Vatican 'vetoes' US envoy names

reply to post by internos


Fasinating post Internos, the Catholic church has always peaked my curiosity and I have never been able to find the ancient hidden archives which once at the begining of the www was indeed available. Or at least for a short time if you worded your search correctly. I doubt that they were 'the' hidden archives, but I gleemed quite a bit of info that I cannot back up or prove.

Frustrating and like one of those for your eyes only kind of feelings. I wish there were more threads about the Vatican and some serious research done into their connection to the US president and the global elites.

Originally posted by FredT
I wonder if you appointed a pro life pedofile they would be okay with it?

That's just ignorant.

Originally posted by Maxmars
As a sovereign state, the Vatican has the right to refuse to recognize the credentials of any ambassador, for any reason whatsoever.

Exactly. It's a country. It's allowed to reject or accept ambassadors as they wish. Other countries have done the same, so why single out the actions of the Vatican as somehow wrong?

Ignorance and/or anti-Catholic bigotry. (which are one in the same)

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
This entire thread is based upon a lie. The Vatican has NOT rejected anyone.

What a surprise! But considering this is ATS ... it's not a surprise.
Another day .. another ATS Catholic bashing thread.
Some folks just love to pile on the anti-Catholic drivel.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
This entire thread is based upon a lie. The Vatican has NOT rejected anyone.

What a surprise! But considering this is ATS ... it's not a surprise.
Another day .. another ATS Catholic bashing thread.
Some folks just love to pile on the anti-Catholic drivel.

Mistakes do happen you know. The source was BBC world news not some alternative news source like Sorcha Faal. Had I known the story was denied by the vatican I would not have posted it.

This is not a "pile on the anti-Catholic drivel" type thread.

Also, the article states that the names were not "officially" presented.

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.

Seeing as how it says the canidates were informally proposed, it does give the vatican a opening for plausible deniability because nothing was official. Could be a conspiracy here.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Some folks just love to pile on the anti-Catholic drivel.

And some will blindly defend this archaic, sacreligious, child abusing and misanthropical excuse for religion no matter what.

If you feel the scrutiny is unjust, I say it is well deserved in light of the atrocities performed by this antiquated institution who has ruined more lives than it has helped.

No worries, FreeSpeaker, it was a minor oversight given the noteworthy source.

Regards...KK

Originally posted by kinda kurious
And some will blindly defend this archaic, sacreligious, child abusing and misanthropical excuse for religion no matter what.

Yes, but some people act like accusing the Catholic church is the best thing to do, regardless of being right or not.

For example, accusing the Catholic church of being child abusing is the same thing as accusing ATS of being racists because a few members are.

And I don't think anyone can make a true balance between good and bad performed by the Catholic church. Yes, there was a lot of bad done, but there was also a lot of good done, but good does not attract attentions, bad is much more "photogenic".

Originally posted by ArMaP
For example, accusing the Catholic church of being child abusing is the same thing as accusing ATS of being racists because a few members are.

With all due respect Armap, I must take issue with your analogy. If ATS has reason to believe a poster is a "racist" by the nature of his / her posts they are summarily banned.
Pedophile priests, on the other hand, are simply moved to another parish. Huge difference.

I did not make your analogy, nor do I condone it.

Further, child molestation is a crime, racism in and of itself arguably is not.

Regards...KK

reply to post by kinda kurious

Regards...KK

You left the third "k" off your sign off.

Your bigotry is truly disgusting.

In my opinion, the Vatican as believers in Jesus Christ and God Almighty , have a duty as students of the teachings of the bible, to welcome ANYONE into thier company, if only that they be given the chance to learn the way of God.
I can see no issue with an ambassador to the Vatican having a divergant attitude toward abortion and stem cell research.
For one thing, it would offer the Vatican a chance to show why it is they believe you cannot believe in God and support those things. What better way to show the power of faith, than to change the mind of a visiting ambassador?
I think the real problem here is that they made the decision not as Christians, (folks who study jesus, and his teachings , and act according to those teachings) but as Catholics, and thats a whole other bag o snakes.

reply to post by kinda kurious


OK, my analogy was not the best, but I thought all posters would understand what I meant.

I guess I was wrong, and I have to find better analogies...

Originally posted by TrueBrit
In my opinion, the Vatican as believers in Jesus Christ and God Almighty , have a duty as students of the teachings of the bible, to welcome ANYONE into thier company, if only that they be given the chance to learn the way of God.

