Vatican City rejects French Gay Amb

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(a) Vatican is, at its core, a theocratic monarchy established on the principles and teachings of traditional Christianity.

No, it isn't.

A monarchy has three necessary parts:

- a monarch
- a bureaucracy
- the people being ruled

The Vatican only has a monarch and a bureaucracy. Your monarchy is missing its "archy". The Vatican isn't a monarchy; it's just an organization managing its own affairs.

 

[Leftimies]

Except that your post is full of nonsense. The Vatican barely represents Catholics. It certainly doesn't represent Christians. There is no legitimate reason for a state to bother with an ambassador to a religious sect.

Tom

For you to say that means that you either ignored most of my post content - its point or focus, so to speak - or just did not understand. The fact that you only quoted a fragment would lead me to suspect the first possibility.

My post mostly dealt with politics. As far as states go, in today's world, the Vatican State (ruled by Pope, who is considered a major Christian leader regardless of what you might say) comes closest to being a 'Christian state', therefore, a state representation of the faith's tradition. Perhaps unbeknownst to you, in state-to-state affairs this is significant, even though here at the forums it might appear to be less important.

I am Buddhist myself, so I am not going to dive deep into the subjective readings of what Christianity is or is not; rather, its more productive to stick with the objective facts. Even irrespective of Vatican representing anything, it does hold views that are contrary to homosexuality, at least in principle. In bilateral diplomatic relations, this is all France needs to know when deciding whether or not to appoint a gay ambassador.

Ultimately, what you or me doesn't matter. Its not speculative, pre-event discussion about whether or not France should send a gay ambassador to Vatican: they already did and it failed, for reasons along the lines of the arguments that I previously made. My post was commentary to that event. Its not about what is right and what is wrong, morality or anything of that nature - I won't take a personal stance on those matters now. Its about how the world works. If the people were less idealistic about this issue, they could've seen it coming.

 

[Leftimies]

No, it isn't.

A monarchy has three necessary parts:

- a monarch
- a bureaucracy
- the people being ruled

The Vatican only has a monarch and a bureaucracy. Your monarchy is missing its "archy". The Vatican isn't a monarchy; it's just an organization managing its own affairs.

Vatican City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (the second paragraph as well as the 'government-section' in the information tab to the right might be of interest to you)

However, what you said is valid in point. There are no direct, legal subjects to be ruled, but rather indirect, spiritual subjects (that is, the catholic masses).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For you to say that means that you either ignored most of my post content - its point or focus, so to speak - or just did not understand. The fact that you only quoted a fragment would lead me to suspect the first possibility.

My post mostly dealt with politics. As far as states go, in today's world, the Vatican State (ruled by Pope, who is considered a major Christian leader regardless of what you might say) comes closest to being a 'Christian state', therefore, a state representation of the faith's tradition. Perhaps unbeknownst to you, in state-to-state affairs this is significant, even though here at the forums it might appear to be less important.

I am Buddhist myself, so I am not going to dive deep into the subjective readings of what Christianity is or is not; rather, its more productive to stick with the objective facts. Even irrespective of Vatican representing anything, it does hold views that are contrary to homosexuality, at least in principle. In bilateral diplomatic relations, this is all France needs to know when deciding whether or not to appoint a gay ambassador.

Ultimately, what you or me doesn't matter. Its not speculative, pre-event discussion about whether or not France should send a gay ambassador to Vatican: they already did and it failed, for reasons along the lines of the arguments that I previously made. My post was commentary to that event. Its not about what is right and what is wrong, morality or anything of that nature - I won't take a personal stance on those matters now. Its about how the world works. If the people were less idealistic about this issue, they could've seen it coming.

If we're going to continue on the pretrxt that the Vatican really is a country and is the sort of entity that should have ambassadors sent to it, it's important to remember something: the ambassador represents the country who sent him, not the country he's sent to. It's the job of a French ambassador to personify FRENCH values, not necessarily Catholic ones. As long as the receiving state is reasonably certain that the ambassador won't spy on the country, commit crimes on their soil, or the like, their legitimate concerns are satisfied.

Expecting a French ambassador to the Vatican to be a good Catholic completely misses the point of having an ambassador. I asked another poster earlier, and now I'll ask you: would it have been reasonable for the US in the Cold War to reject any non-capitalist ambassadors from the Soviet Union?

