Obama most anti catholic president, disses pope benedict xvi !

[spiritualunity]

I think you are making false judgement against your fellow CAF members. I think it’s wrong to call people names or say people are hypocritical, based on your feelings about things. If someone is saying a truth aloud and does contrary in private, that can be hypocritical. It’s wrong to judge people on what you assume they might say.

The OP based his opinion on something he heard over the radio. It was a valid report from the news. Feel free to state your opinion to the contrary, but please don’t lash out at your fellow CAF members.

AMEN!!!

 

[Galnextdoor]

No, we don’t know that since the OP didn’t bother to link to his news source. He may be right, or he may be full of baloney. We just don’t know because there is no evidence.

I posted a newslink above that you might want to read. I think it was one of the first 5 posts. It was in the National Catholic Register. I personally agree with George Weigl about his theory of Obama trying to set Catholics who are loyal to the Vatican against those “Catholics” who aren’t. (This idea is from several different articles and statements on EWTN). You might want to so a little research of your own on the subject. You might find it interesting.

 

[wapsi]

AMEN!!!

 

[RobbyS]

OK. Now, having read the article on NCR I can safely say that the OP is doing little more and nothing less than muckracking. The President is going to Europe to attend a G8 Summit which will put him in Italy for a short while. During this time, his schedule is not yet firmed up and so far there are no plans to visit the Vatican. What? Just because he’s in the neighborhood he has to stop by? If I go to visit my in-laws in Orange County will Mickey Mouse be offended if I don’t go to Disneyland? I think not. Now surely, the Holy See has more class than The Mouse.

This is a sinful misrepresentation. This statement implies that he was invited directly and directly refused. To forward such calumny is a mark against one’s soul.

This may well be a contributing factor to the lack of a visit: as yet the US does not have an ambassador to the Vatican in place. Such a post would go far in working out the details of such a visit.

And did not happen except in the minds of those seeking further reasons to hold our duly elected president in contempt.

If Obama does in fact not meet with the pope, it will be taken as a snub, that he is “punishing” the Vatican for not accepting the president’s (pro-choice?) candidates for ambassador to the Holy See. Obama is feeling his oats right now, coming as he does from his triumph at Notre Dame.

 

[wapsi]

I posted a link above that you might want to read. It was in the National Catholic Register. I personal agree with George Weigl about his theory of Obama trying to set Catholics who are loyal to the Vatican against those “Catholics” who aren’t. You might want to so a little research of your own on the subject. You might find it interesting.

Okay, so what is the argument for saying that President Obama is trying to set Catholics against Catholics?

 

[RobbyS]

I understand your feelings of frustration and anger, but name calling (despot) will never persuade anyone. If you don’t like his actions, speak freely about the actions you dislike, but it seems very un-Christian to call people names.

Bush was called by such names. Given the president’s extraordinary use of power, which is far more extensive than that of any President since FDR, we need at least to consider the possibility that this is a man who loves power too much. He certainly is reveling in his celebrity.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Baloney. The US has no diplomatic relations with several countries, but that hasn’t made them disappear. QUOTE]

Are these other countries city/states who exist through the mercy of their allies?

There has been a long history of struggle for control of the Vatican. The pope’s were virtual prisoners there until 1948. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that the pope’s have felt free to travel outside of Rome.

The Vatican has a very precarious position in the political world. If the allies should decide it should not exist as its own neutral entity, who will be willing to go against some of the most powerful nations in the world to make sure it continues to exist?

 

[wapsi]

The Vatican has a very precarious position in the political world. If the allies should decide it should not exist as its own neutral entity, who will be willing to go against some of the most powerful nations in the world to make sure it continues to exist?

Oh, come on. The US continues to recognize the the Vatican and its not likely that Italy is going to invade the Vatican. You’re not being realistic.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Baloney.

Could you provide some evidence to support your claim? My source says that she resigned in advance to allow Obama freedom to appoint someone else.
insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/01/mary-ann-glendon-on-vaticanus-relations.html

She was appointed by Bush. On December 3, 2009, Obama sent a notice to all ambassadors appointed during the Bush Administration that they should vacate their positions by January 20, 2009. He appointed political cronies to the positions that were vacated, except for the Vatican. This was announced in every major newspaper in the United States. (You can google Obama fires ambassadors and pick a newspaper). On January 19, 2009, Ms. Glendon turned in her papers to Pope Benedict as had been requested by Obama. Sometimes politically appointed ambassadors are fired, but not to the extant that Obama did it.

