Thomas Patrick Melady was appointed U.S. ambassador to the Holy See by President George H.W. Bush and served from 1989 to 1993. NCR editor Tom Fox interviewed Melady last week concerning the appointment by President Barack Obama of Miguel H. Diaz as the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, about U.S.-Vatican relations and about a possible meeting between Pope Benedict and Obama in July.
Below are excerpts from Fox's interview with Melady. Listen to the full interview with this audio player, or download the interview to your computer, or upload NCR podcasts into your iTunes library.
- Click here to add this podcast to your iTunes.
- Right click to download to your computer: Full episode (14 min.)
At the time of his appointment, Melady was president of Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, Conn., and is now president emeritus. He also served as U.S. ambassador to Burundi and Uganda. He is now professor and senior diplomat in residence at The Institute of World Politics.
NCR: You were the third U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. How many ambassadors have there been?
Ambassador Melady: Seven ambassadors. Five of whom have been appointed by Republican presidents; two by President Clinton.
All of these were Roman Catholics?
Yes, all were Roman Catholics.
They had several characteristics. They were all Roman Catholics; they were all of the same party as the president; and they seemed to be well connected at the White House level.
You mentioned you met with [ambassador-designate] Miguel Diaz. What kind of advice did you give to him?
I gave him the following advice. One, I said to establish good contacts with your working colleagues in the Department of State because, even though you are appointed by the president and there will be that high level interest, always, on a day by day basis you are dealing with what is called the Vatican desk officer. ... Two, I advised him to pay attention to local ambassadors ... It's the classical thing that is always said: "(Rome's) a great listening post." Why was that said? ... The various ambassadors there are very much in the know.
Before I called upon an ambassador, I tried to find out what the various interests were of the State Department and tried to work that into the conversation. And, of course, all this stuff is reported back. The major job that an ambassador has is to report and then give some comments on what it is he is reporting.
My third piece of advice was "Don't give any interviews for six months. You might make it three. Until you really know the lay of the land. And remember who you are. You are the ambassador of the United States."
When I was ambassador, one of the first questions I was asked was, "How about the abortion issue?" "That's not my assignment," I said. My assignment was to represent the government of the United States. It's not a government issue. We don't get involved in church teachings. ....
It was very clear the key office for an ambassador is the Department of State, the Office of Foreign Affairs. So you get right down to a small number of people. My own personal style was not too over do it but to keep in touch and to be available.
And then there is the culture. ... Mary Ann Glendon just completed her assignment [as U.S. ambassador to the Holyl See]. She was another academic, as I was. I was a university president when I got appointed. Glendon has always been a professor. She hit it off. Meeting with people and having a few people over for dinner. She was a specialist in 18th century judicial figures and she would give lectures.
I said to [Diaz] that she has something you have. Her Italian was superb. I didn't have that. I really struggled with it. But it wasn't necessary. Any meeting I had with the secretary of state or with the pope was always in English. So I said [to Diaz], "Get to enjoy the culture." I suggested to him to go there and quietly do the work, establish who is important, work with competent staff, and stay out of public matters not related to the assignment.
Ambassador, what strengths to you feel Miguel Diaz brings to the appointment?
He understands the culture and the history of the Catholic world. And the fact is that he is very knowledgeable and has deeply rooted skills. This will strike a very good note among people in the Vatican. The fact that as an academic, the third one, is good. ... He will feel very much at home in that atmosphere; very comfortable with it.
Given the recent controversy at Notre Dame Univesity -- because of President Obama's support of abortion, some U.S. bihsops objected to his receiving an honorary degree and speaking at commencement -- and the fall out since, will this controversy make the job of the ambassador more difficult?
It could, but he's got to avoid getting involved in it. This is not his assignment.
Explain that to me.
His assignment is to represent the government of the United States. Not personalities and not issues. For example, his position will be the government of the United States has an official plan in trying to quell or reduce human trafficking. That's a policy of the government.
When I was ambassador I got involved in other policy matters, for example, the question of the war. It was clear the Vatican did not agree with our [U.S.] interpretation of the [first] Gulf War. And also, this last war, in Iraq. That's what he'll get involved in.
When the embassy was first established and the senate was having hearings there were some fears. ... that the U.S. government would use the post as a means of influencing episcopal appointments. That's never happened. And it is absolutely outside the scope. Or that they would use the embassy to stop an appointment. Never happened. And so we are continuing the old tradition of not getting involved.
Now it's complicated because the Catholic church has grown. It's 25 percent of the [U.S.] population. We've got numerous members of the hierarchy and a few -- I won't bother mentioning their names -– who like to throw themselves into the political arena by saying this or that. Let's take a recent thing. A certain bishop has said publically that the vice president [Joe Biden] shouldn't receive communion. If someone brings that up, I'd say that it's not my assignment. That's a church matter.
We hear that President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI are likely to meet ...
... in July. That's the current rumor in Washington. Yes.
What message to you feel each is likely to deliver to the other?
Oh, the whole area of convergence. First of all, what I am hearing directly from friends in Rome is how well the Cairo speech [by President Obama] was received as well as the opening of the conversation with the Muslim community. It has been very well received. It dove-tails right into the special interests of Pope Benedict. Very positive reaction to that initiative by the Vatican. No question about it.
That will be a substantive conversation [at the Vatican], because there are two different people, two different power groupings: the United States, the super power, military and economic power speaking to the head of the Holy See, another power, a different kind of power and influence, on how to do it. And then there are other matters related with that whole Cairo speech [that will be discussed]. And the complications of it. After Cairo you get down to it, our relations with the state of Israel and the concept of the two state solution, the state of Israel and the state of Palestine. I think that will also be on the agenda. And by July the president should have had his visit to Moscow and [so also on the agenda will be] the new relationship with Moscow and an evaluation of [the president of Russia] Dmitry Medvedev. There will be five or six different things on the list.
Why do you see a separation between the approach of the Vatican to the president, this convergence you talk about, and the approach of so many of the U.S. bishops who are harshly critical of him?
Well, these bishops are not the Vatican. The Vatican is the government of the Holy See. The bishops who are leveling this -- there are five or six who are very verbal and very public -- aren't the Vatican.
