States, you bear a special responsibility toward the people and Christians of Iraq. In 2003, your government led the war that brought some terrible consequences. … We have freedom of worship, but we do not have freedom of conscience or of religion. …If someone becomes a Christian, they could be killed very easily.”
I wondered if there were any bishops squirming in their seats at the accusation that the U.S. government was the cause for the situation of the Church in Iraq. I wondered, too, if any had second thoughts about what constitutes real religious persecution.
Bishop Warduni received a standing ovation.
Now, to my point: A lot of diplomacy involves personal connections. Sad to say, Pio Laghi’s mission to Bush proved to be unsuccessful.
Agree that a LOT of diplomacy involves personal connections. E.g., Laghi’s CLOSE personal relationship with Massera et al.
From an old NCR article about Laghi, the junta, etc.:
MacEoin said the cardinal was only indirectly implicated in most of the allegations published by the mothers but what they showed “is something already well known, namely, that Laghi maintained very close social contacts with many of the generals later sent to prison. He was particularly friendly with Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera, a frequent tennis partner whose children he baptized.”
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2002c/083002/083002m.htm
———–
As to Laghi’s mission being “unsuccessful”? No one knows what the mission was. He carried the pope’s message in a diplomatic pouch. His words about what the message actually said are diplomatic.
http://old.usccb.org/comm/archives/2003/03-051.shtml
(Imho, the pope and his backers called in their markers.)
Gerylyn:
Thank you for the link, However, Laghi’s diplomatic words cited in the link only confirm my thought that the basic mission was unsuccessful. See also my comment about Bishop Warduni’s speech to the U.S. bishops at their June 2012 meeting as further confirmation.
I see that my comment about Pio Laghi’s mission to President George W. Bush needs correction. It occurred in 2003, not 1993.
My apologies, Gerelyn, for misspelling your name.
On Gossip: Sidney Callahan reviewed a book in these pages on this subject, pointing out, as I recall, the importance of gossip as a tool of moral commentary and correction. I will try to find the link. Gossip in this telling is not “backbiting,” or character defamation, but a way to communicate impressions and ideas in an informal and sometimes indirect way.
Gossip has long been recognized by organizational theorists as important glue that sustains group culture.
Jesus seems to have been attuned to it; in this coming Sunday’s Gospel, the crowd “murmurs” about his challenging words and he rebukes them for it.
On gossip:
1) It’s good/god + sib/sip. A sib/sip is a kinsman. The old English word for godparent was gossip.
2) It comes from the proto root “s(w)e” meaning self. Many other important words derive from that root, including swain, swami, sedulous, sober, sodality, ethnos, hetairos, Sinn Fein, khedive, etc., etc.
3) It’s often used in an attempt to silence women. Men are rarely called gossips, although the ancient form of conversation is not gender-specific.
Speaking of gossip:
The blog by Church Whisperer, Rocco Palmo, “Whispers in the Loggia” known for its breaking news of the latest gossip in the Catholic Church on the World Wide Web, is, in my opinion, a gem.
I have never seen any meanness or pettiness on his blog. He is pretty accurate with his gossip. (Who are his sources?)
Disclaimer: We Philadelphians stick together.
Helen -
I’m also fond of Rocco. His gossip is still never mean, but the Cdl. Bevalaqua scandal seems to have shaken the poor boy to his roots. (I wonder how he’s going to get along with Abp. Chaput. He’s on an advisory committee to the Apb.)
Morning’s Minion comments on the six ambassadors, over at Vox Nova:
John H. ==
Thanks for the MM post. Excellent summary of why Romney would be an awful choice.