Vatican Rejects France’s Gay Ambassador
France has withdrawn its nomination of an openly gay man as ambassador to the Holy See following objections from the Vatican.
The diplomat in question is Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge, former ambassador to Bulgaria, head of the Consular Affairs Directorate, and an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. 
According to the Italian daily La Repubblica, not only is Kuhn-Delforge out, he is “stably united with an official companion.”
I’m not *suprised* the Vatican said no. I am also not surprised the French couldn’t resist giving the Vatican at little tweak I hope it was not at Mr. Kuhn-Delforge’s expense…
Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge is ostensibly qualified for this diplomatic post. He is a cultural if not practicing Catholic. Why did the Holy See reject his appointment? Because he’s out; or because he’s in a committed relationship with a man? Either one would probably have gotten him blackballed.
Compare his situation to the pomp accused sex abuser Fr. Marcial Marciel, founder of the Legionaires of Christ, was accustomed to receive in Rome!
I guess the moral of the story is – be in the closet, and stick to forcing yourself on boys and young men. That’s ok. But don’t walk into a diplomatic function with a man on your arm—if you’re a man. That presents a moral infraction the Church cannot possibly accept.
October 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I abhor the perversion of those priests who molested young men. But this is a bit of a cheap shot, in my view. I don’t think you’ve read enough about what happened to Fr. Maciel. In May, 2006 he was essentially exiled by the Vatican and removed from active ministry.
The official communiqué for the CDF on May 19, 2006, said in part: “Beginning in 1998, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received accusations, already partly made public, against Fr. Marcial Maciel…for crimes that fall under the exclusive competence of the congregation…. After having attentively studied the results of the investigation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith…decided — bearing in mind Fr. Maciel’s advanced age and his delicate health — to forgo a canonical hearing and to invite the father to a reserved life of penitence and prayer, relinquishing any form of public ministry. The Holy Father approved these decisions.”
October 18th, 2008 at 5:02 am
M. Forrest, I wrote about Fr. Maciel in a May 15, 2008 post called “Vows of Silence.” I do appreciate that Pope Benedict finally took action against this man. I’m sure there were a lot of considerations to weight, and compromises to make, but at least he removed him. I have a lot of respect for Pope Benedict for that, since I’m sure he was under a lot of pressure to let it go.
In my estimation, Pope John Paul II’s reputation will aways be sullied by his lack of vigorous action in the sex abuse crisis in the United States, Canada, Ireland and elsewhere. For a man who spoke out so forcefully against homosexual activity, he was strangely silent when it came to cardinals, bishops and others who protected and enabled pedophile predators. In my mind, there are no extenuating circumstances that justified the protection of these priests.
If bishops kept them in circulation because of the priest shortage, then it’s even worse that the institutional church would keep sexual predators near children and vulnerable young people, rather than expand the role of the laity, consider the ordination of women, and permit married men to become priests. Something is wrong.
October 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Dear Karen,
Thank you for the additional information. But it still doesn’t seem fair to compare Kuhn-Delforge to Maciel. The apparently divergent reactions you describe occurred under two different Popes. Had Benedict XVI continued to treat Maciel as a celebrity, then the comparison would have been at least more legitimate, in my opinion. Benedict has been consistent.
Sadly, I share your disappointment and confusion over JPII’s handling of the abuse crisis. He was a heroic and saintly pope in very many ways. But this was not one of them, in my opinion.
I’m sure you will not be surprised to know I disagree with the notion that the ordination of women is an option. I believe the Church has spoken quite clearly about this since Vatican II, from Inter Insigniores through Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (and the CDF’s clarification thereof). The Church has made it plain that this is a matter of the Deposit of Faith, and therefore, irreformable.
However, the issue of a married priesthood is certainly a possibility, being simply a matter of discipline that can be changed. And I have some positive leanings in that regard.
That being said, having come from Protestantism some 15 years ago, I can assure you that married clergy brings with it another whole set of problems.
Peace
October 19th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Dear M. Forrest, yes, what you are saying is true except for one thing: Pope Benedict as Cardinal Ratzinger killed the investigation into Marciel when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I think he was pressured to do this – whether by Pope John Paul II; others in the Vatican bureacracy or influential friends and associates of Marciel himself.
I believe that both popes knew of Marciel’s proclevities and did nothing about them…for reasons that are not publicly known but seem obvious–they didn’t want to make a public spectacle of a trial of a man who was strategically important for their presence in Latin America. Perhaps that was an expedient reason, but loaded with moral compromises. So much like the issue of abortion – done for understandable reasons, but the ultimate result is the destruction of innocent beings.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Can you provide proof that Cardinal Ratzinger “killed” the investigation on Fr. Maciel? And if so, do you know what information was provided to him?
If the answer is “no” to either, then the comparison is insufficiently justified. If, however, you can provide proof that Cardinal Ratzinger “killed” the investigation and that what he had in his possession was solid evidence that should have led him to continue, then your point is well taken.
Please provide any proof that you have of these allegations against Cardinal Ratzinger.
Remember, there have also been many false allegations against priests, using the scandals as an illegitimate way to target and harm. I’ve seen that play out on more than one occasion. And so, it is possible that the evidence was not compelling or poorly put together. In such a case, it is not appropriate to go on what may be perceived as a witch hunt simply because everyone is aroused and angry.
I don’t have the information on this, so I am only offering reasonable speculations to consider. If you have hard and fast proof, I am sincerely interesting in it.
Thank you.
October 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
🙂 Um, that should have been “I am sincerely INTERESTED in it.”
October 20th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
M. Forrest – start with Jason Berry’s book, Vows of Silence. Then, let’s discuss the moral rectitude of adults who don’t follow up on
sex abuse reports..if for nothing else…to keep their conscience at peace they did everything in their power to protect innocent children and young people. Here’s a link to an ABC news story on Cardinal Ratzinger’s reaction to being questioned by a reporter about the alleged cover-up: http://web.archive.org/web/20020607141945/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_Vatican_coverup_020426.html
October 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I agree the article does not look good. But if I’ve learned anything, it is that the main-stream media cannot be trusted to treat the Catholic Church fairly. I would like to see more objective evidence.
I think I had heard of Berry’s book. I’m not sure whether his work has been generally praised as trustworthy or not. When I get the time, I’m interested in checking into it.
God bless.