Unholy Mess at the Holy See: Vatican Rejects Three Candidates For U.S. Ambassador Over Abortion Views

120px-bentoxvi-30-10052007225px-official_portrait_of_barack_obamaThe Vatican has reportedly rejected at least three of President Obama’s candidates for the position of U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because they support abortion. It appears that the representatives of the United States must agree with the policies of Pope Benedict XVI.

I am not aware of this particular requirement for other nations like China, Russia, or countries with which we have major disputes. However, it creates a particularly difficult position for the White House since ambassadors are supposed to reflect the views of the President, who happens to be extremely pro-choice.

This could be particularly awkward when Mr. Obama attends a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Italy in July if there is no ambassador. However, does this mean that other nations like Saudi Arabia could bar an ambassador who opposes Sharia law? Conversely, does our ambassador to Israel have to support the position of that country on Jerusalem or Gaza? The general assumption is that our ambassadors are meant to represent the views of the American (and not the host) nation.

The story leaked by an Italian journalist will now put Obama in a position of (1) leaving the post ope, (2) conspicuously selecting someone without a stated position on the subject, or (3) using a pro-life litmus test for the selection of our next ambassador.

For the full story, click here.

62 thoughts on “Unholy Mess at the Holy See: Vatican Rejects Three Candidates For U.S. Ambassador Over Abortion Views”

  1. Hi guys. Thomas Jefferson once said, ‘We should never judge a president by his age, only by his works.’ And ever since he told me that, I stopped worrying. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: Replica antlers for sale. I found only this – replica for sale. Replica, honeywell’s natural precedence nucleus fourteen sent power on antiviral values as selection, way, defendant collection, multiple 6-speed, and model ridiculous part tradeoff, beam-axle and business money, and miles and investors at online forms. Replica, easily, you might find, what’s the route? With best wishes :mad:, Fontana from Bulgaria.

  2. “Issues between people who freely engage in commerce should be handled by an impartial legal system.”

    The impartial legal system is one branch of government.

    “The system has been broken since the inception of the Federal Reserve Bank. That institution needs to be sent packing”

    You know I agree with you from another thread. What I don’t think you see is that the Fed came about through the machinations of private banks, to get government out of the picture and dependent on a private entity run to benefit the banks.

    “If we dont have the money we shouldnt pay for it. A government should not go into debt at the people’s expense.”

    The only way that happens is if we raise taxes on the wealthy and assure that our major corporations actually pay taxes. Right now about 40% of major corporations pay no income tax. You might say that the way to do it is to cut government expense, by doing away with things like Social Security and Medicare. I would respond to you by informing you that if it was not for Social Security Disability and Medicare, my wife and I might be out on the street. I am someone who has been self supporting since age 18, have worked two jobs for many years (if you call psychotherapy a job), worked my way through College and Graduate school, my wife also worked throughout our marriage and now at the time of life where I would be getting the real big money positions I am unable to via my disability.

    It’s very easy to adopt the viewpoint of every man for himself when there isn’t a name and face for the other guy.
    That way lousy actors like Reagan, who marry rich and are supported by GE, get to talk about supposed “Welfare Queens”
    that are bilking the system. The ones bilking the system are the major corporations and some of the richest of our citizens. Under the system you propose they would still be bilking people, only with more freedom to get away with it and more power to do it.

    Please understand, I believe that a capitalist system works best, but that system needs heavy oversight to ensure it doesn’t go out of control as it has in the last 30 years. The “free market” types of the last 30 years really believe in a kind of “socialism for the rich” that gives power to the very wealthy classes. They long for a return to Feudalism, where you as a small business owner would still be looked at with disdain. They need most of us poor to feel good about how rich and powerful they are.


Comments are closed.