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

[graciew]

Pray for those ill lentils and maybe sauce and dressing too, I guess. Good luck with it!

God bless you. !

 

[LongingSoul]

On September 11, 2013, Pope Francis wrote a letter to the Italian newspaper ‘La Repubblica’ in which he wrote, “Given that–and this is the key point–God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

Is then conscientious objection a question of religious freedom at all? Religious freedom in the U.S. at least is the legal right to exercise one’s religious beliefs. To conclude that Pope Francis in his statement to reporters that government officials have a human right to refuse to perform their duty if they have a conscientious objection even applicable to the Kim Davis situation?

Countries party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have a broad description of the freedoms as per Article 18. “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief”

The article referenced gave an example of a philosophical vegetarian bus driver who didn’t want to hand our hamburger coupons to passengers as a company promotion.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Countries party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have a broad description of the freedoms as per Article 18. “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief”

The article referenced gave an example of a philosophical vegetarian bus driver who didn’t want to hand our hamburger coupons to passengers as a company promotion.

So he wants to take away their right to eat meat? It sounds like the discussion has gone far afield now. I guess that’s okay. I’m just not a debater myself, but I should be working on my dissertation anyway!

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Puzzling that you would know that she “made up lies” while having absolutely no real knowledge about what did or did not occur regarding her meeting with the Pope.

You might want to ask yourself why you are so invested in this that you would commit calumny based upon something you have no certainty about.

I know that she and her attorney lied because the statement from Vatican that was personally approved by Pope Francis directly contradicts and repudiates their claims.

 

[sps49]

These are two quite different examples of conscientious objection and neither “dangerous” nor physical “danger” is what they share in common–or not as those words are commonly defined and understood. Whether or not Kim Davis still refuses to perform her job duties as an elected official is a question for a federal judge. Whether she has a right as a conscientious objector to refuse to perform her job duties is a separate question. I believe she has a right to claim conscientious objector status but not to remain in an elective office if she refuses to perform the duties of that office. The issue is the rule of law and not that of her right to conscientiously object. If the President of the United States refused to uphold the rule of law and, as a matter of conscience, defied the Supreme Court, he would surely face impeachment. This is the difficulty–consequences are unavoidable in both examples. The example of Kim Davis would not meet the definition of ‘danger’, so call it what one will. It is a problem as it is in all the examples.

The instance of a soldier refusing to perform his or her sworn duties is a problem if not the same circumstances. If an infantryman would claim conscientious objector status but would nevertheless be permitted to remain in that position while refusing to perform his duties in combat would be utterly irresponsible. It is an extreme example but true to the principle.

Looking at the principle of “doing what you signed up for” with an “all things being equal lens” for both cases is a distortion of reality. They are not equal; in the military example, great physical harm may occur, and in the civil example, well, we’ve seen that already. The military commander has a greater weight of immediate responsibility then her supervisor. Just out of curiosity, do you have a military background?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I know that she and her attorney lied because the statement from Vatican that was personally approved by Pope Francis directly contradicts and repudiates their claims.

You will have to point out where precisely the “lying” occurred because it certainly isn’t clear which of her statements constitutes a “lie.”

From your opening post article:

Earlier this week, Davis had framed the meeting as an endorsement of her cause, telling ABC News: “Just knowing the Pope is on track with what we’re doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything.”

In a statement, Davis added: "Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring, and very personable. He even asked me to pray for him. Pope Francis thanked me for my courage and told me to ‘stay strong.’ "

I’ll be happy to list point by point her assertions and claims.

1. The Pope is on track with what Kim, et al, are doing.
2. In the brief meeting the Pope indicated his agreement with Kim’s position.
3. Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring and personable in the meeting.
4. Pope Francis thanked Kim for showing courage in the face of what has happened to her.
5. Pope Francis told Kim to “Stay strong.”

Now, because the Vatican neither affirmed nor denied what happened in the meeting does not disprove nor deny what Kim has claimed occurred. The meaning of “neither affirmed nor denied” entails the Vatican does not dispute anything Kim has said, correct?

