The MSM took what the Pope said on the airplane (about a homosexual who is trying to live a holy life), that is, “Who am I to judge?” and ran with only half the story, giving the impression that Pope Francis approved of some way of homosexual acts.
Wrong. HERE
This Pope is not a liberal when it comes to doctrine. He doesn’t think that homosexual sex is okay.
I have been saying for a couple years now that when liberals figure that out, they will turn on Francis.
I read this today at the Telegraph:
Pope Francis ‘refuses’ gay French ambassador
Pope Francis’ reputation as liberal takes a knock over reports that he rejected the nomination of a new French ambassador to the Vatican on the grounds that he was a homosexual
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.
The Elysee said that the choice of Mr Stefanini to represent France at the Vatican resulted from “a wish by the president and a cabinet decision” and that the president regarded him as “one of our best diplomats.”
French media widely reported that Mr Stefanini has been blackballed due to 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’ image as being (slightly) more open-minded that his predecessors on sexuality“.
France in 2007 nominated a gay ambassador to the Vatican who had a partner recognised under French law but the Holy See never responded to the nomination, despite lengthy attempts to secure him the post.[…]
Read the rest there.
So, now we must wait to see if writers over at the Fishwrap (aka National S_______ Reporter) denounce Pope Francis as a homophobe.
C’mon Fishwrap! You know you want to!
Hey! Maybe Michael Sean Winters can find a way to blame Card. Burke!
Meanwhile, we here at Fr. Z’s Blog sing out…
| V. Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco. | V. Let us pray for Francis, our Pope. |
| R. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius. [Ps 40:3] | R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. [Ps 40:3] |
| Pater Noster, Ave Maria. | Our Father, Hail Mary. |
| Deus, omnium fidelium pastor et rector, famulum tuum Franciscum, quem pastorem Ecclesiae tuae praeesse voluisti, propitius respice: da ei, quaesumus, verbo et exemplo, quibus praeest, proficere: ut ad vitam, una cum grege sibi credito, perveniat sempiternam. Per Christum, Dominum nostrum. Amen. | O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. |
Loading ...
We need to be more careful with terminology in this now rather important area.
Being a homosexual of either sex is not wrong. Being actively homosexual, what is rather sadly referred to as being “Gay” something which few such people if any are, is judged by the Catholic Church to be “grave depravity”, “intrinsically disordered”, and “contrary to natural law”. Seems pretty clear to me.
We must also beware of the insulting distorted language which will inevitably be used in any discussion.
A new law rather along the lines of Godwins Law, is required which will highlight and calibrate terms such as homophobia and its opposite homofascist.
Thank God for small favors. I’d like to see similar responses to a vast number of ecclesiastical nominations, appointments (Osorno), dismissals (Metuchen), utterances and a variety of other behaviors and positionings. The vast number of offensive events uncommented, permitted and imposed by since March 2013 don’t allow me to applaud as yet.
Perhaps it was the fact the gentleman was French that sealed his fate.
“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. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
Alas.
It indeed seems to be the fault of Cardinal Burke. The last line of the article says: “Observers say the Pope cannot be seen to be adopting an overly gay-friendly approach that would shock the Catholic church’s more conservative elements.”
Perfect title for the post.
I will remember to pray for him. His papacy has already alienated many faithful Catholics, and if he alienates the dissident Catholics, he may not have much support at the end of the day. However, an irritated faithful Catholic will still pray for the Pope. He will be lucky to get that response from irritated dissidents.
I wouldn’t want his job, and I wouldn’t want to have to answer for all that he is responsible for- I will pray for him.
The camel has come in, he has kicked back in the recliner, made himself a martini, and has ordered a movie from Netflix. It is going to take a bulldozer to get him out now, but, fire it up!
One is not a homosexual, as both the AMA and the Australian medical authorities determined there is no gene for gayness. It is learned-nurture not nature. To identify with gayness is to deny that we are more than sexual tendency identifications. Last year, Catholic Bandita had a long series on this , on which I commented as well. Worth reading. All of us have tendencies to sin, all; this is concupiscence, but we do not have to identify, nor should we identify with sin. To fight tendencies to sin is the job of every one of us. We all have our crosses of sin. All. But, God can, in his grace, take away tendencies towards sin. This is noted in many of the Doctors of the Church and saints, as I quote on my perfection series. We can be, eventually, freed from sin, even venial sin, and the tendencies towards sin. When this happens, one goes into the Illuminative, then Unitive State and then really, really helps the Church. “Be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect,” is not wishful thinking on the part of Christ, but a reality. Saints find this on earth and then go to heaven. Most of us have to endure purgatory.
Recently, in the confessional, in a comment made after the sacrament, so I can share it, a priest told me that, yes, God wants us to be free from all sin, even venial, and the tendencies towards sin. He confirms my work and the writings of the saints, as well as Christ’s own words.
It is hard, very hard, but nothing is impossible with God, nothing.
As to the Pope, bravo. I had this on my blog earlier as well and like the article’s author, see this act of the French as “provocation”. So sad that the Eldest Daughter of the Church has fallen so far away from both natural law teaching and Catholic teaching, based on natural law.
Sending an openly gay ambassador to the Vatican, unless he/she were also openly chaste, is an insult.
France openly insulted the Vatican, the Vatican gently refused to take it, and now the Vatican is the bad guy. Typical.
