Vatican vetoes potential US ambassadors

[David B]

According to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7998688.stm

The Vatican has rejected at least three possible candidates proposed by Barack Obama to serve as US ambassador to the Holy See, say reliable sources in Rome.

None of the three candidates informally proposed by the Obama administration so far is acceptable to the Pope because of their support for abortion rights.

So what next?

I know what I'd like to see. Obama presenting one more candidate, with similar values, and saying 'take it or leave it, we don't have to have an ambassador at the Vatican'.

David

[miss djax]

According to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7998688.stm

The Vatican has rejected at least three possible candidates proposed by Barack Obama to serve as US ambassador to the Holy See, say reliable sources in Rome.

None of the three candidates informally proposed by the Obama administration so far is acceptable to the Pope because of their support for abortion rights.

So what next?

I know what I'd like to see. Obama presenting one more candidate, with similar values, and saying 'take it or leave it, we don't have to have an ambassador at the Vatican'.

David

omg i hope so. why we're kissing papal ass here is beyond me. let's call it a budget cut, nix the position, and be done with it.

anyone saying that condoms increases hiv and aids risk is clearly no longer relevant and doesn't deserve and credibility or diplomacy thrown his way.

ugh, what a mouth breathing troglodyte

[Notta]

Would an abortion-supporting ambassador contaminate the water supply? Or the minds of everyone he/she came into contact? Or what? Does believing in abortion rights rub off onto other people?

Ambassador at the Vatican...pfffft. Worthless political appointment, anyway.

[Davidnic]

Actually the Vatican made the statement that they did not do that and there is no truth to the reports: link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iv48aLtfxJowoUPxg_wBWF_cBpbgD97FMEGG0)

Now, like any other country an ambassador appointment needs to be someone who can work with and respect the beliefs of where they are. You don't want an ambassador to Israel who does not believe they should be a nation or an ambassador to Canada who has a history of insulting them. So countries should have the right to indicate the parameters of who they can work with as an intermediary. But the Vatican did not veto any choice.

[Davidnic]

[
anyone saying that condoms increases hiv and aids risk is clearly no longer relevant

Like the director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)

[David B]

Actually the Vatican made the statement that they did not do that and there is no truth to the reports: link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iv48aLtfxJowoUPxg_wBWF_cBpbgD97FMEGG0)

Interesting.

Now, like any other country an ambassador appointment needs to be someone who can work with and respect the beliefs of where they are. You don't want an ambassador to Israel who does not believe they should be a nation or an ambassador to Canada who has a history of insulting them. So countries should have the right to indicate the parameters of who they can work with as an intermediary. But the Vatican did not veto any choice.

Hmm. I'd be surprised to have seen a Soviet ambassador to the USA, or vice versa, who respected the political beliefs of the other.

David

[Barbarian]

Now, like any other country an ambassador appointment needs to be someone who can work with and respect the beliefs of where they are. You don't want an ambassador to Israel who does not believe they should be a nation or an ambassador to Canada who has a history of insulting them. So countries should have the right to indicate the parameters of who they can work with as an intermediary.In certain parts of the world, disagreement does not constitute disrespect, nor does it count as insulting behavior.

I'm saying this because from your post it would appear that for you, disagreeing with the Pope == disrespect for the Vatican.

[LoneWolf]

Well, you certainly want an Ambassador that is going to be able to work with the host country. He/she does NOT need to agree with the host country's stance on all or even most views. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the President of the United States and THAT is the person who's views he/she needs to be representing.

[Barbarian]

Well, you certainly want an Ambassador that is going to be able to work with the host country. He/she does NOT need to agree with the host country's stance on all or even most views. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the President of the United States and THAT is the person who's views he/she needs to be representing.Well then, this means that if the story was true, then no choice would work as an ambassador.

[Davidnic]

Now, like any other country an ambassador appointment needs to be someone who can work with and respect the beliefs of where they are. You don't want an ambassador to Israel who does not believe they should be a nation or an ambassador to Canada who has a history of insulting them. So countries should have the right to indicate the parameters of who they can work with as an intermediary.In certain parts of the world, disagreement does not constitute disrespect, nor does it count as insulting behavior.

I'm saying this because from your post it would appear that for you, disagreeing with the Pope == disrespect for the Vatican.

