Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement, Vatican says

[Lily_Bernans]

If the pope saw fit to hold an audience with Kim Davis, then that is clear enough.
When it comes to people going to jail over their religious convictions, the pope is seen in their presence and not in the presence of their jailers.

He shook her hand in a reception line at a meet-and-greet. The Vatican did clear that up. He did not have an “audience” with her. The Vatican also cleared that up. The only people the pope had an audience with are family and some former students, one named Mr. Grassi the pope has known since the 1950s, when Mr. Grassi was the pope’s student in literature and psychology classes. The pope is not familiar with Kim Davis’ legal case. The Vatican cleared that up.

The pope loves ALL PEOPLE whether he knows them or not, whether he approves of their actions or not. (But the pope did not comment on Mrs. Davis’ actions and will not.) The Vatican, however, stated that her inclusion in the meet-and-greet reception line is not to be taken as approval of her actions by the pope. The Vatican cleared that up.

No one said they hate Mrs. Davis, some people just think it’s hypocritical of her to not resign. That does not equal hate. No one that I seen, here or anywhere else, has said they hate her.

I met St. Pope JP II in a receiving line. Am I to take it that he approved of all my actions because of that? No, of course not.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, you can stop worrying because many of the PhD theology professors whose classes I was in (and many of them are Catholic priests) share my beliefs. My place of employment is not at all worried about me, so you don’t need to worry, either. Besides, we don’t teach “Kim Davis” in class. We are focused on Christ and the development of Christology in my classes.

My own pastor shares my belief. Kim Davis has the right to object. Kim Davis has the right not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. However, since Kim Davis can no longer execute the duties of the job she was elected to do and swore to do, she should quit. This is a man who has been a priest for nearly forty years.

Can you link me to or paste the complete contents of the Popes plane interview which you said you have read so I can see what I’ve missed.

“I’ve read the complete transcript of what he said at the press conference on the plane, and he never said a government employee should be allowed to object to his or her job and KEEP his or her job. You are twisting the pope’s words to suit your agenda.”

 

[sarah_j]

If the pope saw fit to hold an audience with Kim Davis, then that is clear enough.
When it comes to people going to jail over their religious convictions, the pope is seen in their presence and not in the presence of their jailers.

But in the statement issued by the Vatican, it says the Pope did NOT have an
audience with her.

“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with
one of his former students and his family.”

graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/vatican-statement.pdf



Many people are confused by the Vatican’s statement. Here is a typical
article, hating on Kim Davis. I don’t understand why the Vatican is letting
all of this speculation continue.

" In a statement, the Vatican clarified that Pope Francis didn’t even know
who Kim Davis was."

politicususa.com/2015/10/02/pope-francis-throws-kim-davis-bigotry-bus.html

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Can you link me to or paste the complete contents of the Popes plane interview which you said you have read so I can see what I’ve missed.

“I’ve read the complete transcript of what he said at the press conference on the plane, and he never said a government employee should be allowed to object to his or her job and KEEP his or her job. You are twisting the pope’s words to suit your agenda.”

I did not save the link. Someone posted it in another thread. Kim Davis’ name was not mentioned. It’s here somewhere, or I’m sure a Google search would turn it up.

Here it is:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

 

[Lily_Bernans]

And here, he didn’t know who she was. He said, “Hello” to her:

politicususa.com/2015/10/02/pope-francis-throws-kim-davis-bigotry-bus.html

Would he approve of her? We don’t know. Does he share my views that she should quit? We don’t know. And he’s not going to answer, and that’s right of him, I think. He’s not an American or a politician. He’s our spiritual leader. Does he love Kim Davis? I’m sure he does. Does he love me? I’m sure he does. Does he love everyone here? I’m sure he does.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

But in the statement issued by the Vatican, it says the Pope did NOT have an
audience with her.

“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with
one of his former students and his family.”

graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/vatican-statement.pdf



Many people are confused by the Vatican’s statement. Here is a typical
article, hating on Kim Davis. I don’t understand why the Vatican is letting
all of this speculation continue.

