Rev. Philip Joseph Gambin, Msida
More at home here than at the Vatican
When US President Barack Obama was casting around for an ambassador to send to the Vatican, the name of Douglas Kmiec came up. So did the names of a couple of other American Catholics, including Caroline Kennedy. But none got the job. Why? Because Rome wouldn't have them.
Italian journalist Massimo Franco reported that papal advisers told Mr Obama's aides privately that all three failed to meet the Vatican's most basic qualification on the abortion issue. The eventual appointee to the Holy See was Miguel Diaz, a Catholic theologian from Minnesota.
Malta got Prof. Kmiec.
So why didn't he get the No. 1 job in Rome?
Ms Kennedy is pro-abortion, so that was clear enough.
An official of the Vatican Secretariat of State said the Holy See had always set a very simple standard: the person should not be in opposition to the fundamental teachings of the Church "that belong to our common shared humanity".
The official added: "We could not accept someone who is in favour of abortion, or (human) cloning or same-sex unions equated to marriage. He (Kmiec) nailed the last nail in the coffin with his disappointing position on embryonic stem cell research".
Now, who is Prof. Kmiec? He is an American legal scholar and author, currently professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University after previous appointments at Notre Dame University and the Catholic University of America.
A former adviser to Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, he caused a stir last year when he endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for President in spite of Mr Obama's strongly pro-abortion position. As a result, he was denied Communion at a Mass in California by a priest who was later told by Cardinal Roger Mahony to apologise.
So what is Prof. Kmiec?
Well, he said he supported Mr Obama because of the need to find "common ground" on such topics as abortion and supported Mr Obama's controversial appearance at Notre Dame University's commencement ceremony in May. He has described Mr Obama as "sounding more Catholic than most Catholics I know".
At a Church forum, Prof. Kmiec last year said the question of when a baby acquires human rights was "above his pay grade", in other words, a question he couldn't answer.
More recently, in May this year, Prof. Kmiec proposed that legal marriage should be abolished so as to "accommodate" the homosexual movement. This directly contradicts Catholic teaching. In 2005, before becoming Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger denounced any such proposal as "gravely unjust".
Prof. Kmiec is one of an unusual number of Catholics with whom President Obama has surrounded himself; all of whom could be described as "liberal" Catholics and holding similar positions on key issues as Prof. Kmiec.
In the United States, this has sharpened the divide between Catholics who hold faithfully to the teaching of the Church and those who can manage to say openly that they support such matters as abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research and the like and still proclaim themselves Catholics.
The recent public funeral for Teddy Kennedy highlighted this division. It also brought to light how, in 1964, a group of dissenting Catholic theologians persuaded Senator Kennedy that a Catholic politician could say: "I personally oppose abortion, but..."
It was this manipulation of this deep-seated divide in the American Catholic community that enabled Mr Obama to win a majority of the Catholic vote and the Presidency. One of the instruments of this manipulation has been Prof. Kmiec.
In view of the emerging divide among Catholics - and even the hierarchy - in Malta over the issue of legalised divorce, perhaps Ambassador Kmiec may find himself more at home in Valletta than he would have in the Vatican.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
William P Flynn
Oct 5th 2009, 01:47
@JoeFarrugia
Like diplomats from other nations, MrKmiec would have too much sense, propriety and political sense to impose his views on local controversial matters.
Astonishingly, he has allowed his religion to be the subject of so much examination and focus in the original Times interview; thus throwing priests and apologists a bone he won't easily retrieve without strong gloves.
MrKmiec is the US Ambassador; not a religious missionary, emissary or papal-nuncio.
He won't be judged on religious merits by his president, fellow citizens, by us or our government.
The church in Malta is far from silenced; priests constantly lobby every stratum of government and administration; they interfere in all matters affecting people's lives; even the how and when of conception!
That the majority of Maltese are forced to be catholic as children doesn't necessarily mean that they remain catholic as adults or welcome church interference/advice on everything; quite the contrary.
Almost all countries(including USA) have decided to provide legal mechanisms without which thousands of citizens, whose "crime" was a bad marriage, or an unwanted pregnancy, cannot function properly.
Shouldn't democracy be measured by the value it places on minorities; not merely by how it exercises the will of the majority?
Joe Farrugia
Oct 4th 2009, 17:14
@Flynn's: It seems that in this country, everybody has right to have his say, except the Church, which by the way does not constitute merely the hierarchy but, in our country is made up of the great majority of the people.
What I tried to remark in my previous contribution to this blog was that Doug Kmiec has often and publicly declared his opposition to abortion and in all honesty I have no grounds to doubt his sincerity.
Furthermore Cardinal Ratrizinger (presently Pope Benedict XVI) and John Paul II had absolute right and duty to guide Christ's faithful by pointing out that when it was not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, Catholics could for "proportionate reasons" support a candidate on other issues, as long as they had declared opposition to procured abortion and as long as they do not take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.