Really it depends on the issue. I would not think an ambassador who supports condoms would be disrespectful. Or one who disagreed with 99% of the teachings. I would not consider an atheist even disrespectful depending on what they have said (someone who has directly been insulting would be).

But I do think that someone who identifies as Catholic who aggressively supports abortion, is insulting given the nature of that teaching and it's connection to some of the foundational principles of theology.

[Davidnic]

Well, you certainly want an Ambassador that is going to be able to work with the host country. He/she does NOT need to agree with the host country's stance on all or even most views. The Ambassador is the direct representative of the President of the United States and THAT is the person who's views he/she needs to be representing.Well then, this means that if the story was true, then no choice would work as an ambassador.

Well the Church, and the Bishops have stated support for many Obama programs. The United States Bishops in the Fall Assembly were very positive on most of Obama's social programs. But they did make a firm stance on abortion and how it was a huge disagreement.

Someone like Bob Casey Jr would be a good choice. Now, he is a senator and has a job to do. But there must be someone else out there who meets that mold. A firm supporter of the president who supports his overall social justice agenda (as does the Church) but respectfully disagrees on abortion and tries to work toward educing the number of them, but deviates from the president by not supporting them as choice. There are many pro-life Democrats. They are not all currently elected. Many are affiliated with the Senators and House members. One of them would satisfy both ends and work effectively. If Obama can work with Casey...and he can. Then picking someone like that would be a good call.

[Barbarian]

Really it depends on the issue. I would not think an ambassador who supports condoms would be disrespectful. Or one who disagreed with 99% of the teachings. I would not consider an atheist even disrespectful depending on what they have said (someone who has directly been insulting would be).This is probably where the line lies. Someone being an atheist or supporting reproductive freedom is not the same as someone being on record for saying things like "the Pope is an idiot for believing this shit/pushing unprotected sex". One is disagreement, the other is attack, and it is probably pretty trivial that a person making the latter kind of statements is not going to be good ambassador material.But I do think that someone who identifies as Catholic who aggressively supports abortion, is insulting given the nature of that teaching and it's connection to some of the foundational principles of theology.This is, however, less clear for me. Which part is the insulting one: that he claims to be a Catholic but he isn't really one, or that he is a Catholic but disagrees with the Church?

I get it how disagreement can be construed as an insult; depending on the culture, disagreeing with someone that he is a honest man or that his daughter is a virgin would be good examples. But being insulted about a disagreement over how things not involving either interlocutor should be, now that taxes my imagination.

The issue is broader than that, anyway: the whole phenomenon of believers taking disagreement as an offense is quite disturbing. In the few cases when a Christian confessed to me IRL that he/she is a Christian (they all did it in a way reminiscent of taking a deep breath and going for it, as if they were coming out of some kind of closet and not sure about the consequences), they always asked me about my religion, and when I told them that from their standpoint I was an atheist, the reply was invariably something like "oh, so you must think that all of us Christians are insane, right?" <-- disagreement casted as insult right there. That level of paranoia might be justified if we consider that Christians are humans, but it is not justified if they are really believing Christians, because in a 100% held Christian worldview the ensuing ridicule not only should not matter, it should be worn as a badge. So I conclude that a Christian taking offense at disagreement over anything is running on a less than 100% doubt-free faith.

[Davidnic]

This is, however, less clear for me. Which part is the insulting one: that he claims to be a Catholic but he isn't really one, or that he is a Catholic but disagrees with the Church?


Catholics can disagree. There are actually many things that we can disagree about. Abortion as a function of choice simply is not one of those. So to present an ambassador who, by their disagreement on this type of issue, is essentially implying more authority to make that decision that the Church. They would not expect a non-Catholic to agree in all respects on that kind of thing...but a Catholic working that closely with the Vatican, it makes it a really poor working relationship. In addition if the Vatican accepts a pro-choice ambassador they would worry that it would be a nod that being a pro-choice Catholic is acceptable.

The opposition to abortion is considered intrinsically connected to revealed dogma.

For the curious there are levels of dogma and assent for Catholics:

A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

or

A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

You want to be very careful to dissent from those, if it is even logically possible. Generally what is open are:


Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally. Such as "mary died a physical death", Limbo,

below that:

well-founded (bene fundata)
more probable (sententia probabilis)
probable (probabilior)
pious opinions (sententia pia)
tolerated opinions (opinio tolerata)

If someone is in disagreement with the Church they better find out what falls into what level.

