Tolerable and acceptable… the Vatican and others… August 10, 2012
Posted by WorldbyStorm in Culture.trackback
Intriguing to read the response of the Vatican to a proposed Bulgarian envoy. As the Irish Times details it wasn’t warm.
THE HOLY See has rejected the man nominated as next Bulgarian ambassador to the Vatican because of a steamy gay scene in a best-selling novel recently written by him, it is alleged in the Rome newspaper La Repubblica.
And as the IT notes;
On paper, Kiril Maritchkov (39) looks the perfect choice.
He is married to an Italian, he is the father of two children and a graduate in law and political sciences.
He not only speaks five languages but he is also an expert in post-Berlin Wall eastern Europe.
But as the IT also notes:
In his book, Clandestination, he tells the story of Ivan, a young east-European graduate in architecture, who comes to Italy, enticed by false work promises.
In a manner that accurately reflects the experience of many clandestini (clandestine immigrants, hence the book’s title), it all falls apart for Ivan in Italy.
At one point, he is so short of money that he prostitutes himself for €50 to a man he encounters casually at Valle Giulia, central Rome.
Odd that the Vatican is hung up on this. But apparently the Holy See has form in this regard:
In 2008, France and the Holy See went through at least three candidates before finally agreeing to the appointment of Stanislas de Laboulaye.
The first choice was divorced, the second Protestant and the third was living in a long-term gay relationship.
In the same year, Argentina reportedly withdrew its nomination of former minister for justice Alberto Iribarne as ambassador to the Holy See.
On that occasion, the Vatican had objected to the fact that Mr Iribarne had been divorced and then remarried.
It brought to mind the Rocco Buttiglione controversy, which while not precisely analogous, did raise similar issues. Buttiglione, to refresh memories, was nominated by the Berlusconi government in the early 2000s as a European Commissioner. Problem was civil liberties was part of his proposed brief, and Buttiglione was not shy about his pronounced conservative views on a range of issues including LGB&T issues and the family (or rather and more significantly, the role of women in same). Buttiglione assured all and sundry he wouldn’t let these views influence his role and function as Commissioner but doubts were raised.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs voted 27-26 not to endorse him as Commissioner and subsequently the Parliament itself would not vote for him so the nomination was withdrawn. There was, as can be expected, some controversy on the Catholic right about this, with talk quoted on the Wiki page about ‘new soft totalitarianism’ and ‘’the real face of Europe, a face [which is] fundamentalist’.
While the latter was clearly incorrect (and one would wonder how many other Commissioners over the years have shared his views albeit never expressed them openly) there was an interesting question about the limits of what is tolerable and acceptable in the discharge of public duties. Buttiglione was – to put it mildly – at the outer limits of that range, if indeed he hadn’t already breached it and it’s telling that there was such a push back both at committee and Parliamentary level. But I wonder if the proposed area of responsibility he had been nominated for had excluded civil rights would his nomination have passed (and should it have?).
But it is interesting to compare and contrast with what the Vatican itself finds tolerable and acceptable.
The new vogue for hate is to get in your accusation of the other side doing it.
Hence liberals are “intolerant” by objecting to anti-gay and anti-women rhetoric, US Democrats are “keeping blacks on the reservation”, and social democrats are purposely creating a “dependency culture” (rather than actual poverty being to blame!).
I wonder how John Waters would engage with the Vatican’s response?
On Buttliglione, his problem was beyond simply stating that he wouldn’t let his personal views influence his performance in the role of Commissioner. He had a track record of opposing anti-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and also stated that if he was faced with a situation where the decision was to be taken by the Commission which contradicted his views on social matters, he would abstain.
It should be hardly be contentious to suggest that the Commissioner responsible for the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation should actually support anti-discrimination, but the Vatican and others took a different line.
Very fair point.
This Vatican state business is the height of bolloxology. It’s a church. End of. Who do these people think they are, dictating to countries who their ambassador can be? No Protestants! Ffs, it’s beyond a joke.
Ireland should have led the way by breaking off all diplomatic relations with this “country” when it became clear that it was instructing its people here to ignore Irish law and instead give precedence to its “canon law” – resulting in serial child abusers being protected and enabled to continue their abuse.
Agree entirely re your point re ‘No Protestants’. How does this all work. What about states which are Orthodox (in the Russian/Greek etc sense?). Do they send ambassadors? Got to check this out.
Orthodox, if I recall, is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church was formerly (about a thousand years ago or so) the Byzantine Catholic Church. They had a big split over a theological dispute.
Of course. That was stupid of me. There’d be no effective issue there. Okay… okay… UK and Vatican! Saudi Arabia and Vatican!
The RCC sees itself as being in partial communion with both Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox (and also with other Christians, like the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East). The degree to which they are in communion varies by denomination, with the Eastern Orthodox being the closest.
There are a large number of churches outside of mainstream Roman (Western Rite) Catholicism but in full communion with Rome. The Maronites are perhaps the most famous, with most of the rest being splinters from local Orthodox Churches. The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Church (in India, mostly Kerala).
The RCC accepts that the Orthodox priests are just that. They do not regard the Anglicans as having proper priests. The various splinters are as many as left groups.
Yes, but the acceptance of the validity of the orders of a particular denomination is determined by the RCC’s interpretation of the apostolic succession rather than necessarily being determined by the closeness of the denomination in question’s partial communion with Rome. They are overlapping but by no means identical issues.
Rome argues that the apostolic succession (ie the chain of valid consecrations of Bishops by Bishops) has been broken within Anglicanism, but not within Eastern Orthodoxy. It also holds that Eastern Orthodoxy is closer to Rome on doctrinal fundamentals. It’s the latter issue which determines the closeness of partial communion, rather than the former. Rome also recognises the validity of the orders of some other denominations, for instance the Church of the East, who are nevertheless quite far from Rome on many other issues. Rome also recognises the validity of the Orders of the Old Catholic church, which is actually in full communion with Anglicanism.
(It’s important to note that Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of the East are three distinct denominations).
“This Vatican state business is the height of bolloxology. It’s a church.”
Technically the ambassador is not to the Vatican City, which is a state, but to the Holy See, which is the Church.
The Vatican City state is used for technical international agreements, such as on postal or telecommunications.
I wonder if the UN, etc., and individual countries would agree to similar treatment if, say, Mecca were to be granted status as a state by its surrounding state.
If people are giving out about the Vatican why not add in the tax dodger states such as Monaco.The Vatican issue shows that the church is becoming a paper tiger. And yes, Mecca would get that status.
The Holy See is not a member of the UN, but a permanent observer:
http://www.un.org/en/members/nonmembers.shtml