The Irish Independent reports that the pope is said to have rejected the nomination of a close aide of President François Hollande as new French ambassador to the Vatican because he is gay.
The apparent rejection calls into question the Pontiff’s reputation as holding more liberal views on homosexuality.
Laurent Stefanini (54), a senior diplomat and Mr Hollande’s chief of protocol, was nominated in early January but the Vatican had maintained a stony silence over whether it accepts his credentials, officials in Paris said.
The usual time frame for acceptance is a month and a half. After that, a prolonged silence after a nomination is normally interpreted as a rejection.
Maybe they’re just thinking really hard.
French media widely reported that Mr Stefanini has been rejected because of his homosexuality.
‘Le Journal du Dimanche’ quoted a Vatican insider as saying that the rejection was “a decision taken by the Pope himself”.
‘Liberation’, the Left-leaning daily, said that “the Vatican’s homophobia seriously tarnishes Pope Francis’s image as being (slightly) more open-minded than his predecessors on sexuality”. In 2007, France nominated a gay ambassador to the Vatican who had a partner recognised under French law but the Holy See never responded to the nomination.
Look at it from their point of view. They’re the Catholic church. It’s their brand. If they started being less dinosaur-like, what would they have to offer? They’d just be another only-somewhat-terrible church, which is not very sexy.
Observers say the Pope cannot be seen to be adopting an overly gay-friendly approach that would shock the Church’s more conservative elements.
My point exactly.
A bunch of elderly, supposedly celibate, male bachelors have a quite unhealthy obsession with other peoples’ sex lives.
And Francis’ total lack of actual progressive progress is laid bare. Words mean nothing, your holiness. Talk about acceptance and love? Very nice sound bites. When you’re asked to walk the walk, you refuse–THAT is what matters. “Jesus judges” but not you, sir?
*spit*
I hope they don’t appoint a more “acceptable” ambassador. Who needs an embassy in the Vatican anyhow? Time to sing good ole Pope song again …
Gee, no diplomatic relations with this pretend state that’s just a cover for the headquarters of a church? Sounds good to me. Now, what can we do to get them to disapprove of the Canadian ambassador…..
*sigh* The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I noticed that The Big Questions on Sunday had a debate on whether or not the Catholic Church should be more modern. I laughed. Then turned it off.
Why the fuck does anyone still bother with ambassadors to the Vatican? Can’t they make the Italian one do double duty if they needs must have a chat with the Pope?
…the Vatican had maintained a stony silence over whether it accepts his credentials, officials in Paris said.
In other words, they didn’t have the guts to say anything.
Because a significant number of the people who vote for them are Catholic? Fairly obvious.
That’s exactly what the UK does, since 2006. At the time, the Vatican protested that “senior Holy See officials cannot be expected to go to Villa Wolkonsky”, the street in Rome on which the UK embassy to Italy is located. In response to that protest… the UK maintained a stony silence. 😀
‘Why the fuck does anyone still bother with ambassadors to the Vatican?’
Better question: why did they EVER bother?
I understand that the diplomatic status of the Vatican was engineered by Mussolini back in 1929. Did secular states have diplomatic relations with the church before then? How?
WMDKitty @5
Or as The Who put it: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Could we maybe get the Pope to watch the Jackson Katz TED video? Just to improve his leadership skills.