Meg Wallace is the president of the Rationalist Society, which is "in favour of evidence as opposed to 'superstition' and 'bigotry'".

So, we know where she is coming from. The Holy See is probably the headquarters of 'superstition' and 'bigotry', to her. Are we in for another one of the anti-Christian outbursts that are becoming increasingly popular in Australia, or is it all about the technicalities of having an ambassador in the Vatican?

She makes a thinly-veiled attack on Tony Abbott ("those who want to send him to the other side of the planet"), and refers to the 'claim' that the Holy See is a sovereign state.

The Vatican has international relations with 180 states, and according to an entry in Wikipedia: "The fact that the Holy See is a non-territorial institution is no longer regarded as a reason for denying it international personality".

Since 1973, Australia has had 18 ambassadors to the Holy See without anyone whinging about it. And, 87 countries are happy to provide an ambassador there and, the populations of those countries probably did not "vote to share government with the Holy See", as this unhappy looking lady laments.

I don't remember the public voting to send an ambassador anywhere!

Yes. It is clear that Meg Wallace has just taken another opportunity to badmouth Christian 'bigots' on behalf of her irrelevant organisation. And, speaking of bigots …...

I could not care less about having an ambassador to Rome however I don't ever hear Meg speak up about the billions wasted and the destruction of our electricity system based on gw lies and religion. Very selective in her hatred. Personally after being one of the few men with the guts and convictions to stop the illegal boat trade and drownings as well as getting rid of the breathing tax Tony Abbott should be rewarded with whatever post he wants. Unlike Rudd, Turnbull and Bishop he actually did good for this country.

Absolutely agree!
Alan B.

Australia should have diplomatic relations with the Holy See, but do we really need a separate embassy and a separate ambassador to do so rather than combining it with Italy?

There's obviously not a lot of interest in this piece, so here's something about the Holy See that might set the dogs barking:

"The Vatican released a 30-page document on Monday, titled “Male and Female he created them,” which rejected the idea that people can change their gender. The document said that the notion of gender being determined by personal feelings rather than biology was an attempt to “annihilate nature.”

Excellent well argued essay.
But why even call the vatican the "holy see".

Toxic cesspool would be a more apt and accurate name/description

The "catholic" church is of course primarily, and indeed only a political institution the stated "mission" purpose of which is to control the religious aspirations of ALL of humankind.
It is simultaneously the original multi-national business corporation. As such its over-riding purpose is to protect its hugely enormous assets, and to expand its market share in the whats-in-it-for-me exoteric "religious" market place. Historically it has used and still uses ever trick in the book to achieve both its self-appointed political and business purposes.

The treaty establishing the vatican state gave it the political means to "legitimize" this project. As do the various concordats
http://www.concordatwatch.eu

The inherently authoritarian (and even totalitarian) "catholic" mission to control the religious aspirations of ALL of humankind in one stark image.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

It is sometimes said that there is "nothing new under the sun".

Such is indeed the case with the papacy, both in the 20/21 centuries, and throughout its benighted his-story.

Do a search on the truth-telling essay The Criminal History of the papacy.

On a more colorful and theatrical theme do a search on the vatican boys-own-club via the topic "images of cardinals in the vatican".

ttbn, seems like you and the Pope know little about Nature.
David

Why shouldn't there be ambassadors in the Vatican? Since there are Catholics around the world, shouldn't there be a voice and an open dialogue between the pope and the countries that have a large enough demographic that are Catholic? I would hope a 2 way dialogue would be of value where the pope and those in the Vatican heard the concerns of the people in the countries that Catholics live in.

The second reason to consider an ambassador there is because it's safe to be there. No beheadings, or other issues that come from sending an ambassador to a dangerous location with the intent of peace and international dialogue.

So what better place to consign Credlin's Catholic [1] Abbott than the hypocritical Vatican/Holy See.

Abbott would do less damage than if sent to the other mooted destination, High Commissioner to the UK (London/Court of St James)!

[1] See "From family to foreign policy, depth of Peta Credlin's hold over Abbott emerges" 7 March 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/07/from-family-to-foreign-policy-depth-of-peta-credlins-hold-over-abbott-emerges

"But in The Road to Ruin: How Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin Destroyed Their Own Government, Savva – a former adviser to both John Howard and Peter Costello – adds depth and details to the picture of a prime minister who had ceded much of his power to his chief of staff, who was told by her he could not do his job without her, and who appeared to believe that was true."

David,

Seems as though you just make 'smart' remarks you can't back up. Like the one about the ABC saving us from being a police state. You are not a person to be taken seriously.

If you want to talk about nature, there's nothing natural about gender bending.

Actually there is.
David

Plantagenet.
I think you are on the money there. We won't have His Eminence there any longer. We probably didn't need an ambassador as well while he was there.
David

Hi VK3AUU

I rather think His Most Reverend Eminence [1] Cardinal Pell, may beat his paedophilia rap at retrial. What with the legal war chest funded by rich Australians.

Pell can then wing his way back to luxurious life at the Vatican, above secular laws again.

No need for Pell's good mate and sidekick, Abbott (in Australia or Rome/Vatican) to cover for Pell.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Eminence#Catholicism

The authorities are lining up some more charges. I don't he is quite free yet.
David

The Vatican is recognised as a sovereign state, and as such the decision to establish ambassadorial relations should be a diplomatic one, not whether one whinge bag atheist is offended by Catholicism.