Where, then, is the lying?

Perhaps because she “framed the meeting as an endorsement?” That would only be a lie if the Pope did not positively encourage her in her endeavor. However, if he told her to “Stay strong,” and thanked her for her courage those would appear to be positive encouragements and were meant to encourage her in her endeavor. So why would the Pope thank her for her courage and tell her to stay strong if he thought she was doing something wrong? THAT doesn’t make sense.

Neither affirming nor denying anything Kim claimed about the meeting does not amount to grounds for calling her a liar. If the Pope had disputed what Kim said by insisting some part of the story didn’t happen or was fabricated, then, there could be grounds, but that is not what the Vatican did, is it? They didn’t deny what happened nor did they give an accounting of events substantively different from or contradicting what Kim claimed actually occurred.

You have NO grounds for claiming she lied.

If you think otherwise, then outline the statements made by Kim (or her lawyers) and those made by the Vatican which directly contradict each other. You do understand that “directly contradicts” means both CANNOT be true, correct?

As it stands, there is no logical contradiction that I can see, which means “repudiates their claims” is not substantiated, either.

 

[Thorolfr]

I’ll be happy to list point by point her assertions and claims.

1. The Pope is on track with what Kim, et al, are doing.
2. In the brief meeting the Pope indicated his agreement with Kim’s position.
3. Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring and personable in the meeting.
4. Pope Francis thanked Kim for showing courage in the face of what has happened to her.
5. Pope Francis told Kim to “Stay strong.”

Now, because the Vatican neither affirmed nor denied what happened in the meeting does not disprove nor deny what Kim has claimed occurred. The meaning of “neither affirmed nor denied” entails the Vatican does not dispute anything Kim has said, correct?

Where, then, is the lying?

Perhaps because she “framed the meeting as an endorsement?” That would only be a lie if the Pope did not positively encourage her in her endeavor. However, if he told her to “Stay strong,” and thanked her for her courage those would appear to be positive encouragements and were meant to encourage her in her endeavor. So why would the Pope thank her for her courage and tell her to stay strong if he thought she was doing something wrong? THAT doesn’t make sense.

Neither affirming nor denying anything Kim claimed about the meeting does not amount to grounds for calling her a liar. If the Pope had disputed what Kim said by insisting some part of the story didn’t happen or was fabricated, then, there could be grounds, but that is not what the Vatican did, is it? They didn’t deny what happened nor did they give an accounting of events substantively different from or contradicting what Kim claimed actually occurred.

You have NO grounds for claiming she lied.

From the Vatican’s clarification issued Friday, here’s [Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico] Lombardi’s full statement, which was released in both English and Italian:

"The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion. In order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired I am able to clarify the following points:

"Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.

“The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.”

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/02/445236066/vatican-details-pope-s-meeting-with-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis

 

[Thomas_White]

Looking at the principle of “doing what you signed up for” with an “all things being equal lens” for both cases is a distortion of reality. They are not equal; in the military example, great physical harm may occur, and in the civil example, well, we’ve seen that already. The military commander has a greater weight of immediate responsibility then her supervisor. Just out of curiosity, do you have a military background?

Did you read the first sentence of the comment? Yes, I have a military background. What is your point?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You will have to point out where precisely the “lying” occurred because it certainly isn’t clear which of her statements constitutes a “lie.”

From your opening post article:

I’ll be happy to list point by point her assertions and claims.

1. The Pope is on track with what Kim, et al, are doing.
2. In the brief meeting the Pope indicated his agreement with Kim’s position.
3. Pope Francis was kind, genuinely caring and personable in the meeting.
4. Pope Francis thanked Kim for showing courage in the face of what has happened to her.
5. Pope Francis told Kim to “Stay strong.”

Now, because the Vatican neither affirmed nor denied what happened in the meeting does not disprove nor deny what Kim has claimed occurred. The meaning of “neither affirmed nor denied” entails the Vatican does not dispute anything Kim has said, correct?

