Posted on 04/23/2015 3:35:11 PM PDT by markomalley
Pope Francis made history when he said, of being gay: “Who am I to judge?” Now close Vatican-watchers say the pope is in a complex diplomatic spot in the case of a gay man France has nominated to be ambassador to the Holy See.
France nominated Laurent Stefanini in January, but so far the Vatican hasn’t accepted the appointment. European media has speculated that this is because Stefanini, a Catholic who worked for years in the French Embassy at the Vatican, is gay, though the French government officially is denying any problems.
This week a French government spokesperson confirmed that Francis and Stefanini met April 18, Reuters reported, calling it “extremely rare for the Pope to get directly involved in the naming of ambassadors.” Another French-language media outlet covering the Vatican reported that the two men prayed together.
Vatican spokespeople declined to comment to the Post on Thursday, and the French government has said little, but experts on Vatican diplomacy said the possibility of what they believe would be the first openly gay Vatican ambassador is complicated.
Massimo Faggioli, a church historian at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn., who focuses on the papacy, said France was “poking a finger in the eye of the Vatican” by appointing an openly gay man and then speaking – even off the record – when his appointment hadn’t clearly been approved.
Faggioli said he thought it was hypothetically feasible that the Vatican might accept a gay ambassador, but seeing the topic in public violates “the basic rules of diplomacy. Revealing why an ambassador has been rejected is not typical. … Once it came out, it became a matter of principle. Diplomacy is imminently the field of practical things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
From what I’ve read, there is no proof he’s gay. He’s a weekly-Mass attending convert, who has never publicly supported gay marriage.
The limits of the Feel Good Pope’s PC happy talk are being tested.
‘...by appointing an openly gay man and then speaking...’
Propagandist
Who is a propagandist?
Correct.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3279910/posts
Something about this story still doesn’t add up for me.
That is my understanding as well.
The source is the WP, so Freepers be wary of a trap.
“Massimo Faggioli, a church historian at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minn., who focuses on the papacy, said France was “poking a finger in the eye of the Vatican” by appointing an openly gay man and then speaking – even off the record – when his appointment hadn’t clearly been approved.”
That’s really his name?
Well, if he weren’t gay, he would have said something about it by now, since the French government has been openly promoting him as a “gay diplomat.”
I think he’s supposedly not active, etc. although he must have done something “officially” gay (that is, been a member of a gay group or something) at some point in his life. I don’t know about his current personal life, which is described as “discreet.”
The problem is that the French government has announced that he is gay, he himself has said nothing about it (silence means consent, wants to force the Vatican to take him, and is trying to make a pro-gay point with this and a point about their ability to impose it.
If only for that reason, the Pope should reject it.
Here’s the Catechism on Homosexuality;
In no uncertain and very brief terms, Homosexual people are to be accepted, any lack of chastity, the action and lifestyle are not condonable.
Of course this man is openly gay. Every googled article states he is openly gay. What is wrong with people?
Of course the Pope cannot accept this post.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
of course he’s openly gay.
Duh
A google search of one half of a minute tells anyone that he is openly gay.
Send him to Libya. Hillary will know what to do with him.
Of course this "famous" question asked by the Pope was actually the end of a response to the media when he was asked a question.
The entire response was about giving absolution in the sacrament of Confession as in "after I give someone absolution who am I to judge?"
The media should be held suspect when quoting the Pope.
LOL....I’m pretty sure we all thought the same thing.
Tell me what you entered in The Google because this doesn’t say that (a Catholic source, by the way):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3279910/posts
are you saying the Pope rejected him for other reasons? What would they be?
Do tell.
I’m saying that not every article states what you state. I find it interesting that all of a sudden if something is all over the news it MUST be true.
I’ll remember that.
Just wondering, since every publication states it, the news from the Vatican States it, the French officials state it, the Gay newspapers state it, the guy doesn’t refute it, the report from the Vatican is that the Pope denied the post, then your point would be that the Pope denied the post for a different, hidden reason.
Like he’s Obama, or Hillary or Rubio.
So my question is, do you argue for the rights of this guy who is not even objecting at this point, or do you argue in order to be an arguer. If the latter is the case, please nderstand my not responding to any further ridiculous, insultin, annoying posts
Because there is only a matter of figuring out who deserves heaven or hell in the next life, which belongs only to God. If something is wrong, there is nothing wrong with treating it as wrong. If we took the leftist idea on judgement, which is incorrect, we wouldn’t need law, order, or even disciplining our own children. However, the judgement ideas are a complete farce.
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.