Vatican Rejects Three Potential Obama Ambassadors Over Pro-Abortion Views

[juliee]

The Vatican – The decisions haven’t received much attention, but the Vatican has quietly and informally rejected three potential ambassadors for pro-abortion President Barack Obama. The potential diplomats reportedly were rejected because of their pro-abortion views and inability to improve relations with the Holy See.

See LifeNews.com/int1150.html

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

GOOD for the Vatican.

 

[quacker66]

Fantastic. We need our pope, bishops, priests, and catholic universities and colleges supporting the Catholic church’s teachings.

I can’t remember to which saint Jesus appeared to talk about priests: Jesus said to never insult a priest, especially to others, but to confide in Jesus and prayer and fast for such priests so that God will correct them and inflame them with love of Him and his Truth.

 

[goofyjim]

So does this mean we won’t have diplomatic ties with the Vatican? Obama won’t back down. He won’t appoint anyone else with prolife views. What’s next? Will the Vatican just write off our country? I pray it doesn’t.

 

[LRThunder]

So does this mean we won’t have diplomatic ties with the Vatican? Obama won’t back down. He won’t appoint anyone else with prolife views. What’s next? Will the Vatican just write off our country? I pray it doesn’t.

Hopefully, Obama is smart enough to get the message.

But then again, his arrogance will prevent him from doing something simple as appointing a pro-life Catholic as the U.S. ambassador.

 

[goofyjim]

Hopefully, Obama is smart enough to get the message.

But then again, his arrogance will prevent him from doing something simple as appointing a pro-life Catholic as the U.S. ambassador.

But we’ve already seen how those who have differing views refuse to serve under Obama. Why should a prolife Catholic serve in his administration? And why the litmus test? We can’t have diplomatic relations without being prolife? If that were the case I could see every reason why the Vatican would cut ties with the whole world.

 

[LRThunder]

But we’ve already seen how those who have differing views refuse to serve under Obama. Why should a prolife Catholic serve in his administration? And why the litmus test? We can’t have diplomatic relations without being prolife? If that were the case I could see every reason why the Vatican would cut ties with the whole world.

I don’t think it’s too much for Obama to comply with the Vatican’s reasonable request that the ambassador to the Holy See be prolife. If he can’t appoint pro-life people to his cabinet, then he should at least have the courtesy to appoint a pro-life person to be ambassador in this situation.

It’s not unreasonable.

 

[Newbie2]

Yeah, that’s true.

Something like “Let’s appoint a pro-life whacko to deal with those pro-life whackos at the Vatican. What harm can they do to my administration?”

I hope these 4 years go quickly…God forbid he’ll be in office for 8.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I don’t think it’s too much for Obama to comply with the Vatican’s reasonable request that the ambassador to the Holy See be prolife. If he can’t appoint pro-life people to his cabinet, then he should at least have the courtesy to appoint a pro-life person to be ambassador in this situation.

It’s not unreasonable.

But this is not a reasonable man.

 

[JimG]

Hopefully, Obama is smart enough to get the message.

But then again, his arrogance will prevent him from doing something simple as appointing a pro-life Catholic as the U.S. ambassador.

Obama seems inherently incapable of appointing any pro-life person to his administration.

 

[rpp]

Obama seems inherently incapable of appointing any pro-life person to his administration.

It is almost like he/it thinks that being pro-life is some form of psychiatric disorder.

 

[JimG]

It is almost like he/it thinks that being pro-life is some form of psychiatric disorder.

Now that you mention it, I give the APA a few years before they put that into the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of mental disorders) as a recognized disorder.

 

[jpm1977]

But we’ve already seen how those who have differing views refuse to serve under Obama. Why should a prolife Catholic serve in his administration? And why the litmus test? We can’t have diplomatic relations without being prolife? If that were the case I could see every reason why the Vatican would cut ties with the whole world.

Ah, the double edged sword. If a Catholic isn’t even “allowed” to *vote *for Obama, how could one morally serve in his administration? After all, the official policy of the US is now to encourage birth control worldwide, and and ambassador’s job is to represent the US overseas, including communicating and promoting its official policies. So in the black and white world, no pro-life Catholic could serve Obama’s administration even if he/she wanted to. Ergo, pro-life Catholics are and should be completely shut out of government unless the President is a fundamentalist Protestant Republican who is against every other aspect of Catholic social teaching.

