![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Doug Kmiec will be the new Ambassador to Malta
I picked up from Twitter that the White House announced that Doug Kmiec will be the new Ambassador to Malta.
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals for key administration posts:
President Obama said, "I am confident that these fine individuals will represent our nation abroad with distinction, and strengthen our diplomatic efforts to meet 21st century challenges. I look forward to working with them in the months and years ahead."
- Jonathan Addleton, Ambassador to Mongolia
- Gayleatha Beatrice Brown, Ambassador to Burkina Faso
- Earl M. Irving, Ambassador to the Kingdom of Swaziland
- Douglas Kmiec, Ambassador to the Republic of Malta
- Fay Hartog-Levin, Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands
UPDATE:
I wonder… proximity to Rome, where there will be a rather unprepared, not overly impressive ambassador….
hmmmm
This reminds me of the scene in “A Man for All Seasons” where St. Thomas More pulls his accuser aside in court and ask him something to the effect of :”What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world…and you received only Whales?”
Comment by J. Christopher Pryor — 2 July 2009 @ 4:22 pmThat should have read “Wales.”
Comment by J. Christopher Pryor — 2 July 2009 @ 4:26 pmIt should have been Belarus or someplace like that, not a relatively authentically Catholic country.
Comment by Brian in Wisconsin — 2 July 2009 @ 4:30 pmThe RSS feed scared me for a second. It gave me part of the headline and I thought it was the appointment to be Ambassador the Vatican.
After that scare, Malta did not seem to bother me as much as it would have otherwise
Comment by Arnobius of Sicca — 2 July 2009 @ 4:35 pmThe quote runs, “It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales, Richard?”
Comment by k3vin — 2 July 2009 @ 4:53 pmAnd we may add: “... but for Malta, Doug?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLIsqYKDqY8
Comment by VexillaRegis — 2 July 2009 @ 4:57 pmDang, y’all beat me to the Wales reference! Heh!
Comment by Fr Martin Fox — 2 July 2009 @ 5:17 pmWhat a slap in the face to Malta, which is just about the most firmly anti-abortion of all the European countries. Obama never misses an occasion to insult us, usually aided by one of his faux Catholic traitors.
Comment by EDG — 2 July 2009 @ 5:18 pmGod protect Malta!
Comment by Geoffrey — 2 July 2009 @ 5:26 pmWe hope he’ll only be a Night of Malta.
Comment by J. Basil Damukaitis — 2 July 2009 @ 5:30 pmI hope Kmiec enjoys his 30 pieces of silver.
Comment by Heather — 2 July 2009 @ 5:42 pmIf the Grand Master does not reject this appointment of Kmiec (he is not obliged to receive Kmiec), then the Knights of Malta will have become officially the superficial refuge of social arravistes and dilletantes their critics have accused them of being. Let us pray that they remain loyal to their great tradition.
Comment by gwr — 2 July 2009 @ 6:08 pmGreat, now he is out of the country and gone from Notre Dame.
Comment by mariadevotee — 2 July 2009 @ 6:09 pmOne can hope that this will prove to be the start of a return to the fold for Kmiec
Comment by Indelible Inkstain — 2 July 2009 @ 6:13 pmgwr
The appointment is to the Republic of Malta, the sovereign military order, with which I do not believe the US exchanges diplomatic representatives. Tiny as the Republic is, of course, it is ever a strategic location on the map.
It would be lovely someday to have career diplomats in ambassadorships, but that would run afoul of both the people who think career diplomats are essentially apologists for anti-Americanism and the people who believe they are owed something for helping someone else get elected to office.
Comment by Liam — 2 July 2009 @ 6:19 pmsorry, there’s a “NOT” missing after the first clause…
Comment by Liam — 2 July 2009 @ 6:20 pmYes, the Republic of Malta and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which held sovereignty over Malta in the past) are currently two very different things.
Comment by Geoffrey — 2 July 2009 @ 6:22 pm“I hope Kmiec enjoys his 30 pieces of silver.”
Exactly what I was thinking.
Comment by David — 2 July 2009 @ 6:58 pmPerhaps we can pray that Malta and the Maltese effect a conversion of heart for Mr. Kmiec?
Comment by Aelric — 2 July 2009 @ 7:04 pmThirty pieces of silver really? I was thinking more of the kiss as did Judas.
