How can she be a bold advocate for the institution of marriage, especially for Catholics? If she were a practicing Catholic, she would be considered to be living in a state of mortal sin in her current marriage, since she was previously married to two other men and might still be considered to be in a sacramental marriage to one of them, neither one of those marriages having been annulled.
I think the “secrecy” is an attempt to not be political. Imagine if they said, “Yes, Pope Francis met with Kim Davis in order to affirm her and show his support for her actions.” Would that not be used for political purposes ad nauseum?
Oh come on. Liberals use every nuance of the man’s life as demonstrable proof of his “radical” and “revolutionary” pontificate that will at last clear the cobwebs aeay from the Church’s regressive bigotry. But when he does this it is just a political tool or a casual gesture? I think we should all stop treating the Pope as a kind of Caesaresque super-leader and instead recognize that he is bound to truth and Catholic teaching as much as the rest of us. But if liberals want to magnify every move he makes, at least let them use that magnifying glass consistently.
Isn’t the meeting already being used for political purposes, and if the Pope had wanted to keep this meeting low key, shouldn’t Kim Davis and her attorney have respected his wish to do so instead of trumpeting it to the media?
It seems obvious to me that the Vatican didn’t want a trip about the family to suddenly become about Kim Davis. So they kept the meeting under wraps until the trip was over. If the meeting was public then literally everything the Pope said or did would be engulfed in Kim Davis controversy.
Not unless he said “pssst, don’t tell anyone I was here…”
Agreed she is not the poster child for marriage and actually her parents being Catholic, if she was baptized Catholic unless she married in a Catholic church her 1st marriage was not valid and all subsequent marriages are not valid as far as Catholic teaching is concerned. I know this will be hard to understand and probably painful to hear and I mean no disrespect, the difference is a marriage can be valid between a man and a woman. Even if she doesn’t practice was what the bible says about marriage and divorce or doesn’t understand it -the teaching is a man and woman can be married validly. She can speak the truth even if she doesn’t live the truth perfectly or understand it perfectly. To people of the same sex this is type of covenant is not possible -not because they are horrible people, but because a man and woman come together in a way two men or two women can not. They are designed to be fruitful and multiply. God designed our bodies in a certain way.(Even if someone is biologically infertile the body of a man and a woman were made to come together in a certain way.) We must stand by what the church teaches even if we fail personally. And we will all fail because all have sinned. This does not mean we treat people who are attracted to the same sex poorly, we have no right to behave uncharitably to any of God’s children. We should be always be compassionate but compassionate does not mean discounting what the church teaches on marriage. I don’t know if you will understand this coming from a perspective where you feel it is hypocrisy and discrimination -and I’m not sure if I can explain it in a way that doesn’t sound that way to your ears. I assure you it is not out of hatred of people with same sex attraction it is quite the opposite.Is it ad hominem? As a gay man, one of the things about Kim Davis that I find most offensive is that she has been married four times and divorced three times, and feels that it is her duty to prevent people like me from getting married even once. And then people here treat her like she is the poster person for defending the sanctity of marriage.
I think you have it. Turning this into a tale of skulduggery seems to me a way for people to whistle past the graveyard as the media-invented narrative of Pope Francis as secular SocJus cishet-shamer crumbles.
I agree, the liberals should use the magnifying glass consistently. And that’s exactly what I am trying to do. I tell others not to read too much into things the Pope says in other situations. So why would I say something different just because this time it cuts in a direction I prefer?
Apparently the Vatican agrees with me since they are not commenting on it. 
The fact is—as the Vatican is not commenting—all we can do is speculate as to when the meeting was arranged, who arranged it, and for what purpose. I don’t see much fruit to be gained from such speculation.So you think that this was a “chance meeting or encounter”? According to one news account, “Davis’ legal team told Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times that the alleged meeting was arranged at the request of Vatican officials.” That doesn’t sound like a “chance encounter”.
I doubt they were both just Survivor fans shooting the breeze. “Man, they like, want you to quit, isn’t it, and it’s like…you know…when they try to vote one of the good guys off the island…and that’s like offensive…you could sue or something.”
As long as we agree the Pope sees her as a Christian conscientious objector I’m good here.
:yup: I meant the rock band actually.“Man, they like, want you to quit, isn’t it, and it’s like…you know…when they try to vote one of the good guys off the island…and that’s like offensive…you could sue or something.”
Pardon me, got Armstrong and Miller RAF skits on the mind. (warning: mild profanity)
youtu.be/_CwfCBa6PSM?list=PLvgKGKYxp14XtfGjoziAFLvzYYX5VJ07e
nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Let the spin begin…
Fair is fair. The conservatives did it too I’ll give you that.Well, English isn’t his first language, or if he didn’t say it in English perhaps it didn’t translate well. Lots of things don’t translate that well.