 

[Leftimies]

If we're going to continue on the pretrxt that the Vatican really is a country and is the sort of entity that should have ambassadors sent to it, it's important to remember something: the ambassador represents the country who sent him, not the country he's sent to. It's the job of a French ambassador to personify FRENCH values, not necessarily Catholic ones. As long as the receiving state is reasonably certain that the ambassador won't spy on the country, commit crimes on their soil, or the like, their legitimate concerns are satisfied.

Expecting a French ambassador to the Vatican to be a good Catholic completely misses the point of having an ambassador. I asked another poster earlier, and now I'll ask you: would it have been reasonable for the US in the Cold War to reject any non-capitalist ambassadors from the Soviet Union?

Valid points. Vatican is a country de jure, but in the light of them having no actual population to govern (something I did not know), I must admit that brings their legitimacy into question. In this light, it is not really comparable to Iran vis-a-vis.

But then again, lets call it a theocratic political entity then: can a theocracy like that (when the religion in question is like Christianity) even be reasonable? I just feel that the French tried to apply the logic of the modern international community in a situation where the partner-in-dialogue can best be described as a historical relic. That was their great miscalculation, one that could've been predicted beforehand and avoided if they had understood the character of Vatican.

And it doesn't matter if what Vatican did is reasonable or not. It happened, and it will happen again because that is the character of Vatican. And I am pretty sure the French knew it but decided to proceed regardless. And thats why I have difficulties feeling sympathy for the French, because what they did was stupid, given the circumstances.

I disagree with Vatican's decision, I believe that it is unprofessional to reject a diplomat on those grounds. I believe we all are in agreement on that. But I also think it was futile to send such ambassador to Vatican, knowing their response, its stupidity.



However, I don't know how many of the UN treaties on human rights the Vatican have ratified. In case they have ratified most of those, that decision of theirs is actually legally problematic. In the case they have ratified treaties that, among other things, discuss equality between orientations, I will take back most of what I said. Then again, if they have not ratified those that explicitly concern sexual rights, then I believe my original stance stays in place. That, I believe, would determine a lot of this debacle: in the case Vatican has refrained from ratifying treaties of that nature, the French should've anticipated this outcome; in the case the Vatican did ratify those, then the French could have not anticipated it and acted in (supposed) mutual agreement, and my argument falls apart.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, I don't know how many of the UN treaties on human rights the Vatican have ratified. In case they have ratified most of those, that decision of theirs is actually legally problematic. In the case they have ratified treaties that, among other things, discuss equality between orientations, I will take back most of what I said. Then again, if they have not ratified those that explicitly concern sexual rights, then I believe my original stance stays in place. That, I believe, would determine a lot of this debacle: in the case Vatican has refrained from ratifying treaties of that nature, the French should've anticipated this outcome; in the case the Vatican did ratify those, then the French could have not anticipated it and acted in (supposed) mutual agreement, and my argument falls apart.

The Vatican has observer status at the UN; it isn't a member state. I'd be surprised if they sign any treaties at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Its not my personal opinion on the matter, so there really is no reason to get worked up. It is a sort of realist viewpoint, I guess you could say. Let me explain. First, let me establish three essential points for the explanation:

(a) Vatican is, at its core, a theocratic monarchy established on the principles and teachings of traditional Christianity.
(b) Diplomacy is, in essence, negotiation, friendly relation-maintenance and deal-breaking between two countries.
(c) The Bible, can easily be read to be against homosexuality while lacking any explicit stands in defense of it.

Both (a) and (c) are rather questionable, and in any case neither could possibly trump the fact that an ambassador's sexuality is not really any of the Vatican (or any country)'s business.

Now, for France to choose a gay ambassador for Vatican (see: a) for upholding of diplomatic relations (see: b), when they knew
full well the, perhaps backwards, opinions of Vatican regarding his orientation (see: c) is broken logic which will result in ill outcome.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

It is reality, it is politics. The reason why the ambassador got turned back was because the people at the Vatican, unsurprisingly, did not appreciate the gesture. The entire Vatican state exists solely as a state-representation of the Christian faith, and one could argue that if they did not uphold their own tenets, their whole state could be considered illegitimate, or at least utterly purposeless. They might not even believe in the religion, but for the sake of politics and the rhetoric, they really do not have choice.

Maybe someone in Vatican thought that way. It is always possible. In which case I applaud France for refusing to lend legitimacy to that line of thinking.

