Posted on 04/11/2015 9:09:32 AM PDT by NRx
Pope Francis has reportedly barred the nomination of a close aide of President Francois Hollande as new French ambassador to the Vatican because he is gay.
The apparent rejection calls into question the pope'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 has maintained a stony silence over whether it accepts his credentials, officials in Paris said.
The usual time frame for their acceptance is a month and a half. After that, a prolonged silence after a nomination is normally interpreted as a rejection.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Post #3... excellent!
LGBT cat fight in the Vatican!
And you wonder why Christianity is attacked when we eat our own.
Did it ever occur to any of you that the Pope has never changed his position on gays, but that the media and secularist were just wishcasting?!
Wake up, folks.
And for the record, the rate of homosexuality, adultery and pederasty is higher among other Chrisitian denominations.
Let's change the tone, acknowledge good decisions where we can, and pray for one another instead of taking cheap shorts at one another.
I
You make some good points but let me ask you this: is the Pope repeatedly and often (or even at all) proclaiming “bloody murder” at the genocidal acts of Islam against Christians and Jews around the globe?
I don’t think he is. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Of course there is no reason why a Frenchman could not be a good pope.
Since it's Italy, the real question is would he bake him a pizza.
Indeed
The only French cardinal I can see being a decent pope would be Philippe Barbarin, assuming he can recover completely from his heart operation, though whether the college of cardinals would pick him, assuming Francis were to either resign or die, is debatable.
Indeed they were wishcasting, like they usually are, then, after a while, it’s back to the same old contempt they have for not being what they wished for.
Google. About 2,220,000 results in 0.57 seconds.
While not suggesting any particular course of action, he urged "concrete participation and tangible help in defense and protection of our brothers and our sisters, who are persecuted, exiled, slain, beheaded, solely for being Christian."
I guess it's stronger wording than Lurch would use... but not by much.
Anyway, I'm underwhelmed. And I hope you realize the 2,220,000 results really doesn't mean all that much.
The fact is, he's not making it "his issue". And he's definitely not out there PROCLAIMING that what is going on is "bloody murder".
Imagine Winston Churchill alive today.
What would Churhill do? He would not let the complacency of the leftist media and the complacency of the leftist governments of the West stand.
Pope Francis is a major player in the game of leftist media and leftist policy-making in the West today. His statements on the ongoing bloody mass murders of Christians seem pro-forma to me. Not anything he's really all that excited about.
Google the same thing about Pope and Israelis. This is the top hit:
Pope Francis’s unfriendly visit
This story IS right in line with Lurch.
The Pope doesn't ask "what would Churchill do", but he does seem to ask, "what would Kerry do".
That's 6 times in a week.
Didn't see that on the news? Imagine my surprise.
I share the frustration, but it's certainly a head-scratcher when people who don't think the Pope's infallible expect him to be omnipotent.
And that Jerusalem Post #1 hit? 5/27/2014. That's some algorithm Google has, there.
I don’t expect him to be omnipotent. I don’t expect him to be anything. But I do believe that he is showing great weakness of spirit in a time of great evil. He’s just another bureaucrat in a world of weak-willed bureaucrats. He fits right in. Which is fine, I guess. The church is a huge institution and there are thousands of daily bureaucratic issues. I’m sure the Pope is a fine manager. I bet he gets along well with his subordinates.
We have different perspectives.
Yes, we do.
I’ll ask the same question here that I asked in a similar thread: How do we know that the reason why he was rejected was because he was gay? So far there have been no official statements: the rejection is a rejection because there has been no acceptance.
Because there is no other plausible explanation. Rejecting an ambassador is a pretty serious act in the diplomatic world. It is not done because you don’t like his haircut or the color of his tie. Beyond which there have been plenty of leaks from “highly placed Vatican officials” that leave no doubt whatever as to the reason.
What “highly placed Vatican officials”?
Sorry, if that same answer was given to certain other Catholics on here about something the pope said that was not seen as a positive thing for him, they would question the source.
In my mind, there could be another explanation. I’m not up on Vatican rejections of ambassadors, but perhaps there were other reasons in the past that could apply here.
And another thing. If this rejection was because the man is openly gay, why not state it? Let’s stop pussy footing around and speak boldly. That is if the Catholic Faith is what is most important.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.