Pope met with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis during his US trip, according to her lawyers

  • Thread starter Thread starter ServusHumilis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan said:
Why so, should the Little Sister of the Poor quit their work? Would that be a sign of bravery and integrity?

Personally, I consider it braver to stay and try and defeat the effects of this unjust ruling.
Click to expand...
Brendan, I don’t think the Little Sisters of the Poor have anything to do with it. I appreciate them and their work.

I respect your feelings.
 
Cathoholic said:
I’m still not sure why some people here were acting like this story was mere lies. I saw no evidence of that and nobody offered any evidence of this other than personal conjecture.
Click to expand...
Well the official narrative is that KD is a selfish, glory-seeking, fringe nut job and the visit messes with the cherished narrative. You could almost write a skit of the Five Stages of Kim Davis Derangement Grief:
  1. Denial “Except I shall see the pictures, I will not believe.”
  2. Anger “Why would anyone take time to visit this cishet bigot!”
  3. Bargaining “Ok, he saw her, but he must have been duped! Yeah. That’s it!”
  4. Depression “I don’t understand. We won with Obergefell. Why am I still unhappy?”
  5. Acceptance “Oh well. Maybe she has a point and this really is a fascist movement putting the boot on the throats of dissenters. Maybe not voting for enthusiastic abortionists will be a fresh start.”
 
Mulligan2 said:
The Supreme Court decided that marriage equality is the law of the land.

Kim Davis and her legal team are upset because they don’t want the law of the land to apply to them. Her position is untenable.

There are more questions than answers about this supposed meeting with the Pope. “Under 15 minutes” could have been a 15-second meet-and-greet, much like a receiving line at a formal function. I doubt that the Pope requested a meeting with Kim Davis. I suspect her legal team was working furiously behind the scenes to make it happen.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I think some of us have made too much out of the meeting (I’m not speaking of you, Mulligan, you are one of the few who didn’t).👍 I especially agree with your last two sentences. I doubt the Pope even knew about Davis or requested a meeting, and I, too, suspect that it was her legal team that got the whole thing set up.

To the poster who asked if I’d issue a license for slavery, no, I’d quit my job. I would not expect to stay and collect a salary when I could not do the job I swore an oath to do and follow the law. Privately, I would never employ slaves or deal with people who did. I don’t even buy clothes made in China, etc. because they use “sweatshops.” I pay extra - a lot extra - to have them made, even my winter coats.

I’ve said more than enough on a subject I’m really not all that interested in.
 
I can’t wrap my head around the idea that the woman who was ambushed by the gay lobby with cameras at her workplace and went to jail standing on her principles… would outright lie about meeting with the Pope. If it’s a lie she’s certainly wrecked her stance on principles. Unless she has some kind of mental illness??
 
LongingSoul said:
I can’t wrap my head around the idea that the woman who was ambushed by the gay lobby with cameras at her workplace and went to jail standing on her principles… would outright lie about meeting with the Pope. If it’s a lie she’s certainly wrecked her stance on principles. Unless she has some kind of mental illness??
Click to expand...
Especially since she isn’t Catholic. And to make the claim that she did meet with him, if she didn’t, takes a HUGE gamble that the Vatican would refuse to confirm or deny the meeting. Anyone else who claimed to have a private audience with the Pope, who actually did not, would receive a swift denial from the Vatican when asked about it.

The Vatican’s refusal to confirm/deny the meeting is similar to a non-answer when someone asks a woman if she is pregnant. A non-answer means “yes”. Otherwise they just say “no”.

It’s funny how many people are catching vapors and going to their fainting couches because of this news.
 
Well it was on EWTN news last night and Alan Holdren their correspondent in Rome said Fr. Lombadi’s response not addressing the meeting was typical of private meetings. I think it’s safe to believe the meeting happened.
 
If the Pope asked someone for a private meeting, I think the person should keep the meeting private and not tell the media.

If she met the Pope, she should have respected his unspoken wishes. If the vatican wanted this public, they would have made it so beforehand, when they were planning the meeting.

This was a personal blessing not to be shared, and it does not sit well with me that she had to alert the media.
 
mommy_k said:
If the Pope asked someone for a private meeting, I think the person should keep the meeting private and not tell the media.

If she met the Pope, she should have respected his unspoken wishes. If the vatican wanted this public, they would have made it so beforehand, when they were planning the meeting.

This was a personal blessing not to be shared, and it does not sit well with me that she had to alert the media.
Click to expand...
You don’t know if the Pope asked that it be kept private. He may have only asked that it be kept private until his trip was over. Assuming she has violated confidentiality or agreed-upon privacy is uncharitable since we have no information saying it was supposed to remain private.
 
They agreed to keep it quiet during the visit as to not over shadow the visit. The visit is now over, this was also relayed on EWTN last night. I’m pretty Pope Francis knew she was not going to keep it private forever.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Unfortunately, it became about Kim Davis. Surely the Vatican officials had to know it would. She’s so notorious. Now when a lot of people remember his trip here, they are going to remember his secret meeting with Mrs. Davis, a three-times divorced Pentecostal (really, I don’t care what her religion is), who is playing this for all the media attention she can get. I don’t care what she does, but I don’t like her dragging our religion and our Pontiff into it. I feel Pope Francis had no idea what he was getting into. He’s a saintly man.
Click to expand...
I don’t know that the Vatican official would necessarily anticipate the reaction.