In the context if jacobi & Cody’s comments, is the assumption that Mr. Samuel does not distinguish between “gay” and “homosexual” and that in calling Mr. Stefanini ” Very discreet about his private life” he assumes or somehow knows of same-sex activity (and similarly with respect to the unnamed nominated “gay ambassador to the Vatican who had a partner recognised under French law”)?
His article leaves me wondering why “a stony silence over whether it accepts his credentials” is simply equated with refusal and rejection, and what happens in practice: if there is no clear response after the “usual time frame”, ought a diplomatically-minded land courteously offer a different potential ambassador? What happened between 2007 and Mr.Joubert’s becoming ambassador in 2012?
In a more ideal world, this would be a teachable moment for the Vatican to stress that the issue with such an ambassador is not the condition of “being” a homosexuality, but the promotion of the evil “gay” ideology that is currently using the state and propagandizing society to attack the Church and her moral teachings, as we have just seen with the disgusting hysteria over Indiana.
Digital fistpunch to Father Z for an excellent post. Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Francisco.
You’re right, Jacobi. I’d add that the Church made a very big mistake when it stopped using the word sodomy. Today the word homosexuality means both 1) same-sex attraction, and 2) orgasm-producing behavior between persons of the same sex. It’s confusing, and, as we have seen, it is a confusion which has been exploited to the hilt by LGBT activists.
In contrast, “sodomy” referred only to the acts, and “sodomite” referred to persons engaged in those acts–never to a person with the sinful desires who refuses to act on those desires.
I don’t see how the Vatican accomplishes anything by rejecting the nomination on the basis of his sexual orientation. Of course, with no statement one way or another, it’s not even clear that this really was the reason the nomination hasn’t been confirmed, although now that the suggestion has been made, the media will treat it as proven fact.
Regardless, it does not seem to me that dealing with Mr. Stefanini on a purely professional basis to facilitate dialogue between the Vatican and France would be a cause of scandal, and would in fact, be a useful example of how the Church lives out “loving the sinner, hating the sin.”
Allowing Mr Stefanini to be ambassador would set a terrible precedent and would not at all be a useful example. Well, not a useful example for the Vatican, it would be further exploited by the socialist government in France and Mr Stefanini. You see, once he’s confirmed, of course he’ll want his legal mate to tag along at all the usual functions, any uninvite would be ‘unmerciful’, ‘intolerant’, all-the-usual-tripe…
Sometimes we just know the “right” thing to do. Papa Francesco is clear in his decisions. Each situation is unique and general discussions do not apply to each individual circumstance or person.
He knows what he is doing.
I think we are getting waay over the top about worrying about everyone’s hurt feelings.
I love all people. But back in the day—-people were people and we cared about each one.
Now we tip toe around situations that should never be situations in the first place.
Everyone has a chip on their shoulder, as they used to say.
It is ridiculously complicated because of the whiners who want things their way.
In my mind it is correct for the Pope to keep a good example visible for us.
He is clear.
Homosexuality is not a good Catholic example. So why place this person as an example in a prominent place?
I think our Pope is right. He is not doing what Cardinal Dolan did on St. Pat’s day….being a nice guy people pleaser.
We are God pleasers first.
Might there be someplace on YouTube or the wider internet where the rest of that chant might be heard and seen?
Il faut que les français aprennent que le Pape n’est pas Charlie.
… apprennent… oops.
A country’s ambassador represents that country, and particularly its integrity and trustworthiness. You are not supposed to send someone of known immoral habits, or someone who will have a difficult time doing the job because of mental problems, or someone who will tend to cause problems himself.
Sending a homosexual ambassador to the Vatican is like sending a diabetic to be a taste tester at a candy company. It is dangerous to everyone and profoundly unkind to the one sent.
Prudence on the Pope’s part.
I am blest to have a Courage group in my parish. These are some of the most holy people I know. They continue to inspire me. God allows all of us to have defects, whatever they may be, big or small (just list any sin of your sins), to keep us humble, and when we embrace the suffering they cause us give us the possibility of achieving great sanctity.
The article goes on to say that Mr Stefanini is reportedly widely respected by many in the Catholic Church, following his previous stint as number two in the French embassy at the Vatican…. Very discreet about his private life, he is “highly thought of in Roman circles,” from which two things seem evident. First, he is not really very discreet. Second, Vatican officials had no problem with him before. If the basic premise of this article is true, the Holy Father is, perhaps, being hanged out to dry by some of his employees.
I implore readers to go to the website of MassResistance, to see what the people on the front line in this battle say about why things went so sour in Indiana and then Arkansas, and why making appeals to religious freedom is not the answer. MassResistance is very experienced in dealing with radical homosexualists, and have seen the implications of all this for some time. This is their expertise. Scott Lively is another expert. They have all seen the screaming mobs and the spittle. They know it well.
We need leadership, someone that God provides who will energize and mobilize many people into real action. If that happens, things will change for the better. Learning what works and what doesn’t is crucial.
Sorry, my post doesn’t exactly speak to Mr. Stefanani’s apparent rejection for the Vatican post, just the topic in general.
I am glad that he was not elected, but that is as much as I can conclude.
gramma10,
He knows what he is doing.
