Vatican 'vetoes' US envoy names

Some people seem to forget that this entire thread was based upon a false report.
Please see my post with that link and info on page one of this thread. The Vatican has not rejected anyone.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

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.

Then you would be alienating a very large part of Europe, and the single largest denomination in the US ..

When dealing with entities such as the Catholic Church, your job is to appease, not demand.

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.

This person does not represent American Catholics, that's the job of Cardinals.. the job of this ambassador would be to communicate for the Administration, which is not Catholic by any means.

It's like sending a Jew to be a ambassador to Afgahnistan. Doesn't make much sense politically does it?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
When dealing with entities such as the Catholic Church, your job is to appease, not demand.

Excuse me, did I hear you say its our job to appease the vatican?
The atheist in me doesn't like that one bit I must say. I'll let some less polite ATS members rip you apart on that one.

This person does not represent American Catholics, that's the job of Cardinals.. the job of this ambassador would be to communicate for the Administration, which is not Catholic by any means.

Which is exactly why the potential ambassadors stance on abortion shouldn't be an issue. He/she is there to represent the USA. Of coarse, as has been clearly established on this thread, the vatican can reject a canidate for any reason.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Excuse me, did I hear you say its our job to appease the vatican?

All US ambassadors to all countries have to be diplomatic and have to be aware of the cultures and the way things are done in the countries that they are ambassadors to. In some respect ALL ambassadors (and visiting politicians) are making concessions. It's part of being diplomatic. It doesn't go to policy .. it goes to open dialog.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
All US ambassadors to all countries have to be diplomatic and have to be aware of the cultures and the way things are done in the countries that they are ambassadors to. In some respect ALL ambassadors (and visiting politicians) are making concessions. It's part of being diplomatic. It doesn't go to policy .. it goes to open dialog.

Yes ambassadors have to know the culture and laws of the nation they are in. As far as making concessions I will have to differ with your view, the ambassador is there to represent his nation, not act like a citizen of the nation he's in. The ambassadors also live in embassies that are sovereign soil of their home nation. It works both ways, visitors to an embassy must be aware that it is a different countries sovereign soil, where the laws and culture are different, and vice versa.



[edit on 17-4-2009 by FreeSpeaker]

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


It's the vatican.....who cares?
It's a country built on a religion whose God says "Don't worship false idols" and is lead by nothing more than a false Idol (the pope)

No man should be telling people how to live their lives. Pro-Life or Pro-Choice included.

The pope does not want the US?

Good.
If you're a religious person, your matter for concern should not be on the pope. It should be on God.

If you're not a religious person, then this shouldn't matter to you in the first place.

reply to post by Fremd


If the Pope did not wanted the US then they would break diplomatic ties, like countries do.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Fremd

 

If the Pope did not wanted the US then they would break diplomatic ties, like countries do.

wow, thank you for stating the obvious

my point is "who cares" It's the pope!

WHO CARES

If this is a matter of religion, then we shouldnt be concerned because the pope is a man who does not represent Christ or any other faith.

If this isnt a matter of religion, then we shouldnt be concerned because....it's the pope!!

Originally posted by Fremd
wow, thank you for stating the obvious

You're welcome, I can state the obvious whenever you need it.

my point is "who cares" It's the pope!

My point is that someone cares enough to send ambassadors to the Vatican, so, those who have the power to nominate and send ambassadors care.

If this is a matter of religion, then we shouldnt be concerned because the pope is a man who does not represent Christ or any other faith.

I think some people consider that he does represent Christ and/or a faith.

If this isnt a matter of religion, then we shouldnt be concerned because....it's the pope!!

If it's not a matter of religion then it's a matter of politics, and that is, probably, why they care.

"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. "

It matters when they prefer someone who is government job infiltrated vatican material LOL

until that person is allowed, then we will know who it is....or whomever has been bought at the highest price., obviously the Kennedys have their own mone and therefore their own agenda.

I don't believe people are still ranting about this. The Pope DID NOT REJECT ANYONE. The article was in error.

Of course, this is a perfect excuse to accuse the Vatican of something it didn't do in the first place.
For people that claim that they should just care about God, you sure have a lot of hatred in your hearts, hatred based upon lies, false accusations, and urban legends.

I guess the deny ignorance goes by the wayside when it comes time to bashing the Catholic Church.

BTW, for those that say the pope is telling people how to live their lives, isn't that what Billy Graham and other Evangelists do?
In fact, isn't that what any religious leader is supposed to do?
Oh, I forgot, you must all belong to the "Church of whatever you want to do is fine". Your pastors don't want to offend you, because you can fire them.

