Pope Rejects US Envoys

It seems that Pope Benedict XVI and the temporal leaders of the Catholic Church in the Vatican are not willing to distort their beliefs and faith by granting just anyone the honor of being the United States Envoy or Ambassador to the Holy See.

Pope Benedict doesn’t seem to be able to tolerate the staunchly pro-abortion candidates that President Obama and his administration keeps putting forth for the position.

From BBC News, Europe:

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 criticized 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.

The White House may be running out of time to find a suitable future American envoy to the Pope before President Obama travels to Italy in July, when he is expected to meet Pope Benedict XVI for the first time, before or after attending a G8 summit to be held in Sardinia.

Since the US established formal diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1984, the ambassadorial post has always been held by pro-life Catholics under both republican and democrat administrations.

The ambassador will replace Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard University professor who held the post during George W Bush’s presidency.

— David Willey
BBC News, Rome

I don’t really know what President Obama and his staff are thinking. They have to realize that the Pope isn’t going entertain a Liberal abortionist as the US ambassador or envoy to the Vatican. To do so would be a tacit endorsement of President Obama’s approval of the deaths of approximately 1.21 million pre-born children in the United States per year, not something that the leader of the Catholic Church is ever likely to do.

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development

Vatican Statement
February 18, 2009

Perhaps President Obama has made that final descent into madness and hubris. He may believe his own press and the worship of his followers to the point where he thinks he can send anyone he wants to be envoys to other world leaders.

That would be a foolish belief on the part of President Obama and his coterie though. Pope Benedict XVI aka Joseph Ratzinger grew up in Nazi Germany under the rule of Adolf Hitler. He’s very experienced with- and likely inured to the blandishments and beliefs of ideologues, no matter how charismatic, and their minions.

Given the Machiavellian genius of Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign though, it’s difficult to chalk these repeated insults off to madness, hubris, or stupidity. More likely is the theory that this is a well-crafted political ploy to place the Vatican, and therefor the Catholic Church, at odds with the United States and too paint the Catholic Church as being unreasonable.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

— Saul Alinsky
The 12th Rule For Radicals

The 12th Rule, straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has worked well for President Obama so far, so it’s would not be surprising that he’d continue using it, thinking that it will continue to be of good effect.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

8 Responses to “Pope Rejects US Envoys”

  1. Mason Says:

    True, it does seem futile to suggest that the hardline Benedict would ever go for having a pro-choice ambassador. Nor does he need to. Obama will most likely have to compromise on this one. Although to place the blame of all those abortions on Obama is really ridiculous, even for a conservative. He didn’t legalize abortion – blame Roe v. Wade for that, or the Supreme Court at the very least. And it’s not like he’s the only one in government – or the country – who supports choice.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Ah Mason 😉

    I really didn’t “blame” President Obama for all of those 1.21 million abortions. I merely stated that he approves of the situation. Given his 100% NARAL rating, his voting against requiring medical care for “abortion survivors,” and his pledge to enact FOCA, I’d say that characterization was accurate.

  3. Mason Says:

    True, but with that line of thinking, all pro-choice Americans then should also be responsible for those deaths. That just doesn’t make sense. Again, providing the option to do something isn’t the same as condoning it or doing it yourself. I’m pro-choice yet I’ve never been a part of an abortion. Am I then culpable?

  4. jonolan Says:

    A chain of culpability doesn’t make sense to you?

    Providing the option to do something does, to a certain extent, mean you condone it. Therefor you and all those other pro-choice people are culpable – to a degree – for those 1.21 million abortions that are performed in the US every year. True, you weren’t directly involved in them, but you voted,and in many cases, lobbied and argued for them to be allowed.

    But do people such as yourself deserve the same level blame as the abortionists themselves or the politicians that directly voted for the laws? No.

    Think about this – many anti-abolitionists in the 19th century said variation of, “I would never own a slave, but I think people should have to choice to do so if they wish.”

    How do you feel about them?

  5. Mason Says:

    You could use a lot of different examples besides the anti-abolitionists. How about those against gun control? Should they be partly to blame for the guy who opened fire on those policemen in Pittsburgh the other day? Not all people who are against gun control think it’s a good idea necessarily to own a stockpile of automatic weapons… but they want the option. And possibly for the same reason that I think abortion should remain legal: it’s something that I don’t want the government to control. I don’t want the government to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies and those against gun control don’t want the government to prevent them from protecting themselves against others and the government itself. That doesn’t mean that they condone a man unloading rounds of bullets into his coworkers like that Vietnamese-American did a couple weeks ago.

    The problem with lumping together everyone who is pro-choice into immoral heathens is that just because I don’t think that abortion should be illegal doesn’t mean that I think it’s something to be taken lightly. I think that a strong focus on contraception as well the true ramifications (not just the spiritual ones) of having unprotected sex would do a lot to help curb the number of unintended pregnancies. I think that the issue of abortion is much larger than just the act of ending a pregnancy. Whereas slavery was pretty cut and dried: rich people owned other humans. There weren’t things that we could do to “prevent” slavery the way that we can try to prevent abortions.

    Wow, this got into an odd conversation. Nothing quite like talking abortion AND slavery. Let’s through in the death penalty and and gun control while we’re at it and we can really butt heads ha.

  6. jonolan Says:


    I used the anti-abolitionists as analogy because that was another case where people were basing the decisions and beliefs on the postulate that the subjects in questions – Blacks then and fetuses now – were less than people. It was a case where people were arguing over what was legal behavior.

    You see, while you argued that “[sic] slavery was pretty cut and dried: rich people owned other humans” but Blacks weren’t thought of as humans by many Americans. The US Constitution even qualified them as 3/5 of a human 🙁

    Today many people do not think of the pre-born / fetuses / unborn babies as humans.

    Your gun control and rampage shootings counter example are a different matter. It’s much more of a stretch to hold people to blame for the criminal actions of others.

    As for the bulk of your argument about contraception and education as it regards reducing the number of abortions, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

  7. Max Says:

    “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

    Isn’t that what the Bush administration did to Kerry with that Swift Boat bullshit in 2004?

  8. jonolan Says:

    No, in fact it wasn’t, Max. One – Kerry WAS an individual and not an institution and his swiftboating, while equally vile, wasn’t the same as Alinsky’s 12th Rule. Two – it wasn’t the Bush administration who did it. In fact, President Bush condemned the perfidious actions taken by those who attacked Kerry in this manner.

Leave a Reply