It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Vatican 'vetoes' US envoy names

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Vatican 'vetoes' US envoy names


news.bbc.co.uk

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.

One of the potential nominees vetoed by the Vatican is Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the former US president.

Conservative Catholics in the US had already criticised her candidacy.

They say her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion made her an unsuitable choice.

The Vatican is unhappy about President Obama's support of abortion rights and his lifting of a previous ban on embryonic stem cell research in the US.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Is it just me or does rejecting every canidate based on their personal beliefs smell like discrimination and prejudice. The current US administration is not pro-life so whats the problem with a ambassador who reflects the policy of the current administration?

What purpose does an ambassador to the vatican serve anyways? Isn't the USA a secular government, so why have a ambassador to the vatican when the gov is forbidden from involving themselves in non-secular matters.

Is Obama going to have to choose a pro-life canidate to make the pope happy, despite being at odds with his current policy?


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-4-2009 by FreeSpeaker]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
If America has ambassadors to the Vatican, why don't they have ambassadors to Mecca or Jerusalem or Tibet?

How can a sovereign state have an ambassador to a quasi-political, religious denomination anyway?

We might as have liaisons with the Chimpanzees, after all we are descended from them, and that has about as much bearing on United States politics as Catholicism does.


Seriously... move into the 21st Century and abolish this farce. America doesn't need to take orders from the Pope, nor any other religious group, who are all strictly motivated by an agenda to extend the influence of their religion in the world, thus undermining separation of church and state and furthering the stranglehold special interest groups have the US government.

The last thing ANYONE needs to be doing is taking seriously the opinions of a man who claims "condoms spread AIDs" and modern communication devices are "sinful".

[edit on 14/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Vatican is a country, I thought all people knew that.

The fact that it's a country associated with a specific religion does not change the fact that it is a recognised country.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Is it just me or does rejecting every canidate based on their personal beliefs smell like discrimination and prejudice.
It may be a personal belief, but it's considered a crime by the Vatican, so I think that it is only natural that they refuse ambassadors that accept what they consider a crime.


What purpose does an ambassador to the vatican serve anyways?
I suppose the same as an ambassador to any other country, specially a country that influences millions of people.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
Vatican is a country, I thought all people knew that.

The fact that it's a country associated with a specific religion does not change the fact that it is a recognised country.


To add:


Vatican City en-us-Vatican City.ogg /ˈvætɪkən ˈsɪti/ (help·info), officially the State of the Vatican City (Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano),[10] is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome, the capital city of Italy. At approximately 44 hectares (110 acres), and with a population of around 900, it is the smallest country in the world by both area and population.[5][11][12]

The Vatican City is a city-state that came into existence in 1929 and is thus clearly distinct from the central authority of the Roman Catholic Church, known as the Holy See, which existed long before 1929. Ordinances of Vatican City are published in Italian. Official documents of the Holy See are issued mainly in Latin. The two entities even have distinct passports: the Holy See, not being a country, only issues diplomatic and service passports; the state of Vatican City issues normal passports. In both cases the passports issued are very few.

The Lateran Treaty in 1929, which brought the city-state into existence, spoke of it as a new creation (Preamble and Article III), not as a vestige of the much larger Papal States (756-1870) that had previously encompassed central Italy. Most of this territory was absorbed into the Kingdom of Italy in 1860, and the final portion, namely the city of Rome with a small area close to it, ten years later, in 1870.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Very little difference between the Vatican (a sovern nation) rejecting an envoy for supporting something they believe is illegal and immoral and this nation rejecting an envoy who was, for example, a pedophile or rapist. In fact, Canada rejected Iran's candidates for ambasadorship to their country in 2007 because they believed the candidates were involved in the 1980's US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran. Essentially it is all a question of whether or not a sovreign nation has the right to say "No, we don't want your kind in our country so we're not welcoming you here." I say they have every right to take that position and I guess we'll see exactly what kind of diplomat this president is based on his willingness or lack thereof to select a more acceptable individual to fill this role with a nation we have no reason to be less than friendly towards.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Is it just me or does rejecting every canidate based on their personal beliefs smell like discrimination and prejudice.
It may be a personal belief, but it's considered a crime by the Vatican, so I think that it is only natural that they refuse ambassadors that accept what they consider a crime.