Comment by JPG — 2 July 2009 @ 7:16 pmJPG
Had the pleasure of visiting Malta last summer. Although a 98% Catholic country only 58% attend Mass on Sunday.
This place is extremly hot, humid with narrow streets and few air conditioners and fewer trees. This is a country that runs on its bus system which is vintage 1945 or earlier. Although a beautiful country I doubt this will be a pleasure trip for Kmiec unless he is ready for the extreme.
Comment by Cotton D. — 2 July 2009 @ 7:47 pmThe Republic of Malta, if true to its Catholic constitution, is free to refuse the appointment of Kmiec, as the Holy See refused the appointment of the nominated French ambassador recently. It is one of the few powers that the tiny republic has. If it does not exercise it, well then, it will have written itself off as a picturesque musical operetta entity, Catholic until challenged.
Comment by gwr — 2 July 2009 @ 7:48 pmMy initial reaction to this is NO, I don’t think that Malta utterly repudiates its Catholic heritage if they accept Kmiec as ambassador.
First of all, Obama is never going to appoint somebody who’s honestly pro-life, so do we expect Malta to reject every ambassador the US appoints? Kmiec was unsuited to the Vatican position due to his highly vocal and controversial stances on important Catholicism-in-public-life issues. I don’t think necessarily his waffle-ish views on abortion (as bad as they are, and they were indeed awful) were per se what disqualified him from the Vatican job; it is probably true that Miguel Diaz (the ambassador Obama appointed) holds the exact same views Kmiec does (the guy was one of Obama’s advisors on Catholic issues, and a big supporter…Kmiec’s main controversial stance was arguing that Catholics could vote for pro-choice candidates, which Diaz obviously accepts). Did the Holy See repudiate its Catholicism by accepting Diaz? Of course not; the problem with Kmiec as ambassador was his controversial status in the public eye, not merely the fact that he held dissenting opinions.
And further, Malta is a Catholic country, but I’m sure they have other interests to handle that the Vatican does not: tourism, trade, etc. Being ambassador to the Holy See, whose sole influence in the world is one of promoting principles of Catholic teaching and of basic human dignity and justice, is much different from being Ambassador to Malta, a country with no more or less moral authority than any other. So yeah, Kmiec was probably unsuitable for the Vatican job and the Vatican would have been right to reject him; but I don’t know that Malta’s government has some obligation to do the same. Further, just because they accept his appointment as ambassador doesn’t mean they have to listen to him or do what he says!
I would willingly accept criticism or rebuke of my views from any priest or anyone with a firm grasp on the morality of such matters, but I feel like everybody is sorta being silly and trigger-happy with their opinions condemning Malta.
Comment by Johnny Domer — 2 July 2009 @ 8:20 pmDoes this mean his so called expert Catholic opinion will no longer grace the pages Time and other magazines.
Comment by John6:54 — 2 July 2009 @ 8:30 pmPryor, I thought of that exact line, too.
Comment by Mike M — 2 July 2009 @ 8:39 pmThat should have read “Wales.”
Comment by J. Christopher Pryor —
No, it should be “whales”—like “in the belly of” . . .
Comment by RBrown — 2 July 2009 @ 8:41 pmIf this move means that we won’t be reading professor Kmiec’s insights very often, it might be worth it.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 2 July 2009 @ 8:44 pm^
A case of promoveatur ut amoveatur?
One wonders, though, whether an ambassadorship might be a stepping-stone to future policy-making positions in government for professor Kmiec (which in the long run would not be a good thing): another of Obama’s “tame Catholics” to groom for higher rank.
Comment by Aelric — 2 July 2009 @ 9:44 pmWhy is this happening? I do not think Kmiec will like Malta, nor do I think that the Maltese will like him. They are highly intelligent, shrewd people who know a horse from a mule.
Comment by supertradmom — 2 July 2009 @ 10:05 pmIn 1565 700 Knights of Malta and their Christian retainers held out (alone) for six months against 25-40,000 Turks. The siege miraculously ended on September 8th the Feast of the Birth of the BVM. The Turks now weakened after the siege were defeated several years later at Lepanto…
It’s a great story of how faith, prayer, fidelity to vows, courage and a strong sword arm saved Europe…
I wonder if the irony will dawn on him…
Comment by Nick — 2 July 2009 @ 10:40 pmHey I thought that they wanted to send a Catholic?
What an insult to Malta.