Another known theocracy with stances against homosexuality is Iran, and I wouldn't consider it to be all that wise to send a gay ambassador there, either. You can work diplomacy to your own advantage the best when you are as neutral as possible; taking active stances on issues controversial to the other side (especially in the form of your diplomatic representation) is generally not a good idea and could represent a major hindrance to any bilateral diplomatic effort later on. If you want the relationship dynamic to be smooth and easy, rubbing something your 'friend' doesn't like in his face will work to the contrary.

I am quite surprised, if not shocked, that I had to explain this. Its common sense and more importantly, its how even the most basic of human relationships work.

Iran is a theocracy. It has laws against, for instance, alcohol consumption, and I must assume that it outlaws homosexuality as well.

If homosexuality is illegal in the Vatican somehow, then I suppose it is best not to send ambassadors there at all.

 

[columbus]

For you to say that means that you either ignored most of my post content - its point or focus, so to speak - or just did not understand. The fact that you only quoted a fragment would lead me to suspect the first possibility.

I only quoted that part because it summed up your post.
The Vatican is not a state and it barely represents Catholics, much less Christians.
I know a lot about Catholics. Apparently a lot more than you do.
The Vatican is holdover from the olden days that mostly exists because the RCC was really cozy with WWII fascists. I know the RCC well and I still like it, despite the ugliness of much of the history.
I went to Easter Vigil Mass last week because I wanted to.
Tom

 

[Leftimies]

Both (a) and (c) are rather questionable, and in any case neither could possibly trump the fact that an ambassador's sexuality is not really any of the Vatican (or any country)'s business.

Sorry, but that just makes no sense whatsoever.

Maybe someone in Vatican thought that way. It is always possible. In which case I applaud France for refusing to lend legitimacy to that line of thinking.

Iran is a theocracy. It has laws against, for instance, alcohol consumption, and I must assume that it outlaws homosexuality as well.

If homosexuality is illegal in the Vatican somehow, then I suppose it is best not to send ambassadors there at all.

I looked into it, and hey, what did I find? Same-sex activity has been legal in Vatican since 1890 (kind of think that's a typo for 1980?), if Wikipedia is to be believed. Now, that pretty much nullifies every point I have made...I was working under the assumption that they outlawed same-sex activities, thereby making the appointment of the ambassador a willing provocation. But, in the light of this research, the French really had no idea that he would get rejected...I mean, if they have it legalized, there should be no issue.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I looked into it, and hey, what did I find? Same-sex activity has been legal in Vatican since 1890 (kind of think that's a typo for 1980?), if Wikipedia is to be believed. Now, that pretty much nullifies every point I have made...I was working under the assumption that they outlawed same-sex activities, thereby making the appointment of the ambassador a willing provocation. But, in the light of this research, the French really had no idea that he would get rejected...I mean, if they have it legalized, there should be no issue.

This leads to some rather unnerving questions about what's being going on behind those walls.

 

[Nietzsche]

Vatican City meets none of the normal criteria for statehood. It's ridiculous to pretend that a few blocks of Rome that doesn't have a native population and can't even handle its own sewage are sovereign nation. It's just a puffed-up church estate.

It's a damn sight more complicated than that, honestly.

No, it isn't.

A monarchy has three necessary parts:

- a monarch
- a bureaucracy
- the people being ruled

The Vatican only has a monarch and a bureaucracy. Your monarchy is missing its "archy". The Vatican isn't a monarchy; it's just an organization managing its own affairs.

You're forgetting all the churches affiliated with the RCC. You could almost call each church of the RCC outside of the Holy See as an embassy of sorts, and the priests as citizens or government officials.

See, the RCC is a hold-over from the earliest days of European state-concepts. It used to be the head of all Ecclesiastical territories on both religious & secular grounds(as in, they were either independent of a larger state or represented in it). But those days have past, and have been so for about 200 years give or take(the fall of the Holy Roman Empire was one of the final nails in the Vatican's coffin regarding genuine, physical power as a state).

This is honestly one of the most stupid ****ing arguments I've seen on here, and I read Mr. "Chosen in the Universe"'s threads.

It's a state, regardless of how much you dislike it. Should it be? DON'T CARE!

Now drop it before daddy breaks out the belt.

 

[Typist]

Dear Vatican,

Get laid and chill out.

Try it, who knows, you might like it.

No kids though please, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

The Coalition Of Those Weary Of Celibate People Lecturing Others About Sex

Awarded "Longest Group Name" - 2012.

 

[fantome profane]

Dear Vatican,

Get laid and chill out.

