I had a funny thought.
I wonder what would happen if President Again Trump appointed Bp. Joseph Strickland as Ambassador to the Holy See.
After all, every single one of the Holy See’s Ambassadors are bishops. No one can say that it is not an appropriate role for a bishop.
Just a funny thought.
Anyone have other suggestions?
I’m available.
UPDATE:
HA! Just saw this. GMTA
Will Bishop Strickland @BishStrickland be the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican? pic.twitter.com/g64subu8lu
— Fred Simon (@FredSimonTLM) November 13, 2024
Loading ...
Fr. James Altman.
Extensive legal experience. (Member of the bar, I think). Acquaintance of PDJT.
retired Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. formerly of Philadelphia, Denver, and Rapid City.
I suggested that a couple days ago after I heard that he nominated Mike Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel. That would be epically awesome! Strickland in the Vatican 24/7/365. LOL
I agree, Bp. Strickland as US Ambassador to the Holy See would be a great selection. Question in all seriousness: can a foreign sovereign refuse to acknowledge/accept another nation’s choice of Ambassador, or at least do so without breaking off diplomatic ties with that nation? I think this storyline has much more potential as an engaging, faithful novel than that other book that was recently turned into a film with a star-studded cast. Just sayin’…
Would he lead a movement to have Texas secede from the union and claim Trump is not the president-elect? Based on his track record…
By all means Bp Strickland!!! And if not he, then Paprocki, maybe Aquila.
in this case it is unfortunate that protocol requires the receiving state to approve the sending state’s candidate. The Holy See would approve Beyonce before Bsp Strickland of AB Chaput.
Burke
So Your Holiness, how do you like my new apartment?
Since he seems to have an affinity for FOX news contributors, how about Raymond Arroyo.
This is fun!! Bishop Strickland or Cardinal Burke or even – and he would be the very best – Archbishop Vigano!!
But I thought a cleric couldn’t accept a political office. How about Taylor Marshal??
I see there are also a Chargé d’Affaires and a Deputy Chief of Mission – of which at present there is an Acting one who is also serving as Public Affairs Officer – but cannot easily see how many members of staff Mr. Trump might appoint if he insisted on doing so – maybe there is lots of scope for people who would say ‘non dignum’ and mean it and go on to do good work.
The ambassador would be expelled promptly.
Is it not possible, though rare (?) that a country could refuse to accept his credentials?
Or order Bishop Strickland to refuse the appointment?
Either way, not a good look for the Vatican
I am afraid some chuckle head at the Vatican would figure out a way to laicize Bishop Strickland before he could take office. Some seen to me to be vengeful and venal. Guess I heading to confession tomorrow.
can a foreign sovereign refuse to acknowledge/accept another nation’s choice of Ambassador, or at least do so without breaking off diplomatic ties with that nation?
…
in this case it is unfortunate that protocol requires the receiving state to approve the sending state’s candidate.
I think the receiving state must accept (or not) the sending state’s candidate. However, refusing to accept a candidate is normally quite a big deal, and most of the time is considered a major slap in the face to the sending state’s government. Of course, in this case, Trump picking Strickland WOULD be a slap in the face to the Vatican’s government, so there would be a bit more room for some affronted response by the Vatican.
But I thought a cleric couldn’t accept a political office.
I suspect that there is PLENTY of room to argue that an ambassador’s position is not, technically, a “political office”. Some of them are career Foreign Service people, and (traditionally) presidents nominate at least some ambassadors from among non-politician backgrounds, including business, charity organizations, science, etc.
In addition, the Church’s rule against clerics taking office is designed at least in part to address clerics who ought to be serving in a more appropriate clerical position. Arguably, Strickland has been blocked from holding any significant clerical office, though I suppose he can do confirmations on behalf of the ordinary of a diocese who is too busy (but that’s not any kind of specific office). He doesn’t have a clerical office to fulfill, and nobody is likely to give him one, so what’s the problem with having him serve some other purpose?
Of course, the Vatican can simply rule that Strickland is not eligible to take the office. But that could look bad, too, like refusing to accept him as ambassador.
On a slightly different note: apparently, he is “Bishop Emeritus” of Tyler. This is a travesty of language usage: the title of “emeritus” comes out of the word for “merit”. A “president emeritus” of a college is a person who has retired from the office of president, and no longer has formal governance of it, but is recognized, on the basis of his merit, knowledge, and ongoing good will, as having a role of persuasive power to speak about the college’s affairs, and an ambassadorial role for the college. Similarly for other emeritus positions. For a bishop who has been forcibly kicked out of his office as ordinary of a diocese, for cause (presumably for cause although the Vatican refuses to say so), how could one accredit him with the merit that grounds being a bishop emeritus? Those are contradictory.
I don’t begrudge Strickland of his having a title of honor. I begrudge the Church’s officials of insisting on having their cake while eating it too: either admit that he was ousted NOT for cause, or don’t name him Bishop Emeritus of Tyler.
It makes sense that bishops would represent the Holy See as ambassadors, as the Holy See exists to protect and advance the rights and voice of the Church.
I cannot imagine a scenario in which it would be appropriate for a bishop, a successor of the apostles, a high priest set apart for ministry, to represent the interests of a secular, worldly state.
A state can refuse an incoming ambassador, but it is highly unusual and doesn’t do relations between states any good. To avoid this, the receiving state is usually discreetly consulted whether the proposed ambassador is acceptable or not, so no one has to face embarrassment over it. Maybe people more knowledgeable than I can shed some light on this, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised if such a move is canonically impossible.
I’m available.
Besides the general restrictions from the Church against priests holding public office…
Would the secular side really be comfortable with someone who has a promise of obedience to a foreign head of state?
There is precedent for the Vatican to reject a proposed appointment of an ambassador.
Back in 2003, it rejected the proposed appointment of a minister in the Jean Chrétien Liberal goverment who had a history of questionable connections to the Montreal Mafia and who was up to his scuppers in an advertising contract/kickback scheme that led to a public inquiry and the end of a 13-year Liberal government: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/vatican-shuts-out-gagliano/article25285820/