If only more were like you. You have my respect.

Originally posted by ArMaP
OK, my analogy was not the best, but I thought all posters would understand what I meant.

I guess I was wrong, and I have to find better analogies...

I understood what you were getting at. Your analogy wasn't that bad.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Regards...KK

You left the third "k" off your sign off.

Your bigotry is truly disgusting.

Could you kindly illustrate where I have been a bigot rather than call me names?

BTW, I don't appreciate your inference.

Regards....KK

EDIT TO ADD: Please visit the link below before you respond to my request.

Caution: Contains true stories of victims who committed suicide after being abused by Catholic Priests. The entire site is noteworthy since it is sanctioned by the church. So don't attack source. Accounts of priests luring children with porn and drugs. One boy was abused after his father's funeral.

Please review, then you can call me a bigot if it helps you forget what they've done and somehow feel better about yourself. I'll await your scholarly reply.

www.bishop-accountability.org...

[edit on 16-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

The hierarchy of the catholic church at the vatican is more about political power than about living a spiritual life. While I have no personal knowledge of their lifestyle, what i have read makes it sound like royalty enjoying the spoils of a wealthy kingdom. The reason for the pedophile coverup was to protect the reputation of the church and it's political (earthly) influence. I personally know of a serial defrauder priest who siphons off money from parishes. In our case the crime was impossible to cover up in the parish where it occurred but it was "talk" covered everywhere else and this particular priest has moved from parish to parish doing the same thing, limited only by how much money is available. We were especially vulnerable because we had a capital campaign going on to build a new church. There is no question in anybody's mind that stealing money is wrong but the church at all levels will cover things up so the church's reputation and influence is not damaged. Saving face is essential. Pretending you live what you preach is mandatory, otherwise who will listen (and give money so that priestly royalty can live like kings).

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the church would insist that if the ambassador professes to be catholic, he/she should pretend to live by the same values the church royalty pretend to live by.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by kinda kurious
And some will blindly defend this archaic, sacreligious, child abusing and misanthropical excuse for religion no matter what.

Yes, but some people act like accusing the Catholic church is the best thing to do, regardless of being right or not.

Which is why I have KK on ignore. The only time I see what he posts is if someone else quotes it. It's not worth taking the time to read.

Do you notice, ArMaP, that the article is discussing that the Vatican, a soverign country, has used it's right to reject an ambassador from the USA ... and instead of discussing the right that one country has to reject anothers ambassador, KK and other catholic bashers, just spew off topic biased venom about the religion itself? Not to mention trying to slide in the ERROR that the church is a 'child abuse' religion when the facts (something anti-catholic posters hate) show that child abuse in protestant churches is at the same level, child abuse in public schools is HIGHER, and less than 1% of priests have actually been involved in the child abuse scandle. (not exactly a 'pedophile' religion as was claimed by certain biased posters on this thread)

Typical intolerance of anothers right to practice whatever religious beliefs they wish, typical skewing of the facts, and typical spewing of OFF TOPIC anti-catholic rhetoric.

The TOPIC is this - 'Vatican Vetoes US Envoy Names'.

The TOPIC is this - the Vatican uses it's right as a soverign country to reject ambassadors, just like other countries do.

Let's see if the anti-catholic posters are capable of practicing any self control and can stay on topic. Perhaps the FACTS will be too much for them to take ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Do you notice, ArMaP, that the article is discussing that the Vatican, a soverign country, has used it's right to reject an ambassador from the USA ... and instead of discussing the right that one country has to reject anothers ambassador

No one doubts that the vatican is legally a sovereign nation but in my mind and in others, we look at it as an independent State. I know thats not the reality legally, but heres a link that will explain my reasons for not looking at it as a country.

The Vatican City is a Country - Meets The Criteria for Independent Country Status

Thus, the Vatican City does meet all eight criteria for independent country status so we should consider it as an independent State.

I believe the vatican was given that status for the sole purpose of distancing themselves from the Italian government if its policies conflict with thier own. It was a good plan for the Italian government to give the vatican this status also because it diffuses any potential civilian unrest due to conflict between the vatican and the gov.

This poster summed up my problems with these veto's perfectly (if they ever actually happend).

