
The Vatican rejects gay ambassador.
Call me naive, but I did not think it would make a whole lot of difference who a country sent to the Vatican as ambassador. I’m certain the Holy See has accepted people at variance with Church teaching, such as atheists and communists as ambassadors in the past, so you can understand why I’m confused by this. Considering the source - I’m sure I don’t have the complete story - there has to be more to it. Of course, I don’t know much about the world of international diplomacy either, perhaps someone who does would be kind enough to comment? Here is what I know:
“The next French envoy to the Holy See has been chosen after Roman Catholic officials rejected the first candidate because he is gay.
AFP reports that another candidate was rejected because he is divorced.
The rejected gay candidate, Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge, is in a civil pact with his partner and is a career diplomat.
The Pope visited France last month and was happy to be received by Presi dent Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni, who divorced his first wife to marry Ms Bruni.” - Source
If Obama is elected, Caroline Kennedy has been talked about as the next ambassador to the Vatican. How would that work out? She is pro-abortion and pro-gay. As everyone knows, I completely support Church teaching on homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, life issues, and so on - I’m just wondering out loud here - not arguing against Vatican protocol or siding with gay dissidents.
Every government has the right to accept or reject the credentials of foreign diplomats. I have read that the Vatican expects ambassadors to conform to Catholic morality, hence the rejection of divorced and remarried candidates as well. Nevertheless, I still do not understand how that works with atheists, communists, protestants, and Muslims?
Thanks to Pewsitters for the link.