Phrase it however you like, the canidate's have been rejected based on their opinions and personal beliefs. Opinions and beliefs are not a crime and have no effect on a persons ability to perform a job.

Are all catholics pro-life?

Catholics for Choice

Catholics for Choice (CFC) was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.


The ansewer is no, so wouldn't it only be natural for the pope to excommunicate them all for having the opinion that abortion should be the womans choice. The vatican considers it a crime after all.


Or maybe its ok for the catholic pro-choice crowd so long as they continue to fill the collection plate.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Edited
already posted

[edit on 14-4-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Very little difference between the Vatican (a sovern nation) rejecting an envoy for supporting something they believe is illegal and immoral and this nation rejecting an envoy who was, for example, a pedophile or rapist.


Of coarse you would reject a criminal, but having a opinion about something as divided as abortion is not a crime or offense to anyone. It is a belief. Also the vatican is dealing with a nation, not any one individual. A nation were abortion is LEGAL. IF they have rejected these canidates because they personally believe in pro-choice, then then should be rejecting the whole USA by the same logic. If it's such a terrible crime, why even speak to a country that makes it legal?


Essentially it is all a question of whether or not a sovreign nation has the right to say "No, we don't want your kind in our country so we're not welcoming you here." I say they have every right to take that position and I guess we'll see exactly what kind of diplomat this president is based on his willingness or lack thereof to select a more acceptable individual to fill this role with a nation we have no reason to be less than friendly towards.


So Obama should send a pro-life canidate even though it doesn't represent current american policy.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Is it just me or does rejecting every canidate based on their personal beliefs smell like discrimination and prejudice. The current US administration is not pro-life so whats the problem with a ambassador who reflects the policy of the current administration?


Comeon the RCC is based on discrimination and prejudice. Id say they can do without a US Envoy. I wonder if you appointed a pro life pedofile they would be okay with it?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
As a sovereign state, the Vatican has the right to refuse to recognize the credentials of any ambassador, for any reason whatsoever.

Why we need an ambassador to the Vatican in the first place is beyond me.

If they'd rather not deal with the US, well..., that's their problem.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
If they'd rather not deal with the US, well..., that their problem.


I agree. The fact is abortion is legal in the USA and its ambassadors should represent that policy. If the vatican wants to refuse them on these grounds, as the quote above said, "thats their problem" and no more canidates should be presented to the vatican for consideration. You take the whole or none at all.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Come on the RCC is based on discrimination and prejudice. Id say they can do without a US Envoy. I wonder if you appointed a pro life pedofile they would be okay with it?
Since I can only assign 1 star per post I just wanted to see these words next to my Screen Name and Avatar and pretend I wrote them. Thanks for expressing exactly how I feel about this. It saves me from my bigotry and hypocrisy rant on the RCC regarding the rampant Pedophile Priest cover-up.

Regards...KK





[edit on 14-4-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Phrase it however you like, the canidate's have been rejected based on their opinions and personal beliefs. Opinions and beliefs are not a crime and have no effect on a persons ability to perform a job.
No, opinions and beliefs are not a crime, that is why they did not called the Interpol, but in the same way people can deny access to their home to someone they do not like (because of their moral positions), any country can refuse to accept an ambassador (someone who speaks directly to the head of state).

I don't see what is the problem, some people have been arrested because they agree with suicide bomber's attacks, even if they did not committed any crime. It's just an opinion and a belief, a belief that killing innocent lives is justified by the ultimate goal they want to achieve.

Can you see the similarities?


Are all catholics pro-life?
Who cares? It's not about all catholics, it's about someone that it's not necessarily a Catholic, but that should, to the eyes of those receiving him, have a position that does not go against their own.


