Illinois Senator Dick Durbin sends letter to Pope Francis regarding Cardinal repeated insults towards gay US Ambassador

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAVINGRACE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KSU said:
Obama clearly intended his appointment of an openly gay ambassador as a slap in the face
Click to expand...
He did the same thing before the Sochi Olympics when he decided the best ambassadors to Russia would be openly gay athletes including Billie Jean King, who doesn’t even play a winter sport. It is apparent he goes out of his way to impose his views on this issue.
 
CatholicSheila said:
Two choices here. Either the Cardinal did as accused or didn’t.

If he did, then what are you cheering? Do you consider it a positive thing to publicly insult someone and called them derogatory names? You can dislike gay marriage and the acceptability of homosexuality in the common arena these days, but that doesn’t make it a-ok to be offensive towards someone. Two wrongs do not make a right. They certainly don’t draw people to our Church or give a good example of the Catholic faith.

Or he didn’t do it, in which case there is nothing to cheer.
Click to expand...
In my post #12, it is stated rather clearly that “No, I’m not defending the alleged intemperate language of Cardinal Archbishop Nicolas de Jesus Lopez Rodriguez.” But in your post, you wrote a full, telling paragraph ignoring that statement, as though I may have been cheering said language.

A reading of both my posts should make it clear that what I am cheering is the courage of a Cardinal in a pipsqueak little country to stand up and publicly push back at the despicable, unethical bulling attempts of our shameless anti-Catholic president to misuse my tax dollars to undermine the morals of the Cardinal’s Catholic culture. An even more vigorous push back (sans the language used to change the subject) should have emanated long ago from the emasculated U.S. Congress, among other more obvious entities in America I could name.

Do you recall The Ugly American about insensitive American diplomats? That pales in comparison to what the current president is doing around the world because it’s unethical, immoral, unauthorized and perhaps in violation of the U.N. Charter. The “acceptability of homosexuality in the common arena these days”, whatever that means to you, is completely irrelevant to the Cardinal, thank God. It goes without saying that the Holy Father is more than a little troubled by this outrage; it even came up during the Synod on the Family.

So, whether the Cardinal did or did not use the alleged language, from a Catholic perspective there is a great deal to cheer about. And as I said before, we haven’t heard the Cardinal’s side of the story. Early on, there more than likely was a private meeting or two between the Cardinal and the Ambassador concerning the forced acceptance of homosexuality, abortion and contraception central to the Obama Administration’s “charitable” and diplomatic policy regarding poor countries. Who knows what was said to the Cardinal; poor, backwards man that he is in the eyes of the Democratic Party’s hand-picked emissaries of enlightenment.
 
Thanks for those two translated articles, graciew. They confirm the suspected context which has been missing in this thread.
👍
 
The Ambassador should not be pushing a gay agenda.

The Cardinal should not be hurling abuse at other people, that is a human responsibility as well as a religious one.

Unfortunately for both of them, the island is not that big and given their professional roles within the community they will have to learn how to co-exist in peace.
 
SAVINGRACE said:
The Ambassador should not be pushing a gay agenda.

The Cardinal should not be hurling abuse at other people, that is a human responsibility as well as a religious one.

Unfortunately for both of them, the island is not that big and given their professional roles within the community they will have to learn how to co-exist in peace.
Click to expand...
I didn’t read a quote by the Archbp anywhere.
What did he say exactly?
 
SAVINGRACE said:
The Ambassador should not be pushing a gay agenda.

The Cardinal should not be hurling abuse at other people, that is a human responsibility as well as a religious one.

Unfortunately for both of them, the island is not that big and given their professional roles within the community they will have to learn how to co-exist in peace.
Click to expand...
This issue isn’t about the Ambassador and the Cardinal, and attempting to make the issue appear so shallow and insignificant won’t work.
 
clem456 said:
I didn’t read a quote by the Archbp anywhere.
What did he say exactly?
Click to expand...
"López, who participated as cardinal elector in the papal conclaves of 2005 and 2013, is known to have made similar homophobic statements in the past.