Where, then, is the lying?

Perhaps because she “framed the meeting as an endorsement?” That would only be a lie if the Pope did not positively encourage her in her endeavor. However, if he told her to “Stay strong,” and thanked her for her courage those would appear to be positive encouragements and were meant to encourage her in her endeavor. So why would the Pope thank her for her courage and tell her to stay strong if he thought she was doing something wrong? THAT doesn’t make sense.

Neither affirming nor denying anything Kim claimed about the meeting does not amount to grounds for calling her a liar. If the Pope had disputed what Kim said by insisting some part of the story didn’t happen or was fabricated, then, there could be grounds, but that is not what the Vatican did, is it? They didn’t deny what happened nor did they give an accounting of events substantively different from or contradicting what Kim claimed actually occurred.

You have NO grounds for claiming she lied.

If you think otherwise, then outline the statements made by Kim (or her lawyers) and those made by the Vatican which directly contradict each other. You do understand that “directly contradicts” means both CANNOT be true, correct?

As it stands, there is no logical contradiction that I can see, which means “repudiates their claims” is not substantiated, either.

Kim Davis/Attorney Account:

1. Kim Davis was invited by the Vatican.

2… Kim Davis and her husband had a private 10 minute audience with Pope Francis.

1. Pope Francis agrees with what she is doing.

Vatican statement approved by Pope Francis:

1. Kim Davis was not invited by the Vatican.
2. Kim Davis and her husband did not have a private audience with Pope Francis. She was merely part of a receiving line among dozens of other people.
3. There was no endorsement of her position.

etc. etc.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects."

She never claimed the Pope supported her position “in all of its particular and complex aspects.” She claimed it “kind of” [her words] validates her position as whole, i.e., “everything,” meaning – the way I read it – that the Pope indicated his general support for her cause, not every particular and complex aspect of her cause. She wouldn’t have used the tentative “kind of” if she thought the Pope supported every particular and complex aspect of her position.

 

[Thomas_White]

Looking at the principle of “doing what you signed up for” with an “all things being equal lens” for both cases is a distortion of reality. They are not equal; in the military example, great physical harm may occur, and in the civil example, well, we’ve seen that already. The military commander has a greater weight of immediate responsibility then her supervisor. Just out of curiosity, do you have a military background?

Did you read the first sentence of the comment? Yes, I have a military background. See comment #298. What is your point?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Kim Davis/Attorney Account:

You do understand that “contradictory” means “logically incompatible with?”

1. Kim Davis was invited by the Vatican.
   vs 1. Kim Davis was not invited by the Vatican.

This might be a legitimate misperception on her part since she was not privy to how arrangements were made. Even so, the Vatican may have suggested or were open to the meeting while someone local actually made the invitation. This does not constitute a “lie” on her part.

1. Kim Davis and her husband had a private 10 minute audience with Pope Francis.
   vs 2. Kim Davis and her husband did not have a private audience with Pope Francis. She was merely part of a receiving line among dozens of other people.

It is still possible that her audience with the Pope was private even though the Pope met with a number of others before and after Kim. The words “receiving line” appear to be yours not the Vatican’s. If Kim’s meeting was part of a receiving line, then surely others would have noticed that it was Kim Davis the Pope was meeting with and word would have gotten out, possibly against the wishes of the Pope. It isn’t clear to me that the meeting was a public one in a “receiving line.” Do you have definite proof that it was?

1. Pope Francis agrees with what she is doing.
   vs 3. There was no endorsement of her position.

It still doesn’t make sense for the Pope to thank her for her courage nor does telling her to “stay strong” if he is opposed to what she is doing and thinks she is wrong in doing it. There is a tacit and general endorsement even though the endorsement doesn’t apply to all the particulars of the complex issue, which is the clarification made by the Vatican.

None of these make her a “liar.”

The etc., etc., may be more fruitful for you if you could flesh those out a bit.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no same-sex marriage or opposite-sex civil marriage in the State of Israel.

But unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples in Israel have equal access to nearly all of the rights of marriage in the form of “unregistered cohabitation status”, similar to common-law marriage.

Same-sex marriages performed abroad can be recorded at the Israeli Administration of Border Crossings, Population and Immigration, according to a 2006 High Court of Justice ruling which defined such records as strictly ‘for statistical purposes’, thereby avoiding official recognition of same-sex marriages by the state. (Source: Wikipedia).

Divorce is regulated in Israel by the religious authorities (e.g., there are Rabbinical Courts in Israel for those who are Jewish who want divorce; I am guessing Canon Law courts for Catholics and Sharia Law for Muslims).

How would that work in the US with different religions?

 

[mikekle]

Kim Davis/Attorney Account:

1. Kim Davis was invited by the Vatican.

2… Kim Davis and her husband had a private 10 minute audience with Pope Francis.

1. Pope Francis agrees with what she is doing.

Vatican statement approved by Pope Francis:

1. Kim Davis was not invited by the Vatican.
2. Kim Davis and her husband did not have a private audience with Pope Francis. She was merely part of a receiving line among dozens of other people.
3. There was no endorsement of her position.

etc. etc.

The video and pictures I saw on the nightly news clearly showed Davis was not just part of a general receiving line, it was her, her husband, lawyer with the Pope and about 10 of his staff/ bodyguards.

But I guess from the Vaticans response, we are supposed to give up and quit when Gods laws conflicts with mans law.

Its also clear the pro-SSM crowd is taking this Vatican response as support for THEIR CAUSE.

 

[Thorolfr]

The video and pictures I saw on the nightly news clearly showed Davis was not just part of a general receiving line, it was her, her husband, lawyer with the Pope and about 10 of his staff/ bodyguards.

But I guess from the Vaticans response, we are supposed to give up and quit when Gods laws conflicts with mans law.

Its also clear the pro-SSM crowd is taking this Vatican response as support for THEIR CAUSE.

I haven’t seen any photos yet. According to Snopes.com:

“No photographs of Davis with the Pope nor any audio recordings of the meeting have surfaced.”

 

[AnnArbor]

The video and pictures I saw on the nightly news clearly showed Davis was not just part of a general receiving line, it was her, her husband, lawyer with the Pope and about 10 of his staff/ bodyguards.

But I guess from the Vaticans response, we are supposed to give up and quit when Gods laws conflicts with mans law.

Its also clear the pro-SSM crowd is taking this Vatican response as support for THEIR CAUSE.

Where did you see pictures? Even the photos released by her attorneys do not show her actually in the pope’s presence.

 

[Thomas_White]

The video and pictures I saw on the nightly news clearly showed Davis was not just part of a general receiving line, it was her, her husband, lawyer with the Pope and about 10 of his staff/ bodyguards.

But I guess from the Vaticans response, we are supposed to give up and quit when Gods laws conflicts with mans law.

The leap in logic from A to B is astonishing.

 

[mikekle]

Where did you see pictures? Even the photos released by her attorneys do not show her actually in the pope’s presence.

It was either CBS or NBC nightly news, Im not sure of the exact date, as I watch every night, was during the Popes visit though, but they definitely showed video and still pictures of Davis in the room with the Pope, her husband, lawyer, and the Popes entourage.

I will try to find and post here.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I have seen photos released by Kim Davis’ attorney, and even those do not show Mrs. Davis in the presence of Pope Francis. When the official word from the Vatican is that Kim Davis was NOT invited by the Vatican, I take the Vatican to be telling the truth. I believe her lawyer phoned Archbishop Vigano and wrangled an invitation, or Archbishop Vigano phoned her attorney. I have seen NO photos of Mrs. Davis in the pope’s presence on the news. The news doesn’t even talk about Mrs. Davis now. They moved on to political things, Donald Trump and Clinton’s continuing controversy with emails, etc.

 

[mikekle]

The leap in logic from A to B is astonishing.

You think that is astonishing, you should see what many pro-SSM groups are posting and saying about the Pope now…they are really under the impression he is standing strong with them.