Should Ambassador to the Vatican be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Digitonomy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for resurrecting this, the topic had slipped my mind.

As it turns out, President Bush has apparently selected a new ambassador, Francis Rooney, a wealthy contributor from Oklahoma. And Catholic, of course.

The linked article dates from April 15, but they are apparently still doing background checks, or awaiting the right opportunity to present this to the Senate, as no official announcement has been made. The top hit at the White House website merely lists him as part of the delegation to the presidential inauguration in Panama last year.
 
Personally, I don’t think the Vatican should be recognized as a state. We shouldn’t have an ambassador there at all. Name any other religion who’s HQ is considered a soverign nation?

Nohome
 
It should be a Catholic Catholic (both in name and in reality).
Who else could accurately translate meanings between the Church and the United States?

Where do I apply? 😃
 
40.png
jlw:
Fair, but one has to speak the language and understand the culture, no??

How does a Protestant understand or speak with an understanding of Catholic doctrine??

I don’t have the answer, just kicking it round.
Click to expand...
Many Catholics and the church itself sure know Protestant doctrine and understand the culture of various Protestant denominations. Not all Protestants are so clueless they ask the same annoying questions without appearing to ever learn a thing. Many know so much about the church–Richard John Neuhaus for instance–they end up as commentators on EWTN.

Might be a good way to expand the church to appoint a well-versed Prot to the Vatican now and then.
 
40.png
Nohome:
Personally, I don’t think the Vatican should be recognized as a state. We shouldn’t have an ambassador there at all. Name any other religion who’s HQ is considered a soverign nation?

Nohome
Click to expand...
The UN.

Just kidding. But the Holy See represents nearly one billion people. It is the only organization with an international reach comparable to that of the UN.

It is in America interests to send an ambassador.

Let us not forget John Paul II’s role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Among other things, the American ambassador showed JPII satellite photos of the crowds which greeted him in Poland.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
It is in America interests to send an ambassador.
Click to expand...
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that there is some intrinsic value of having state relations with the Vatican. I just question if a nation such as ours, one built not only on the freedom of religion but on the freedom from religion should lend special favor to the RCC.

Do we have an ambassador in Salt Lake City? What about Mecca and Medina? Yes, there are a billion Catholics, but they are subjects of other sovergn nations. In the past decade, Christianity has grown 5% in the United States. Islam grew 300% in the same time period. Maybe we should rethink diplomatic relations with religious organizations.

Nohome
 
None of the founders spoke of “freedom from religion” as a basic principle of our government.

Tom Paine hated Christianity (and ended up despised by most of his peers). Ethan Allen was not a Christian. There were a few minor figures aside from Allen and Paine who called themselves deists. The rest were Christian. Most states in 1789 had an established religion. Many wrote that the American Republic could not survive without a religious citizenry. “Freedom from religion” wasn’t even on the table. The idea was concocted out of thin air by marxists in the last century.

Freedom from religion would mean violating the free exercise of religion. What is exactly what the radical left wants.
 
Nohome - since Salt Lake City is within the United States, your suggestion of having an ambassador there is ridiculous.

The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh, not Mecca or Medina. The United States has an ambassador to Saudi Arabia in Riyadh.

Mecca is closed to non-Muslim foreigners. The state religion of Saudi Arabia is Islam. The historic home of Islam is within Saudi Arabia.

Using your illogic, the United States should then not have diplomatic ties to Saudi Arabia.

Vatican city is a nation, governed by laws. The US has diplomatic ties to the Vatican because it is in the best interests of the United States to maintain those ties. The Catholic Church is in most every nation on earth and is in the position to obtain and disseminate information in ways that most of us are unaware of. Theis makes it politically expedient to maintain ties with the Vatican. Since 20-25% of the American voting public is Catholic, it is also good domestic politics.
 
40.png
JW10631:
Nohome - since Salt Lake City is within the United States, your suggestion of having an ambassador there is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
My suggestion was supposed to be ridiculous. It’s called a retorical question.
40.png
JW10631:
The capital of Saudi Arabia is Riyadh, not Mecca or Medina. The United States has an ambassador to Saudi Arabia in Riyadh.
Click to expand...
Very good, Riyadh is the political capital, but Mecca and Medina are the religious centers of the Islamic world. Much like Rome is the political capital of Italy, but Vatican City is the religious center of Catholicism. I was making a syllogism, but you got too angry to read that in my post.
40.png
JW10631:
Using your illogic, the United States should then not have diplomatic ties to Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...
No, using my logic, we should not have diplomatic ties with the Vatican.
40.png
JW10631:
Vatican city is a nation, governed by laws. The US has diplomatic ties to the Vatican because it is in the best interests of the United States to maintain those ties.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the civics lesson. If you had read my post you would see that I acknowledge the value of diplomatic ties, I just challenged if the USA should show preferential treatment to one religion.
40.png
JW10631:
The Catholic Church is in most every nation on earth and is in the position to obtain and disseminate information in ways that most of us are unaware of.
Click to expand...
You could say the same thing about Islam. And you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition. 🙂
40.png
JW10631:
Since 20-25% of the American voting public is Catholic, it is also good domestic politics.
Click to expand...
What about the other 75-80% of the voting public? I’m sure they would like their religion represented in the same manner.
 
40.png
David_Paul:
Freedom from religion would mean violating the free exercise of religion. What is exactly what the radical left wants.
Click to expand...
Well then, I’m not part of the radical left.