It can take some digging at times. But since faithful dissent requires a fully formed conscience and the foundation in a higher teaching of the Church...that would be why.

Honestly most of the fights spin around where different things are with the above. Basically...is it De Fide or Fides Ecclesiastica (The highest levels...revealed truth and finally decided dogmas of the teaching Authority) or something lesser...and if so what?


So basically anything labeled Sent certa and above is likely infallible and just not ruled on in some cases.

So

Non-open for debate or serious debate:

De fide, fides divina (defined by council or revelation but a truth of revelation beyond question)

Fides Ecclesiastica
Teaching Authority has decided

Sententia fidei proxima (A Teaching proximate to Faith)

sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa (sent certa) (A Teaching Pertaining to Faith)

Open for debate:

sententia communis (common teaching)
Grades of that:

well-founded (bene fundata)
more probable (sententia probabilis)
probable (probabilior)
pious opinions (sententia pia)
tolerated opinions (opinio tolerata)

Just as a quick guide. And by no means exhaustive and then there is the issue of what kind of assent is necessary

[Berthold]

Last thing I heard was that Caroline Kennedy was suggested by the USA, but rejected by the Vatican. Would that be due to gender? :evil:

[Ray Moscow]

According to the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7998688.stm

The Vatican has rejected at least three possible candidates proposed by Barack Obama to serve as US ambassador to the Holy See, say reliable sources in Rome.

None of the three candidates informally proposed by the Obama administration so far is acceptable to the Pope because of their support for abortion rights.

So what next?

I know what I'd like to see. Obama presenting one more candidate, with similar values, and saying 'take it or leave it, we don't have to have an ambassador at the Vatican'.

David

It's pretty stupid to have "diplomatic relations" with a church, anyway. Yes, Obama should just say "take it or leave it".

[Ray Moscow]

This just in:

Wacko Religious Group Manipulates Sole Remaining Superpower

US puzzled, helpless in face of Catholic wackiness

Rome, 20 April 2009: Senior officials expressed dismay over the Catholic Church's veto of their choice for ambassador. "It now looks like we're going to have to give up the abortion thing, too," a discouraged President Obama told reporters. "I mean, what can we do?".

[Ray Moscow]

Maybe we need to start a rumour that the Vatican is trying to build nuclear weapons?

It might be cool to see them treated like Iran: unilateral sanctions, US bank accounts and assets frozen, Americans forbidden to visit, send money to or otherwise assist the Vatican, hints that Israel will bomb the shit of them, etc.

[BioBeing]

But I do think that someone who identifies as Catholic who aggressively supports abortion, is insulting given the nature of that teaching and it's connection to some of the foundational principles of theology.

Perhaps some of the fundamental principles of the theology need to be insulted? If people hang on to ridiculous assertions in the face of reality, ridicule is certainly warranted. Insult is just one step further.

[Yahoo!!]

I thought Vatican, being its own state can dismiss any ambassador it wants. Hell, they could dismiss the Italian ambassador if they were so inclined.

It is entirely up to the Vatican if they want to continue having diplomatic relations with the US through the US ambassador. If the Vatican says they want an ambassador that suits their views and Obama is against the idea, then no ambassador goes over there. As much as we hate the Vatican for their stupid ideas, they are their own sovereign state and can kick or keep out any ambassador they want.

The headline should read

"US bullies Vatican into accepting an ambassador they do not want on their territory"
-Obama says to hell with Vatican sovereignty and installs an ambassador there. Threatens war on the Vatican if demands are not met. Obama had this to say "If they don't accept our ambassador, then some cardinals might meet the same fate as the Somali pirates. George Bush isn't the only one who can declare war".

[Ray Moscow]

Rather, the US should dismiss the Vatican ambassador for his refusal to accept US civil rights and constitutional law, and more seriously, encouraging sedition among US citizens to submit to a foreign power (the Vatican), bullying US citizens over alleged "spiritual" issues, interference in the US political process, failure to discipline its employees who engage in criminal activities in the USA, etc.

[Yahoo!!]

Rather, the US should dismiss the Vatican ambassador for his refusal to accept US civil rights and constitutional law, and more seriously, encouraging sedition among US citizens to submit to a foreign power (the Vatican), bullying US citizens over alleged "spiritual" issues, interference in the US political process, failure to discipline its employees who engage in criminal activities in the USA, etc.

