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

[ucfengr]

It is your perception that ‘everyone’ knows why Pope Francis ‘met’ with David. I don’t know it and the Vatican disputes it. Pope Francis obviously wished to avoid any perception that he was engaging in partisan politics when he addressed Congress, but this was critized too.

What is political? Taking a stand, not taking a stand or both?

How many other non-Catholic county clerks from Kentucky did Pope Francis meet? Are non-Catholic county clerks a special ministry to him? He met her for a reason. It was either A) to support her in standing up for the rights of religious objectors, or B) it was to condemn her for her narrow minded refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, there is no C).

 

[Thomas_White]

How many other non-Catholic county clerks from Kentucky did Pope Francis meet? Are non-Catholic county clerks a special ministry to him? He met her for a reason. It was either A) to support her in standing up for the rights of religious objectors, or B) it was to condemn her for her narrow minded refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, there is no C).

C) Pope Francis did not meet her for a reason.

It has been reported he was blind-sided and unaware of her presence before he encountered her along with a number of other peope. The only private audience Pope Francis had during his U.S. visit was with a person who has been his friend since 1965 (which was before Francis was even ordained).

What exactly is your point?

 

[Thorolfr]

How many other non-Catholic county clerks from Kentucky did Pope Francis meet? Are non-Catholic county clerks a special ministry to him? He met her for a reason. It was either A) to support her in standing up for the rights of religious objectors, or B) it was to condemn her for her narrow minded refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses, there is no C).

Or perhaps the meeting was arranged by the nuncio Vigano just as he or other Church officials arranged many other meetings with the Pope. In that case, it was not really a decision of the Pope to meet her but of other Church officials here in the US. It’s certainly possible that the Pope didn’t really know much about who Kim Davis is or about the politics in this case. I’m sure that there are many non-Americans living outside the US who are not completely up on all details of our politics, and the Pope might be one of those. He can’t be aware of all the details of what’s going on in every country he visits and relies on others to make decisions about who they think he should meet.

 

[ucfengr]

C) Pope Francis did not meet her for a reason.

It has been reported he was blind-sided and unaware of her presence before he encountered her along with a number of other peope. The only private audience Pope Francis had during his U.S. visit was with a person who has been his friend since 1965 (which was before Francis was even ordained).

What exactly is your point?

So, it’s your position that security at the Vatican embassy is so lax than any old county clerk can just walk uninvited in and just blindside the Pope? Or did somebody in the Vatican embassy invite her there without telling the Pope or clearing it? How hard do you have to work to maintain this level of obtuseness?

Or perhaps the meeting was arranged by the nuncio Vigano just as he or other Church officials arranged many other meetings with the Pope. In that case, it was not really a decision of the Pope to meet her but of other Church officials here in the US. It’s certainly possible that the Pope didn’t really know much about who Kim Davis is or about the politics in this case. I’m sure that there are many non-Americans living outside the US who are not completely up on all details of our politics, and the Pope might be one of those. He can’t be aware of all the details of what’s going on in every country he visits and relies on others to make decisions about who they think he should meet.

Without clearing it with the Pope? Really? Somebody in the Church hierarchy, familiar with Kim Davis, invited her to meet with the Pope and somebody on the Pope’s staff approved it. Whether that meeting was private or as part of a group is not really relevant.

 

[Thomas_White]

So, it’s your position that security at the Vatican embassy is so lax than any old county clerk can just walk uninvited in and just blindside the Pope? Or did somebody in the Vatican embassy invite her there without telling the Pope or clearing it? How hard do you have to work to maintain this level of obtuseness?

Did I say any old county clerk could just walk in uninvited? Again, what exactly is your point?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

No, meltzer. You are correctly articulating Catholic teaching as well.

Brendan has been mistakenly asserting that Catholics here who obey the teachings of the Church on homosexual marriage because this is what the Church teaches, not because of any internal conversion to this, are doing something wrong.

And this is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course, there probably isn’t much the 4x divorced adulterer who decided to try to cash in with a Wallace-esque public hissy fit wouldn’t do.

I find the references to Kim Davis’ past to be ungracious.

Who she was in the past, as long as she no longer embraces this past, is simply that: the past.

 

[Mulligan2]

You are seriously going to compare Kim Davis to a homosexual couple?

That is amazing.

The homosexual couple the Pope met with have been together 19 years. By way of comparison, Kim Davis has been married 4 times. So, no, it is not fair to compare the two.

Also, the gay man was a former student of the Pope, and wanted nothing more than to spend some time in the company of a dear friend. Kim Davis, on the other hand, has misconstrued her meeting with the Pope for personal gain.

 

[Scottgun]

I find the references to Kim Davis’ past to be ungracious.