Some of those comments, in fact, were already directed at Ambassador Brewster, whom the priest had dubbed a “******” when President Barack Obama first announced his nomination in 2013."

“That man needs to go back to his embassy,” the 79-year-old Church leader demanded. “Let him focus on housework, since he’s the wife to a man.”

[lat(name removed by moderator)ost.com/articles/99557/20151203/dominican-cardinal-again-insults-openly-gay-u-s-ambassador.htm](http://www.lat(name removed by moderator)ost.com/articles/99557/20151203/dominican-cardinal-again-insults-openly-gay-u-s-ambassador.htm)
 
KSU said:
This issue isn’t about the Ambassador and the Cardinal, and attempting to make the issue appear so shallow and insignificant won’t work.
Click to expand...
I expect better behaviour from Cardinals. I am not surprised by the Ambassador’s behaviour, that is to be expected given his history in promoting the gay agenda. I am surprised by the Cardinals behaviour and will pray for all involved as we are all flawed human beings.

I am aware of the bigger picture but it does not excuse the Cardinals insulting behaviour in any way, shape or form.
 
KSU said:
Since the Dominican Republic “is socially conservative and influenced by Catholic teaching”, Obama clearly intended his appointment of an openly gay ambassador as a slap in the face; a terrible show of disrespect to a sovereign nation.

Ambassador Brewster is a former homosexual activist and cochair for the Democratic National Committee (surprise!), hardly a shrinking violet who would not embarrass his host country by advocating anti-Catholic policies. Not that this is anything new for Obama: lifesitenews.com/news/obama-slated-to-name-five-openly-homosexual-foreign-ambassadors

Obama has even slapped Pope Francis in the face: Here
lifenews.com/2013/11/26/obama-administration-snubs-catholic-church-with-vatican-embassy-downgrade/

and here: lifenews.com/2014/04/24/obama-sends-pro-abortion-delegation-to-vatican-to-canonize-popes/

When the French Socialist government tried to send a gay ambassador to the Vatican, the Pope would not accept him:
religionnews.com/2015/04/23/pope-met-french-vatican-ambassador-nominee-considered-gay/

I don’t know where that situation is today.

In any case, we haven’t heard the Cardinal’s side. Three cheers for the Dominican Republic prelate, as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
I doubt that the President considered or even knew of the ambassador’s sexual orientation when appointing him. And I doubt the Ambassador has it listed on his cv. Sexual orientation did not disqualify him for the job so it should not have been considered. It’s like saying appointing a white ambassador to an African country or a Christian ambassador to a Muslim country would be an insult. Too bad, too sad for the country. It’s not their choice.
 
SAVINGRACE said:
I expect better behaviour from Cardinals. I am not surprised by the Ambassador’s behaviour, that is to be expected given his history in promoting the gay agenda. I am surprised by the Cardinals behaviour and will pray for all involved as we are all flawed human beings.

I am aware of the bigger picture but it does not excuse the Cardinals insulting behaviour in any way, shape or form.
Click to expand...
My friend, for the last time, nobody here defended the Cardinal’s alleged insult, and I’m not surprised by the Ambassador’s behavior, either. That’s what he was chosen to do.

Insistence on changing the subject to an insult makes it clear that Obama’s and his emissaries’ gross and probably illegal attempts at subverting Catholic culture in poor countries can’t be defended. Such behavior is ideological thuggery and uncivilized on its face; it can’t legitimately be compared to an alleged one-word insult, even if it did occur.

I, too, pray for the two adversaries, and I have been praying for years that Our Lord deliver the U.S.A. from the embarrassing, immoral catastrophe which has befallen it and which even is subverting others. Destroying the moral and civil culture of sovereign countries, especially when such subversion has been condemned by both civil and religious authority, simply can’t be defended.