With all due respect, if he really knew what he was doing, he would never have said “Who am I to judge?” – a phrase the Church will be forced to live down for generations to come. And that is, at least, the charitable interpretation.
However it happened, however, this new development is a good one, and I am relieved to see the Holy Father drawing a firm line in the sand.
“his previous stint as number two in the French embassy at the Vatican” –
Translation: In a typical swipe at the Vatican for the anti-religion French government, France previously tried to send the Vatican an openly gay ambassador with an open civil partnership. When he was not recognized diplomatically, France sent a less insulting ambassador – but with an openly gay assistant whom the Vatican had no say in refusing. The usual suspects at the Vatican probably rushed to show disloyalty by supporting France in this nasty second insult, and apparently the media rushed to take the situation as somehow making the Vatican as a whole happy and impressed.
And now, France follows up with diplomatic incident/insult #3, and yet somehow it is all the Vatican’s fault for not being enthusiastic.
If The Holy Father had been less incautious about what he said and to whom he said it, there would be little to discuss now.
We have the right to expect the Pope to speak only when appropriate, with authority and clearly. Alas we continue only to speculate on what he means for much of the time. This does little for him and less for the rest of us.
Though he has been educated in his youth in a catholic school, François Hollande looks to be intrinsincally anti christian. For example he couldn’t utter the word “christian” when he spoke about the beheading of 21 coptic men in Libya. Instead he spoke of “egyptian citizens”.
I have the proof that he is a freemason and many of the members of his government are FM, probably too.
The appointment of Stefanini is a provocation aimed at puzzling the Vatican and exposing the Pope as the villain. I am already foreseeing how that story will end: The leftist newspapers will be unchained in the catholic-bashing.
In the case he would have been appointed ambassador to Saudi Arabia, that country would feel herself much offended too
In 1994 , Time magazine proclaimed Pope John Paul II “Man of the Year”.
The next year , when he promulgated Evangelium Vitae and clearly delineated the culture of death – of which contraception is a part, the secular world , and even lukewarm and cafeteria Catholics began to resent him.
In December 2013, Time magazine proclaimed Pope Francis “Man of the Year”. (oops excuse me – now we have to say “person” of the year . . . I guess no one’s allowed to be a man anymore). So a year and several months later we’re starting to hear snarling sounds again from those who exalt absolute freedom without responsibility as their God . . . just saying . . . but maybe Pope Francis has decided that, for the time being, he won’t be throwing too many more of his pearls before swine.
_______________________________________________
Let’s try not to be too hasty : A lot of what I’ve read about the purported circumstances in other reports, have some elements which are difficult to substantiate/verify.
I’m glad the Vatican is remaining mute on the appointment. But, that it was actually the decision of Pope Francis to do so, is still largely open to conjecture (they could simply be setting him up). For example, the Telegraph article claims :”Le Journal du Dimanche quoted a Vatican insider as saying that the rejection was “a decision taken by the Pope himself.”
So far, it has been impossible to identify the Vatican insider – and all the media monkeys are parroting the same line.
Everyone is quoting the Journal du Dimanche , but they just say “someone inside the Vatican” (how convenient) – there’s no proof anyone ever said anything.
The Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois , is reported to have sent a letter of recommendation to the Vatican urging them to accept the appointment of Laurent Stefanini – they even give a date of the letter – Feb 11, 2015, but no one is privy to the actual information in the letter (have they even seen the letter w/o being able to read its contents?).
http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Religion/Le-pape-Francois-ne-veut-pas-de-l-ambassadeur-francais-propose-par-Francois-Hollande-727092
http://www.lejdd.fr/International/Europe/La-France-maintient-son-candidat-a-l-ambassade-pres-le-Saint-Siege-727242
In the Telegraph article linked in the OP , scroll down a little past Pope Francis’ pic, and we see a pic of “France’s President Francois Hollande (L) shakes hands with Laurent Stefanini” .
If you recall, Francois Hollande is the proponent and main reason that the same-sex
marriagebill became law in France – against the will of the majority , and even against the will of one of the largest homosexual associations in France headed by French lesbian Nathalie de Williencourt :What’s going on ? The very fact that it’s all jumbled should give us a hint. We’ve seen it a few times. Maybe we should learn to recognize some of the patterns :
– Active homosexuals, by and large don’t even want gay marriage – but because the secular world cowers in fear of the gay militants/homosexual lobby , the politicians and Supreme Court lackeys who sit on the Bench, pass the legislation anyway.
– In the case of the baker and wedding cake recently digested on Father Z’s blog, one of our members posted that the baker and the one who wanted the wedding cake are “friends” – there was no animosity between them . But , “BANG !!” . . . in comes the homosexual lobby to start litigation – regardless.
– Now, we have someone described as “openly gay” being appointed as ambassador to the Vatican. Stop it here, for just a sec: If the guy really is the diplomat everyone says he is, why didn’t he see that the most dignified, honourable thing he could’ve done was to refuse appointment to the Vatican ? Wouldn’t that be deemed as truly respecting the view of others ? Instead, he’s remaining just as quiet as the Vatican is about it (if there is any shred of truth to what we’re reading). You have to admit, a person really makes a great victim in the public eye when they appear to be persecuted without saying a thing. And you know the media is just waiting to pour on the crocodile tears. Bottom line : Whether he opens his mouth , or not; whether he wants the position or not ;whether he wants them to or not, the gay militants/homosexual lobby are just going to use him as a pawn in their assault against the Church. That’s what these snakes do, and they’re poisonous (to everyone heterosexual and homosexual alike) – for years they have stooped well below the defining lines of decency to achieve their objectives.
