Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Caroline Kennedy, Ambassador to the Vatican | 04/13/2009 9:20 am

Vatican Rebuffs Caroline Kennedy Ambassador Seat Over Abortion, Say Sources

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

Just when Caroline Kennedy was recovering from the political mess over her bid for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, she now has hit some more political roadblocks. And these are coming from a holier land: the Vatican.

The Massachusetts Catholic Action League and sources within the Vatican itself are protesting the idea President Obama may appoint JFK’s daugher as an ambassador to the Vatican. Why are they so angry? Because Ms. Kennedy, a Catholic, supports abortion rights.

Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, reportedly was pushing Obama to pick Kennedy, 53, for the job, but C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Massachusetts league, said her nomination is "a calculated insult to the Holy See."

"It’s inappropriate to appoint someone who pretends to be a Catholic but rejects the fundamental teachings of the Church," Doyle said. U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Raymond L. Flynn told The Boston Herald Kennedy’s nomination would be a "mistake."

Vatican sources told the Italian newspaper Il Giornale that they disapprove of several of Obama’s ambassador picks, including Kennedy, because of their stances on abortion or stem cells. But the Vatican is denying reports that they’ve opposed any of Obama’s picks over their split on abortion. 

"No proposals about the new ambassador of the United States to the Holy See have reached the Vatican, and therefore it is not true that they have been rejected. The rumors circulating about this topic are not reliable," the spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, told Catholic News Service. "It’s possible names have been circulated inside the U.S. administration, and perhaps rejected for some reason or other, but not because of any Vatican veto."

So far, no official word from the Obama camp on what’s what. But needless to say, the split on such a controversial topic will likely make for a slightly awkward meeting between Obama and Pope Benedict XVI in Italy in July. 

23 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Mary Quite-Contrary
Another embarassment for Caroline Kennedy. Why wouldn’t the Obama administration only present a “Catholic in good standing” to the Vatican? This is a purely ceremonial role. Why choose any candidate whose personal beliefs do not mesh with those of the Holy See? There is no reason not to honor the beliefs of the Vatican, and “vet” those to nominated. Would the Administration push a woman as an Ambassdor to a Muslim state (knowing it would offend the country involved?). I think not. Its just poor judgement that causes undo embarassment and tension.
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 04/13/2009 9:32 am
S.J. Morgan
I agree Mary…..what were they thinking in even suggesting it?
By S.J. Morgan on 04/13/2009 9:53 am
HA BIBI
I too agree, It’s called putting your best face forward. "The Kennedy Clan" have not exactly led the forefront of morality within the Catholic Church……….Quite the opposite! 
By HA BIBI on 04/13/2009 2:03 pm
DeBúrca obj
I can’t imagine that nobody would see this coming. This article says, "protesting the idea President Obama may appoint JFK’s daugher as an ambassador to the Vatican"…. which makes me wonder if this is only rumor, because I am sure there would be much more appropriate posts for Caroline to be ambassador and I cannot imagine the Obama Administration wanting to deal with an unnecessary annoyance like this.
By DeBúrca obj on 04/13/2009 9:44 am
Diana T

I don’t think this is an "embarassment" for Caroline Kennedy.  They could have chosen anyone with the same opinions and had the same thing happen. 

This is yet another example of a Pope who prefers to stay in the era of the 14th Century.  By the way, there has been women as ambassadors to the Vatican.  Cokie Roberts mother, Lindy Boggs.

By Diana T on 04/13/2009 9:44 am
Mary Quite-Contrary
Its not an issue of a woman as Ambassador to the Vatican, its an issue of any candidate who opposes the Church’s stances. I find it interesting that you peg the Pope’s faith as fourteenth century. How do you feel about Muslim beliefs? Should patriarchal faiths all change to accomodate 21st century Americans. No. If you don’t “believe” in the tenets of Roman Catholicism…don’t be a member of the faith. If you don’t believe in Islam…don’t follow it either. But we have no right to tell another country, with a state religion, that “they” must adhere to American values. President Obama’s Administration may not have even floated this idea. There are those in the media (re-read the article) that might enjoy taking a swipe at a Kennedy and the Vatican in one fell swoop.
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 04/13/2009 10:00 am
Green Tears
It appears to all be ‘rumor driven’ - a waste of everyone’s time.
By Green Tears on 04/13/2009 10:22 am
Kristy B
I agree with you.  There’s too many conflicting stories here.
By Kristy B on 04/13/2009 11:23 am
Karl Tarbox
I really believe that Caroline Kennedy has taken some unfair hits this year, and I am a Republican! This is a Senate which apparently will have Al Franken. My God! As for Ambassadors, we have had people who could not even locate their countries on a map at their confirmation hearings! Ms. Kennedy is a Catholic, and has met with Popes before. I say give her a chance of she wants it.
By Karl Tarbox on 04/15/2009 11:45 am
nanchan u

I agree with Mary.

Kennedy is not a Catholic in good standing.  However, she is a high profile Catholic because she is a Kennedy (a family that has time and again made a mockery of the religion, in my opinion).  Her father made history by becoming the first Catholic person elected to the presidency and then frankly and publicly ignored the basic tenants of the faith.  Also, the Kennedy family basically got Obama elected: without their endorsement, we would probably be calling Hilary president.  The whole situation smacks of payback to me.

Having Kennedy be the ambassador to the Vatican shows a lack of sensitivity.  I’m wonder who thought of this in the first place and why she was even considered a viable candidate for such a position. But hey, we all have to pay the bills.

By nanchan u on 04/13/2009 10:24 am
Mary Quite-Contrary
LOL on Mrs. Schlossberg having to “pay the bills.” One of the first criticisms of Kennedy (during the Clinton Senate seat debacle) was that she was refusing to disclose her financial status. As both her mother and brother’s sole heir her wealth was estimated at any where from 80mil to over 100mil. I think she probably doesn’t “need” the stipend an Ambassadorship would bring.
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 04/13/2009 11:00 am
nanchan u

Well, Mary, what I was actually referring to was the payback from the Obama crew.  Obama was elected in large part due to the endorsement of the Kennedy family about a year ago.  Until that time, he was not considered all that strong a candidate: the party put their muscle behind Hilary Clinton.

When the Kennedy family endorsed Obama, his campaign shot forward until he eventually won the Democratic nomination and eventually the presidency.  I’m sure there were a few deals done (you endorse me, I’ll give your Caroline a senate seat (that didn’t work), I’ll get her an ambassadorship (where would you like her to go?  Oh, sure the Vatican!  Don’t see why not) made to pay the Kennedies off for the endorsement/campaigning.

And yes indeed.  Nice to see SOMEONE use Caroline’s legal name.  She is married to a Jewish man.  Why doesn’t she use her married name anymore?  It mysteriously "went away" in the last year or so….

 

By nanchan u on 04/13/2009 11:25 am
Green Tears
Love your ‘deal diagram’ , Nanchan! Yeah, since Ed is still around, why did his name have to disappear? Caroline never seemed like that much of a game player before - it’s sad to think she felt she couldn’t just be herself.
By Green Tears on 04/13/2009 11:51 am
nanchan u
Oh, if only I could attach a Visio to my comments…. life would be so much easier!  And I agree with your post… have a happy Monday!
By nanchan u on 04/13/2009 12:34 pm
Mary Quite-Contrary
Absolutely, nan, it could be a “quid pro quo.” But somebody keeps dropping the ball for CKS. And I don’t understand the dropping of the Schlossberg either…are they still together?
By Mary Quite-Contrary on 04/13/2009 12:23 pm