Vatican Rejects Three Potential Obama Ambassadors Over Pro-Abortion Views

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jpm1977 said:
The question is simple and honest:

If you lived through this last election cycle, you should already know the answers.
  1. Is it immoral in all circumstances to vote for a pro-choice candidate if you are a pro-life Catholic? No. In many (most) cases it is but not in all circumstances.
  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? Well, the answer to #1 is “no” but … The reason this is a non sequitor is that to vote for someone is to advance his.her agenda by putting him/her in office (or trying to). That is the single purpose of a vote - to get the candidate elected. Once the person is in office, there are a variety of jobs in the administration. Some advance the aims of the administration but most are neutral jobs that have to be done regardless of who is in office. Some actually are contrary to the aims of the administration. The Vatican Ambassadorship is possibly in the latter category and at ‘worst’ neutral. I don’t think Obama really wants to carry on diplomatic relations with the Vatican. 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. Not really. This was sort-of true before modern communications. In our current technological environment, the ambassador is mostly a voice and occasionally a mediator. An ambassador has very narrow powers to carry out the will of the President in the foreign country. In most countries, the ambassador also oversees the intelligence operations but I don’t think that is a big part of the job at the Vatican. 🙂
  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? He can try but the Vatican seems unlikely to accept such an appointment.
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.It isn’t a matter of separation. If the job has nothing to do with advancing the President’s pro-abortion agenda, there is no dichotomy.

There, I have been calm yes, logical not reallyand dispassionate okin 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.
Click to expand...
As I said, I don’t think Obama really wants to further diplomatic relations with the Vatican. But he doesn’t want to be the one to call them off either. We had an 18 year break starting in 1952 so this isn’t unprecedented.

The President is many things, but not stupid. When ambassador candidate “A” was rejected, do you really think he didn’t “get it” and kept sending pro-abortion choices? No, he knew they would be rejected, IMHO, but this makes it “look” like he is making a real effort.
 
Corki said:
As I said, I don’t think Obama really wants to further diplomatic relations with the Vatican. But he doesn’t want to be the one to call them off either. We had an 18 year break starting in 1952 so this isn’t unprecedented.

The President is many things, but not stupid. When ambassador candidate “A” was rejected, do you really think he didn’t “get it” and kept sending pro-abortion choices? No, he knew they would be rejected, IMHO, but this makes it “look” like he is making a real effort.
Click to expand...
You may be right. Perhaps this is just Obama’s way of breaking off the U.S. relationship with the Vatican.
 
jpm1977:

I just can’t see what’s unusual about this whole situation. We are simply seeing an example of common practice at the collective level of how we would handle it an individual level.

Let anyone try to proclaim that he insists on remaining in mortal sin, and try to gain acceptance in a parish. The person would be banished from Church activities. So here we have a collective entity who tries to establish recognition of the Church and it can’t because of it’s official views.

Good for the Church. I would shudder if we witnessed a passive stance in this case. The lesson learned is that there are no double standards with the Church. 👍
The Church is simply doing it’s duty mandated by God, and that is to be the Authority over Civil authority, even though the collective spirit has not realized this yet.(It would in the Ideal, that is, if all authorities and individuals were one under the True Church.)

Recall Henry VIII was just has stymied.

Andy
 
quacker66 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it was Saint Bridget of Sweden.
 
jpm1977 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, your comment illustrates a very important point. While presidentObama may have forgotten the meaning of the term “public servant” the truth is that no government employee serves the “Obama administration.” They may serve under the Obama administration, but they are to serve the people of the United States. As a result, persons of any faith or belief may serve under an administration for which they did not vote. I highly doubt that the very few faithful pro-life persons currently serving in congress voted for Obama.

It is, admittedly, much more difficult, perhaps downright perilous, for a pro-life Catholic to maintain their stance and refuse to compromise their beliefs in an administration as radical as this one. However, it can be done. There is no inherent “wrongness” in serving the people under Obama that would prevent a true Catholic from doing so. Thus, Obama may have to get over his bigotry if he wants to maintain relations with the Vatican.
 
jpm1977 said:
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?
Click to expand...
One of the proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be if the only other candidate was also pro-abortion, so choosing Hilary Clinton over Obama in a primary would not violate catholic teaching. I certainly hope that party will some day be open to pro-life candidates also. There are some people of good will who believe they can change their party by working from within. Just because they don’t seem to be successful at the moment does not mean they are wrong.

I also think that all office holders are supposed to the serve the American people first, and the particular president second, so a pro-life Catholic could theoretically serve in an Obama administration without violating his conscience. In the current situation, it is doubtful that a pro-life Catholic would be proposed for any job requiring advice and consent of the senate.

There are still many career public servants who support pro-life values. Should they all have to quit because of a pro-death president? That would leave only the culture of death in government. Those people will face great trials for the next four years and I hope all of you will remember them in your prayers.
 
I agree with the Holy See’s action, they must teach the Obama administration some manners.
 
KC91 said:
I agree with the Holy See’s action, they must teach the Obama administration some manners.
Click to expand...
I also agree. Do you think this administration would propose a wildly anti-Islamic person to become ambassador to Saudi Arabia? Since candidate Obama also showed some softness toward Iran, will he propose resuming relations by appointing a Sunni Muslim for that ambassadorship?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top