FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Obama Names Vatican Ambassador Who Backed Pro-Abortion Pols
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
(05-28-2009, 08:05 PM)PaxVobiscum Wrote: [ -> ]If only Catholics would barrage Obama with letters and cards and e-mails insisting that he be respectful of Catholic teaching and appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican.  He wants the Catholic vote again in 2012, after all, so he ought to take our feelings into consideration.

If he can genuflect to the Saudi king, he can certainly show respect for the Church.  Oh, I forgot, the Church doesn't have vast oil reserves. . .

Hear, hear
Wasn't it Reagan who re-established diplomatic relations with the Vatican?  There were none since the Holy See lost the papal states (reign of Pope Pius IX)-- until 1984.  So why does the US need to send an Ambassador to the Vatican and vice versa?  For that matter, neither did Israel until Paul VI's pontificate.
(05-28-2009, 08:05 PM)PaxVobiscum Wrote: [ -> ]If only Catholics would barrage Obama with letters and cards and e-mails insisting that he be respectful of Catholic teaching and appoint a pro-life ambassador to the Vatican.  He wants the Catholic vote again in 2012, after all, so he ought to take our feelings into consideration.

If he can genuflect to the Saudi king, he can certainly show respect for the Church.  Oh, I forgot, the Church doesn't have vast oil reserves. . .

Problem is that most "Catholics" will not base their vote on this issue.  If they did, then he would not have received the majority of the Catholic vote in '08.  There was absout;y NO secret about his stance on the abortion issue.  I know of priests who backed this guy!! Then  when FOCA was proposed, they were some how surprised! 

The main problem with the Catholic electorate (and the whole US also) is that they are so woefully ignorant of most issues.  I think I heard it best when someone once commented "All the average American wants to do is drink beer, eat hot dogs, scratch himself, watch football and burp."  Perhaps a bit of an overstatement but really not to far off the mark.

There is no doubt that most voters are swayed by the media rather than taking time to learn about the candidates for themselves.  If we ever had a real democracy, we lost it when media became so powerful and intrusive (televisions in public places like airports, restaurants, doctor's offices, etc., all tuned to a cable news channel.)  Few people read newspapers now.  They just get soundbites from television.  And few Catholics get soundbites from the pulpit reminding them that it is Church teaching that abortion is a mortal sin.  You can't be Catholic and "pro-choice" but few priests want to say so lest they offend people.  Catholics are thus bombarded by the media saying abortion is a woman's "right" while hearing nothing on the topic from their priests.  We need more courageous priests to fight the secular culture and catechize their congregations.
(05-29-2009, 11:55 AM)PaxVobiscum Wrote: [ -> ]There is no doubt that most voters are swayed by the media rather than taking time to learn about the candidates for themselves.  If we ever had a real democracy, we lost it when media became so powerful and intrusive (televisions in public places like airports, restaurants, doctor's offices, etc., all tuned to a cable news channel.)   Few people read newspapers now.  They just get soundbites from television.  And few Catholics get soundbites from the pulpit reminding them that it is Church teaching that abortion is a mortal sin.   You can't be Catholic and "pro-choice" but few priests want to say so lest they offend people.  Catholics are thus bombarded by the media saying abortion is a woman's "right" while hearing nothing on the topic from their priests.   We need more courageous priests to fight the secular culture and catechize their congregations.

We could also due with some help from Rome.  I understand that the Holy Father must consider his actions very carefully and that many things may impact what he does.  But...... Wouldn't it have sent an unambiguous message if, furring her visit, he had handed Nancy Pelosi a Bull of Excommunications......
I don't know why Rome doesn't speak more.  Benedict XVI has said he expects the Church to be smaller in the future and I think this is at least partly because he knows many Catholics don't really accept Church teachings.
(05-28-2009, 01:25 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if Obama sees what is going on? Sending such a person to the Vatican is at least as offensive as someone sending a racist against blacks to USA as an ambassador.

Here is a quite reliable assesment of Diaz

http://www.boston.com/news/local/article...s_dia.html

[quote]
Catholic theologian who teaches at a major seminary, well, that's a different story. And the fact that he's a Latino working on issues in Hispanic theology, at a time where we're experiencing the Latinization of the American Catholic Church--that's a ten-strike."
[?QUOTE]

The Vatican flatly rejected Caroline Kennedy so if the Vatican will accept Diaz, then Roman Catholics too should accept him.

Why not Rev. Michael Pfleger?
(05-29-2009, 02:49 PM)Texican Wrote: [ -> ]Why not Rev. Michael Pfleger?

You're so bad.  LOL
Pages: 1 2