Moonies, and Catlicks, and Kennedys. Oh My!

While I don't know how much to trust The Washington Times -- after all, it is owned by the Moonies -- this story is generating a bit of heat. Referring to an Italian journalist, it claims that the Vatican has rejected three of the Obama admin's proposed ambassadors to the Vatican. The reason: all three were Catlick, but they were all pro-choice. (The Vatican denies that it has rejected any one, but then on the trustworthy-scale, I'd rate the Moonies and the Catlick Church about even.)

An outfit called Americans United for Separation of Church and State is, understandably, not pleased.

When U.S.-Vatican ties were proposed during the Reagan administration, Americans United vigorously opposed the move and warned that there would be problems down the line. It just wasn’t right, AU argued, for the U.S. government to have formal diplomatic relations with a church. . .

Americans United tried to raise some of these issues in court, challenging the diplomatic exchange on church-state grounds. Unfortunately, a federal appeals court refused to deal with the issue and dismissed the lawsuit on a technicality, saying AU did not even have the right to even bring the case.

So now it appears that not only must the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican be Catholic, they must oppose legal abortion as well. I wonder what other qualifications a potential ambassador must meet? Must he or she oppose same-sex marriage as well? Can he or she be divorced? Will someone check up on the candidate to make certain he or she attends mass every week?

Imposing such qualifications on ambassadors would seem to violate the clear provisions of Article VI of the Constitution, which bans religious tests for federal office.

I just investigated and holy crap! Canada has an ambassador to the Holey Sea too! Who knew? (Paging deBeauxOs . . . )

Today, Good Friday, the rumour mill has coughed up the fourth candidate for the US job -- Caroline Kennedy. Somehow, I don't think His Poopiness will be any better pleased, even if she is a celeb of sorts.

UPPITY-DATE: The Pope says 'nope' to Caroline.

Caroline Kennedy vs Sarah Palin?

With all the recent chatter in the U.S. about Caroline Kennedy's interest in Hilary Clinton's senate seat, it was inevitable that some attention-mongering rightwing pundit would say something about the vapid Sarah Palin.

Chris Kelly skewers Brent Bozell III in ways too numerous to include in this blog, but the most delicious, in my opinion, is this:

"Is Caroline Kennedy really better suited for high office than Sarah Palin? Let's see.

One of them has a law degree from Columbia and has co-written two critically acclaimed books about the Bill of Rights, one specifically about the Fourth Amendment. The other has a journalism degree from college in general and had this conversation with Katie Couric:

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?
Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.
Couric: (That's) the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.
Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."

In other words, Caroline Kennedy is to Sarah Palin what Michaëlle Jean is to Blob Blogging Wingnut.