Originally posted by TrueBrit
In my opinion, the Vatican as believers in Jesus Christ and God Almighty , have a duty as students of the teachings of the bible, to welcome ANYONE into thier company, if only that they be given the chance to learn the way of God.
I can see no issue with an ambassador to the Vatican having a divergant attitude toward abortion and stem cell research.
For one thing, it would offer the Vatican a chance to show why it is they believe you cannot believe in God and support those things. What better way to show the power of faith, than to change the mind of a visiting ambassador?

An influential leader of billions should be a little more tolerant of people with divergent views from his own. What could possibly go wrong with preaching and practicing a little tolerence towards people who do not subscibe to your way of thinking.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


I appreciate your point of view. However it is recognized as an independent soverign nation. And even if it was just 'a state', it would still have the right to reject whatever ambassadors countries wanted to send their way.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Which is why I have KK on ignore. The only time I see what he posts is if someone else quotes it. It's not worth taking the time to read.

Luckily, some folks look much better with their heads buried in the sand. I don't suppose others really care who you have chosen to ignore. Such "Self-Importance."

. . . the facts (something anti-catholic posters hate) show that child abuse in protestant churches is at the same level, child abuse in public schools is HIGHER, and less than 1% of priests have actually been involved in the child abuse scandle. (not exactly a 'pedophile' religion as was claimed by certain biased posters on this thread)

Uh....recent statistics dispute you apologist ( less than 1%) claim. More like 4% of them or 4,392 priests

Here are a few of the highlights.
US clerics accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims' ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
Victims' gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).
Abuse locations: 40.9% at priest's residence; 16.3% in church; 42.8% elsewhere.
Known cost to dioceses and religious orders: $572,507,094 (does not include the $85 million Boston settlement and other expenses after research was concluded). (Hartford Courant, 2/27/04)

www.priestsofdarkness.com...

Handy little chart. More priests = more abuse.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4cc82337c0c8.jpg[/atsimg]

www.bringyou.to...

Oh and this gem. Supplied by the "church" itself:
www.bishop-accountability.org...

But some would like to simply "ignore" facts.

Regards...KK

[edit on 16-4-2009 by kinda kurious]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

I appreciate your point of view. However it is recognized as an independent soverign nation. And even if it was just 'a state', it would still have the right to reject whatever ambassadors countries wanted to send their way.

You are absolutely correct about their right to veto. The stubborness in me just can't stand that someone would be rejected based on their opinion, when the country they represent legaly allows the very reason for that rejection. Its like the vatican wants to pretend its not happening, so send them someone who is of like mind and no others. We will have no divergent views here. That kind of thinking drives me nuts.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
You are absolutely correct about their right to veto.

Glad to see we are ON TOPIC (the rights of countries to reject ambassadors) and can agree on something.

We will have no divergent views here. That kind of thinking drives me nuts.

I understand what you mean about an echo-chamber type situation. When it comes to things like chat forums, news outlets, and the like, then it's best to politely avoid having them be echo-chambers. However when it comes to the soverign rights of different countries ... they can have what ever ambassadors they wish. You and I may not agree with what they are doing, but it's their right to do it.

When you do business with those countries, they get to call the shots on their own soil. It's just the way it is.

reply to post 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?

It's a religious belief to the Catholics, quite frankly I find it insulting that Obama after the first rejection continues to slap the pope in the face by not sending a pro-life candidate. Having someone pro-life is not going to change any US policy, or even Vatican Policy, imo, it's about respect.

If America has ambassadors to the Vatican, why don't they have ambassadors to Mecca or Jerusalem or Tibet?

The Vatican is an actual Nation, while Mecca is a part of Saudi Arabia (which we have an ambassador to) and the Dhali Lama has special ties to the Us, and we all know Israel receives more aid from us then anyone else in the World..

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It's a religious belief to the Catholics, quite frankly I find it insulting that Obama after the first rejection continues to slap the pope in the face by not sending a pro-life candidate. Having someone pro-life is not going to change any US policy, or even Vatican Policy, imo, it's about respect.

Well, put the shoe on the other foot. What if the US government decided not to send a ambassador or even speak to a vatican representative at all because the current policy is pro-choice, so we won't deal with anyone who has a different opinion. Send me someone who agrees with me only. Not very tolerant view is it.

My problem is there are many catholics who are pro-choice and maybe they would like the next ambassador to the vatican to represent them. Would it really affect how the ambassador would perform his/her job. I think not because an ambassador is a representative of the current govenments policies. Not a solo operator who makes policy decisions.