How about Jimmy Swaggart or Jim and Tammy Bakker, who swindled old people out of their retirements, to pay for air conditioning for their dog houses? Does that mean you should condemn the entire set of Protestant sects?

Here is a list of Rabbis that are pedophiles:

Here is just some examples that demonstrate the problem of child abuse among jews and their rabbis:

(1) Rabbi Sidney Goldenberg, formerly of Petaluma’s Congregation B’nai Israel accused of sexually molesting a 12-year-old female student. (Feb 21, 1997)

(2) Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach with his non-ending stories of sexual molestation. (Spring 1998)

(3) Rabbi Baruch Lanner was revered in the Orthodox Union youth group despite he was accused of molesting more than 20 girls. (June 23, 2000)

(4) Rabbi Richard Marcovitz who was arrested for groping two girls and two young women at a Jewish day school. (May 3, 2002)

(5) Rabbi Matis Weinberg accused of molesting his yeshiva students for over 25 years. (August 22, 2003)

(6) Rabbi Yehuda Kolko who is accused in two sexual-abuse lawsuits.

(7) Rabbi Ephraim Bryks.

(8) Rabbi Arie Adler.

(9) Rabbi Yona Metzger who sexually harassed four men of various agesfour men of various ages and from various sectors of society.

(10) Rabbi Solomon Hafner who sexually abused a developmentally disabled boy during private tutoring sessions.

(11) Rabbi/Psychologist Avrohom Mondrowitz who faced deportation to U.S. on charges of molesting children.

(12) Rabbi Max Zucker.

(13) Rabbi and Child Psychiatric Alan J. Horowitz of Schenectady, New York was sentenced to ten to twenty years in prison for sodomizing a nine-year-old psychiatric patient the previous year.

(14) Rabbi Israel Grunwald and his assistant, Yehudah Friedlander were charged with sexually abusing a 15-year old girl on a flight from Australia to Los Angeles.

(15) Rabbi David Schwartz and his sexual molestation of a 4-year- old boy.

(16) Rabbi Avraham Asher sexually harassed and assaulted six ultra-Orthodox youths between the ages of 14 and 16.

(17) Rabbi Yaakov Weiner.

(18) Rabbi Israel Kestenbaum.

(19) Rabbi Mordechai Willig.

(20) Cantor Phillip Wittlin.

(21) Rabbi Yaakov Weiner who abused a 10-year-old boy.

(22) Rabbi/Yeshiva Teacher Ze’ev Sultanovitch.

(23) Rabbi Michael Ozair.

(24) Cantor Howard Nevison.

(25) Rabbi Juda Mintz.

(26) Rabbi Jerrold M. Levy.

(27) Grade School Rabbi, in Chicago.

(28) The State of Israel Vs.Sex Offender.

(29) Rabbi Sidney Goldenberg.

(30) Rabbi Mordechai Yomtov.

(31) Cantor Philip Wittilin.

(32) Rabbi Isaac Goldenberg.

ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com...

Does that mean Judaism is bad? I don't think so.

Let's not leave out the Baptists:

Last week, Melvin Keeling, 43, a black pedophile "minister" in a Baptist church, went on a rampage in the Midwest and murdered three innocent women, one of them a shy, pretty 13-year-old white teenager who was cooperating with police in a child sex abuse investigation against him. Numerous complaints had been filed against Keeling, a minister in the Tri-State Baptist Church, for twice raping and otherwise inflicting "gross sexual imposition" on a friend of Katelind Caudill, 13, who lived with her grandmother next door to the savage monster.

www.jtf.org...

Why single out the Catholic Church? Pedophiles are in every religion.
Were some transferred by Bishops? Yes, they were. However, that has been corrected, and all accused pedophiles have been suspended and turned over to law enforcement.

But go ahead. Continue your ignorance in blasting the Catholic Church, while ignoring the beam in your own eye.

That hatred is eating you up, and so is the hypocrisy.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


We know the article was in error!

Still doesn't mean we cannot continue a discussion or i'm sure the mods would have closed the thread. Threads based on religious matters can always bring out the worst in some people, just relax and accept that.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The problem, as I see it, is not that Catholic priests are paedophiles, but that paedophiles look for places where they can get near children and preferably with some kind of power over the community, to make it easier to avoid being turned to the authorities.

So, it's no surprise that we see paedophiles as priests, rabis, professors, etc.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus



Dear Professor,

Since you bring it up again, I regret to inform you that your quoted source contains copyrighted content.

It is in violation of the T&C of this forum. It contains over 3 paragraphs and exceeds 15% of content.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf9118984792.jpg[/atsimg]

Rules here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You would think a "Professor" would be familiar with the rules of plagiarism on this forum.

Regards...KK