Vatican ambassadors back Romney
Forbes reports that 5 former ambassadors to the Holy See signed a statement backing the Mormon candidate for president, Mitt Romney, passing over Catholic candiates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. From the article:
Mitt Romney’s Mormon background doesn’t concern five former Catholic ambassadors to the Vatican who endorsed him for President on Saturday.
“We the undersigned former U.S. Ambassadors to the Holy See —Thomas Melady, Ray Flynn, James Nicholson, Francis Rooney and Mary Ann Glendon — are united in our wholehearted support for the candidacy of Mitt Romney for the Presidency of the United States because of his commitment to and support of the values that we feel are critical in a national leader,” they wrote in an endorsement posted on Romney’s campaign website.
“Although our political affiliations are diverse, we recognize the importance of family and traditional values in American life. We also share the conviction that Governor Romney has the experience, vision and commitment to the common good that our country needs at this crucial moment in history.”
On a pure abortion question, today's Democrats are a mess, although I can't see much beyond lip service that prolife Catholics get from Republicans. But, in case it hasn't been noticed, the current Democratic administration is offensive to the auld faith on a number of other issues, including the non-necessity for due process if the president chooses to kill someone with a Hellfire missile and an unbecoming beholdeness to Wall Street.
A lot of people who loved Barack Obama just three years ago are nursing hangovers in the stale morning air and wondering if just a tad more realism on their part in the beginning might have left them a little less heartbroken in the end. The ambassadorial luminaries are going to be embarrassed some day when their grandchildren come upon that "wholehearted."
Just the the other night in the debates Governor Romney deplored Massachusetts failure to accomodate the moral beliefs of the Catholic church in adminstering adoptions. Catholic Chariities in Massachussets and other Democratic strongholds around the country are force to close their doors after over a 100 years of public service due to the religious intolerance of the Democratic party.
This is political payback one would expect. If party does not support Catholics don't expect Catholics to support the party. It makes perfect sense. And Ray Flynn is performing a welcomed public service to Catholics in Amreica as one use to expect from of all Democrats long ago.
To be sure, it's not like the 1940s but, in the 2008 elections, Catholics voted 52 to 45 percent for BO. Lest someone argue that Catholics are moving away from the Dems. the election results indicate that Hispanic Catholics-the fastest growing segment of the Church-voted 67 percent for Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08beliefs.html).
The late Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago had a profound understanding of what it means to be pro-life; it's disingenuous to use abortion and gay marriage as a smoke screen. Too many Irish-Americans think they now belong because of their material success and in the process lose their "soul".In fact, if it weren't for the Democratic party, many would still be in South Boston living in triple deckers. It's really sad to realize that places like Boston College are now filled with young people who have a distorted sense of entitlement. Oh for the days when Tip O'Niell took the green line to campus. I suppose we call this progress. You can keep your progress, work to ensure many others who, albeit different, have a chance. Remember where you came from, and it's ok to have a chip on your shoulder.
Yes, I guess both sides would say that. I looked at a page that listed where all the republican candidates stand on the issues ..... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/gop-candidates-rick-santorum-mitt-romney-ron-paul_n_1190048.html .... pretty scary.
Maybe America should pursue the truth. I think that would be an interesting exercise for all. No ad hominems aimed at anyone by either the authors or the commenters and only the reasons why you support or object to a policy.
Most or all of the republican candidates apparently want to ...
- eviscerate the EPA and protections for the environment . Most don't even believe in global warming.
- undo Obama's health plan.
- cut taxes, and give big business a break.
- shrink or even do away with the department of education.
- make immigration laws tougher.
- ban gay civil marriage.
- reverse Roe vs Wade.
- torture terrorist suspects.
- lower benefits and raise the age for social security
I am the only one who mentioned Mary Ann Glendon and I have no agenda against Republicans.What on earth lead her to do this and to phrase it as "former ambassadors to the Holy See"?.
This I think is a misuse of her former office and degrading to the faith that we all share.People should not exploit their faith in this way.Kmiec did the same and I felt he was wrong too.
I am not so sure that the Gospel is inspiring anybody on either side of American politics and think that those who believe so treat it too lightly.
As Simon Cowell said "let us not ask if God is on our side but if we are on God's side".
Mary Ann Glendon has published 8 books, hundreds of articles, has taught countless students at Harvard Law School (Learned Hand Professor of Law), supervised many theses, served on numerous commissions, and has been a champion of human rights and of the rights of women. Her most recent pub is The Forum and the Tower: How Scholars and Politicians Have Imagined the World, from Plato to Eleanor Roosevelt.
She has made the world a better place and earned the right to express her political choice, in any way she wants, wholehearted or luke warm, or as former ambassador to the Vatican.
So you support an individual's freedom of speech but do not support freedom of association to speak as a group? Just what is politcal free speech/expression to you? Only hearing from people and ideas you like? What are you talking about?
