[Apologetics] Fwd: John Allen on the future of U.S-Vatican relations

[Stephen Korsman]

John Allen on the future of U.S-Vatican
relations<http://www.americanpapist.com/2008/11/john-allen-on-future-of-us-vatican.html>
via American Papist: Not Your Average
Catholic!<http://www.americanpapist.com/blog.html>by Thomas Peters on
11/7/08

On the whole, I support John Allen's contribution:

"For the record, nobody from the Obama transition team has solicited my
advice about relations with the Vatican, and I would frankly be surprised if
the question were yet on their radar screen. Others, however, are already
speculating about how things might shake out; on Wednesday, for example,
Reuters moved a story predicting a "tricky" relationship between Rome and
the Obama White House because of the abortion issue. As a thought exercise,
I decided to pen an open letter <http://ncrcafe.org/node/2253> to the
president-elect about U.S.-Vatican ties over the next four years."

Allen also tells a story from the Clinton years I found worth repeating:

Finally, one last piece of unsolicited advice: Mr. President-Elect, whatever
else you do, please try to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last
Democratic administration with regard to the Vatican.

In his memoirs, former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn tells a depressing
story from 1994 illustrating what I mean. During the lead-up to the U.N.
conference on population in Cairo in 1994, Pope John Paul II called Flynn to
the Vatican on a Saturday morning to personally request a telephone
conversation with President Clinton. Flynn relayed the request urgently to
the White House that afternoon, and got no response. He called again on
Sunday and on Monday, both times with no results. Frustrated, Flynn then got
on a plane to Washington on Tuesday. He cooled his heels outside the
president's office that night and most of Wednesday. Finally, he was
admitted to the White House's pre-Cairo war room, where he was told by
Assistant Secretary of State Timothy Wirth that "nobody is getting a chance
to lobby the president on this one." Dumbfounded, Flynn explained that the
Bishop of Rome is not a lobbyist, and that it would be seen as a profound
act of disrespect if the president wouldn't even get on the phone. After
almost a week, Clinton finally agreed to take the pope's call.

The episode was symptomatic of a basic disinterest within the Clinton team
about the Vatican, which at times shaded off into hostility. The result was
that the U.S.-Vatican relationship during the Clinton years was more often
defined by predictable differences than by imaginative areas of common
purpose.

For what it's worth, Mr. President-Elect, my advice is to get on the phone
if the pope calls. Better yet, initiate the conversation yourself. You might
be surprised about where it goes.

It's no secret that the Clintons were basically jerks to Pope John Paul II
when they could get away with it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20081107/ded0afc5/attachment.html>