Kim Davis and the trap for Pope Francis
huff.to/1QN80wE
This article is
exactly why I think it was a tactical error for Papa Francis not to explicitly mention gay marriage (and other issues) in his address to congress. There are so many tidbits in here that show how his indirect approach has led the media to believe he is at best, ambivalent about gay marriage.
From the article (emphasis mine):
The meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis threatens to overshadow the success of the Pope’s visit to the United States. The response to the visit says a lot about the climate created in the United States around the pope’s visit and the inability for some in the church to acknowledge and receive Pope Francis.
It says nothing, however, about the position of the pope, the concrete case of Kim Davis, the question of LGBT Catholics in general or same-sex marriage in the civil society. To understand the contours of the meeting we should keep in mind a few things.
Already the spin occurs that maybe, just maybe, Papa Francis is not opposed to gay marriage. After all, since he says nothing about “same-sex marriage in the civil society,” the left is free to believe whatever they will.
And this is demonstrated later (emphasis mine):
Third point: The fact that the case has been artfully assembled is confirmed not only by the embarrassed reluctance of the Vatican to comment (after confirming the meeting), but by the climate before the pope’s visit to America. In his address to American bishops, the pope warned against the temptation to use the cross as a symbol for political struggles.
The pope’s visit has disappointed ideologues of the political-religious “culture wars” in America, especially those who tried to make Kim Davis a martyr of Church against gay marriage. Perhaps those who organized the meeting for the Vatican have escaped seeing the televised catwalks of Kim Davis with several Republican candidates for president of the United States and were, therefore, without sufficient information. In his public speeches,** Francis carefully avoided presenting himself as a “cultural warrior.”** Still, someone decided to put in the same room and in front of the Pope the witness of a Christian style exactly opposite to his own.
If everyone is aware of the Church’s (and the Pope’s) opinion on gay marriage and there’s no need to explicit speak out about it (as some here on CAF claim), why refer to gay marriage as a cultural issue, and not the moral issue that the Church holds it to be? By being silent on the morality of gay marriage, the left can continue the narrative that gay “marriage” is a cultural issue, outside the purview of the Church.
Finally (emphasis, again, mine);
In conclusion, what messages does the meeting convey? Two things.
First, it tells us nothing about what the pope thinks about gay people. Even his statements on the right to conscientious objection, made at a press conference on the return flight from Philadelphia, never referred to the case of Kim Davis. To understand Francis and the question of LGBT people in the church and in society, there are speeches, recent and older, from his time as pope, bishop and cardinal. The Synod of Bishops, which opens Sunday in Rome, will also discuss this.
Again, if the Church’s (and the Pope’s) position are so well known, why do we need to even look to this meeting with Mrs Davis to know what the Pope thinks about gay people? His indirect reference to gay “marriage” in his speech allows the left to continue with this false idea that somehow Papa Francis is different. The left thinks they can find, in his silence, tacit approval. By saying his visit “tells us nothing” they can claim that he has nothing to say. And if he has nothing to say, then it must be ok as it is.
If the Pope really met with Ms. Davis wouldn’t something about their meeting have been mentioned in the news?
) said:
Indeed it was.