Actually, this is the US response I am expecting if the Vatican refuses a US ambassador. It is a diplomatic war essentially.

However, the Vatican can still kick out any ambassador it wants, just like the US can kick out the Vatican ambassador and deny access the pope travel to the US (now that would cause a furor).

[Barbarian]

Rather, the US should dismiss the Vatican ambassador for his refusal to accept US civil rights and constitutional law, and more seriously, encouraging sedition among US citizens to submit to a foreign power (the Vatican), bullying US citizens over alleged "spiritual" issues, interference in the US political process, failure to discipline its employees who engage in criminal activities in the USA, etc.This. Whatever happened to the charge of Catholic dual allegiance?

[Anne]

We out grew it. Before Kennedy was elected.

Does no one care this is completely made up?

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is denying that it has rejected several candidates for U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because of their support for abortion rights.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said Friday that he checked the reports in the American and Italian media and there is no truth to them.

[Ray Moscow]

We out grew it. Before Kennedy was elected.

Does no one care this is completely made up?

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is denying that it has rejected several candidates for U.S. ambassador to the Holy See because of their support for abortion rights.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said Friday that he checked the reports in the American and Italian media and there is no truth to them.

Hmmm... we can believe the BBC, or we can believe the Vatican.

Generally speaking, I'd go with the BBC --although they are sometimes wrong, the Vatican is pretty much always wrong.

[Anne]

In this case, I'd doubt the BBC. From their own article:

The Vatican spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, has described media speculation about the selection of the next US ambassador to the Holy See as "unreliable". He said that no names have yet been officially submitted to Rome by the Obama administration.

[BioBeing]

Which is why they might both be correct. The OP quoted the beeb as saying "three candidates informally proposed"... the Vatican is saying they have not formally rejected anyone.

[Anne]

The BBC made it sound official in the same article they say no names have been made official in. I smell bias.

And I'm just surprised at the vilification of the Vatican itt.

This seems like a very silly thing to be harping on. Like critiquing Charles Manson's suit at his trial...

[Ray Moscow]

How do you tell whether a Vatican spokesman is lying?

His lips are moving.

[Ray Moscow]

And I'm just surprised at the vilification of the Vatican itt.



Extreme Catholicism gives us a break from talking about extreme Islam.

[Anne]

Hasn't there been another 9 year old excommunicated recently? ;)

[Ray Moscow]

Sorry, it just pisses me off that we even have an ambassador to a fucking church.

[BioBeing]

And I'm just surprised at the vilification of the Vatican itt.


I have a thread in Religion vilifying the Catholic Bishops in Louisiana (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1416) for trying to ban biology if that helps.

Vilification of the Vatican is a good thing in general though. They are an outdated institution, blindly clinging to religious dogma over reality. They really do deserve to just go away.

[Anne]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

[Ray Moscow]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

It's a small patch of land owned by a church that used to claim much of what's now Italy, who was forced to accept a much smaller patch.

Otherwise, it's just a church.

[miss djax]

[
anyone saying that condoms increases hiv and aids risk is clearly no longer relevant

Like the director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)

i can't believe that anyone let this go!! your link was a quote minefield of an interview that didn't exist on the national review's website.

instead, it was a re-hash of this washington post article. your inference being that condoms don't stop the spread of hiv/aids is a red herring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

there's zero doubt on the efficacy of condoms, when used properly. note the author's discussion of 100% usage in thai brothels in reducing hiv transmission rates.

in the author's own words :

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.



---------------

[BioBeing]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

Does that give it any form of validity whatsoever? Does it change the meaning of my post [eta - or Rays] at all? The Catholic Church is outdated and should be done away with. Without the Church, the land would/should revert to Italy. And the millions and billions and trillions of dollars they have stashed away should come to me :p

[Davidnic]

[
anyone saying that condoms increases hiv and aids risk is clearly no longer relevant

Like the director of the AIDS Prevention Center at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5987155.ece)

i can't believe that anyone let this go!! your link was a quote minefield of an interview that didn't exist on the national review's website.

instead, it was a re-hash of this washington post article. your inference being that condoms don't stop the spread of hiv/aids is a red herring.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

there's zero doubt on the efficacy of condoms, when used properly. note the author's discussion of 100% usage in thai brothels in reducing hiv transmission rates.

in the author's own words :

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.



---------------

Green and the Pope agree that Condoms are not the most effective way in this situation. They disagree on other issues about them. But they agree that in the Africa situation mutual fidelity is the key. Instead of reading any of our two links...just read his own article on the topic before the issue with the Pope: link (http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6172)

People are not paying attention to the overall point that is countries in Africa who promoted the policies the Pope and Mr. Green advocate saw a drop in the AIDS rate.

As he writes in his own article:

Consider this fact: In every African country in which HIV infections have declined, this decline has been associated with a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sex partner over the course of a year—which is exactly what fidelity programs promote. The same association with HIV decline cannot be said for condom use, coverage of HIV testing, treatment for curable sexually transmitted infections, provision of antiretroviral drugs, or any other intervention or behavior.The other behavior that has often been associated with a decline in HIV prevalence is a decrease in premarital sex among young people.

And:

Thus far, research has produced no evidence that condom promotion—or indeed any of the range of risk-reduction interventions popular with donors—has had the desired impact on HIV-infection rates at a population level in high-prevalence generalized epidemics. This is true for treatment of sexually *transmitted infections, voluntary counseling and *testing, diaphragm use, use of experimental vaginal microbicides, safer-sex counseling, and even income-*generation projects. The interventions relying on these measures have failed to decrease HIV-infection rates, whether implemented singly or as a package.

And:

If we are to progress beyond science-by-popular-acclaim, we must accept that the evidence is much stronger for fidelity or partner reduction than for any of the standard-package HIV-prevention measures—in Africa at least—and so we need to rethink and reprogram AIDS-prevention interventions

And

Admittedly, changing direction is hard when there has been massive investment in these “best practices.” It is not in the interest of a multibillion-dollar global AIDS industry to endorse interventions that are low-cost and homegrown and that rely on simple behavior change rather than medical products or services provided by outside experts. And so the major donors of AIDS programs continue to do the same things, expecting different results. The authors of the Georgetown report reflect this popular but misguided opinion, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.


He and the Pope may disagree on whether condoms should be used at all and any moral issues. But as far as what drops the AIDS rate in Africa, they agree. And his conclusion...in his own words:

What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention

Now this is in reference to abstinence, monogamy and no premarital sex over condoms.

So when the Pope says that condoms are not the best way to fight the spread of AIDS, he is right. But they are not as effective as abstinence, monogamy and no premarital sex when put into the mix with the dynamics of African culture. He very much agrees with the Pope that condoms are not the most effective way. They simply disagree on them in a more general way.

look at what the Pope actually said:

"The traditional teaching of the church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids."

and what Mr. Green said:

What the churches are called to do by their theology turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention

[DMB]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

It's a country with a tiny and (theoretically) totally celibate population governed by an all-male oligarchy. IOW, just like any other country!

[Ray Moscow]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

It's a country with a tiny and (theoretically) totally celibate population governed by an all-male oligarchy. IOW, just like any other country!

With zero breeding population (in theory, at least), I suppose they really are a "nation of immigrants".









And part of the Asshats of Evil, too.

[Anne]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

Does that give it any form of validity whatsoever? Does it change the meaning of my post [eta - or Rays] at all? The Catholic Church is outdated and should be done away with. Without the Church, the land would/should revert to Italy. And the millions and billions and trillions of dollars they have stashed away should come to me :p

No, it's simply a fact.

Just because you don't like it, or it doesn't fit your personal POV, doesn't change that it is.

:dunno:

[LoneWolf]

It's not a Church or institution, it's a country.

Does that give it any form of validity whatsoever? Does it change the meaning of my post [eta - or Rays] at all? The Catholic Church is outdated and should be done away with. Without the Church, the land would/should revert to Italy. And the millions and billions and trillions of dollars they have stashed away should come to me :p

No, it's simply a fact.

Just because you don't like it, or it doesn't fit your personal POV, doesn't change that it is.

:dunno:

But it being a nation does not necessitate the assignment of an Ambassador. There have been several nations that assignment of an Ambassador was deemed inappropriate. So the stance that the Vatican does not merit an Ambassador is a completely justifiable stance.

[Anne]

I agree.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with it, and I can't see why anyone should. I think the Italians had a good idea to kick the Pope out to boot. (Heh. Boot)

But that's a different argument than what was stated above...