Please note that by definition U.S. Ambassadors are political appointees of a U.S. President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and are therefore officials of the U.S. government not the countries they are assigned to represent U.S. interests in such as the Vatican. The Vatican has a U.S. Ambassador becasue it is a sovreign state. U.S. Ambassadors to the Vatican are not Vatican officials. It makes no logical sense to say the pope or the Vatican may somehow be endorsing Romney via former U.S. Ambassadors to the Vatican.
These people have a free speech right to endorse whomever they like.
Good points. We should add that the American ambassador is the personal representative of the president to the host government, in this case the Vatican. The president gives the ambassador a letter of instruction which details the responsibilities of the ambassador and the policies he/she should pursue to promote the national interests of the United States. The Vatican Embassy is one of smallest that the US has, called at times the "ambasciatina." It's also worth noting that all American ambassadors to the Vatican have been Catholics, a fact that speaks to the unique nature of the place and duties of the diplomatic mission. The current one, Amb. Diaz, is quite a distinguished theologian. Promoting human rights and inter-religious dialogue are important matters in the relationship between the United States and the Vatican.
I can'?t speak for ?sainthood?? ?f???????o?r ??M?a?r?y? ??A?n?n? ???????????G?l?e?n?d?o?n??,? ?b?u?t? ??????????????????it would be Santa Subito for her.??
I can't speak for sainthood for Mary Ann Glendon, but it would be Santa Subito.
Right you are.
Good to correct ourselves in the midst of correcting others :).
Sainthood??Radiating holiness as they would say.
I wonder if she still thinks that Maciel is a Saint???
I wonder if she will be so wholehearted about Mitt Romney in the years ahead?
Powerful men have a strange effect on some women(And men).
I never understood how a catholic could come out like Doug Kmiec and back Obama with a clean conscience.Vote for him by all means but don't start using the little catholic capital you have to start giving them a nihil obstat.
This is just as bad.
Romney previously said that he was pro-choice because of a family situation that made him see it that way.He was running in Massa choose its and now these cafeteria catholics come along and brand him the family values man.
Mary Ann Glendon is probably still sulking over the whole Notre Dame thing(Obama should not have been invited I think too) and along with Rooney who quite naturally represents big money .
I think Romney would be a very good President but after reading this something deep inside tells me the good angels are roooting for Obama.
You do realize that all Republicans or catholic Republicans would say the same.
The truth is probably very inflattering to both parties and their supporters.
@Bill, you pretty much nailed it.They are professional catholics in that they are milking their "faith". I am sure that President Romney will be grateful for their efforts and the spit will be readied on the white house lawn.
Other Republican family and traditional values would include American exceptionalism, the right to take your handgun to church and preferential tax treatment for people who do very well for themselves. You wouldn't have to be an ambassador to the Vatican to have a reservation or two about those.
Democratic family and traditional values would include a woman's right to killl her unborn child, with government support if she can't afford it out of her own pocket. You wouldn't have to be an ambassador to the Vatican to have a reservation about that.
None of those "values" is a narrow agenda; they alll have permutations we could dialogue over, although I would not care to defend either "side" of such a dialogue. Maybe that is why I recoiled at the luminaries' whole-heartedness.
Writing and publishing books is her job.It is how she makes hay.It does not follow that her every utterance can go unchallenged.
Freedom of speech is not something we earn by building up brownie points as you seem to put it and then have a weekend at a lobbyists version of Las Vegas"hell I bin fightin the good fight for many a year and done thunk id double down on black 23 /Mitt Romney".
Each of us is entitled to our opinon and not just Mary Ann Glendon but if she starts whipping out the old Vatican card she should expect a response from that.
If she is such a genius of Law she would understand that phrasing it that way will imply to many that those in the Via della Concilazione are of a similar bent and that is an infringement on the separation of Church and State.
This is a political gesture on her part and she is drawing the Vatican into it.Poor taste to say the least.
"Just the idea that they led with "former ambassadors to the Holy See" is a travesty. Truly shameful in every way. Almost vulgar really."
What Bill wrote is true.She should speak for herself and not be giving the impression of a nihil obstat from Rome to her candidate.
The last person she was this convinced about was Fr Marciel Macial.
"The other leading American intellectuals who endorsed Maciel on the Legion's own website were George Weigel, Mary Ann Glendon, William J. Bennett and William Donohue. "
Now she is on another website testifying to the soundness of somebody else.
Character witness anybody??
How horrible that these individuals' opinions are being expressed. This is just so intolerable. Who gave them permission to speak? Call in the thought police. Ideas are being expressed that may offend. Ideas are dangerous. Imagine having an independent political opinion and then expressing it publicly to make the point many Catholics are not too happy with the Obama staus quo.
About Mary Ann Glendon, she may be a woman but she's not someone I'd choose as a representative for women's rights - she's an apologist for the church's "new feminism" .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism