How exactly does Widdecombe 'represent' all these Catholics?

It used to be the case that a Roman Catholic wasn't considered the appropriate person for this job. Although this may be discriminatory it seems wise to me. After all it would avoid embarassing conflict of interests. A British ambassador in any country should owe loyalty only to the UK and not to the country he is representing our interests in. Also, as raised above, how does Widdecombe 'represent' 5 million Catholics? Perhaps the main point against her of course is that she's a publicity-seeking buffoon. Please let British diplomacy be in the hand of professionals under the guidance of democratically elected government ministers. We surely don't want to go down the US road of favoured political appointees getting an embassy.

She left the Anglicans because she objected to women priests. Do we know what view Benedict has of women ambassodors?

James - Don't forget the RC church is in fact very diverse - certainly in the UK and USA. It too has its own culture wars - going on more quietly than in the good old C of E. Main stream media tends to miss this out, it being far easier to report the views of the conservative dominated and controlled hierarchy. Widdecombe may be a good choice for the bishops and Vatican but many lay Catholics will be appalled. Most Catholics I meet are ok with the idea of women priests and married priests. They too are well used to gay clergy - realising that a high proportion of their clergy are gay. They want their church to start being honest about all of this. So don't be taken in. She will speak for a controlling conservative clique and not for most UK Catholics in my view. She certainly won't reflect the diversity of thought that actually exists on the ground.

Best place for her! How the Catholic Church defines itself is not a matter for anyone except the Catholic Church. Sending a reactionary to be the am,bassador to a reactionary seems fair enough, if it stops her writing awful novels or appearing on TV.