Perhaps you missed the previous thread on this topic. Search for it, I can’t find a link at the moment. At any rate, it explained how France fully intends this nomination as a political slap in the face to the Vatican. The last nominee was actively homosexual and cohabitating with a partner. France intends, with Stefanini, to get the camel’s nose into the tent, so to speak.
Do you know that as a fact or are you making an assumption?
With an incidence of 2-3% of homosexuality in the general population, it seems more than mere chance or fitness for service that France would choose one candidate after another like this.
But he would be making more of a point in favour of Catholicism rather than a slap in the face for the Church.
He’s only an example if he’s chaste, and nobody has said he’s chaste, the only claim is that he’s “very discreet in his personal life” - that’s not chastity.
He doesn’t have to say he is chaste. That is between him and his confessor.
If he wants to be an “example” and a “coup for the Church” then he needs to affirm he is chaste.
Yes, if they expect to be an “example” and a “coup”.
A public official has a different standard than private citizens. Look at the scandal that embroiled Bill Clinton in an impeachment. He had sex with someone and he lied about it. The reason that this is a big problem for public officials is that if they are susceptible to being seduced by anyone, doesn’t matter the sex, if they can be seduced then they can be compromised. And for a diplomatic official to be compromised that is serious business.
Really? Please name the other Vatican Ambassadors who have publicly claimed that they are faithful to their spouse (married Ambassador) or are not sexually active (single Ambassador).
They don’t need to. The only needs are for the Holy See to be satisfied that they will not push an anti-Catholic agenda, and that they are not susceptible to compromise by sleeping with spies or enemies of the Church.
They do need to publicly claim it. If you arguing that he has to speak about his sex life by publicly confirming he is chaste for a job then the other Ambassadors must be required to do the same otherwise the employer is being discriminatory.
Nowhere have I argued this in any way. You’re the one saying he could be an “example” and a “coup” in which case a public declaration would be necessary. I don’t think it is at all.
Yes you have, you said he has to confirm that he is chaste. That is really not necessary because it’s not required from other Ambassadors.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I have never argued that he should make a public affirmation. I responded to your proposition that he is an “example” and “coup” for the Church - IF he is to be an “example” and “coup” THEN he must publicly affirm it. I don’t think he needs to be either one, so I suggest he makes no such public statement.
A desire for privacy and ones sexual orientation are not related in any way. It’s like saying I desire privacy and I am heterosexual. Big deal. He may have affirmed his orientation on his Priests direction.
He has done nothing to warrant that accusation. Can you read his heart? Are you God now?Once again, stop putting words in my mouth! How dare you accuse me of this! I never denied his claim. I am just saying that it is his own self-description and does not carry much weight, just as my description of myself as handsome isn’t necessarily accurate or absolute.A desire for privacy and ones sexual orientation are not related in any way. He may have affirmed his orientation on his Priests direction.
You have no right to deny his claim of being a devout Catholic. Shame on you!
Yes you did. You know you did and you did in a roundabout way by bringing up the example of Nancy Pelosi which has nothing to do with this thread.
I’m done with this thread–you’re way beyond the bounds of charity.