" In a statement, the Vatican clarified that Pope Francis didn’t even know
who Kim Davis was."

politicususa.com/2015/10/02/pope-francis-throws-kim-davis-bigotry-bus.html

Why should the Vatican involve itself in American political issues? Pope Francis has more than a billion Catholics to shepherd. He doesn’t need to be bothered with this. This is for the American public to sort out.

 

[Darryl1958]

He shook her hand in a reception line at a meet-and-greet. The Vatican did clear that up. He did not have an “audience” with her.

It is pretty hard to shake someone’s hand and not have an audience with that person.
It is another one of those situations of what the definition of the word “is” is, I guess.
The fact is that he shook her hand

The Vatican also cleared that up. The only people the pope had an audience with are family and some former students, one named Mr. Grassi the pope has known since the 1950s, when Mr. Grassi was the pope’s student in literature and psychology classes. The pope is not familiar with Kim Davis’ legal case. The Vatican cleared that up.

It does not hold water that the pope would shake someone’s hand without in any way bring familiar with who she was. Kim Davis was not in that group of people meeting the pope just randomly off the street.
That is an unbelievable scenario.
She was there because she was Kim Davis.

The pope loves ALL PEOPLE whether he knows them or not, whether he approves of their actions or not.

Neither you nor I were in that audience shaking the hand with the pope.It never occurred to me that those who did get to meet him in person are more loved, or less loved for that matter, than you or I, or anybody else.

(But the pope did not comment on Mrs. Davis’ actions and will not.) The Vatican, however, stated that her inclusion in the meet-and-greet reception line is not to be taken as approval of her actions by the pope. The Vatican cleared that up.

I never suggested differently. There is no reason that a pope should endorse her actions, or hold her as an example for Catholics to follow.

No one said they hate Mrs. Davis, some people just think it’s hypocritical of her to not resign. That does not equal hate. No one that I seen, here or anywhere else, has said they hate her.

That comment is coming straight out of left field, in terms of responding to anything that you are quoting in my post.

I met St. Pope JP II in a receiving line. Am I to take it that he approved of all my actions because of that? No, of course not.

Of course not. It means that you were in a position noteworthy enough that someone with influence considered you to be important enough for the pope to meet and greet.
I might imagine that you received that kind of honor because of your role as an educator with a firm Catholic point of view.
If these receiving lines were completely random, I might well be there too.
But they are not. You were there because you are you. Kim Davis was there because she is Kim Davis.
And I was not there because I am me, and there is nothing particularly noteworthy about me that would merit me being in that line.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It is pretty hard to shake someone’s hand and not have an audience with that person.
It is another one of those situations of what the definition of the word “is” is, I guess.
The fact is that he shook her hand

It does not hold water that the pope would shake someone’s hand without in any way bring familiar with who she was. Kim Davis was not in that group of people meeting the pope just randomly off the street.
That is an unbelievable scenario.
She was there because she was Kim Davis.

Neither you nor I were in that audience shaking the hand with the pope.It never occurred to me that those who did get to meet him in person are more loved, or less loved for that matter, than you or I, or anybody else.

I never suggested differently. There is no reason that a pope should endorse her actions, or hold her as an example for Catholics to follow.

That comment is coming straight out of left field, in terms of responding to anything that you are quoting in my post.

Of course not. It means that you were in a position noteworthy enough that someone with influence considered you to be important enough for the pope to meet and greet.
I might imagine that you received that kind of honor because of your role as an educator with a firm Catholic point of view.
If these receiving lines were completely random, I might well be there too.
But they are not. You were there because you are you. Kim Davis was there because she is Kim Davis.
And I was not there because I am me, and there is nothing particularly noteworthy about me that would merit me being in that line.

If you read all the news articles, you’ll see Vatican politics played a large role in this. And, Kim Davis’ lawyer. I can’t go into it here. This is not the place, but if you read news articles you will see.

I was not invited to meet St. Pope JP II because I’m an educator because I was still a theology student then, however, I did work in Vatican City and lived in Rome.

 

[Thorolfr]

It does not hold water that the pope would shake someone’s hand without in any way bring familiar with who she was. Kim Davis was not in that group of people meeting the pope just randomly off the street.
That is an unbelievable scenario.
She was there because she was Kim Davis.

Kim Davis was probably there because the Nuncio Vigano knew who she is. But it does not follow that Pope Francis knew who she is even if he shook hands with her. Someone from the nunciature could have told the Pope, “Here are twenty people we selected for this event, could you please shake all their hands and give each one of them a rosary.” In this case the Pope would be relying on these officials to make the decision about who they thought should have the honor of getting a handshake from him.

 

[LongingSoul]

I did not save the link. Someone posted it in another thread. Kim Davis’ name was not mentioned. It’s here somewhere, or I’m sure a Google search would turn it up.

Here it is:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

Here is what he said…

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.”

What does he mean by these comments…

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right.”

How does it look when entered into ‘every juridical structure’?

What does the example of Chancon Roland mean? People were given the choice to convert or die seems to me to imply that one should have the right to object to the options - convert or die. That seems to justify Ms Davis right to object to the ‘do it or resign’ option when their is the third option to live harmoniously in the environment without compromising your principles.

How do you interpret that example?

 

[Thorolfr]

Can you cite where there were thousands who were invited?

It looks to me like it said “a handful”.

It said that the people that a particular unnamed Vatican official objected to, i.e. the gay Episcopal former bishop Gene Robinson, a gay Catholic man, Aaron Ledesma, and Sister Simone Campbell, were only a handful out of the thousands invited. In fact, I read in one article that many invited people were told they could bring a guest of their own choosing with them. That’s why the furor in conservative circles over Robinson, Ledesma and Campbell being invited was so silly.

 

[sarah_j]

Why should the Vatican involve itself in American political issues? Pope Francis has more than a billion Catholics to shepherd. He doesn’t need to be bothered with this. This is for the American public to sort out.

Bothered with this? Let me remind you that there is a synod tomorrow
regarding marriage and family.

Clearly defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding same sex marriage
is not a political issue.

 

[Brendan_64]

If one government employee is allowed to object and keep his or her job, they all should be allowed, and that would cause havoc.
…The conscientious objection of government employees leads to anarchy.

So what our Church teaches on legitimate authority is wrong then? You see to be arguing that whether or not a law introduced is contrary to the moral order, the government still has authority to insist that people comply with it, and that people ought to suffer consequences if they do not comply. That effectively sets up an alternative source of authority to rule, a system of two masters.

The Church teaches that it is the enacting of laws contrary to the moral order and the attempt to bind people to these laws results in “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

 

[meltzerboy]

Kim Davis was probably there because the Nuncio Vigano knew who she is. But it does not follow that Pope Francis knew who she is even if he shook hands with her. Someone from the nunciature could have told the Pope, “Here are twenty people we selected for this event, could you please shake all their hands and give each one of them a rosary.” In this case the Pope would be relying on these officials to make the decision about who they thought should have the honor of getting a handshake from him.

You don’t think the Pope was filled in, even a little, about the identity of these people?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Bothered with this? Let me remind you that there is a synod tomorrow
regarding marriage and family.

Clearly defining the beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding same sex marriage
is not a political issue.

Who said it was a political issue? I’ve been saying all along that the Pope’s visit was not political. I’ve even been accused of being a liberal when I’m ultra-conservative with regard to the Church.

You don’t need to remind me of the synod. I’m related to someone involved. (I come from a family of priests, bishops, and nuns, it’s a wonder there are any of us left to reproduce. At least one of my relatives seems to be involved in whatever is going on in the Church.) I am not involved in any way, of course, except that I’m praying daily for a specific Cardinal in the Adopt-a-Bishop program.

It’s just as I’ve said: Pope Francis has enough to worry about without being bothered by the furor of divided opinion over Kim Davis.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You don’t think the Pope was filled in, even a little, about the identity of these people?

I don’t. SOP is to give him a sheet of paper with the names and say, “Holy Father, here are the names of the people in the receiving line.”

He meets hundreds and hundreds of people in receiving lines each year. It would be impossible to be filled in on all of them. I think he has a good memory, but not that good.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Here is what he said…

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.”

What does he mean by these comments…

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right.”