While we’re at it, can we really be expected to pay our federal income taxes without putting ourselves in grave mortal danger?

 

[rpp]

Ah, the double edged sword. If a Catholic isn’t even “allowed” to *vote *for Obama, how could one morally serve in his administration? After all, the official policy of the US is now to encourage birth control worldwide, and and ambassador’s job is to represent the US overseas, including communicating and promoting its official policies. So in the black and white world, no pro-life Catholic could serve Obama’s administration even if he/she wanted to. Ergo, pro-life Catholics are and should be completely shut out of government unless the President is a fundamentalist Protestant Republican who is against every other aspect of Catholic social teaching.

While we’re at it, can we really be expected to pay our federal income taxes without putting ourselves in grave mortal danger?

So, I guess your hobby is to create new Catholic doctrine and dogma. Quite interesting.

 

[jpm1977]

Here LINK is an interview with Ray Flynn, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican under President Clinton. Its from during the primary season, and he announces his support for Hillary Clinton for president.

Now, he says he is pro-life and disagrees with Clinton on that issue. Yet he supported her in the primary, and indicates he would have voted for her if she had won the primary and faced McCain.

The Vatican has previously accepted him as ambassador, presumably indicating they believed he was genuinely pro-life, yet here he is supporting a pro-choice candidate for president. By some standards that means, he is not really pro-life at all, but has sold out his pro-life beliefs to support a candidate that he thinks favors his pocketbook or other “minor” social issues. In short, putting the comfort of this world ahead of salvation and the next world.

So, does that mean the Vatican would reject him if he were appointed today? I don’t know. But, if Obama were to nominate him (he already served in the same position in another Democratic administration) and the Vatican were to accept him despite the fact that he worked to elect a pro-choice candidate, doesn’t that support the position that you can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate in spite of the pro-choice views, so long as you work to influence them and minimize their effects? If not, then does Obama not only have to appoint a pro-life ambassador, but one that supported his opponent in the campaign?

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Your point being?..

And why the rolling eyes?

 

[jpm1977]

So, I guess your hobby is to create new Catholic doctrine and dogma. Quite interesting.

No, merely using a little sarcasm to illustrate the extremes to which the application of current Catholic doctrine and teaching to a very flawed secular political system can be taken.

I would not be shocked in the slightest to find many advocating the position that no pro-life Catholic could morally serve in the Obama administration. If someone did take that position, there would be some irony in the fact that some are also lamenting the fact that Obama has not appointed a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican, which is the running theme of this thread.

 

[jpm1977]

And more directly, my point is what I think “Goofyjim” was hinting at. Based on the tone of the posts on this thread, I assume (and I could be wrong) that many of the posters here adhere to the idea that a pro-life Catholic (or any Catholic for that matter) could not, under any circumstances, have voted for Obama given his pro-choice views. If you believe that, then wouldn’t it logically be much worse for a Catholic, pro-life or otherwise, to actually serve the Obama administration (as ambassador to the Vatican), given the Obama administration’s pro-choice policies? If so, then how can one be angry or upset or in disagreement with the Obama administration for failing so far to appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican, when such a person would be morally obligated to decline such a nomination?

To advocate for Obama appointing a pro-life ambassador seems to presume that a pro-life nominee could morally serve the Obama administration. If so, how can it also be immoral in all circumstances to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

Surely, a vote is, at best, an indirect and removed measure of support for the candidate that may be cast for any number of reasons. Actually serving the administration, though, would seem to be much more direct support or “cooperation” with the immoral policies of that administration, even if the person personally disagrees with those policies.

If it would be immoral for a pro-life person to serve the administration, then, there’s no reason to care who Obama appoints, since the Vatican will reject any pro-choice candidate and no pro-life candidate could accept the nomination.