The ansewer is no, so wouldn't it only be natural for the pope to excommunicate them all for having the opinion that abortion should be the womans choice. The vatican considers it a crime after all.
The Vatican does not exomunicates all criminals, not even all murderers, why should they excomunicate all Catholics that are "pro-life"?


Or maybe its ok for the catholic pro-choice crowd so long as they continue to fill the collection plate.
That you have to ask them, I am not part of the Catholic church.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Does anybody know if the ambassador has to be Catholic? I would guess not. There are, however, people who are "pro life" who are not Catholics. I bet they don't demand that the ambassador be a man but I'm sure they would prefer it because the church only allows men to govern in the church, so I jump to the conclusion that they respect men more and negotiations would be easier with a man. No, I don't know what kind of negotiations would ever be necessary except maybe to get the pope to "endorse" something this country is doing or publicly. oppose something somebody else is doing. The pedophile issue is a good point, though they officially don't approve of pedophilia. That's why they covered it up for so long. If it were acceptable behavior the priests could have done it openly, so I think they would prefer a non-pedophile man who is a practicing catholic but would accept a non-catholic with the proper belief system.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
It wouldn't matter if they rejected our Ambassador because he had blond hair and blue eyes. They are a sovereign nation that has the right to reject anyone that they want to, for whatever reason they want to. ANY sovereign nation has the right to reject an ambassador for any reason they want.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
This entire thread is based upon a lie. The Vatican has NOT rejected anyone.

www.catholicnews.com...


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A Vatican spokesman dismissed reports that the Holy See has rejected several candidates for U.S. ambassador to the Vatican because of their support for legal abortion. "No proposals about the new ambassador of the United States to the Holy See have reached the Vatican, and therefore it is not true that they have been rejected. The rumors circulating about this topic are not reliable," the spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, told Catholic News Service April 9. The spokesman's comments echoed off-the-record remarks by informed diplomatic and Vatican sources in Rome, who said the reports appeared to be unfounded. "It's possible names have been circulated inside the U.S. administration, and perhaps rejected for some reason or other, but not because of any Vatican veto. It's also quite possible that the whole thing is conjecture," said one source. An article published April 2 by Newsmax.com -- and recirculated in Italian media -- said the administration of President Barack Obama had put forward three candidates for consideration as ambassador, but that each had been deemed insufficiently pro-life by the Vatican. Vatican sources said not only was the report inaccurate, but that its premise was faulty. The Vatican has not been in the habit of vetting the personal beliefs or ideas of candidates before accepting them as ambassadors, they said.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
If America has ambassadors to the Vatican, why don't they have ambassadors to Mecca or Jerusalem or Tibet?

How can a sovereign state have an ambassador to a quasi-political, religious denomination anyway?



Because "Vatican City" is a sovereign nation.

Yeah I know, I didn't realize this either until I visited.

But it's the truth.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Vatican (theorethically) wouldn't make any assessment on the private lives of the candidates to the role of ambassador.
In this case no official purposal was made yet, ProfEmeritus is correct.

Someone was rejected, in the past, only within the range of catholics or self claimed catholics:


  • Denis Tillinac, France | rejected | Reason: devorced & remarried
  • Alberto Iribarne, Argentina | rejected | Reason: devorced & and living with another woman
  • Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge, France | rejected | Reason: GAY



Denis Tillinac


The post became vacant last December, coincidentally on the eve of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to the Vatican, with the death of the then ambassador Bernard Kessedjian.
Paris - or more accurately, the French foreign ministry, looked around for a replacement and came up earlier this year with the 61-year-old writer and journalist, Denis Tillinac.
On the face of it Tillinac seemed like a sound choice. He was a close personal friend of the former French president, Jacques Chirac, and of course was a devout Catholic.
Just one slight problem - he had been married, divorced and was now remarried.
So the Vatican said something along the lines of "grazie, ma non grazie" (although probably much more diplomatically) and rejected his nomination.

www.nowpublic.com...