Give everyone else the benefit of the doubt , no matter what their lifestyle. But NEVER trust the gay militants/homosexual lobby. NEVER ! Their track record speaks for itself. Their modus operandi is parallel to the psychotic pathological tactics of the Nazis. The only difference is that they wield power and the threat of financial ruin as their weapons )along with a somewhat veiled but real potential to retaliate with violence). They persecute and manipulate good loving human beings and they vitiate their innocent children. They will even persecute those whom they claim to be “protecting”. – We just saw it with Dolce and Gabbana . These guys dared to say how they really felt deep down inside , and look what happened – the almighty gay lobby – condemns them and persecutes them . . . for nothing more than freedom of speech.
Suburbanbanshee takes up Joe in Canada’s noting Mr. Samuel writing of Mr, Stefanini’s “previous stint as number two in the French embassy at the Vatican”.
The chronology that Mr. Samuel provides includes (1) an unnamed ambassador or ambassador’s in the period 2001-05, (2) the attempt to install an unnamed “a gay ambassador to the Vatican who had a partner recognised under French law” in 2007, and (3) the current attempt to follow Mr. Joubert (whom he does not name) with Mr. Stefanini.
Can anyone recommend an authoritative online source for who was French ambassador, and who, nominee, when? My brief attempt to search discovered nothing…
And anyone recommend any authoritative or reliable online source(s) for Mr. Stefanini’s 2001-05 “stint as number two”?
How and with whom does Mr. Stefanini seem to have been being “very discreet”?
Is it true that the Vatican would have or have “had no say in refusing” (for example) “an openly gay assistant”? How do states get rid of, or forestall, foreign diplomats, embassy staff, et al. whom they consider dubious, undesirable, etc.?
I cannot readily find much about the office the Chief of Protocol of the Republic of France – the Wikipedia article “Liste des chefs du protocole de la République française” is fairly brief, for example. But it seems not a little ironic that the Chef du Protocol since June 2010 should be so central to this provocative act of impudence on the part of Mr. Hollande.
An ambassador is appointed by country F to country V. F sends “letters of credence” to V, and V receives them. F’s new ambassador isn’t actually ambassador to V until accepted by V.
If things get bad or embarrassing, F can recall their ambassador, and V can revoke acceptance of an ambassador’s credentials.
Wikipedia says:
The number 2 guy becomes “chargé d’affaires” or “chargé d’affaires, ad interim”: “when an ambassador (or other head of mission) is not present, has not been appointed, or is otherwise not able to discharge duties in a specific location… In such cases, the diplomatic mission advises the local government (usually the foreign ministry) by means of a diplomatic note that a specific individual has been appointed chargé for a specific or indefinite period of time. In contrast to an ambassador, the specific agreement of the host government is not required.”
Any other F embassy staffer below ambassador requires no approval from country V, because F’s embassy is F’s business. F would send V some kind of paperwork so the staffers can get their eensy-beensy diplomatic immunity and be put on the relevant party invitation mailing lists. But that’s about it.
Venezuela’s government recently demanded that the US reduce the numbers of their embassy staff; but the US embassy is a little piece of the US, and by international law, the US can tell Venezuela where to go. Of course, there are lots of other worse things a host country can do, if they don’t care about international law. But embassies and diplomats are useful, so most countries do obey international law about this stuff.
1. There is not enough hard info form conclusions on this matter. Fine. We all agree with that. I hope.
2. There is enough info to form impressions, and the impression is that the nominee is because rejected purely because of sexual orientation, which in the minds of reasonable observers shifts the burden of proof to the Vatican to confirm or deny, esp. given CCC 2358.
3. Meanwhile, “Sending an openly gay ambassador to the Vatican, unless he/she were also openly chaste, is an insult.” How, pray, does one prove that one is “openly chaste”?, and, does this man not meet that criterion?
Let’s see if France appoints a gay ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Uganda, Syria, or Iran. I doubt it.
If Mr. Bob Statedepartment was known to have homosexual inclinations, but was also known to be the head of the DC chapter of Courage and a man of probity of conduct in all ways, nobody at the Vatican could easily complain about him being made ambassador to the Vatican.
The same thing applies to other kinds of conduct, sexual or otherwise. Had Mata Hari survived WWI, you wouldn’t appoint her as ambassador to Uruguay, because either you’re saying, “Yup, we’re sending our sex spy to steal your secrets, and you’re too stupid to realize it,” or you’re saying, “We feel that this embassy post only requires the skills of an exotic dancer who can smile and show up for dinner.”
Similarly, you would not appoint Simon Templar or Lupin III as ambassadors, because they are known thieves who have frequently violated diplomatic residences and done violence to heads of state. Even if they are generally considered good guys, this is not a reassuring image for the UK or Japan to use for diplomatic negotiations.
An ambassador is supposed to be someone who is charming, clever, reassuringly honest, and who lives a really boring private life; or someone who is a boringly good face for the country at parties and negotiations, allowing the underlings to do all the work. Preferably he/she has a spouse and kids, and a lot of rich or political connections.