Try it, who knows, you might like it.

No kids though please, thank you very much.

Sincerely,

The Coalition Of Those Weary Of Celibate People Lecturing Others About Sex

Awarded Longest Group Name - 2012.

I'm a big fan of the COTWOCPLOAS.

 

[Typist]

I'm a big fan of the COTWOCPLOAS.

Support COTWOCPLOAS now by doing things you can't get really say much about on a family friendly forum!!!

Awarded "Most Puzzling Name Abbreviation" - 2013

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a damn sight more complicated than that, honestly.


You're forgetting all the churches affiliated with the RCC. You could almost call each church of the RCC outside of the Holy See as an embassy of sorts, and the priests as citizens or government officials.

The day a priest gets declared "persona non grata" for some offense and is expelled from his country is the day I'll believe that anyone regards priests as government officials.

See, the RCC is a hold-over from the earliest days of European state-concepts. It used to be the head of all Ecclesiastical territories on both religious & secular grounds(as in, they were either independent of a larger state or represented in it). But those days have past, and have been so for about 200 years give or take(the fall of the Holy Roman Empire was one of the final nails in the Vatican's coffin regarding genuine, physical power as a state).

It isn't quite like that. Vatican City isn't the continuation of the Papal States; it was a brand new creation in 1929 from the Lateran Treaty.

The Papal States stopped existing in 1870; they were incorporated into Italy. The Holy See is not a state; not even the Catholic Church claims that it is. Vatican City is the territory of the Holy See; it isn't a state, either.

This is honestly one of the most stupid ****ing arguments I've seen on here, and I read Mr. "Chosen in the Universe"'s threads.

It's a state, regardless of how much you dislike it. Should it be? DON'T CARE!

Now drop it before daddy breaks out the belt.

If you don't like this discussion, you're free not to participate. Nobody's making you read this thread.

 

[Leftimies]

This leads to some rather unnerving questions about what's being going on behind those walls.

Apparently, in Vatican, the legal age of consent was 12 until 2013. Now that is what I call scary.

 

[gsa]

I looked into it, and hey, what did I find? Same-sex activity has been legal in Vatican since 1890 (kind of think that's a typo for 1980?), if Wikipedia is to be believed. Now, that pretty much nullifies every point I have made...I was working under the assumption that they outlawed same-sex activities, thereby making the appointment of the ambassador a willing provocation. But, in the light of this research, the French really had no idea that he would get rejected...I mean, if they have it legalized, there should be no issue.

I do not think that the citation to 1890 is a typo, but a reference to the Italian code changes that decriminalized homosexuality in the same year. Italy was, I believe, the first Southern European country to decriminalize homosexuality. However, this should not matter. First, even the RCC recognizes a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual status. Second, I assume that the Vatican is a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, so the ambassador is only subject to the laws of his native country.

The Vatican is free to reject candidates all it likes. Frankly it is time for all countries to revisit VC's status given how it has in the past abused diplomatic immunity to protect sexually abusive representatives of its own. And France should simply continue to nominate candidates that reflect French values that the pope finds objectionable. Should also do the same with KSA and the other repressive governments across the globe.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I think they should be free to do so, as they are a sovereign nation, but this is a very hypocritical idea. Assuming that homosexual activities are "sinful", there is not one member of the Catholic Church who is without sin (according to the Vatican), so why exclude homosexuals when other "sinners" are welcome?

The problem is he wasn't a pederast, in which case they'd have offered him a job and legal protection.

 

[Leftimies]

I do not think that the citation to 1890 is a typo, but a reference to the Italian code changes that decriminalized homosexuality in the same year. Italy was, I believe, the first Southern European country to decriminalize homosexuality. However, this should not matter. First, even the RCC recognizes a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual status. Second, I assume that the Vatican is a party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, so the ambassador is only subject to the laws of his native country.

The Vatican is free to reject candidates all it likes. Frankly it is time for all countries to revisit VC's status given how it has in the past abused diplomatic immunity to protect sexually abusive representatives of its own. And France should simply continue to nominate candidates that reflect French values that the pope finds objectionable. Should also do the same with KSA and the other repressive governments across the globe.

Perhaps so. And, eventually, the Vatican would have to accept one because they cannot afford severing ties with powerful countries such as the French Republic.

 

[Wirey]

Perhaps France should kick out the Holy See's representative until they start prosecuting child molesters. You know, like all civilized countries do.