How does it look when entered into ‘every juridical structure’?

What does the example of Chancon Roland mean? People were given the choice to convert or die seems to me to imply that one should have the right to object to the options - convert or die. That seems to justify Ms Davis right to object to the ‘do it or resign’ option when their is the third option to live harmoniously in the environment without compromising your principles.

How do you interpret that example?

I interpret what he said as approval of conscientious objection as a human right, but he does not want to get pulled into anything political, and I support that. I believe as you do with the exception that I think government workers who cannot do their job - in full - because of a matter of conscience need to find other employment. I don’t hold them to that in the private sector. I believe Mrs. Davis has the right to object. I just think she should quit. If she were in the private sector, I would not feel that way.

I don’t know what he means by giving the Song of Roland as an example. Maybe it’s the only one he could think of at the time. He said he could not remember all the cases he’s read of, etc. or something to that effect. Mrs. Davis certainly isn’t going to be killed for her beliefs! I’m sure the pope knows that. No one wants her dead. I disagree with her actions, but wish her well and respect her dignity as a child of God. I do not believe in SSM, but I wish all homosexual people well and respect their dignity as children of God as well. There are some in my parish that I like a lot, am good friends with.

 

[josh987654321]

I agree with Emperor Napoleon since the Vatican’s official statement said the pope did not know who Kim Davis is and did not meet with her personally or privately. That’s why Terry Moran didn’t mention her name on the plane. They do confirm that she was in a receiving line at a meet-and-greet, though, and shook the pope’s hand. However, it was Archbishop Vigano who arranged Kim Davis’ invitation to the meet-and-greet, not the pope.

We have a choice here to choose who is lying and who is telling the truth. Who is the truth teller: Kim Davis and her attorney or the Vatican? I go with the Vatican as the truth teller.

Okay, I will wait for more light to be shed on the matter. Given what Pope Francis said regarding her case and conscientious objection, It seems to me reasonable to conclude that they did meet (however the arrangement took place) that they did hug and that Pope Francis did thank her for her courage, but nonetheless, I will have to wait for some more information to come to light, it doesn’t make much sense for Kim Davis to make up things like that and especially after we know that they did in fact meet and given what Pope Francis said about her case.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Would he approve of her? We don’t know.

Sure.

Does he share my views that she should quit? We don’t know.

I believe we do know, and the answer is no, as he made clear that conscientious objection was a human right when asked about Kim Davis’ case.

And he’s not going to answer, and that’s right of him, I think.

I believe he has answered. You can pretend he hasn’t if you like.

He’s not an American or a politician. He’s our spiritual leader. Does he love Kim Davis? I’m sure he does. Does he love me? I’m sure he does. Does he love everyone here? I’m sure he does.

Yup.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[simple_soul]

I am not contradicting you. See post #134.

Are you not called to make every effort to “internally accept and believe in all that G-d teaches”? That effort may entail a struggle, however. IOW, rather than (blind) compliance, there is the use of one’s free will directed toward G-d’s will. I see a distinction between an effort toward compliance and non-questioning compliance. Or is this difference only to be found in Judaism?

I believe there is a distinction but I believe I may see the distinction slightly different.
I don’t believe anyone has just (blind) compliance. I have been accused of having it and I have seen others get accused of having it. And when I listen to or reread things. I have said in the past I can see why people would believe that and I believe I understand why people believe others are like that. I don’t believe calling it a (blind) compliance is accurate.
It is more like putting your faith, hope, and trust into who is instructing you or leading you into understanding God’s Truths more deeply. I guess I see it as we are all children being raised to know, love and serve God. All of use question things and try to learn, some of us question in a miss trusting way, some in a beligerant way, some of us in a quiet way and then again some of us in a way of “I hear what your saying but I’m going to do what I beleive is right and see if what your telling me is the right way.” We are all unique in our way of conforming our conscience with God’s will and Truths. We are very diverce and conplex creatures whom God Loves very much. I believe what I am beginning to understand is that having the right to consciously object respects the integrity of the individual to grow in understanding and accepting of God and His Truths with out being faced with being forced to accept His Truths or be killed.

I hope that makes some sense and answers your question.