Glendon was well-known for being a pro-life feminist who graduated from Harvard. John Paul II had appointed her to several Vatican committees prior to her nomination for ambassadorship. There was no logical reason to fire her.

 

[Galnextdoor]

Oh, come on. The US continues to recognize the the Vatican and its not likely that Italy is going to invade the Vatican. You’re not being realistic.

They wouldn’t have to invade it. They could simply incorporate it into their country and tax it out of existence. The properties would be turned over to Italy because the church couldn’t afford the taxes on it. Italy could turn it into an international museum, selling whatever they chose. It’s a small piece of property. (109 acres) The pope would probably be allowed to stay there, but the Church would no longer own it.

I know you think this is bizarre, but have you ever read the Prophesies of St. Malachi. He predicted the popes. So far, his predictions have been correct. According to his predictions, there will be one more pope then the city of the 7 hills will fall. The city of the 7 hills is an ancient name for Rome. (It has 7 hills.) My guess is that after the next pope, the Vatican wont exist. I think the Catholic Church will end up being centered somewhere else.

Things have changed very swiftly under the Obama administration. I think that it’s possible that this fall of the Vatican City/State could take place during the Obama administration.

It’s something for you to think about anyway.

 

[wapsi]

He appointed political cronies to the positions that were vacated, except for the Vatican. This was announced in every major newspaper in the United States. (You can google Obama fires ambassadors and pick a newspaper).

I would have preferred that you simply provided a news link, but whatever.

On January 19, 2009, Ms. Glendon turned in her papers to Pope Benedict as had been requested by Obama. Sometimes politically appointed ambassadors are fired, but not to the extant that Obama did it.

O Rly? What is your evidence for saying that President Obama has gone beyond previous presidential tradition?

Glendon was well-known for being a pro-life feminist who graduated from Harvard. John Paul II had appointed her to several Vatican committees prior to her nomination for ambassadorship. There was no logical reason to fire her.

I agree she was a good choice.

 

[elts1956]

I posted a newslink above that you might want to read. I think it was one of the first 5 posts. It was in the National Catholic Register. I personally agree with George Weigl about his theory of Obama trying to set Catholics who are loyal to the Vatican against those “Catholics” who aren’t. (This idea is from several different articles and statements on EWTN). You might want to so a little research of your own on the subject. You might find it interesting.

I have one good thing to say about bo. He didn’t cause the split between the two groups of Catholics. That happened a long time ago. To give bo his due, he is the one who made us aware of it. Now we know to what extent we have to fight.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I have one good thing to say about bo. He didn’t cause the split between the two groups of Catholics. That happened a long time ago. To give bo his due, he is the one who made us aware of it. Now we know to what extent we have to fight.

Should we be trying to fight or unite?

 

[tm30]

I guess I don’t know how to take this. My first reaction was “Why should he meet with the Pope, when he’s already met with the American Pope John XXIV (Jenkins)?”

My next reaction, was, “well, maybe it’s not feasible at this time, what’s the big deal?”

My final reactions is, “well, maybe it’s not a big deal, but it’s going to come across as a snub, whatever the circumstance. Diplomatically speaking, it’s a poor choice not to meet, especially given the controversy over Notre Dame.”

On the OTHER other hand, Obama made it clear there’s no room for discussion on abortion, so, any meeting would be so much Kabuki theatre, and of no consequence.

 

[tm30]

They wouldn’t have to invade it. They could simply incorporate it into their country and tax it out of existence. The properties would be turned over to Italy because the church couldn’t afford the taxes on it. Italy could turn it into an international museum, selling whatever they chose. It’s a small piece of property. (109 acres) The pope would probably be allowed to stay there, but the Church would no longer own it.

I know you think this is bizarre, but have you ever read the Prophesies of St. Malachi. He predicted the popes. So far, his predictions have been correct. According to his predictions, there will be one more pope then the city of the 7 hills will fall. The city of the 7 hills is an ancient name for Rome. (It has 7 hills.) My guess is that after the next pope, the Vatican wont exist. I think the Catholic Church will end up being centered somewhere else.

