Why Isn’t Obama’s New Ambassador to the Vatican Gay?

Screen shot 2013-06-21 at 12.03.15 PMLast Friday, late in the afternoon (which is apparently the administration’s favorite time to do business) it was announced that President Obama was nominating Ken Hackett (the former head of Catholic Relief Services) as the new U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.

Many prominent Catholics have praised the appointment.

But what I’m curious to know is, why didn’t Obama nominate a gay man or woman to become the next U.S. ambassador to the Vatican?

After all, Obama is on-track to nominate five new openly-gay ambassadors to key posts around the world (including Spain, Australia and Denmark) as part of the administration’s ongoing celebrations of “June gay pride month” — bringing the total to eight.

It’s no secret this is payback to the wealthy gay bundlers who helped finance Obama’s reelection campaign. One-in-six of Obama’s top campaign bundlers in 2012 was gay, WaPo reported. And as soon as Obama won reelection, the heads of a powerful gay activist organizations began to publicly call upon Obama to appoint more gay ambassadors and cabinet members – and so he has.

Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has gone before the world proclaiming the United States believes “gay rights are human rights” and for Clinton and the Obama administration, that includes the “right” to redefine marriage.

Fast-forward back to this month, the current Secretary of State John Kerry celebrated June gay pride month by telling U.S. State Department employees that promoting gay rights abroad is “at the very heart of our diplomacy.” And if that wasn’t going far enough, this week he declared that the U.S. has a “moral obligation” to advance the gay agenda domestically and overseas.

He’s serious. Back in April, USAID announced it was spending eleven million taxpayer dollars to, what, combat global hunger and poverty? Nope: to train gay marriage activists in foreign countries.

If promoting gay marriage is at the “heart” of American diplomacy these days and with the Obama agenda becoming practically synonymous with the gay agenda, why not go all the way? Why not appoint a gay, gay marriage-promoting ambassador to the country which is most recognizably and consistently opposed to redefining marriage in the world? Does the administration actually believe what it tells its gay supporters or doesn’t it? If the Vatican is guilty of violating the “human rights” of gay people by not endorsing gay marriage and if promoting gay marriage is a “moral imperative” for this administration why didn’t Obama appoint an ambassador who would bring that message to the pope?

The Obama administration doesn’t deserve a pass for making one good appointment to the Holy See when their entire foreign policy approach and priorities continue to so deeply offend.

11,109 views

Categories:Politics President Obama Vatican

50 thoughts on “Why Isn’t Obama’s New Ambassador to the Vatican Gay?

  1. Cindy says:

    I like your thought process.

  2. Maddie says:

    This is disgusting. Are you alleging these people are somehow unqualified because they are gay? I’d like to know specifically for each of the five why you are questioning their appointment–besides their sexuality.

    We have a word for that: discrimination.

    1. Thomas Peters says:

      Maddie, are you implying they are more qualified because they are gay? That is heterophobic.

      1. John says:

        Thomas, you avoided answering her question by erecting a strawman. It seems that your position is that while the nominee for the Vatican ambassadorship is qualified and acceptable, the greater outrage is that there are as many as 8 openly gay ambassadors/nominees. That begs Maddie’s legitimate question of whether you think their homosexuality is a disqualification per se. If it’s not, is there something else about these 8 people that makes them unqualified?

        1. Thomas Peters says:

          John, I meant what I wrote. I’m asking why the Obama admin didn’t nominate someone who will advocate the core values of U.S. foreign policy when it comes to gay marriage when it chose someone to represent that interest before a country that is decidedly opposed to that agenda.

          1. Martin says:

            You appear to be saying that the eight qualify solely because they are Gay and wealthy.
            I thought Republicans favoured the acquistion of wealth, as a God given right, which seems contrary to the teaching of the Church. Indeed it says the pursuit of wealth, to the disadvantage of others, is wrong.
            As I tried to say, in my earlier post,you are acting contrary to the call for the New Evangelisation in raising false claims, and arguments, and may be guilty of calumny when you attack your President under any pretext whatsoever.
            In doing so you do a disservice to the Gospel, and journalism.
            Why not highlight the good your President has done, and only challenge him when he is wrong?

          2. John says:

            Oh. I didn’t realize you were being pedantic. When a man only has a hammer, everything looks like a gay marriage nail. In the words of Greg Smith, pax tecum.

          3. Jim says:

            If the sexuality of the ambassadors doesn’t matter, why are you mentioning their sexuality? I can’t believe I actually have to ask that.

            I never saw Ambassador Stevens described as heterosexual on this site. It seems the only time one needs to label (and judge) based on sexuality is when it comes to gay people.