Even worse, the subversion is cloaked with the title of “charity” to poor countries. God will not be mocked.
 
anthrogirl said:
I doubt that the President considered or even knew of the ambassador’s sexual orientation when appointing him. And I doubt the Ambassador has it listed on his cv. Sexual orientation did not disqualify him for the job so it should not have been considered. It’s like saying appointing a white ambassador to an African country or a Christian ambassador to a Muslim country would be an insult. Too bad, too sad for the country. It’s not their choice.
Click to expand...
It would be wise to read the thread before you post.
 
KSU said:
My friend, for the last time, nobody here defended the Cardinal’s alleged insult, and I’m not surprised by the Ambassador’s behavior, either. That’s what he was chosen to do.

Insistence on changing the subject to an insult makes it clear that Obama’s and his emissaries’ gross and probably illegal attempts at subverting Catholic culture in poor countries can’t be defended. Such behavior is ideological thuggery and uncivilized on its face; it can’t legitimately be compared to an alleged one-word insult, even if it did occur.

I, too, pray for the two adversaries, and I have been praying for years that Our Lord deliver the U.S.A. from the embarrassing, immoral catastrophe which has befallen it and which even is subverting others. Destroying the moral and civil culture of sovereign countries, especially when such subversion has been condemned by both civil and religious authority, simply can’t be defended.

Even worse, the subversion is cloaked with the title of “charity” to poor countries. God will not be mocked.
Click to expand...
I suggest you do some research. It has been more than one insult hence the Senators letter to the Pope.

No the gay agenda is not supported but has more than one person has pointed out that is to be expected from gay activists.

What is not expected is the behaviour of the Cardinal, there are other ways for him to defend his position. Just because the opposition is disrespectful doesn’t mean we have to stoop to the same.
 
SAVINGRACE said:
No, the gay agenda is not supported [by the host country] but more than one person has pointed out that is to be expected from gay activists.

Correct. That’s why openly gay, disrespectful, subversive ambassadors are an intended affront to civilized diplomatic behavior and should never be appointed.

What is not expected is the behaviour of the Cardinal, there are other ways for him to defend his position.

Correct, again. The preferred way would be to do as Pope Francis did and simply reject a gay ambassador: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/11527987/Pope-Francis-refuses-gay-French-ambassador.html
Click to expand...
 
You guys are free to debate back and forth about this and that point, but do keep in mind that you are wading into a wide ranging multi-century family feud with many actors:
  • Dominican social identity
 
Should the Cardinal have called him a viper, a blind fool, a hypocrite, a murderer, a white-washed tomb, evil, or a child of the devil?
 
40.png
SAVINGRACE:
I have read the news in Spanish and I don’t see the Cardinal.using.any offensive words. The cardinal.criticized the appointment stating that it was a way of the U.S. to try to impose their gay activist agenda in the Dominican republic which I absolutely agree. Seems that the ambassador.did.not like the critic and replied in a nutshell to.the.person criticizing if you don’t like it go.return.your visa at the embassy (he didn’t use names but it was obviously directed to the Cardinal) and the response of the Cardinal was in a nutshell keep your noses.in the embassy and keep your Mr in the house. In.a way what he is trying to say is again don’t push your agenda on us and keep your so called marriage in your house don’t push it on us.

Sincerely kuddos to the cardinal for telling the truth.

listindiario.com/la-republica/2015/12/01/398571/lopez-rodriguez-arremete-contra-embajador-james-brewster
 
Now I don’t know that if the idea of the insult is that the Cardinal instead of using the word gay to refer to the embassador instead used the Spanish word that exists to define a male who is sexually attracted to another male. Let’s all remember that the use of the word “gay” which it’s actual meaning is happy, was introduced by the gay movement to be used instead of homosexuality to try to make it more acceptable. The Spanish word used by the Cardinal, because being honosexual is socially unacceptable in most Latam, does.have the stigma that defines a behavior that is unnaceptable, so because it carries a stigma I can see the embassador crying insult. However the word used by the Cardinal is the appropriate Spanish term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top