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

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EmperorNapoleon

Guest
(CNN)The Vatican has clarified the details of the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Click to expand...
Vatican deputy spokesman Father Thomas Rosica said the audience, which included several dozen other people, didn’t amount to an endorsement.
Click to expand...
“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,” Rosica said.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Davis and her lawyer weren’t being truthful.

cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/index.html
 
Or else it sounds like somewhere in the Vatican a rooster is crowing.
 
This makes more sense to me than some of the other conclusions I’ve seen bandied about here and elsewhere online. So many of us seem determined to show that Pope Francis supports whatever we are passionate about, but I never read that much into this particular story. My feeling is that someone other than Pope Francis proposed and arranged this meeting, and that our Holy Father was just being a gracious pastor, as Clem says.
 
Does this change how folks view this meeting? I will say that it does say something that the Vatican would take time to actually clarify this point. They could have just let folks think what they would.

cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/index.html

“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,”
 
I’m not surprised by the Vatican’s description of the meeting. That’s pretty much what I expected.

Perhaps Kim Davis isn’t lying, though; maybe she’s just confused. If most of the rest of the people there seemed to be clerics (or even just dressed up in suits as one probably would do when meeting the pope), she may have assumed they were all “Vatican officials” and that she was the only “guest”.
 
It seems the Vatican is usually clarifying the Pope for sounding like he’s going off-message.

There’s a lot of Catholics who would love to meet the Pope. How did she get to be so lucky?
 
stevecantsmell said:
It seems the Vatican is usually clarifying the Pope for sounding like he’s going off-message.

There’s a lot of Catholics who would love to meet the Pope. How did she get to be so lucky?
Click to expand...
Probably something totally unrelated to her duties as a county clerk. Maybe he was asking for her help on a Sudoku puzzle.
 
The Pope loved meeting with Kim Davis and surely agrees with her agenda more than the President’s in this area.

The Pope and the Catholic Church are still against same-sex marriage and will remain so.

I’m not sure what the talk is about endorsement is.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I’m not surprised by the Vatican’s description of the meeting. That’s pretty much what I expected.

Perhaps Kim Davis isn’t lying, though; maybe she’s just confused. If most of the rest of the people there seemed to be clerics (or even just dressed up in suits as one probably would do when meeting the pope), she may have assumed they were all “Vatican officials” and that she was the only “guest”.
Click to expand...
A lot of them were women in formal dress, Joe. Some members of the Pope’s own family were there, with whom he did meet privately.

In all honesty, I don’t see how Davis, whose parents are Catholic, could have been confused.
 
Path_Finder said:
The Pope loved meeting with Kim Davis and surely agrees with her agenda more than the President’s in this area.

The Pope and the Catholic Church are still against same-sex marriage and will remain so.

I’m not sure what the talk is about endorsement is.
Click to expand...
Exactly. What is wrong with Christ’s Vicar on Earth meeting with a martyr for the faith (i.e. Christianity, in the broad sense)? Indeed, it’s properly expected.
 
In my humble opinion, the message to be drawn from this incident and the uproar over a small number of proclaimed LGBT persons in a crowd of 15,000 outside the White House is this:
Stop with the politics.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I’m not surprised by the Vatican’s description of the meeting. That’s pretty much what I expected.

Perhaps Kim Davis isn’t lying, though; maybe she’s just confused. If most of the rest of the people there seemed to be clerics (or even just dressed up in suits as one probably would do when meeting the pope), she may have assumed they were all “Vatican officials” and that she was the only “guest”.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with the Pope, acting in his role as Vicar of Christ on Earth, meeting with a martyr for the faith.
 
Yet, what of the remarks the Pope is supposed to have made on the plane back home? That “government officials” should be allowed to be “conscientious objectors”…?

Was that also a lie? Just wondering. Seriously.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
A lot of them were women in formal dress, Joe. Some members of the Pope’s own family were there, with whom he did meet privately.

In all honesty, I don’t see how Davis, whose parents are Catholic, could have been confused.
Click to expand...
I just assume anyone who leaves the Catholic faith is confused about it else they wouldn’t leave. :o
 
SMH_2015 said:
Yet, what of the remarks the Pope is supposed to have made on the plane back home? That “government officials” should be allowed to be “conscientious objectors”…?

Was that also a lie? Just wondering. Seriously.
Click to expand...
No. I don’t think the clarification from the Vatican necessarily means they disagree with everything about Davis’ position. I think the media backlash has let them know that the situation is complex and they don’t care to wade into the particulars. But the pope’s general comments about conscientious objectors would still stand.
 
SMH_2015 said:
Yet, what of the remarks the Pope is supposed to have made on the plane back home? That “government officials” should be allowed to be “conscientious objectors”…?

Was that also a lie? Just wondering. Seriously.
Click to expand...
I agree, except that the right to conscientious objection has consequences. We once hired a painter who had spent time in prison for refusing to swear alliengence in order to be drafted. In a less democratic country the consequence could have been death.

Ms. Davis certainly has the right to conscientious objection, but without a consequence our country ceases to be a government of laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top