The 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.
The church has acknowledged that there is room within the faith for divergent opinions on the death penalty. It is also emphatic in its condemnation of abortion. That’s why there is talk of withholding communion for pro-choice politicians and not for pro-death penalty politicians.
The Church recognizes no moral distinction between abortion and execution. When one is convicted of a crime, it means only that within the context of a particular formalized structure, the state has brought forward a sufficient quantity of what we define as evidence to permit a group of people to conclude that the defendant has done what we have likewise defined as a criminal act. One may be legally guilty and morally innocent just as one may be legally innocent and morally guilty. The opposition to capital punishment is predicated on the belief, rightly or wrongly, that only God can be the judge of moral blameworthiness. Therefore, proponents of capital punishment are assuming unto themselves a moral authority they do not possess. That is why Mr. galt’s distinction, although it tracks the legislative justification for the death penalty, is bad theology from the Church’s standpoint. With regard to the subject of the thread, it is the right of a country to submit the names of whomever it wishes for ambassadorships. It is the right of the host country to reject any appointment it finds offensive for any reason. If the Vatican wishes to play the “who blinks first” game, it is indicative of the current Pope’s disconnectedness from reality, something we all recently observed with his embrace of Archbishop Lefebvre and the anti-semitic and schismatic Society of St. Pius X.
Wow Mike,
It is impressive that you feel comfortable putting your name on a response that is all personal attack and no substance. I won’t stoop to your level. Address my argument like an intelligent person endowed with reason or shut the hell up.
roflmao
“Makes perfect sense to me.”
Anyone who calls himself john Galt shouldn’t be taken seriously and anyway we’re only on page 207, you don’t show up until about page 740. Wait for your cues Johnny before being a buffoon on stage.
Minor caution – licorice, in excess, can raise one’s blood pressure…
Anonymously yours,
Supporters of the death penalty believe that taking an innocent life is wrong and should result in the forfeiture of the guilty partie’s life. Abortion is believed to be the taking of an innocent life. Makes perfect sense to me.
Let’s just leave the post open until the Pope appoints a pro-choice ambassador to the U.S.
Former Fed,
Thanks. I have always loved the black jelly beans and any black licorice candy. One of my old favorites was a candy called “Black Crows” which was the black licorice version of “Dots”. I am showing my age, but I have seen Black Crows still available at Walgreens. I just can’t afford to eat too many of them anymore or I will turn into the Pillbury Dough Boy!
rafflaw,
Good comments. I must stay that I *never* could acquire a taste for those black jelly beans.
I am glad that there is a lot of agreement that the Pope can go scratch if he doesn’t like our ambassadors. I did have another idea since my earlier post. I think Pres. Obama should appoint an ex-priest to the post and watch the Pope’s head explode! I think those black jelly beans have gone to my head!
Why do we need an Ambassador to the Vatican at all? Our sending one really benefits the Vatican alone and if they want to be picky, let’s not extend the benefit.
raff,
Nice job and a great idea. Personally I think the Vatican should have all the access to our government they can get by calling the WH switchboard and ask to talk to someone.
rafflaw,
Well said! And wouldn’t that be a shock to that old farts’ system to be ignored!!! An excellent idea if you ask me.
What I cannot for the life of me figure out is most of the people opposed to abortion are staunch proponents of the Death Penalty.
I guess I can play g-d and say I determine that you are not worth living and so you shall die.
Like my blog buddy rafflaw, I suggest we appoint someone acceptable to the Pope when he dismisses someone objectionable to us (hint: Cardinal Law).
Hans
Yes, they are seperate ambassadors.
Gene:
I’m with you on your suggestion the post remain open. I suppose, however, the President might have wanted to call on the pope as many US Presidents have.
I did some checking about previous US Ambassadors to the Holy See (official title). We can safely assume GWB’s selections would have been anti-women’s rights, so I focussed on Bill Clinton’s appointments.
Apparently this has not been an issue before. From 1993-97, the ambassador was former Boston Mayor, Ray Flynn. Flynn was not Pro-Choice, acknowledged it during the campaign yet worked hard for Clinton’s election. From 1997-2001, the ambassador was Liddy Boggs. Ms Boggs is Roamn Catholic, but I didn’t finad any direct reference to her stance on abortion rights.
I think Obama should just leave the post open. Our president makes these choices not the Pope. Hypocrisy is correct.
Obama should just tell the Pope to stop his hypocrisy. This is a religious leader who assisted in the abuse of children by his priests and stood by and did nothing and may have actually violated the laws by not disclosing the names of the priests to the authorities, but instead participated in the shell game of transferring them to other parishes or areas. This is a Pope who refuses to seat a pro-choice ambassador, but has no problem with seating ambassadors who were for the death penalty. This is a pope who will sit an ambassador who was in favor of Bush’s attack and occupation of Iraq that killed over 1000,000 civilians and displaced millions and that has tortured its detainees and prisoners, but Obama’s pro-choice ambassador couldn’t possibly be seated. Pres. Obama should just ignore the Pope because the Vatican is a state in name alone and has no influence on the world. If we do not have an ambassador to the Vatican, I will still sleep at night.
I don’t see the problem with the g8 summit, given how Italy and The Vatican are two different countries. Surely they have separate ambassadors?