Who she was in the past, as long as she no longer embraces this past, is simply that: the past.

Right. No one is claiming she is immaculate or impeccable, so to rattle off a litany of personal shortcomings is approaching the sin of detraction. In short, revealing much more about the detractor than Davis.

 

[Thorolfr]

I find the references to Kim Davis’ past to be ungracious.

Who she was in the past, as long as she no longer embraces this past, is simply that: the past.

I’m surprised at how many Catholics in this forum claim that her previous marriages are all in the past and therefore shouldn’t be mentioned. If that were the case, then how come the first marriage of a Catholic who is divorced and then remarries is not considered to just be in the past and of no consequence in the present? Instead, such a Catholic is told that until and unless that previous marriage is annulled, they must refrain from relations with their current spouse or they would be considered to be in an adulterous relationship with their current spouse. Or maybe you will say that this all applies only to Catholics but not to Kim Davis because she now belongs to a Pentecostal church. But according to her lawyer, she was raised Catholic and under the rule OCAC, she still is considered Catholic by the Church and is therefore in a sinful relationship in the present with her current spouse.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m surprised at how many Catholics in this forum claim that her previous marriages are all in the past and therefore shouldn’t be mentioned. If that were the case, then how come the first marriage of a Catholic who is divorced and then remarries is not considered to just be in the past and of no consequence in the present?

Ummm…because perhaps she repented?

Someone who is currently living in sin and continues to commit adultery is a totally different category.

 

[Thorolfr]

Ummm…because perhaps she repented?

Someone who is currently living in sin and continues to commit adultery is a totally different category.

So you’re suggesting that she repented and is not having sexual relations with her current husband? I guess anything’s possible.

 

[PRmerger]

But according to her lawyer, she was raised Catholic and under the rule OCAC, she still is considered Catholic by the Church and is therefore in a sinful relationship in the present with her current spouse.

Do you happen to know the status of her prior marriages?

Please give us the details.

Who did she marry the first time? At what age? Was she a practicing Catholic?

Is she still currently married? Or is she divorced and living as a single woman?

Please cite your sources.

Thanks.

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendan has been mistakenly asserting that Catholics here who obey the teachings of the Church on homosexual marriage because this is what the Church teaches, not because of any internal conversion to this, are doing something wrong.

And this is not a correct articulation of Catholic teaching.

PRmerger, as Catholics we are required to assent to all Church teachings. This does not just mean that our external behaviour adheres to the rules, but that we accept the teaching internally. If we struggle with a teaching then we must strive to accept that teaching. We cannot simply say “I don’t agree with that teaching, but so long as I don’t physically act in opposition to that teaching then I am doing no wrong by internally rejecting that teaching”. That represents obstinate denial of Church teaching.

 

[Thorolfr]

Do you happen to know the status of her prior marriages?

Please give us the details.

Who did she marry the first time? At what age? Was she a practicing Catholic?

Is she still currently married? Or is she divorced and living as a single woman?

Please cite your sources.

Thanks.

Kimberly Jean Bailey’s first marriage was to Dwain Allen Wallace on August 5, 1984 when she was 18. The ceremony took place in Morehead, Kentucky, and was conducted by Minister Owen Cox of the United Baptist Church.

Her mother, Jean Bailey, then the deputy clerk of Rowan County, signed the marriage license.

The couple had two children, Kacie Nicole Wallace, in March 1990, and Erin Elizabeth Wallace, in June 1992.

The couple were divorced on March 9, 1994, with court documents describing the marriage as ‘irretrievably broken’.

The papers read: ‘The parties herein are separated, having been so separated since November 21, 1993, and have lived separate and apart for 60 days.’
In fact, Davis was pregnant by her lover.

She had twins, Allison Mae and Nathan, on August 11, 1994, out of wedlock with construction worker Thomas Dale McIntyre – around five months after her divorce was finalized.

Kim Davis then married Joe Davis, a delivery driver, on August 24, 1996, in Morehead by Baptist church minister H.G. Pratt.

At the time of the marriage in 1996, her infant twins were adopted by Joe Davis, ‘as it was thought to be in the best interest of the children’, according to court documents. Joe Davis later gave up his parental rights to the twins.

On July 19, 2006, Kim Davis and Joe Davis filed for divorce, stating that the marriage was ‘irretrievably broken’.

Just over a year later, Kim Davis and the biological father of her twins, Thomas Dale McIntyre Jr., married in a ceremony on November 11, 2007, at Skye Bridge in Wolfe County.

The minister who conducted the ceremony was a member of the Universal Life Church – which will ordain anyone over the age of 18 with an online certificate, meaning that the marriage was outside the church.

