www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Vatican rejects proposed USA ambassadors

I am going to disagree with all of you on principle. By rejecting President Obama's ambassador for reasons advanced, the Holy See gives the appearance that they are trying to impose their belief structure on the US. It is time for the US to respond in kind and send the Vatican Ambassador packing ( I assume that is probably the apostolic nuncio, but I am hazy on the issue). We reject ours so we reject theirs. This sets a very bad precedent and the Vatican should have known better because it has no business imposing its moral values on the US any more than the US has a right to impose it values on the Vatican. In my opinion, diplomacy should kept religiously neutral.

Rome's first obligation is to witness Jesus Christ, and to call all the world to embrace His Teachings - including the Gospel of Life. Rejecting ambassadorial appointments from those who reject the Gospel of Life is very reasonable. But there is more to consider. Former President Clinton had enough respect for Catholics to appoint pro-life ambassadors (even though he rejects the Gospel of Life). Current President Obama is arrogant and wishes to push his Pro-Death agenda. President Obama is the one here to set the very bad precedent. He could easily have chosen a candidate who is a Pro-Life Democrat. He did this on purpose just like he is purposefully considering forcing Catholic health care providers to act against their conscience in the health care arena. One should not blame the Vatican for that.

As Americans it is our responsibility to elect Pro-Life politicians at all levels of government. Speaking as a Catholic I am embarrassed that Catholic Americans keep choosing to support the Culture of Death with their vote.

Although I mostly agree with what you say, I do no think it is fair to classify the president as Pro-Death; I don't know of anybody who is Pro-Death. The President being in favor of abortions is one thing, but we cannot say that someone is Pro-Death; if he truly was Pro-Death he would legalize all types of weaponry and urge the killing of anybody who disagrees with anyone, he would launch nuclear attacks on countries that do not support US ideologies, etc...I think as an administrator during this time of Great and Holy Week you would have the courtesy and respect to not use such harsh words.

Peace in Christ,
Ed

Ed,

I stand by my words very strongly. President Obama is extremely Pro-Death. He actively works against the Gospel of Life. We need to pray for him, that the Lord will save him, and lead him to respect life.

John

John,

I will reply in a private message, because I do not want to get the thread more off topic.

Peace in Christ,
Ed

"He did this on purpose just like he is purposefully considering forcing Catholic health care providers to act against their conscience in the health care arena."

What is a good response to those who say that those doctors would be "imposing their conscience" on their active or potential patients?

I would imagine that it would be similar to a response of those who accuse the Vatican of "imposing its beliefs" by rejecting pro-abortion political Democrats as ambassador.

Terry

Should we revise scripture? "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [as long as this does not impose your beliefs and moral values on them.]"

"I have not noticed the Holy See refusing to accept the Spanish Ambassador, let alone breaking relations with Spain. "

It has to do with the way in which the United States differs from parliamentary systems, whether republican or monarchal. In a parliamentary system, the chief of state and the head of the government are two separate people. The former is either the king or the president, the latter is the prime minister. The chief of state fulfills a mainly ceremonial role, and typically does not take part in political arguments, but implements the will of the majority party or coalition. The head of the government legislates and executes the law, since in a parliamentary system, the legislature and the executive are combined.

Now, in the United States, the roles of chief of state and head of the government are combined in the person of the President. When the Pope speaks to King Juan Carlos, he knows he is speaking to a ceremonial head of state. When he speaks to the Prime Minister of Spain, he knows he is talking to the head of the government, with both legislative and executive authority. When he talks to the President, he gets both. Juan Carlos has no say in who gets to be ambassador of Spain to anywhere. President Obama nominates them himself. When Obama nominates a candidate who has made statements objectionable to the Holy See, it is the Pope's prerogative as a sovereign chief of state to reject the nominee. We reject diplomatic nominees all the time, for a variety of reasons from personal indiscretions to criminal activities to just wanting to send a message. I suspect that the Pope has several motives for rejecting the nominees put forward so far.

How does one evangelize, or what is evangelization, other than what may appear to some who don't accept the news as good, or like what it is saying, as it being an imposition. Jesus really didn't give us, His disciples, a choice. Go preach, go teach, proclaim the good news even when some may deem it an imposition.


The Popes of Rome and the Holy See have been in the diplomacy arena a long, long time. I suspect the Holy See knows what it is doing. It is proceeding in accord with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 [untreaty.un.org] . That convention notes:



Also:


Surely the US and others should realize that one is not dealing with some sovereign chunk of real estate, the Vatican, but a moral and religious entity in the form of the person of the Pope of Rome and the structures that support and are an extension of the Pope and the Papacy, the Holy See.