Things have changed very swiftly under the Obama administration. I think that it’s possible that this fall of the Vatican City/State could take place during the Obama administration.

It’s something for you to think about anyway.

No, he did not predict there would be “one more pope”. The final papal prophecy is considered spurious at worst, non-indicative of an intervening period of popes not prophesied of, at best. Additionally, it says nothing about “the city of 7 hills”.

Italy has no conceivable reason to outrage its mostly Catholic population by dissolving the Vatican. The mostly quiet population rose up in anger when pro-homosexual activists tried to impose their beliefs on the legislature and smeared the Church.

 

[tm30]

Even if the President meets with the Pope, I already know what half of you would say: “He’s just going to ignore the Pope!” and “He’ll probably try to change the Pope’s mind on abortion!” It’s amazing how hypocrtical some of you users are. Truly amazing.

It seems like a non-issue to me. If he meets with the pope, so what? He’s not going to change his mind about anything. If he doesn’t meet with the pope, so what? Do we really want his phony “respect” in the first place?

If Obama were open to dialogue - which he isn’t - then it might be of import. But he’s not, so, maybe B16 can meet with devout pilgrims that day, instead.

 

[PJM]

Huh? Notre Dame did not ask him to explain his abortion policy. I understand why pro-life persons are upset with the honorary degree President Obama was given, but he was under no obligation to explain or moderate his views.

While it is true that President Bush elevated that day to some prominence, his predecessors didn’t. I’m not sure that President Obama is out of line compared to past presidents.

The what?? I’ve never heard of this before.

Baloney. President Obama hasn’t scheduled an appointment with the Holy Father, but that is a far cry from saying he refuses to meet with the Pope.

I think your unhappiness with President Obama is getting the better of you.

Dear friends,

The greatest shock is that their is shock at what this President is doing.

I for one actually listened to what he said in his campaign, and I find his actions, laws, attitudes to be completely consistant with what he said he would do.

No surprises, just solid evidence of what Jesus Predicted.

John 15: 20 “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me.”

Luke 11: 49 “Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ 50 that the blood of all the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation, 51* from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it shall be required of this generation.”

Mt.5: 11 "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12* Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you. "

Grandpa was right: "when you seek trouble you’re more likely to get it."

52% of professed catholics voted for what we are getting. We desearve no better, when we ourselves caused the problems and Christian persecuation!

May God’s Will be done!

Pray and sacrifice brethern!

 

[TMC]

The US has diplomatic relations with the Vatican, we simply don’t have an ambassador right now. The Embassy is open and being run by the Charge d’Affairs. This is not terribly unusual. It sometimes takes some time to fill the less important ambassadorships; the Bush administration also left the ambassador to the Vatican vacant for a time.

US Embasssy to the Holy See

 

[Galnextdoor]

No, he did not predict there would be “one more pope”. The final papal prophecy is considered spurious at worst, non-indicative of an intervening period of popes not prophesied of, at best. Additionally, it says nothing about “the city of 7 hills”.

Italy has no conceivable reason to outrage its mostly Catholic population by dissolving the Vatican. The mostly quiet population rose up in anger when pro-homosexual activists tried to impose their beliefs on the legislature and smeared the Church.

Okay. The copy I have (published by TAN) says that after Benedict there will be another pope who will take the name of Peter. It says that the seven-hilled city, an ancient name for Rome will fall. Because of your comment, I have checked a little farther and it appears that the TAN version can be considered controversial by some, because there isn’t a clear provenance for the final information about the pope named Peter. The only edition I was familiar with was the TAN published version. I used this version in good faith. If it is not accurate, I apologize.

As for Italy being Catholic, it is filled with people who are Catholic in name only. I doubt that they would be outraged if the Vatican was incorporated as part of Italy. It would be a a process so gradual, that people might not realize the implications of what is happening until too late. In 1985 Pope John Paul II, made changes to the Lateran Treaty because he said that Catholicism was no longer the religion of Italy.

As for the homosexual activists, I don’t know much about that subject. I do know that my uncle from Italy says that Italian men are real men. I think it is partly a cultural, macho thing, as well as, a Catholic thing.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

This thread has wandered far off topic and is now closed.