Re the divorce issue at the end of Fr Gambin's letter, Kmiec's belief in a procreative family as a building block of society is well known and no one has any right to insinuate that in Malta he would be pro-divorce.
William P Flynn
Oct 4th 2009, 12:32
@Joe Farrugia
No pope or cleric should interfere in people's electoral choices. Popes meddling in politics has caused wars and division over many centuries.
When Nuncio Pacelli interfered with German politics he pushed 23 million catholics to the NAZI party making Hitler Fuhrer.
When Archbishop Gonzi told Maltese how to vote under pain of mortal sin in the 1950's he divided the country as never before.
How dare Ratzinger say for whom people may or may not vote? Clerics who interfere in politics should be declared politicians or lobbyists, be bound by electoral laws and the religion they represent declared a political party or lobbyist - thus losing taxation privileges as a religion.
Joe Farrugia
Oct 4th 2009, 10:52
In Evangelium Vitae #73, Pope John Paul II writes "When it is not possible to overturn a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute opposion to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such law and at lessing its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not infact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."
Ambasador Kmiec has often publicly proclaimed his absolute and inequivocal oppostion to abortion and that he disagrees with Obama on this issue.
From Fr Gambin's letter one would easily get the impression that matters facing Kmiec and other Catholics are simply a matter of supporting the good guy and opposing the bad one. However life is more complex, as often there are strong moral issues to condemn on each side. So when faced with such a dilemma, what are Catholics supposed to do? Remain as mere spectators?
The then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, "catholics who do not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion may be permited to vote for him in the presence of proportionate reasons."
Joe Xuereb
Oct 3rd 2009, 17:06
Talk about biting off more than you can chew Gambin.
Prof. Kmiec was not good enough for the Vatican. Malta rises about the Vatican yet appoints him as ambassador. What?
Mr. Cowie - he who lets slip 'The human Condition' slip off his tongue like honey but fails to give as a definition of such. He, and I quote: 'The Vatican is entirely Catholic does not claim to represent other countries or faiths'. Indeed it does not. But its standards are slipping. Like when the Head of said Vatican goes to Africa (presumably hoping for future recuits to holy orders) and exhorts Catholics there to stop practising magic and witchcraft. I bet this does not represent another faith. But from where I stand, it represents desperation.
Malta is secular. We show X-rated films I presume. Good Catholics stay away. Bad Catholics flock to them. That is the start of secularism. It is only churchy-meddling and uninvited, and therefore, unwelcome Cowie-isms that make the country appear otherwise. Donkeys and their braying come to mind.
William P Flynn
Oct 2nd 2009, 11:03
@David Gatt Pity Saudi Arabia doesn't have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. That country's practice of stoning women would have been a big plus in the hallowed misogynistic corridors of the Holy See.
William P flynn
Oct 2nd 2009, 10:54
Mr Cowie, English catholic apologist and all-knowing expert on all matters Maltese, thinks the Vatican "frustrates (my) attempts to turn Malta into a secular state". I'd imagine the Holy See would be horrified that Mr Cowie is saying that the "Vatican" is frustrating any country'politics. We all know they try; but they'd never admit to it. Besides I thought Malta is, and has been for quite some time, a secular state. It's just that most priests, like priest Gambin, and apologists like Mr Cowie refuse to accept it.
clare spiteri
Oct 2nd 2009, 08:39
Thank you Fr Gabin on a well thought out letter. You have written what a many people feel .As one can see from the comments below, most do not have a clue what they are talking about , and just insult the Catholic Church and any one who defends what it stands for.The church and its representatives on earth cannot compromise on the teachings of the Catholic Church.One cannot choose to believe only bits and pieces of what the Church teaches ,depending what is convenient to you.No one is forcing anyone to be a Catholic,no one is forcing anyone to live on these islands.If you don,t like it leave.
David Gatt
Oct 1st 2009, 21:03
To Ms. Gatt - there is no saudi ambassador to the Vatican, the Vatican and Saudi do not have diplomatic ties due to fairly obvious religious differences.
Gerry Cowie
Oct 1st 2009, 19:55
Great to see our Australian confirmed secularist and anti-church campaigner having his usual go at a priest who, I would imagine, knows a fair deal more about the Catholic church.
" What a discourteous, undiplomatic and spiteful" 'contribution' to this debate!
How fortunate that the Vatican is a state - even if only because it frustrates Mr Flynn's attempts to turn Malta into a secular state, all the way from Australia!
Of course, there are a number of people poking fun at the writer of this letter.
But, of course, all are entitled to their views, however judgemental, sarcastic or ill-founded!
Of course, being a state, the centre of the Catholic church, it is not surprising that the Vatican wants to ensure that ambassadors subscribe to basic Catholic teachings. The Vatican is entirely Catholic does not claim to represent other countries or faiths.
It seems that the writer has done a fair bit of research on this issue.
