We Have An Ambassador To The Vatican…
Tweet
Sweet Jesus, why? I’m probably in the minority here but I don’t see why we would waste even meager resources on this.
22 Responses to “We Have An Ambassador To The Vatican…”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Well, whether you like it or not the Pope is a world religious leader unlike any other. He’s got a lot of clout in the world and a bunch of people who really *will* do pretty much anything he asks (though I’m Catholic and I ain’t doing nothin’ the Pope tells me to unless I already want to do it).
Plus, the Vatican is still *technically* a country…
He’s got a lot of clout in the world
Is this true? This was said a lot during Pope John Paul’s funeral, and I doubted it then and now. The pope has a lot of influence among Catholics. The rest of us? Not so much.
For one thing, it’s a pretty cushy job to give to some longtime politician who’s not competent enough to put into a position that actually matters. Especially if he’s a Catholic.
See: Former Boston Mayor Ray Flynn.
The Pope has been useful as a diplomatic ally many times in the past; I personally credit John Paul II with having far more to do with the fall of Eastern European communism than Reagan ever did in the GOP’s wildest wet dreams.
The Vatican isn’t “technically” a country, it is a nation that, while its citizenry is small, has a constituency of over 1 billion people in every nation on earth. Nor is it the only nation whose head is also the head of a church; until recently that arrangement existed, at least officially, in England as well.
Also, we’ve got ambassadors in all sorts of nations that make the Roman Catholic Church’s anti-woman and anti-gay policies look downright progressive. On the whole, I’d rather be a female resident of the Vatican, or almost every other majority-Catholic nation on earth, than one in Saudi Arabia or Zimbabwe.
The pope has a lot of influence among Catholics. The rest of us? Not so much.
Not to overwhelm the comment thread even as they’re moderated, but the Pope’s influence over Catholics is exactly the point. There’s over 1 billion of them, with around 77 million of them in the US. They have the potential to be hugely influential, especially as the US Roman Catholic population becomes increasingly Hispanic.
An effective ambassador to the Vatican could get Benedict XVI to say nice things about an Obama administration’s focus on the poor, for example, which would most likely have a chilling effect on attention-whore US bishops and priests who want to advance in the church by attacking their Democratic parishioners.
Well, OW, there are roughly as many Catholics as there are, say, Europeans, and we have ambassadors to every state in Europe including Lichtenstein and Monaco, so why not?
There are a BILLION Catholics in the world, don’t forget. That’s over half of the world’s Christians and a sixth of the world’s population. So even if he’s only got clout with *some* Catholics, that’s some serious clout…
And whether one agrees with it or not, a serious case can be made that JPII was instrumental in the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. That’s impressive, even if only partially true.
we have ambassadors to every state in Europe including Lichtenstein and Monaco
Because those are actual countries.
Because those are actual countries.
So is the Vatican.
With as much work as needs to be done on our international image, why leave this stone unturned, OW?
Obama’s positions regarding community building, reducing poverty and structural racism dovetail well with Catholic precepts. There is support for these efforts, and reaching out to Catholics on these topics adds to the world conversation.
I think the real question is why I wasn’t tapped for the job.
They love liberal chicks in Rome.
A.
Technically, Vatican City is a sovereign nation. Back during the pedophile priest scandals, I was worried that the accused priests might try to claim diplomatic immunity. They came close enough; Bernard Law got himself a cushy job in the Vatican and avoided the prosecution he so richly deserved.
And as noted, there are a LOT of Catholics in the world, far beyond those who are citizens of Vatican City. Maintaining good diplomatic relations with their leadership is a good move — and full credit to Ronald Reagan for being the first president to appoint an Ambassador to the Holy See.
It certainly helped us out a LOT in working with John Paul II in bringing down the Soviet Union. Reagan, Thatcher, and JP Da Deuce deserve mad props.
J.
Because, your protestations to the nonce, the Vatican is a nation.
But not really.
Well, Vatican City isn’t a member of the UN, but has observer status — for whatever that’s worth.
From Wikipedia: Note: the Holy See has been a permanent observer in the United Nations since 1964 and, in July 2004, gained all the rights of full membership except voting.[5] According to Archbishop Celestino Migliore, Holy See Permanent Observer, “We have no vote because this is our choice.” He added that the Holy See considers that its current status “is a fundamental step that does not close any path for the future. The Holy See has the requirements defined by the UN statute to be a member state and, if in the future it wished to be so, this resolution would not impede it from requesting it.”
my interest in the matter is purely theoretical; the Vatican is a unique creature in global politics, and as such poses some truly interesting questions and situations. Overall, I’d have to say that having diplomatic relations with the Vatican, recognizing it as a sovereign nation, and exchanging ambassadors and whatnot is generally a good thing.
J.
Number of Catholics in the United States – 77 million.
Okay, from now on, I’ll read the previous comments before posting. But still, what more do you need to know?
OW’s protestations to the contrary, the City State of the Vatican is recognized as a ‘country’ by every other country that we have diplomatic relations with. It sends us a ‘nuncio’, which is popespeak for ambassador.
IIRC, the Vatican’s territorial status was ironed out by the Lateran Treaty of 192something between the pope and Mussolini. Prior to the ‘Risorgimento’ (sp?) under Garibaldi and Mazzini in the XIXth century, the Pope was in effect Europe’s last absolute monarch. Looked at a certain way, he still is.
Number of Catholics who listen to the Pope? Not 77 million (thank God).
If it is a “country,” why is it called “Vatican City?”
Whether tiny or not, even being an actual “country” is not a requirement for sending an ambassador. You can send an ambassador to an internation conference or an organization – for example, the US sends an ambassador to the UN. “Ambassador” is just a title whose meaning changes with the assignment. The US Consul General in Shanghai is a lot more important than the Ambassador to Grenada.
And Daniel – if the US is a single country, why is it called the “United StateS”? The Vatican is a city-state, and a small one at that. There used to be a lot more of them. It’s just that we’re so used to the model of the nation-state for the last century or so.
Saffi, you remind me of one of the most subtle — yet most profound — consequences of the Civil War: its affect on grammar.
Prior to the Civil War, the usage was “The United States are.” Plural. After, it became “The United States is.” Singular. The nation as a unified, collective whole took precedence over the several states.
The issue of whether we were a confederation of independent states or a single nation was settled decisively, in blood. And the language changed to reflect that.
Rotter, its full name is “State of the Vatican City.” It’s a city by size and geography, a state by political status in relation to other nations. For example, Monaco.
…would it be a good idea or a bad idea to take this issue of cities and states, and bring up the question of statehood for the District of Columbia?
J.