Links to US Embassy opinions regarding the Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter _thaddeus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

_thaddeus

Guest
guardian.co.uk/world/vatican

Most of the Vatican embassy links are on the first page. Some of the links on subsequent pages are just the regular anti-Catholic variety of opinion.

The Guardian is, within constraints, doing a proper job of actually reporting the news. The corporate “patriotism” of much of the media is not; sorrowfully and especially in the land of the free.

By reading the embassy links, you’ll probably be breaking some current and/or future laws, whether you’re Catholic or not.
 
2489 “Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.”

Looks like that MP didn’t have the right to know. It goes without saying how this principle has led to some …problems… lately within the Church.
 
A_Fortiori_33 said:
The following article from the Guardian says that there is more to come. This trouble is only about Dublin.
guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation
Click to expand...
There are a lot of errors in that Guardian article, which have been refuted by Protect the Pope:

The Guardian newspaper is up to its old anti-Catholic tricks of selective quoting from sources and misrepresenting facts, this time a WikiLeaked US diplomatic cable, in order to paint the Vatican and Catholic Church in the worst possible light, as can be seen from today’s headline:

‘ WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry: Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission.’

This headline contains two factual errors:
  1. The US diplomatic cable shows that the Vatican did not refuse to engage with the Murphy Commission, but did insist that the Commission use official diplomatic channels to make requests.
‘Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.’

Regrettably the Murphy Commission did not take up Cardinal Bertone’s offer to assist the investigation.
  1. The Irish Government was not forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission. Vatican officials, such as the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, do not require the granting of immunity which they possess in their own right as representatives of a sovereign state.
This fact is acknowledged in the US cable:

‘Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions.’

Protect the Pope comment: The factual errors contained in the headline and byline of The Guardian article on the WikiLeak US cable on the Vatican prove, if proof is necessary, that its editorial team and reporters cannot be trusted to give an accurate, factual report of the Vatican’s response to the Murphy Commission.

It is also obvious that The Guardian’s editorial policy to the WikiLeaks on the Vatican is to selectively quote and misrepresent the facts in order to bolster up their black propaganda against the Catholic Church.

If you want to get a true picture of the content of the WikiLeaks Us diplomatic cables its best to ignore the discredited Guardian propaganda and read the actual texts.

protectthepope.com/?p=2152
 
More egg on the pope’s face. Benedict really needs some major media handlers. This revelation will alienate Irish Catholics even further.
 
Elijah Baley
Re: Links to US Embassy opinions regarding the Vatican
Then why post this?
Click to expand...
Why post what?

I thought that the US State Department opinions concerning the Vatican were pretty interesting.
 
Abyssinia said:
There are a lot of errors in that Guardian article, which have been refuted by Protect the Pope:

The Guardian newspaper is up to its old anti-Catholic tricks of selective quoting from sources and misrepresenting facts, this time a WikiLeaked US diplomatic cable, in order to paint the Vatican and Catholic Church in the worst possible light, as can be seen from today’s headline:

‘ WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry: Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission.’

This headline contains two factual errors:
  1. The US diplomatic cable shows that the Vatican did not refuse to engage with the Murphy Commission, but did insist that the Commission use official diplomatic channels to make requests.
‘Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.’

Regrettably the Murphy Commission did not take up Cardinal Bertone’s offer to assist the investigation.
  1. The Irish Government was not forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission. Vatican officials, such as the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, do not require the granting of immunity which they possess in their own right as representatives of a sovereign state.
This fact is acknowledged in the US cable:

‘Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions.’

Protect the Pope comment: The factual errors contained in the headline and byline of The Guardian article on the WikiLeak US cable on the Vatican prove, if proof is necessary, that its editorial team and reporters cannot be trusted to give an accurate, factual report of the Vatican’s response to the Murphy Commission.

It is also obvious that The Guardian’s editorial policy to the WikiLeaks on the Vatican is to selectively quote and misrepresent the facts in order to bolster up their black propaganda against the Catholic Church.

If you want to get a true picture of the content of the WikiLeaks Us diplomatic cables its best to ignore the discredited Guardian propaganda and read the actual texts.

protectthepope.com/?p=2152
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for the links. Great site.
 
Thyme said:
:mad: Media
Click to expand...
From what I read, there is only one guy in the Vatican that has a blackberry. I think they need to bring in young guns who know how to get the message out. These are all guys in their 80’s who probably never used a computer. Although I disagree with how the Vatican elite has handled the whole sex abuse crisis, I don’t think they even know how quickly their comments and suggestions are being distributed and analyzed. They have to get in the game.
 
1234 said:
More egg on the pope’s face. Benedict really needs some major media handlers. This revelation will alienate Irish Catholics even further.
Click to expand...
Only those that actual consider the Guardian as real news. They are the most anti-Catholic rag on the net. This is like saying Jack Chick is going to alienate Catholics.

Read the article. It is nothing but sound and rhetoric. Nothing in it supports the headlines, but that is not how the Guardian and Jack Chick work. They use lies, then twist those into the inflammatory language.
 
pnewton said:
Only those that actual consider the Guardian as real news. They are the most anti-Catholic rag on the net. This is like saying Jack Chick is going to alienate Catholics.

Read the article. It is nothing but sound and rhetoric. Nothing in it supports the headlines, but that is not how the Guardian and Jack Chick work. They use lies, then twist those into the inflammatory language.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar with what type of journalism the Guardian is. Are they like Fox News in only representing one particular view point?
 
That was my only prudential objection, and I’m glad to hear it’s baseless. For safety’s sake, can someone verify that reading these does not break any laws?
 
_thaddeus said:
guardian.co.uk/world/vatican

Most of the Vatican embassy links are on the first page. .
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

I was curious about the story about Turkey. WHY is the U.S. so keen on having Turkey join the EU anyway? I believe the cables are from before Bishop Padovese was murdered in Turkey, so I think the Pope was very perspicacious.

The story about the Vatican helping get the British sailors was also interesting.
 
GraceSofia said:
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

I was curious about the story about Turkey. WHY is the U.S. so keen on having Turkey join the EU anyway? I believe the cables are from before Bishop Padovese was murdered in Turkey, so I think the Pope was very perspicacious.

The story about the Vatican helping get the British sailors was also interesting.
Click to expand...
I had to look up perspicacious. I agree. How many battalions does the Pope Have?

What I personally found very interesting was the cable on the Holy See’s communications structure.

THE HOLY SEE: A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/193115

Julieta Valls Noyes, the american representative, comes across as a competent bureaucrat, unlike the majority of them. The criticisms appear to be valid and recognized. I think that’s good news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top