 

[rpp]

And more directly, my point is what I think “Goofyjim” was hinting at. Based on the tone of the posts on this thread, I assume (and I could be wrong) that many of the posters here adhere to the idea that a pro-life Catholic (or any Catholic for that matter) could not, under any circumstances, have voted for Obama given his pro-choice views. If you believe that, then wouldn’t it logically be much worse for a Catholic, pro-life or otherwise, to actually serve the Obama administration (as ambassador to the Vatican), given the Obama administration’s pro-choice policies? If so, then how can one be angry or upset or in disagreement with the Obama administration for failing so far to appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican, when such a person would be morally obligated to decline such a nomination?

To advocate for Obama appointing a pro-life ambassador seems to presume that a pro-life nominee could morally serve the Obama administration. If so, how can it also be immoral in all circumstances to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

Surely, a vote is, at best, an indirect and removed measure of support for the candidate that may be cast for any number of reasons. Actually serving the administration, though, would seem to be much more direct support or “cooperation” with the immoral policies of that administration, even if the person personally disagrees with those policies.

If it would be immoral for a pro-life person to serve the administration, then, there’s no reason to care who Obama appoints, since the Vatican will reject any pro-choice candidate and no pro-life candidate could accept the nomination.

No, your conclusions are utterly ridiculous,. The issues are unrelated. It would be wrong for a person to support or promote abortion in any way. It would be good if that person could help influence policy to support pro-life causes and programs. It would be morally neutral if that person’s job had absolutely nothing to do abortion.

Also, you have gotten responsibility totally backwards. There is nothing either Catholic or logical in the statements you are making. Not to mention a fair number of falsehoods.

Based on your posts, you seem to be a pro-abortionist here to mock authentic Catholics. Your posts demonstrate that the only person you are making look foolish is yourself.

 

[jpm1977]

No, your conclusions are utterly ridiculous,. The issues are unrelated. It would be wrong for a person to support or promote abortion in any way. It would be good if that person could help influence policy to support pro-life causes and programs. It would be morally neutral if that person’s job had absolutely nothing to do abortion.

Also, you have gotten responsibility totally backwards. There is nothing either Catholic or logical in the statements you are making. Not to mention a fair number of falsehoods.

Based on your posts, you seem to be a pro-abortionist here to mock authentic Catholics. Your posts demonstrate that the only person you are making look foolish is yourself.

I think if you look at my other posts, you will see I am not a pro-abortionist. I am pro-life, and am not here to mock Catholics as I am one myself.

Please provide authority for your blanket assertion that my views are “not Catholic” or logical.

I set forth a logical position in some detail and asked a detailed question regarding the morality of voting for a pro-choice candidate in spite of the pro-choice views of a candidate versus the morality of choosing to serve in the administration of a pro-choice president whose administration actively backs pro-choice policies while being pro-life one’s self.

You did not refute or even address the argument or the position. Rather, you seem to have been offended by the argument’s potential implications to your world view, then declared me to be a secret, non-Catholic, pro-abortion troll.

The question is simple and honest:

1. Is it immoral in all circumstances to vote for a pro-choice candidate if you are a pro-life Catholic?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how can it be moral for a pro-life Catholic to serve in the administration of a pro-choice president who promotes pro-choice policies? An ambassadorship is not the same thing as being a mailman or a census taker, you are the official representative of the U.S. in a given country, with the power to carry out the will of the head of state, a.k.a. the President.
3. If the answer to #2 is: It is not moral for a pro-life Catholic to serve in a pro-choice administration, then how can we suggest that Obama nominate a pro-choice Catholic to serve as ambassador to the Vatican?

If the answer to #2 is: No, it is not immoral for a pro-life candidate to serve in the Obama administration because that individual can in some way separate his/her *personal *pro-life positions from his/her *official position *as ambassador for a pro-choice administration using some rational, logical method, then can’t a vote be subjected to the same general analysis? If so, how can #1 be true.

There, I have been calm, logical and dispassionate in presenting my argument, can you do me the same honor, please? That means, no accusations of heresy, apostasy (there has been no official encyclical saying its not Catholic to ask questions or debate issues) and no name-calling or just saying “that’s ridiculous” either. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.