Again, "imposing"? I find it odd that the advancement of moral and religious values is most strenuously denounced in those entities whose very purpose and essence is moral or religious "values" in some sense.

There was a time, not too long ago, when the popes regarded themselves as "prisoners of the Vatican" because the Papal States had been taken away from them. Eventually, getting tired of such strict isolationism, the popes reached out to secular governments . . . including to such people as Mussolini, who was not exactly "pro life."

Everyone knows what the pope's moral teachings are on abortion. And everyone knows what the position of the Obama administration is on abortion, too. The issue is whether the two sides will talk to each other. Not approve of each other. Just talk with each other. And part of that means accepting people as they are. But the pope seems unwilling to do this by refusing Obama's ambassador.

If President Obama chooses an ambassador who is unworthy the pope should reject it. He would not appoint a anti-Semite Muslim as ambassador to Israel because Israel would not accept such an appointment. He would not appoint an Orthodox Jew to be ambassador to a Muslim country. Nor would he appoint a Muslim turned Christian to be an ambassador to a Muslim country. He tries to appoint a Pro-Abortion in name only Catholic to be ambassador to the Vatican because he wants to insult the Catholic Church and her moral Teachings. I cannot believe some people would support him over the Church. He - not the pope - is the one who is unwilling to really talk. He could easily have chosen someone who would be acceptable. But I guess this shows that there is no room in the Obama administration for any Pro-Life voice at all.

"And part of that means accepting people as they are. But the pope seems unwilling to do this by refusing Obama's ambassador."

Communication takes two. 'Accepting people as they are' can lead to rather foolish ends, if it means that there can be no debate or moral discrimination. Since a morally indiscriminate priest would be a poor spiritual father, what about a pope?

I am sure the President will soon learn as he gets into his new role that the Ambassador is not mean to offend the other country. The Holy See has been dealing with kings and empires for a a very long time as their archives show. Ambassadors are usually chosen with care, as they are meant to build bridges with the other party. Australia is represented to the Holy See by a former member of Parliament who is a Catholic, who was the head of his party (rural conservative)and was appointed by the current Prime Minister (Labor). Another former MP (conservative) and former cabinet minister represents Australia to the Italian Republic.

ajk, you noted, "Surely the US and others should realize that one is not dealing with some sovereign chunk of real estate, the Vatican, but a moral and religious entity in the form of the person of the Pope of Rome and the structures that support and are an extension of the Pope and the Papacy, the Holy See." The problem with your statement is that, in diplomatic terms, the Vatican is only a "..sovereign chunk of real estate..." your words not mine. I do not know if any Moslem countries maintain diplomatic relations with the Vatican; but, if they do, do they recognize the,...."moral and religious entity in the form of the person of the Pope of Rome and the structures that support and are an extension of the Pope and the Papacy, the Holy See?" Again your words, not mine. I do not have an answer to this question, but I suggest it is something to think about!

Obama should respond in kind by sending the vatican ambassador home. Again I am directing comments only at the diplomatic issue and I would say the same thing if we were talking about mexico, Greece, or Canada. The vatican is no different in my opinion.

Lots of secular or non-Catholic states maintain diplomatic relations with the Holy See, including the United States (no established religion), Norway (Evangelical Lutheran), Greece (Greek Orthodox), the United Kingdom (Church of England/Church of Scotland), the State of Israel (Jewish), Cuba (communist), the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan), the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. See more information here: Holy See: Diplomacy [en.wikipedia.org].

Clearly, the Vatican wishes to maintain good relations with as many countries as possible, though there are still a few countries with which there are no diplomatic relations, such as the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). And though the Vatican does have diplomatic relations with Iran, the Pope has pointedly refused to receive Pres. Ahmadinejad even when he was in Rome on other business.

Thus it is clear that the Holy See regularly deals with countries which in no way accept the truth claims of the Pope and the Catholic Church, but at the same time the Holy See is not uncritical in its relations with the world's leaders and states. It uses diplomacy as one of many tools to advance the aims and mission of the Catholic Church. Those few countries like the PRC, the DPRK and the KSA which actively persecute the Catholic Church therefore choose not to maintain diplomatic relations with the Holy See. That is their privilege.

As for the United States of America and the Holy See, I should think it would be in the best interests of both parties to maintain at least polite relations, although I fear under an anti-life president relations will never be cordial.