I would not be surprised if the same thing happens with Hillary or any other far
left Democrat elected US President in 2016. It will be a continuation of the Obama/Clinton
policy –or worse. The French have just opened the door.
On the other hand they could nominate Nancy Pelosi.
See this quote from a French priest blogger, Fr Stéphane Lemessin, regarding the rejected diplomat:
“Announcing his nomination to the press before presenting it to the Vatican was not the most diplomatic way of doing things,”
http://www.thelocal.fr/20150410/pope-rejects-frances-gay-ambassador-to-vatican
I think the rejection has more to do with presumption on behalf of the French Government, rather than the mans sexual habits.
I would like to think Francis would reject such a nomination – but then, he has previously seemed tolerant of persons involved in homosexual behaviours, such as Monsignor Ricca; and whatever happened to the “gay dossier” prepared during Benedicts tenure? No action seems to have been taken following that investigation……
In a perfect world, serving just desserts to underhanded-dealing culprits , a written reply from the Vatican on this matter, addressed to François Hollande (sneaky sneaky) , might require a slightly more finessed wording , and, in keeping with the mood of the intial insult one is replying to, would be even more appropriate if it were “a decision taken by the Pope himself.”
Perhaps something along the lines of:
Suburbanbanshee,
Thanks! (And, which Wikipedia article is that…?) I was, among other things, vaguely recalling Cold War (and later) politicking (or whatever) about charges of (purported) espionage and sending away – and/or calling for the sending away? – of assortments of embassy staff (or whomever), but (still) don’t know enough about how such things work, whether in (international) law or custom.
The question of the “openly chaste”, taken up by Dr. Peters, is something I have been wondering about in this context. The Church of England seems to have developed quite an explicit line in this area, about clergy being approved in same-sex civil partnerships as long as they are self-proclaimedly ‘chaste’ (if I am not mistaken). One could imagine a nation-state pursuing such a line with respect to its nominated ambassadors, but I do not know if any ever has, whether generally or in any particular instances. (One can equally imagine a nation-state explicitly scorning to do so: again, something I know nothing concrete about.)
Pingback: PopeWatch: Laurent Stefanini | The American Catholic
“I have been saying for a couple years now that when liberals figure that out, they will turn on Francis…..” Being from NY, I’d substitute the name Dolan in there. The clock is ticking on him….before long he will be viciously mauled by those who cannot use him anymore….and as has been the case since the 80s, the ugliness will be visited inside or just outside St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
France, the provocateur, could just as well have named a Roman catholic who was
1) Divorced and remarried (without annulment)
2) Parent of a child conceived through IVF
3) An advocate for legalizing abortion
Appointing a homosexual ambassador was designed to embarrass Pope Francis, given the current and unprecedented rapprochement with same-sex activity and, in some cases same sex unions, in much of the liberal West.
An excellent question Dr. Peters.
Another might be : What the heck does openly gay mean ?
I spent (wasted actually) a significant amount of time trying to find out , and discovered that even people claiming to be “gay” would ramble on and on about it without ever arriving at the clear definitive terminology the Church uses to distinguish between homosexual tendency, homosexual attraction, and homosexual activity.
They do their utmost to keep it as ambiguous as possible . But sometimes it becomes just a little too obvious that things aren’t adding up . . . like when we get The Independent publishing an article claiming that the appointee is “openly gay” and a “practicing Catholic” all at the same time. The Independent isn’t the only site saying/repeating this. They’re repeating what was published in the apparent source – Il Messagero ” . . . è cattolico praticante.”
Donald R. McCleary over at The American Catholic has a couple of good observations to add to the info available:
Although “Laurent Stefanini is not an obvious gay lobbyist” , the more practical question is what could the gay lobbyists and fickle media do if he was in place in the Vatican. To anyone who wants to know the answer, just read around the internet a while and see what they’re already saying – then use your imagination.
The Telegraph article quoted and linked in the OP said ,
The Holy See should (not) respond in exactly the same manner.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, they went ahead and gave the “openly gay” appointee the post. Let’s say, a little ways into his tenure, he meets someone and decides he wants to
marry– a same-sex partner. So they go and do that in France on a weekend where it’s legal and fly or drive back to live at the Vatican . . . then what ?Close ranks. The Vatican doesn’t give replies on this one – the delay is the reply. So let’s hope that sometime soon François Hollande stops pretending he doesn’t get it, and that het least has enough integrity left to acknowledge that it didn’t work.
If France’s government heads are ignorant enough to keep insisting on an answer , I guess there’s always :
Supertradmum: “Recently, in the confessional, in a comment made after the sacrament, so I can share it, a priest told me…”
Actually, the penitent is not bound by the Seal of Confession. He may quote himself or the priest, provided, of course, he does so accurately.
Grumpy Beggar,
Thanks for the further information and links! Is’s worth adding that the whole of the first paragraph you quote from Mr. McClarey is close to being a quotation from (which he makes a link to) an article by Jeanne Smits well worth reading in its entirety:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/france-nominates-gay-ambassador-to-holy-see-but-months-later-pope-francis-h
She notes, “In 2007, Pope Benedict refused to approve the nomination of a French ambassador who was reputed to be openly living in a civil union with another man. The Villa Bonaparte remained unoccupied for two years.” But she also cites a spokesman of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs “that the long wait for the Holy See’s approval is not an uncommon procedure and that it was no clear indicator of Stefanini’s rejection by the Vatican’s authorities.” She further reports interestingly on a probable “environmental”/”ecology”/”climate”-politics aspect to Mr. Stefanini’s nomination.