As to who may be an ambassador to Malta, that is a different matter entirely. The beliefs or otherwise of that person are irrelevant.
I am sure that Father Gambin can defend himself when it comes to secularist attacks!
Franco Farrugia
Oct 1st 2009, 17:13
This is the first time that I have heard so much trash about an ambassador's religious sympathies and credentials. I always thought and believed that the more important credentials were his diplomatic ones.
I have a feeling that Fr Gambin is a young priest who needs re-forming. Back to the Seminary, Father.
William P Flynn
Oct 1st 2009, 17:02
There is a note beneath this article referring to the previous article: "The danger of venomous creatures".
That title should have been given to this jeremiad; black widow spiders and cobras have nothing on this type of priest.
Mr Kmiec shouldn't (and wouldn't) be worried; the disapproval of this type of priest, and possibly the Vatican, means our US envoy gets the tick of approval of the overwhelming majority of ordinary Maltese who struggle daily against this straitjacket mentality of the clergy meddling in every aspect of life in Malta.
Let's see if he's still a Catholic when he leaves Malta after his tenure.
c gatt
Oct 1st 2009, 16:58
Its good to know that the Catholic Church in Malta would be happier to have had Sarah Palin one step away from the trigger button.
yet another pointless nonsense homily from the Maltese Catholic Church.
PS does the Vatican object to ambassadors from Saudi Arabia et al where the stoning of women is still considered a viable punishment. hang on, I forget that is for the heinous crime of adultery so its ok then!
J Martinelli
Oct 1st 2009, 15:57
Since when do an Ambassador's religious views decide his suitability for his appointment to Malta?
Does an Ambassador interfere with religious matters?
Are all resident Ambassadors in Malta, Roman Catholic, practicing or otherwise?
Mr. Kmiec is welcome here irrespective of his personal interpretation of the Catholic faith.
E. Williams
Oct 1st 2009, 13:56
The Maltese press has claimed that Prof. Kmiec is a wonderful Catholic because of his beliefs. Rev. Gambin has all rights to challenge his Catholic beliefs. What Re.v Gambin said is very true. He caused a massive stir in the Catholic community here in the USA. A better appointment is deserving for Malta.
M Attard
Oct 1st 2009, 13:34
Apart from unjustly throwing mud, what is the purpose of your letter? Prof.Kmiec views were well known to us long before he was appointed to Malta.
g.portelli
Oct 1st 2009, 12:32
Your take on the how a divisive strategy engineered by 'liberal' Catholics' helped elect President Obama is intriguing to say the least. I think concerns over bread and butter issues cross the divide especially when an electorate is faced with job/house losses and relative and real poverty and some equally significant moral issues like Jus ad bellum and Jus in Bello. Ambassador Kmiec represents his country and the Maltese Government accepted his credentials, so what is your problem? What is the purpose of your letter, to warn the Maltese Catholic flock of the new 'dangerous' mind in our midst?
PS. What is so abhorrent about an American President who is concerned with the issue of Social Justice? Is that not also one of the basic tenets of the Catholic Church? Why instigate a climate of unease when as Catholics we should seek to understand all perspectives?
Joe Zammit
Oct 1st 2009, 12:13
Wisely, the Catholic bishops have remained silent on the topic because they realize that diplomatic relations are a matter between the Holy See and the U.S. Government and have nothing to do with the Catholic Church in America. They certainly have nothing to do with Catholic doctrine.
Adrian Vella
Oct 1st 2009, 11:42
Some things never change. I guess the Rev. Gambin must rue the time when people who said the World was round were threatened to be burnt at the stake. I am sure he would like to Flambe' the Ambassador for having his own thoughts on these subjects.
William P Flynn
Oct 1st 2009, 11:06
What a discourteous, undiplomatic and spiteful letter. This beats last Sunday's article by Roamer who didn't even have the courtesy to mention Mr Kmiec's name.
Who cares what the Pope and the Holy See want and don't want? Maybe the USA might decide they don't want any representative from the Holy See as it is against democracy, has a history of discrimination against freedom of religion, is against gay people, women's rights and many other things which go against everything the USA stands for.
How hypocritical of the Holy See to accept a US individual who professes Catholic ideals which the Holy See find acceptable but which the President, the new administration and most Americans don't share.
It was a big mistake to give the Vatican statehood status. Thanks for nothing Benito!
B Galea
Oct 1st 2009, 10:34
What exactly is your point? That Professor Kmiec doesn't meet your standard of Catholicism? Because, I would venture to say, the Professor would probably say the same about your level of scholarship.
Ambassadors are there to represent their home country, not to adhere to their host country's moral views. I think we'd soon be a diplomatic desert if we expected all resident ambassadors to oppose abortion, divorce, stem cell research, pre-marital sex, condom use, female ordination, the papal conclave, or any of the other controversial issues surrounding the catholic church.