      2. Maddie says:

        I made no such claim. I don’t know whether they are qualified or not, and thus made no judgment. You are the one who has passed jugement and clearly said they are not fit. So again, please tell us why they are not fit. Specific reasons for each of the five, please.

        1. Thomas Peters says:

          Maddie, I’m sorry but I can’t help your failure to understand what I wrote. I never said that.

          1. Maddie says:

            The implication in your post is quite clear: that Obama is wrong to appoint homosexual ambassadors.

            Otherwise, your final sentence would make no sense: “The Obama administration doesn’t deserve a pass for making one good appointment to the Holy See when their entire foreign policy approach and priorities continue to so deeply offend.”

            So, I ask a third time. For each of the five, why are they unqualified?

  3. Martin says:

    Mr Peters you are proving, yet again, how partisan you are, and showing little evidence of your self proclaimed religious credentials.
    Dialogue, and the New Evangelisation – called for by recent holders of the Papal Office – require that acknowledge, and endorse, whatever is good in the lives of others, and then seek to bring the light of the Gospel to bring further help and enlightenment to others. Interculturisation, has beencalled for, and recognised as a vaulable pre-requisite in establishing the Church in sometimes hostle, and alien, places.
    To praise your President when he has done good, and to acknowledge good intent, will prove more helpful when engaging in dialogue than making false charges, and deliberately raising barriers when progress requires an encounter based on truth.
    You should also know The Holy See has previously refused to accept Gay, and Divorced and remarried people, as ambassadors.
    Further, to seek to promote certain “rights, even misguidely, requires than any serious politician, or activist, would proceed steadily.
    For example, when Russia, or China, is challenged over human rights, treatment of dissidents, or democracy that is rarely done on the public stage.
    May I suggest you, not your President, need to read the Holy Gospels, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and learn about the New Evangelisation, and dialogue whilst taking to heart what the Catechism says about calumny (echoing Sacred Scripture).

  4. Mark says:

    So TP now wants a gay ambassador to the Vatican? I’m confused.

    1. Thomas Peters says:

      Keep re-reading, Mark. You’ll get it eventually.

  5. Savona says:

    You need the receiving state’s placet before sending an ambassador. Who knows: maybe Obama even poked a finger in the Holy See’s eye by requesting its placet for an openly gay candidate…someone who self-identified as Catholic, for added “value”. Wouldn’t put it past him…

  6. Linda says:

    Don’t be daft. The Vatican has the option of diplomatically declining to see our ambassador if the Holy See finds that the individual purports practices that promote what is considered sin and therefore against the tenets of the Catholic Church. Plus, sending a gay representative would be an insult to the Vatican. Obama can’t afford to alienate more Europeans right now.

    1. GREG SMITH says:

      Hi Thomas ~ How do we know he isn’t? BTW there is a inititve in the Russian Duma Family Affairs committee to pass legislation to seize the children of gays and presumedly put them in the terrible orphanage system they inherited from the Soviets. I hope you, Brian and Maggie support our country’s opposition to this inhumane scheme. ~ Thanks, Greg

    2. Bec says:

      I didn’t realize alienating Europeans was more important than the fact that Obama is alienating the whole of America and the whole of the Catholic Church with his ridiculous flares of communist, liberal nincompoopery garbage that spews forth from his mouth and administration. I agree, i wouldn’t put it past him to appoint a self identified Catholic who was actively gay and anything but Catholic to the Vatican, just to stick it to them. He has biden, pelosi, and sibelius already on the antiCatholic-but-say-they-are Catholic lineup. Why not add one more gravely mistaken catholic to his commie bandwagon to push his agenda? I quite enjoyed the article because TP makes a valid point. It’s about obamas agenda. If he is pushing it in all these other corners, why would he not push it at the Vatican, too. If he truly believed in what he was selling, he wouldn’t hesitate to push it wherever he could, even in – or especially in- the Vatican, given their (our) stance. I find it hard to believe that he is trying to make amends for his ludicrous persecution of the Church on or soil. we can see by his oh so qualified appointed people throughout his administration and government that it’s not a matter of who is actually qualified for the job, it’s about who will make him look good, gain favor, and promote his ideals. We see how well that worked out for him *cough*scandals*cough* The gay agenda and ambassador appointments may just be that.

      1. Martin says:

        I am 100% opposed to any notion that there could be such a thing as Gay Marriage.
        It is legal in various Countries that are deemed to be Catholic, or have a significant Catholic population: Argentine, Brazil, France, Spain and Portugal, and will soon be legal in Ireland. It is legal in parts of Mexico, and the USA.
        To use the issue as a stick to hit one President, in a country that is not Catholic, shows what the agenda is.
        The battle against Gay Marriage is universal, and cannot be party political.
        To use it in such a way makes a mockery of posing as a religious commentator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.