Giuseppe wrote, “Let’s see if France appoints a gay ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Uganda, Syria, or Iran. I doubt it.” A couple commenters at the article linked above from The American Catholic recall the terrible fate of Ambassador Stevens in Libya.
I’m still not seeing clear thinking here. Sorry, but every objection is either based on suppositions not borne out by facts as reported (if he is ‘civilly-married’, if he is ‘cohabiting’, if he is a leader of the gay movement, none of which he apparently is) or is rejected as “provocative”, but, in the eyes of who? Of a Church that says discrimination is not tolerable if based only on ‘orientation’? Either the CCC means what is plainly says, or it doesn’t. As for the ridiculous “Why doesn’t France send this type to some place like Somalia?”, gee maybe cuz the Vatican wont murder him?
Venerator Sti Lot , thanks for the link – I read the rest of the Jeanne Smits article and it provided a couple of new ideas which I hope to be able to contribute a little later in a post after this one . . . have also read some of the questions you’ve posted of late and pondered them – most thought- provoking.
I see some truth in what Dr. Peters is saying just above, contained in some of what I’ve been posting myself. Sometimes I can let my emotions get ahead of me when having to assess what the gay lobby is up to and try and anticipate where they’ll go next on a certain issue. For me, that has never been an enjoyable thing, but I believe it a necessary one.
Trying to verify a lot of the information in this case meant reading info posted at more than a few sites which promote active homosexuality and its entourage . . . can only take so much of that stuff before I begin to lose my appetite ( although, I’m starting to think that Fr. Z’s pics of pan fried noodles with chicken would make me hungry even if we were in the middle of Armageddon [then again, we might already be] ).
I found it helpful to the thinking process to re-visit the first 2 points of Dr. Peters’ post previous to the one above:
It would appear that the lack of hard info will remain that way, given two email communications purported to have come from Vatican spokesmen , Rev. Thomas Rosica and Father Frederico Lombardi, S.J., respectively . The Washington Post claims they received these replies to their request for some hard info:
If the burden of proof is on the Vatican, I don’t see how any of us will ever know what the actual reasons are.
It’s understood that our vocabulary can become limited when speaking on this subject , but without meaning to offend any members, I personally would try to steer clear of using the term sexual orientation. Most of us who have scrutinized some of the finer points of the gay lobby’s sophistry and verbal engineering understand that when we use the term in debate or conversation, we are conceding more than one point. As Dr. Scott Lively says :
In critical discussions, that term doesn’t get us any closer to determining whether we’re dealing with homosexual tendency, homosexual attraction, or homosexual activity – we keep getting bumped back to Square 1.
There’s a compelling article at barbwire.com quoting Dr. Scott Lively , who provides a whole bunch of reasons not to use the term sexual orientation entitled :WHY THE TERM “SEXUAL ORIENTATION” IS NONSENSE
Of a Church that says discrimination is not tolerable if based only on ‘orientation’? Either the CCC means what is plainly says, or it doesn’t.
Not just discrimination, but unjust discrimination. It is not against justice that the Vatican denied the man a job (because no man is owed a job as an ambassador at the Vatican). If the man had voiced openly pedophilic or adulterous tendencies, but never either acted upon them or denounced them, it would be equally as appropriate for the Vatican to deny his job application.
Grumpy Beggar,
Thanks for your 3:30 PM comment! Public hard facts/info seem(s) limited: a nomination had been made, it has not been explicitly responded to, neither denied nor accepted. Assuming Jeanne Smits is accurately citing the spokesman of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and he is speaking accurately, I suppose “the long wait for the Holy See’s approval is not an uncommon procedure” is another – and an interesting – hard fact.
Assuming that Mr. Stefanini’s serving as “first counselor at the French embassy to the Holy See from 2001 to 2005” is another fact, it is of course quite possible that there are those within the Vatican possessed of many and various facts about his activities in Rome during that time, which could help form the grounds upon which a decision would be made.
My impression is that lots of commenters are speaking conjecturally and conditionally, and I presume, consciously so, but are sometimes doing that in an ‘indicative’ style rather than spelling out the ‘ifs’ and ‘thens’ – but I haven’t reread in detail to check this impression.
Back in the time of the Synod and the questions about the official English (and other) translations of documents, I tried to look into the terminology of various relevant documents (and translations) with some care, but do not have the results at my fingertips. So, I cannot recall if “orientation” is ever used in any official English translation of anything and. if so, what word in the source is so translated!
The English translation of CCC 2358 on the Vatican site includes “tendencies” and “inclination” translating “tendentias” and “propensio” respectively. ‘Orientation’ does not occur in it. (Nor does it occur in the other two in that section, 2357 and 2359. 2357 has “attraction” and “affective […] complementarity” translating “allectationem” and “complementaritate affectiva” respectively.)
I have not followed your link, yet, but agree with your avoidance of “orientation”. As I recall, some places have it, or its equivalent, ensconced in the letter of the law, but I do not recall ever seeing a clear legal definition of it. One ambiguity that strikes me is that it could indicate a putative given – as a magnet could be said to be oriented to the North – or, instead, an elected direction – as one can use a magnetic compass to navigate in a particular direction. Neither sense explicitly addresses action or refraining from action in relation to it.
