Vatican Unhappy with Obama Ambassador Picks

[didymus]

NewsMax:

Vatican Unhappy with Obama Ambassador Picks

As President Barack Obama continues to focus on his political base and push through policies that are anathema to the pro-life movement, he is having difficulty finding a suitable candidate to represent his administration at the Vatican.

According to Massimo Franco, author of “Parallel Empires,” a recently published book on U.S.-Vatican relations, the Obama administration has put forward three candidates for consideration but each of them have been deemed insufficiently pro-life by the Vatican.

One of the few conditions the Vatican places on diplomats accredited to the Holy See is that they hold pro-life views in line with Church teaching.
. . . . .

However, in view of the absence of qualified qualified = donors] Catholic candidates, insiders say another option could be for the administration to choose a non-Catholic pro-life candidate rather than a Catholic whose record on pro-life issues is at odds with Church teaching.

“There may be room for such an appointment and it could be a good choice,” said Franco, “but at the moment I can’t imagine it happening.”

So that leaves a pro-life Protestant Democrat or a pro-life Catholic Republican – hmm, any of those been in the news lately, hint, hint? Initials N. G.

Funny how the article basically takes for granted that none of Obama’s Catholic supporters are sound on life issues.

 

[Inman]

I must say I am somewhat suprised that Vatican essentially gets veto power over who the U.S. selects as its ambassador. After all we don’t let the Chinese insist that our ambassador be a communist?

The ambassador is a conduit for communication between two states. For purposes of effective diplomacy, it seems like it would be more important that the ambassador have the ear of the President than be doctrinally pure. This isn’t like the Notre Dame situation where the Church is giving an honor to a pro-abortion situation, and thus credence to their views. The any honor is conferred by the US government, not the Vatican.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I must say I am somewhat suprised that Vatican essentially gets veto power over who the U.S. selects as its ambassador. After all we don’t let the Chinese insist that our ambassador be a communist?

The ambassador is a conduit for communication between two states. For purposes of effective diplomacy, it seems like it would be more important that the ambassador have the ear of the President than be doctrinally pure. This isn’t like the Notre Dame situation where the Church is giving an honor to a pro-abortion situation, and thus credence to their views. The any honor is conferred by the US government, not the Vatican.

Considering their demands for those living in the Vatican as ambassadors: perhaps we should view Notre Dame in a even worse light: granted I know more of French Notre Dame: than what seems like a Horrid American University!

 

[Argh]

It’s basically common practice that countries have the ability to accept or reject an official ambassador (ie refuse to allow them in the country with a diplomatic visa, refuse their credentials, etc.)

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

It’s basically common practice that countries have the ability to accept or reject an official ambassador (ie refuse to allow them in the country with a diplomatic visa, refuse their credentials, etc.)

In my country: they get diplomatic immunity: essentially: you want someone you can trust!