Is Pope RatNAZI’s Vatican Running U.S. Foreign Policy?

Sunday, April 12, 2009

pope_rat

Pope RatNAZI’s Vatican has reportedly rejected three candidates for U.S. Ambassador to the country, including Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

Apparently, “Papa” and the stooges who orbit his red Prada shoes, rejected Ms. Kennedy because she is unapologetically pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

Keep in mind, this is the same Pope who had the audacity to visit the west African nation of Cameroon recently and reiterate the position of the Catholic Church against the use of condoms as means to slow the spread of HIV/AIDS. Cameroon has been particularly hard-hit by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. A nation of 18 million people, it has more than a half-a-million people living with the virus that causes AIDS.

As an American, I am outraged that Il Città del Vaticano, and Pope RatNAZI in particular, is determining U.S. foreign policy. It’s time for the Obama administration to tell this 8th century cretin, enough is enough.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Blogs Against Theocracy, Caroline Kennedy, Catholicism, International News, News, Politics, President Barack Obama, Religious Nutcases and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Is Pope RatNAZI’s Vatican Running U.S. Foreign Policy?

  1. Aunt Peg says:

    I have many friends who grew up Catholic and no longer set foot in a church.

    Most of them point to the priest sex abuse scandal as the moment they became angered and offended by not so clever antics of the Vatican.

    I’ve read a number of article recently that point to church attendance dropping dramatically because most organized religion refuses to change and evolve.

  2. Prairiedog says:

    Listen, if Caroline Kennedy made a $1,000,000 donation to St. Paul’s or directly to the Vatican, Pope Rat would be falling all over her.

    Pro choice? Pro gay marriage? We just won’t talk about it. All is forgotten.

    The man and the church are the pillars of hypocrisy.

  3. Joe in Colorado says:

    Why do we need an ambassador to the Vatican in the first place? I mean, it is really a part of Rome, or Italy. Just pretend it doesn’t exist. Give the Pope a dose of what it feels like to be ignored.

  4. Bel Ami says:

    When the pope stops issuing edicts admonishing gay people, priests are allowed to marry and nuns are permitted to be ordained, perhaps then, the Catholic church will be relevant in the 21st century.

    But I’m not holding my breath.

  5. Harry says:

    The xtian loons will disagree. But, luckily, we still live in a nation where the separation of church and state matters.

  6. ungtss says:

    Where do you dig up this nonsense? Vatican denies having received a proposal for an ambassador, much less rejected one.

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901631.htm

    The linked story gives no source or documentation for the claim. It says “reportedly.”

    “Reportedly.” Please.

    So you go from an unsubstantiated report that an ambassador has been rejected to the conclusion that the Vatican is running our foreign policy?

    What’s that ambassador going to do in the Vatican? Are they going to force them to change their laws on contraception? Or is the pope going to wait until he gets a pro-life ambassador, and then scream “Ha! You have sent me a pro-life ambassador! Now you will change all your laws! I am Pope!”

    Yikes.

  7. VicoDANIEL says:

    Hey, I have an idea?

    Maybe Phyllis Schlafly or Lucianne Goldberg is available to be President Obama’s nominee for US Ambassador to the Vatican?

    Both women are radical, rightwing kooks but they’re both pro-life, antigay homophobes. Pope Rat would love these gals.

    vicodaniel1987@yahoo.com

  8. emcee says:

    Great post, Christopher. The Kennedy family has deep, established ties to both the New York City and Boston Catholic communities. My guess is, this Pope is a regular idiot who doesn’t know this.

  9. ungtss says:

    Your links still don’t substantiate the rumor. One paper in Italy says “sources in the Vatican say” that she was disqualified because of her views on abortion?

    Seriously?

    You don’t know who said it, you don’t know how she was allegedly rejected, you don’t know what ulterior motives they may have had.

    Do you really believe whatever these “sources” tell you?

    All you know for sure is that Obama never appointed her. And that no other president in history has appointed a pro-choice ambassador, because they are all smart enough to know it would alienate without gaining us anything.

  10. Rachel says:

    Ummm, can the new troll read? I just read all three links and they all said the Vatican put the kibosh on Caroline Kennedy because she’s pro-choice. For goodness sake, even Vatican sources told the Italian Il Giornale Kennedy is not suitable to them. The links prove the current gang leading the Catholic Church is still mired in a distant past.

  11. libhomo says:

    We should never have had diplomatic relations with the Vatican, a country that was a creation of a deal Mussolini made with the Catholic Church to get their support for his fascist state.

  12. JollyRoger says:

    I totally agree with libhomo. This problem can be solved immediately by breaking off relations with the Vatican.

  13. Randy Arroyo says:

    Another amazing post, my friend. No one takes on the religious right and the fundamentalists like you and with the precision. I grew up Catholic too and when I came out, I realized there was no place for me in this church. It’s an unhealthy place and I can’t imagine ever taking Mass again.

  14. KarenJ says:

    I think it’s hilarious that the US government is finally (!) having diplomatic discussions, or at least a prequel to them, with Cuba and the Castros, and the Vatican goes in the opposite direction and shuts its doors to the US government.

    We live in weird times, all right.

  15. bradfrmphnx says:

    Christopher…you should win an award on how to place a picture with a story for effect. Time and again your pictures reinforce the story and bolster your point. You can generally get a good sense of someone by looking into their eyes. When you look in the Pope’s eyes its pretty dark. Dark with a hint of insanity.

    libhomo’s right. We shouldn’t be sending anybody over to the vatican. What could possibly be the necessity for that.