I still think the diplomatic ties between a nation and a religion is an interesting point to ponder.

Nohome
 
40.png
Nohome:
My suggestion was supposed to be ridiculous. It’s called a retorical question.

Very good, Riyadh is the political capital, but Mecca and Medina are the religious centers of the Islamic world. Much like Rome is the political capital of Italy, but Vatican City is the religious center of Catholicism. I was making a syllogism, but you got too angry to read that in my post.

No, using my logic, we should not have diplomatic ties with the Vatican.

Thank you for the civics lesson. If you had read my post you would see that I acknowledge the value of diplomatic ties, I just challenged if the USA should show preferential treatment to one religion.

You could say the same thing about Islam. And you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition. 🙂

What about the other 75-80% of the voting public? I’m sure they would like their religion represented in the same manner.
Click to expand...
Don’t put words in my mouth.

Now, if you would get off of your high horse, nobody is claiming that the United States Government is showing a preferential bias to the Catholic Church by having diplomatic ties with Vatican City. It is a legitimate city-state. It has an official religion. So what? Does that bother you? Well, too bad. You seem to want to look for an argument. Your use of satire is, at best, putrid, and I am beign charitable.

Using your illogic, the US Government should not even acknowledge VCatican City because it has an official religion. Lots of nations have an official, or state, religion. The Russian Orthodox Church is the state church of Russia. Perhaps, so as to not offend Catholic, evangelicals, etc., the US should have to ties to Russia?

The People’s Republic of China has a state religion - atheism. Maybe the US should not have relations to China because it has a state religion.

So, it irks you that there is a United States Ambassador to Vatican City.
Go write Bush, Frist, Hastert, etc. and tell them.
 
40.png
Nohome:
Well then, I’m not part of the radical left.

I still think the diplomatic ties between a nation and a religion is an interesting point to ponder.

Nohome
Click to expand...
Uh I think you may have missed the point. The diplomatic relations are between two countries – the Holy See is an independent nation.
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Uh I think you may have missed the point. The diplomatic relations are between two countries – the Holy See is an independent nation.
Click to expand...
If you read my original post (#61), you will see that point is well understood. All other faiths of the world are religions in a country, but the RCC is a country in a religion.

The closest parallel, I suppose, would be Jerusalem. But that country has a domestic product and Jews can become citizens and obtain a passport. This is not the case with the Vatican.
 
Please forgive my ignorace, but what does the U.S. Ambasador to the Vatican do anyway?
 
GENERAL CHARITY WARNING

I do not want to shut down this thread because a member or two wandered off the path of charity. Please rein it in.
 
The United States has diplomatic relations not with the sovereign state which is the Vatican City State but rather with the Holy See which is the central government of the Catholic Church and as such recognized in its own right as the juridical equivalent of a state in international law and custom and which happens to govern the Vatican City State. Embassies are accredited not the Vatican City State, but to the Holy See. The Holy See sometimes acts diplomatically on its own behalf and other times on behalf of the Vatican City State which it governs. From wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

“Contrary to popular belief, it is the pope’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction (the Holy See) and not his secular jurisdiction (Vatican City) which conducts international relations; for hundreds of years, the Pope’s court (the Roman Curia) has functioned as the government of the Catholic Church. The name “Holy See” (also “Apostolic See”) is in ecclesiastical terminology the ordinary jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (including the Roman Curia); the pope’s various honours, powers, and privileges within the Catholic Church and the international community derive from his Episcopate of Rome in lineal succession from the Apostle St. Peter (see Apostolic Succession).”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See

“The term Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes, lit. “holy seat”) refers in a geographic sense to the episcopal see of Rome, of which the Pope is the ordinary (i.e., the diocesan bishop); in canon law, the terms Holy See and Apostolic See refer to the Pope (“Roman Pontiff”) and the Roman Curia together unless otherwise indicated by context (can. 361). Because in this latter sense the Holy See comprises both the Pope and the Roman Curia, it is effectually the government of the Roman Catholic Church; as such, it is recognized as having a legal personality under international law.
Although the Holy See is closely associated with the State of the Vatican City, the independent, sovereign state governed by the Holy See, the two entities are in fact separate and distinct. The Holy See administers the Vatican City, including all diplomatic functions; foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See rather than to the Vatican City, and the Holy See establishes diplomatic agreements ("Concordats") with other sovereign states, on behalf both of itself and of the Vatican City (as appropriate). Generally speaking, the Holy See is a party on its own behalf to treaties of Ecclesiastical interest, and a party on the Vatican City’s behalf to treaties of technical significance (e.g., regarding co-operation with Italy).”

And the Holy See website:

vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/sp_ss_scv/informazione_generale/sp_ss_scv_info-generale_en.html#Ordinamento

"The expression Holy See refers to the supreme Authority of the Church, and thus the Pope as Bishop of Rome and head of the College of Bishops. Defines therefore the Central Government of the Catholic Church. As such, the Holy See is an institution which, according to the international laws and customs, has a juridical personality which permits it to sign treaties and to send and receive diplomatic representatives, as juridical equivalent of a state."
 
Anyone know of the benefits the USA has recieved from having an ambassador to the Holy See?

I mentioned JPII getting our satellite pictures of his masses in Poland. Read there was a lot more cooperation in bringing down the Soviets than we may ever know. Much else made public yet? Any books out on the subject or which touch on it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top