I think back to the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. When that happened, there was a media firestorm because one of them was a Holocaust denier—a fact that Benedict later admitted he simply did not know. And had he known it, he would have handled it differently.

Back when that happened, I remember thinking “How could the Vatican now know? I mean, even I knew that!” But then the realization came that simply because something is “common knowledge” on this forum or even all over the U.S. news does not mean that it is front and center on the Vatican’s radar screen.
 
zz912 said:
You don’t know if the Pope asked that it be kept private. He may have only asked that it be kept private until his trip was over. Assuming she has violated confidentiality or agreed-upon privacy is uncharitable since we have no information saying it was supposed to remain private.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself why is the vatican neither confirming ot denying the meeting? Read between the lines…

Because it was a personal meeting-not to be shared, other wise they would confirm it.
 
I have heard so many opinions regarding this move. Some say, “Why did he waste time with her when he could have met with ______(insert name of someone Catholic)”.

After reflecting on it, I think the move was brilliant. Why in the world would I think that? Think back to his legendary statement “Who am I to judge?”. Those that actually read the context noted that he was speaking about priests who had same sex attraction but were celibate. However, the media, no doubt purposely, twisted this into an endorsement for active gay lifestyles. Over the past few years, Pope Francis has gently stated his opinion on family life and marriage between a man and a woman. This was glossed over or entirely ignored by the media. The message originally meant for priests (and Catholics in groups like Courage, who are despised and ridiculed by the gay lobbyists for their celibate lifestyle), was translated to mean something that was in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again and again, our Holy Father held up the family as the ideal, while still showing his love and mercy to people in all situations. For all of us, he demonstrated the call of a shepherd to the sheep that had strayed. He called them with love and mercy. Promised that they would be safe when near him. He didn’t speak about fences and gates to keep them safe from the wolves, because he wanted them to come and see first, then let their hearts discern the Truth for themselves, in respect for the free will of every individual.

But the media tripped up his words (if you suspect that gay lobbyists had influence, you would be absolutely right- follow the money). So, what could he do, if they refused to print anything that would identify him as actually, well, Catholic?

He acted. He did something that the media could not deny. They can no longer lie to themselves and to the public about where Pope Francis stands on gay marriage. He did it in such a way that didn’t degrade or disrespect anyone, while demonstrating, quite clearly, that he is absolutely loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s why I think it was perfect.
 
I wish there were 10,000 Kim Davises and that they were all practicing Catholics.
 
mommy_k said:
Ask yourself why is the vatican neither confirming ot denying the meeting? Read between the lines…

Because it was a personal meeting-not to be shared, other wise they would confirm it.
Click to expand...
I heard a Vatican official does confirm it and he has a name. Is it Frederico or Lombardi? I heard it said. I was trying to remember it.
 
The only thing that kinda makes me bugged a bit about this is that, wasn’t Kim Davis re-married 4 times? & had children out of wedlock, & I keep hearing that she believes that if you’re anything besides Pentecostal or something, that you’re going to hell …I’m still looking for where that was written, but I’ve heard a few people mention that …anyways I don’t know the details of the meeting so I can’t judge.
 
Catholic_farmer said:
I have heard so many opinions regarding this move. Some say, “Why did he waste time with her when he could have met with ______(insert name of someone Catholic)”.

After reflecting on it, I think the move was brilliant. Why in the world would I think that? Think back to his legendary statement “Who am I to judge?”. Those that actually read the context noted that he was speaking about priests who had same sex attraction but were celibate. However, the media, no doubt purposely, twisted this into an endorsement for active gay lifestyles. Over the past few years, Pope Francis has gently stated his opinion on family life and marriage between a man and a woman. This was glossed over or entirely ignored by the media. The message originally meant for priests (and Catholics in groups like Courage, who are despised and ridiculed by the gay lobbyists for their celibate lifestyle), was translated to mean something that was in direct conflict with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again and again, our Holy Father held up the family as the ideal, while still showing his love and mercy to people in all situations. For all of us, he demonstrated the call of a shepherd to the sheep that had strayed. He called them with love and mercy. Promised that they would be safe when near him. He didn’t speak about fences and gates to keep them safe from the wolves, because he wanted them to come and see first, then let their hearts discern the Truth for themselves, in respect for the free will of every individual.

But the media tripped up his words (if you suspect that gay lobbyists had influence, you would be absolutely right- follow the money). So, what could he do, if they refused to print anything that would identify him as actually, well, Catholic?

He acted. He did something that the media could not deny. They can no longer lie to themselves and to the public about where Pope Francis stands on gay marriage. He did it in such a way that didn’t degrade or disrespect anyone, while demonstrating, quite clearly, that he is absolutely loyal to the teachings of the Catholic Church. That’s why I think it was perfect.
Click to expand...
I agree- It seemed to be the Pope’s way of saying: “As my visit approaches its end, I want to let everyone know–I am still a Catholic.”
 
mommy_k said:
Ask yourself why is the vatican neither confirming ot denying the meeting? Read between the lines…

Because it was a personal meeting-not to be shared, other wise they would confirm it.
Click to expand...
That’s an assumption on your part. It could be that they didn’t want the story to arise while the Pope was in the country, and take away from other things they wanted the media to focus on, or it could be that they wanted to send a small message of support and not make it a huge message. So they leave it as unconfirmed, and the story is out, but not blaring through the media. We simply don’t know the motivation and until they say so, it is a guess on our part.

In charity, we should assume that Mrs Davis and her attorneys have not violated confidentiality they agreed to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top