  16. ungtss says:

    Rachel: None of the articles give any source for the information. It could have anybody, with any degree of credibility — or no credibility at all. In fact, it could have been totally made up by the Italian paper. We have no idea.

    Meanwhile, the US has not yet proposed anybody, and the Vatican says it has neither received any proposals nor rejected any.

    In other words, there is no reliable information to corroborate this story in any way, and some strong information contradicting it.

    From this complete absence of any reliable information, we jump to “the Vatican is running our foreign policy” and “The Vatican is cutting off diplomatic relations.”

    I’m getting the picture, though — the purpose of this blog is not to report and analyze facts — it’s just to repeat rumors that confirm the readership’s biases. I’m not too much interested in that. Peace.

  17. bradfrmphnx says:

    ungtss….as someone who has taken issue on more than one occasion with the general consensus of this blog…I can understand your feelings, but must say you are wrong. They listen, and most respond respectfully. Nobody is really a troll on this thread and that’s one of the reasons I like to come here.

    And one other thing…I have always been welcomed back despite my view. Peace to you too.

  18. Conejo1982 says:

    Ungtus, If a bird dive bombs and shits on your head, you would say since you hadn’t actually seen the bird, it had to be a squirrel. It’s just typical, circular, nonsensical logic.

  19. ungtss says:

    Brad: Really? I just learned from Conejo that a report from anonymous sources is equivalent to having a bird shit on my head. Now in a way, of course, that’s true. There’s no doubt that I’ve been hit with some shit. But some appear eager to eat it up.

  20. bradfrmphnx says:

    Well don’t take that shit laying down ungtss!

    From what I can discern…Christopher’s sources seemed valid to me. If I didn’t think so I would say that. But whether you are willing to accept it or not, there was something said about Ms. Kennedy and her stand on abortion. That is pretty clear.

  21. ungtss says:

    How’s it clear? Some anonymous person may or may not have said something, we don’t know what. Was he asked if she might be selected and said, “No — she’s pro-choice.” Or was he asked if she had been proposed and said “No — the Pope rejected her.” Or something else? Or did nothing happen at all?

  22. Jenna Bush Stole My ID says:

    Why do we need a Vatican ambassador in the first place?

    What we need are confessionals with panic buttons so when a horny priest tries to grope a 12 year old boy, he can push the button and an alarm alerts the cops.

  23. bradfrmphnx says:

    ungtss…when I checked out your source I found the same dilemna with the source information as you point out. Any chance that the Vatican could be outright lieing? I mean, if I recall, there have been a lot of fibs coming from that neck of the woods over the centuries.

  24. ungtss says:

    They certainly could be lying. But let’s weigh credibility here.

    Vatican: Acknowledged statement — so if it’s shown to be a lie, someone’s responsible.
    Italian paper: Anonymous source — if it’s a lie, it disappears into the annals of blogdom.

    Vatican: Specific statement — factual claims that could be falsified by anyone with the facts.
    Italian paper: Vague statement — we don’t know who said what, why, when, or how.

    Vatican: No motive to reject an ambassador. An ambassador’s personal views on abortion have no effect on the state. The political consequences of rejecting an ambassador from the most powerful nation in human history — and over such a hot topic — are huge.
    Italian paper: Potentially strong motive to slander the Pope — an unpopular guy in many quarters. He looks bigoted etc., and the blogosphere goes wild.

    Vatican: Claim consistent with the absence of any evidence the US ran her by the Pope as an option.
    Italian paper: Not so much.

    Could both be lying, but the Vatican has some substantial indicia of credibility. At the very least, some agnosticism is in order.

  25. jimmy says:

    There may be doubt as to the veracity of the story and the sources, but it should be understood by the Vatican that any ambassador would express the policies of the administration, which is pro-choice at this time.

  26. bradfrmphnx says:

    ungtss…That was a good response! It didn’t change my mind. But it was a good response. It did cast a shadow of doubt over the validity of either side. In truth this issue isn’t my greatest concern. The ensuing discussion was much more interesting.

    And I will agree that it opens up room for agnosticism. High praise for the use of indicia and agnosticism. Indicia sent me to the dictionary.

    I hope you come back in other posts.

  27. Brigadoon says:

    On the flight back to LA this morning I saw a poll in the paper that said a majority of Catholics in the US want priests to be able to marry. The Vatican is so out of touch with the mainstream of opinion on a variety of issues that Catholicism’s numbers are beginning to shrink for the first time in 1,000 years.

  28. JollyRoger says:

    That’s why BeneDICK hates condoms so much, y’know. They’re bad for his coffers.

  29. ungtss says:

    Thanks Brad — enjoyed learning from you.

  30. bradfrmphnx says:

    Likewise ungtss.

  31. I really hoped Desmund Tutu was elected. He has a much more progressive stance on all of these issues.

  32. Dan says:

    I just want to say that the “all-accepting” left seems to be the one’s filled with hate to me when i read these posts . Just use a bit of reason: I am the pope, I equate abortion with murder, i don’t like murder, i don’t like murderers, i don’t want to do business with them in my country; thus, I don’t want to do business with people who promote and justify abortion (murder) in my country. Its not that hard…..standing by your beliefs sometimes has to trump diplomacy. Just because our current president seem willing to accept Castro, Chavez, and Ahmadinejad with open arms doesn’t mean that all other leaders need to compromise their beliefs

  33. Pingback: Wednesday WTF #26 « My 2 Cents

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s