Less than a year later, on September 6, 2008, Kim Davis and McIntyre separated, according to their divorce documents filed on October 24, 2008.

Their divorce filings said that the marriage was ‘irretrievably broken and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation’.

Less than a year later, Kim Davis, 49, then married Joe Davis for the second time on August 24, 2009 - the same date they had been married 13 years earlier.
The ceremony was performed by Judge Jim Nickel of Rowan County in Morehead. She remains married to Joe Davis.

You can see copies of her marriage licenses in the same article:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228324/Anti-gay-marriage-court-clerk-Kim-Davis-conceived-twins-adulterous-affair-lover-married-Godless-wedding-got-restraining-order-claiming-violent-man-called-w.html

 

[sallybutler]

So, it’s your position that security at the Vatican embassy is so lax than any old county clerk can just walk uninvited in and just blindside the Pope? Or did somebody in the Vatican embassy invite her there without telling the Pope or clearing it? How hard do you have to work to maintain this level of obtuseness?

Without clearing it with the Pope? Really? Somebody in the Church hierarchy, familiar with Kim Davis, invited her to meet with the Pope and somebody on the Pope’s staff approved it. Whether that meeting was private or as part of a group is not really relevant.

Do you really think the Pope personally vets every person at a meet and greet? That he has nothing better to do with his time?

Perhaps he should stop giving blessings from the balcony. He might be seen to approve someone who can say “See, the Pope approves of me personally, he blessed me” even though the Pope has no idea of everyone’s positions.

Pope John Paul II visited San Francisco. Does that mean he approved of everyone there. He gave a beautiful Mass at Candlestick. Does that mean he was supporting the Giants and the 49ers? Since I attended that Mass, does that mean he agreed with all my opinions?

The answer to all those questions is obviously NO!!!

And the same thing applies to Kim Davis. Unless you are willing to say that he supports all of President Obama and the Castro’s positions. After all, he met with them also. And more than once with President Obama.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why is Kim Davis’ private life relevant to the issue at hand? Whether she was brought up Catholic, or wasn’t a practising Christian for years perhaps, or the fact that she converted to the Apostolic Church presumably, four years ago, what has that got to do with anything in relation to the issuing of sane-sex marriage licenses? If she has commited sin, that is something she should address in her own life, but that is her private life, what relevance does her private life have to do with the issuing with sake sex marriage licenses? Some call her a hypocrite but that doesn’t address whether she has a right, legally under the U.S. federal RFRA or state RFRA and morally, to not have to partake in the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, and the same goes for other clerks.

 

[sallybutler]

Why is Kim Davis’ private life relevant to the issue at hand? Whether she was brought up Catholic, or wasn’t a practising Christian for years perhaps, or the fact that she converted to the Apostolic Church presumably, four years ago, what has that got to do with anything in relation to the issuing of sane-sex marriage licenses? If she has commited sin, that is something she should address in her own life, but that is her private life, what relevance does her private life have to do with the issuing with sake sex marriage licenses? Some call her a hypocrite but that doesn’t address whether she has a right, legally under the U.S. federal RFRA or state RFRA and morally, to not have to partake in the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses, and the same goes for other clerks.

Because the article being discussed is about her and her ‘visit’ with the Pope. Is she trustworthy witness.

 

[Brendan_64]

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?

Indeed people may struggle, but as G K Chesterton once said that to be Catholic was to have the humility to accept that the Church knows better than you do. We are mere humans and God is God, we believe that God’s Law is taught to us through the Church. We can explore and study, but ultimately to put our own will over what the Church teaches is to put ourselves above God. To struggle with a teaching is one thing, but to say “I don’t agree with that teaching, and will not be struggling to believe in that teaching”, is to say that you know better than the Church.

As Catholics we must accept ALL Church teachings, not just act in a way that doesn’t ‘break the rules’. If we struggle to accept certain teachings, then we must strive to accept that teaching, not just remain in obstinate denial.

 

[cornbread_r2]

“Neither Kim Davis nor Liberty Counsel ever said the meeting was an endorsement of her legal case,” Staver said in a statement. “Rather, the meeting was a pastoral meeting to encourage Kim Davis in which Pope Francis thanked her for her courage and told her to ‘Stay strong,’”

If what Staver says here were true, then why did Kim Davis say on ABC this last Wednesday in talking about her meeting with the Pope, "Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything,”

Doesn’t that sound like she’s saying that the Pope agrees with her legal case and that the meeting was an endorsement of all that she’s been doing?

Good catch. I suspect that given enough time and rope Davis’s legal team will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I’m also starting to suspect that this whole business about Davis changing her hairdo was as much an effort to conceal her identity from the pope and his staff as it was to conceal it from the others there to meet the pope.