The Vatican wouldn’t say anything about this one way or the other, regardless of the opinion of the Pope or anybody else involved.
There may be practical reasons, but since the current building was just reinforced a couple of years ago, I doubt it.
I still see it as a message. I agree that the essential problem is the very vague “deal” with Iran - which seems to give them everything they want, and to us, nothing - but I can’t see that folding embassy Vatican into a room at embassy Rome - even with a separate entrance - is anything but downgrading.
Another ventured on this thread -- that there will be or is a separate building, on 'Embassy Rome' property. I don't know if that is exactly true, for this Washington Post article, U.S. move of Vatican embassy draws fire in the opening sentence, says "into" the larger Embassy, with critics of the move characterizing it as making Embassy Vatican into "the step-child" of Embassy Rome. Perhaps...but not as a certainty, for there will still be a separate Ambassador, retaining the same staff numbers as before (for now, anyway).
But you say you can't see this as "anything but downgrading" ??? Nothing else -- that has to be the primary reason ? Maybe, but the other reasons (like safety) have possibly their own foundations to stand alone upon.
Still, a few conservative voices have expressed sentiments such as you have. I'm concerned about such expressions back-firing on conservatives, if they go too far, or have us change focus, arguing too much concerning "perceptions".
...can't be seen as "anything but downgrading";
To a city-state that is itself encompassed by a city, and that city-state which itself does not grant or allow much in the way of official diplomatic "territory" of other nations, upon it's own territory. Uh, right.
Honestly, there is of course, rational reason or excuse for the Vatican not ceding any territory within it's own territory (if but only a building, or a city block) for the Vatican can or could scarcely afford space for diplomatic offices from others to itself on it's own smallish territory --- allowing others some of their own nation's sovereignty inside Vatican City, after the same customs most all other nations extend towards other nations, along line of an American consulate being seen as "American" soil, wherever in the world that consulate be situated.
We could be reading too much into this, if it is being taken as deliberate snub. Careful now...or even this, even if it was something of a sub, will be used against us in on amongst the 'talking heads'. see #38 for brief sketch of how they get conservatives to all but self-destruct.
The downsizing of diplomatic mission to the Holy See, is comprised of what, exactly? Of moving from a building which was situated away from the U.S. diplomatic mission to Italy, to consolidate upon the same or adjacent property?
There is still an independent Ambassador to the Vatican. Will he be any more under or beholden to U.S. Presidential attache' now, than he was before? Ambassadors do take orders, you know?
About the only possible gripe is that Ambassador to Italy may try to throw their personal weight around (or worse, the "staff" may try) with Ambassador to the Vatican (and that "staff"). If such as that does not occur -- where is the "snub", but chiefly only in the minds of those seeing only outwards form, for other than physical location -- what exactly is being now changed?
Just -- "wow". The Vatican is "sensitive" to image, like some secular head-of-state may be? this would have the DU'ers rolling in the aisles, and perhaps justifiably so, but worse, just make it that much easier to paint opponents of the ever increasing State-ism to be religious kooks not worthy of having fair hearing, not worthy of having their voices heard (that could be both yours, and mine) for mistake of
An antidote perhaps? Remember-- Christ indicated that His kingdom, was not of this world. The Obama's of the world can't change that, any more than a string of Napoleons changed that aspect.