Jim Dorchak
Comment by Jim Dorchak — 2 July 2009 @ 11:31 pmhttp://qm2ss.blogspot.com/
In another post, I had mentioned always giving one the benefit of the doubt, but for this guy, forget it. Obviously Obama knows exactly what he’s doing and doing it on purpose. How about reappointing Mrs. Glendon. A lot of ambassadors carry right on through several Administrations. He can’t not know whom this Kmiec person is, a fat-mouthed Church-hater who thinks he’s the Jeopardy whiz of all things Catholic. He’s getting all the anti-Catholic weirdos lined up and putting them in positions which create diametric opposition to the Church or Church values. They are also positions the Church can’t really object to but they are influential enough to create conflict for the Church. Obama is doing this out of spite.
The poor Maltese. Getting Kmiec for an ambassador is like your slimy 10th-Grade PE coach moving in next door—when you’re still in his class! EW.
Comment by Matt Q — 3 July 2009 @ 3:53 amIt is very very very VERY clear that Obama is covertly setting up an ‘alternative catholic church’ with himself as ‘pope.’ Subtle but obvious
Comment by Daniel Hill — 3 July 2009 @ 4:53 amI hadn’t thought about the proximity to Rome aspect, but it’s a disturbing thought.
However, even in terms of Malta alone, this is disturbing, because under Obama, embassies have simply become points from which he can extend his power. It has come out in the last couple of days that the US Embassy in Honduras had been working feverishly for weeks to keep their increasingly radical leftist sweetheart, Zelaya, in power and help him stage his illegal, Chavez-coordinated attempted “referendum” – and now we are seeing the full force of the US government and international agencies being brought out against the tiny and inoffensive country of Honduras for having resisted the wishes of The One. The bishops of the country, who supported the established constitutional order of Honduras and its actions in preventing an “auto-golpe” by Zelaya, are also in his cross-hairs.
Malta is not an important place on the world scale, but it is symbolically important and is probably the sole remaining place in Europe where there is a genuinely Catholic culture which is, moreover, reflected in its laws. Its well known strong resistance to the Muslims is also symbolically and historically important. So even if Kmiec limits his actions to Malta alone, there’s a lot of danger in this. Both Obama and Kmiec are very manipulative, intellectually dishonest and vindictive people, and I don’t think this bodes well for Malta.
Comment by EDG — 3 July 2009 @ 5:44 amEDG,
Your post here is most insightful.
I think Obama clearly has aspirations to support leftist agendas globally. And he will appoint wolves in sheep clothing like Kmiec and other bleaters as “counterpoints” to faithful Catholic bishops.
I fear the Imperium to come…
Comment by Fr. Deacon Daniel — 3 July 2009 @ 6:06 amI hope the faithful Maltese concert him to Roman Catholicism.
Comment by Ave Maria — 3 July 2009 @ 9:41 amThe quote from the mouth of St. Thomas More is most appropriate
Comment by Fr. Paul — 3 July 2009 @ 11:34 amgiven that Monday, July 6, is the anniversary of his having
been beheaded by his close friend, Henry VIII in 1535. In his
address to the crowd, St. Thomas said that “He died the King’s
good servant, but God’s first.” If only Kmiec could actually
understand those words.
Our parish is getting four good nuns from Malta and they get Kmiec? I think we got the best of that bargain!
Comment by Emilio III — 3 July 2009 @ 4:08 pmtwo things
Malta is one of I think three countries in the EU, including my own ( ireland) which does have abortion.
And most interestingly, the socialists look to be getting into power in the next election.
Comment by Matthew — 3 July 2009 @ 6:56 pmThe US policy, like that of the Philippines where I live, to appoint as ambassadors people who are party supporters of or fundraisers for the current president, is basically insulting to the people of the countries where they are sent. Some, it has to be said, do a good job but many don’t. Even as a child growing up in Ireland I couldn’t understand why a successful and popular ambassador had to resign because there was a new occupant of the White House.
Most European countries appoint professional ambassadors, not well-heeled or well-connected amateurs.
Comment by Fr Sean Coyle — 3 July 2009 @ 10:34 pmYou all don’t have a clue as to what you are speaking about. [LOL!] Get to know the person you are speaking about [From, for example, his public statements and his support for Pres. Obama’s agenda? Okay.] before you throw insults around. Malta is very lucky to have Kmiec.
Comment by EFP — 13 July 2009 @ 1:19 pm