Alberto Iribarne


According to press accounts in Argentina, the country's nominee to become ambassador to the Holy See, Alberto Iribarne, has been rejected by the Vatican on the grounds that he's divorced and living with another woman.

Source


Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge

VATICAN CITY, October 8, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After refusing to accept the appointments of a homosexual militant and a divorcée as ambassador from France to the Holy See, the Vatican has acceded to the appointment of a Catholic in good standing with the Church.
After a one year standoff with the Vatican, French President Nicholas Sarkozy withdrew the appointment of Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge, who has been described in the Italian media as a "declared militant homosexual." He has contracted a civil union with a man through France's Civil Solidarity Pact legislation and shares his last name.

www.lifesitenews.com...

(Note: more sources are available, in italian: but these are news reported by almost all press agencies).
archiviostorico.corriere.it...


Now, under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 ( en.wikipedia.org... ), a state is free to refuse a given ambassadorial nominee, and is not obligated to furnish a reason.

But this is not the case: at least not officially. Anyway, the US administration would like to solve this problem because right before next G8 (which will take place in Sardinia on the next July, and not very far from where i am right now (20 minutes drive i'd say) Obama would like to meet the Pope: and this can't be done (theorethically) in absence of an "agent general", an ambassador, indeed.

Don't forget that we are talking about the same people who come straight from the Roman Inquisition:


The trial of Giordano Bruno by the Roman Inquisition. Bronze relief by Ettore Ferrari, Campo de' Fiori, Rome.Holding opinions contrary to the Catholic Faith and speaking against it and its ministers.




Holding erroneous opinions about the Trinity, about Christ's divinity and Incarnation.
Holding erroneous opinions about Christ.
Holding erroneous opinions about Transubstantiation and Mass.
Claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity .
Believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes.
Dealing in magics and divination.
Denying the Virginity of Mary.



He was quickly turned over to the secular authorities and, on February 17, 1600 in the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, "his tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words" he was burned at the stake. When the fire had died out his ashes were dumped into the Tiber river. All Bruno's works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603.

en.wikipedia.org...

According to them, I would die the same way, since my beliefs are more or less the same of Giordano Bruno.

This Pope, is NOT very different from Roman Inquisition: too bad, the last one (John Paul II) before him, DIED: he was VERY different, open to debates, never refused anyone


Not to mention the PSEUDO-NAZI past of the current Pope that was already pointed out everywhere, even here on ATS.
It would be interesting to know why do the Vatican displaces pedophile priests (and pays money to put the cases to rest) rather than to burn them alive, even in some private form: they are a Country, after all.

en.wikipedia.org...


3 December: After two years of talks, the diocese of Orange County, California, settles a sex abuse lawsuit brought by 87 plaintiffs for an unspecified sum. The diocese later says the package is worth $100m (£53m).

7 February 2005: A US court convicts Paul Shanley of four charges relating to offences committed in the 1980s including rape and indecent assault.


June: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, California, agrees to pay $35m (£17m) to 33 victims.

August: The Diocese of Oakland, California, agrees to pay $56m (£27.5m) to 56 people.

December 2006: The Archdiocese of Los Angeles agrees to pay $60m (£30m) to settle to 45 cases of alleged sexual abuse by priests.

January 2007: The Spokane diocese in Washington agrees to pay at least $48m (£24.7m) as compensation to people abused by priests.

July: The Los Angeles Archdiocese settles 508 cases of alleged sexual abuse by priests for a record-breaking pay-out of $660m (£324m). The deal is reached just before the scheduled start of a series of trials into abuse claims dating back to the 1940s.

September: The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego, California, agrees to pay $198m to settle 144 claims of sexual abuse by clergy


newsvote.bbc.co.uk...
www.wearethechurch.org...
nytimes.com...

[edit on 14/4/2009 by internos]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join