Here’s a brand new article by Jeanne Smits published today at lifesitenews entitled : France’s proposed Vatican envoy is a devout Catholic and may not even be ‘gay’: so who’s creating this flap, and why ?
I don’t seem to encounter quite as much of a problem a she does figuring out the “Who” ? on that one . . . their commonly known label probably rhymes with “grey hobby” .
:)
Your “putative given” , Venerator Sti Lot , would appear to concur with both the CDF and Scott Lively’s analysis.
Re whether “orientation” is used in any official translation , we can find it mentioned as an actual subject and scrutinized several different ways and times in the second half of the CDF’s Letter : SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. They clearly recognize how problematic “sexual orientation” is as a concept. That EWTN presentation would be a good primer before reading Scott Lively’s very valuable essay.
(p.s. Nice to hear from you again, I’ll be sure to pass your regards on to Grumpy Bear as soon as he comes out of hibernation).
Grumpy Beggar,
Thank you for the latest links and discussion!
The Jeanne Smits is fascinating – a ‘must-read’, I’d say! “No one can say for certain whether he has been rejected by the Holy See or not, and if so, by whom – the Pope? – nor for what reason, if any.” Wow!
It looks like the Journal du dimanche ,may well have just cooked up some mendacious mischief. Might they be going for a sort of ‘win-win situation’ in that, if Mr. Stefanini is merely a good Catholic and should (for whatever, not necessarily publicized, reason) happen not to be accepted, they can accuse of ‘homophobia’, while if he should be accepted, they can pretend he’s a ‘discreetly active practitioner of the gay lifestyle’ and claim his appointment as a triumph? If Mr. Stefanini is merely a good Catholic, it would be jolly if he would come out and say it. He being “the official representative of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Order of Malta”, some kind of joint interview with Cardinal Burke would also be most interesting.
I see the “Some Considerations…” does not have a Latin original/version. The 1986 “Letter” which it quotes, does. There, the word “orientation” in section three of the English translation renders “propensionis” in the Latin original. (Is there a Lewis & Short online anywhere?) “Homosexual condition or tendency” quoted from earlier in that same section is in Latin “condicionem vel propensionem homosexualem”. And, further from that section, “the particular inclination of the homosexual person” is in Latin “peculiarem personae homosexualis propensionem”. One Latin word, with three different English translations in the same section!
What do you think of that Letter’s use of a vocabulary of “personas homosexuales”?
(p.s. Do you think hunt & peck typing skills can have a ‘Grumpy Bear orientation’?)
Grumpy Beggar,
Is there any attempt to reconcile the agenda points of the putatively given and the “a person’s gender identity may change over time” dictum? See, for example, Katherine Timpf’s report, re. the latter:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416992/university-warns-professors-their-students-genders-may-change-over-time-katherine
Perhaps Mr. Lively’s perception of the creating of “a context in which sexuality can be divorced from physiology” illuminates it, as both fixed and fluid explications of “orientation” and “identity” can exploit it, but how is an attempt made to lend plausibility to the shifting from ‘given’ to ‘chosen/willed’? Or are such questions merely ignored, banned, shouted down, etc.?
Apparently, according to Deacon Keith Fournier, even Pope Francis has referred to the nature of the gender identity movement as demonic.
Polish Bishops and Pope Francis Expose the Gender Identity Movement
(will try to provide a little more info this evening if possible)
Grumpy Beggar,
Further with respect to the language of “orientation”, I just read this report of a recent day conference, including a link to an article by Professor Dr. Gagnon (as one might ‘Germanically’ put it):
http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/transformation-potential-a-report-of-the-conference
In his article, he seems to use “orientation” in a way that does not accept either and reject the other of the two explications, ‘given’ or ‘chosen/willed’, but as it were addresses the experience of “attractions” and “desires”.
Grumpy Beggar,
Thank you for your comment of 7:21 AM linking Deacon Keith Fournier’s article from March 2014 (the latest visible comment by you as I write).
In it, he writes, “In 2002 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Catholic Church issued a letter sent without public release to every Bishop. It clearly stated that such surgical procedures do not alter a person’s gender and that in no circumstance are baptismal records of such individuals who have undergone them to be altered. Further, the document made clear that no one who has undergone such a surgery is eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter the religious life.”
I cannot find anything corresponding to this under any of the three categories of “Documents” listed here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/index.htm
What does “a letter sent without public release” mean? What exactly is this 2002 “letter” and where can it be read in any (of the) language(s) in which it was sent “to every Bishop” (of whom he specifies “Bishop Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill.”, who as “the President of the U.S. bishops’ conference […] sent a letter to all US Bishops” following on from this CDF “letter”)?
I read this the other day:
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/04/15/pope-takes-on-feminists-gender-theorists-gay-activists/
Sadly, Dr. Williams does not link or indicate the source(s) he quotes for any of this. (I have not attempted to read through the “840 Comments” to see if source-details are supplied there by anyone!)
I am reminded of Pico della Mirandola’s Oratio de hominis dignitate (Oration on the Dignity of Man, 1486), in which he makes God say to Adam (19-20, 22), “Once defined, the nature of all other beings, is constrained within the laws prescribed by us. Constrained by no limits, you may determine it for yourself, according to your own free will, in whose hand we have placed you. […] We have made you […] so that you may, as the free and extraordinary shaper of yourself, fashion yourself in the form you will prefer.” (“Definita caeteris natura intra praescriptas a nobis leges cohercetur. Tu, nullis angustiis cohercitus, pro tuo arbitrio, in cuius manu te posui, tibi illam prefinies. […] fecimus, ut tui ipsius quasi arbitrarius honorariusque plastes in quam malueris tute formam effingas.”)
Here is an English translation of the latest remarks by Pope Francis on “gender theory” in context:
http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/general-audience-on-man-and-woman
The Lifesitenews article of April 15, 2015 is the only one to date which suggests that France’s head of protocol Lauurent Stefanini , may not be homosexual.
A couple of ideas from a speculative sphere of thought on that one :
If he weren’t homosexual, he could make himself a very rich man by suing all these publications for false representation. If he wasn’t interested in the money, then at least, in the name of the truth – let alone consideration of his own dignity, he could ask/demand that all those, um, misleading media types publish an immediate retraction of the claim that he is homosexual.
If the public were all claiming he was a homosexual , and he wasn’t, then wouldn’t one of the most effective things which could be done – both for his own reputation, and to ensure his appointment as ambassador to the Vatican not be jeopardized, be to simply state clearly and simply that he is not homosexual ?
Instead, silence . . . which, amidst the flood of rumors, leaves the question open. I don’t believe it would be at all responsible for a conscientious Catholic to let something like that stand if it weren’t true – especially when seen in the light of how much the media is using it to damage the Church and Pope Francis .
_____________
Almost all the reports make some mention of French Cardinal André Vingt-Trois having supported the appointment of Mr Stefanini in a letter to the Vatican, and all the sites promoting active homosexuality I’ve (nauseatingly) read to date never leave that part out.
Here’s a typical example
The Lifesitenews article of April 15, 2015 also perpetuates the claim (of the JDD) :
About this magic letter , or , more aptly, all these magic eyes who can peer right through the envelope to see what Cardinal André Vingt-Trois had (purportedly) written, or even before that, are able to look in the office windows to watch and see if Cardinal Vingt-Trois actually wrote a letter , and who are able, from a distance to discern the intended recipient on the address label – because that’s all we have to go on right now . . . Good, solid, 100% BS ; served-up to us courtesy of the gay lobby.
Shoveling all that aside, interestingly enough, the far left-leaning Libération Société (not recommended reading in normal circumstances) claims that they contacted the Cardinal Archbishop’s office for clarification : According to them, the director of communications for the Archdiocesan Chancery Office of Paris , Mme. Marie Baudoin, in reply to queries about any letter of said nature, has only replied, «La correspondance du Cardinal est strictement privée», ([roughly] “The Cardinal’s correspondence is strictly private”). So how could anyone know – except God, if a letter was sent, and what its contents were ?
[* @ Venerator Sti Lot : I wonder if that might be the key to understanding the spirit of the meaning of “a letter without public release.” There’s a good, but troubling article at Catholic culture entitled Leaks of Papal Documents are ‘Criminal,’ Vatican Charges , confirming that members of the Church hierarchy also have rights, specifically in this scenario : “individual rights to privacy and freedom of correspondence.” ]
The Lifesitenews article also reported a media claim that Ludovine de La Rochère had contacted France’s papal nuncio and asked him to block Stefanini’s appointment – further stipulating that Mme. De La Rochère claims that, that also is a fabrication
.
If we want to know who is behind the campaign, we could try zooming in a moment:
Ludovine de La Rochère is president of Le Manif Pour Tous. Her association was responsible for organizing some of the largest demonstrations ever against gay
marriagein France. Even after the legislation for homosexualmarriagewas passed and became law, they organized a march in Paris less than a year ago in which over one million people participated, calling for the withdrawal of the law which had just been signed by France’s President François Hollande .The demonstrations were always peaceful , and Le Manif Pour Tous’ website states straight out –
Ludovine de La Rochère is also spokesperson for the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation. Sites that promote the homosexual lifestyle label these two sites which Mme. de La Rocjère serves as anti-homosexual or anti-gay – as opposed to pro-family, and anti-abortion – as opposed to pro-life and pro-science, respectively.
Libération Société’s article quotes Mme. de La Rochère’s response to the lie that she contacted the nuncio as : «Je ne sais pas qui répand cela et qui cherche à me nuire» (roughly, “I don’t know who is spreading that and who is seeking to do me harm.”
Let’s do the math :
– They’re anti-family (pro-homosexual lifestyle)
– They’re anti-life and anti-science ( pro-abortion ).
– They “seek to harm” people.
– They are attacking the Catholic Church and the Pope : Can we see what they’re doing here ? Is it clear enough to everyone that they’re trying to create a division within, by pitting the Cardinal, Archbishop of Paris against the Vatican (although the correspondence is, “strictly private”) . . . and against Pope Francis – heaping on their slurs of “homophobe” and “discrimination” ?
(p.s. @ Venerator Sti Lot: Being no stranger to hunt & peck typing skills myself, I prefer to believe that all the mini-pauses which subsequently occur, might equally leave room for inspiration and/or creative genius – [“bears” included] ).
God bless).