What was bad about pope francis meeting kim davis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter filius_Immacula
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

filius_Immacula

Guest
Why did the Vatican have to apologize for meeting Kim Davis? Isnt the Church in agreement with her?
 
Did the Vatican apologize, or did a bunch of people tell the Vatican to apologize? I don’t recall there ever being issued a formal apology. It’d be really nice if you could reply with a link, so I can see what they said.
 
I’m not sure if that’s an apology or a clarification. It doesn’t really sound like “I’m sorry for meeting with Kim Davis”; rather, it sounds more like “no, the Vatican does not officially support insurrection against the government of the United States”.

Officially. 😛
 
So, what is that saying we should do about gay marriage, doesn’t the cathechism sy not to on unjust laws?
 
It doesn’t say anything about supporting or not supporting gay marriage. It is telling us that the Pope did not really meet with Kim Davis. She was part of a large group of people who said, “Hello, Pope Francis” and he said, “Hello” back to them. This sort of greeting was not intended to involve the Pope in American controversial politics. It’s all a big Much to do About Nothing. Ms. Davis’s parents are Catholic and she gave the rosary that Pope gave her to them.
 
Okay, but was Kim davis’ act contrary to church teaching in any way?
 
filius_Immacula said:
Okay, but was Kim davis’ act contrary to church teaching in any way?
Click to expand...
No, certainly not. Conscientious objection is supported by Catholic theology absolutely.

The relevant sentence from the Church reads…

*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.
*

To me it is obviously addressing the extremism that some Protestant denominations endorse and not the principle of conscientious objection.

Please people, read the Catechism…
Refusal to obey
Adam’s refusal to obey amended for by Christ, 411, 532, 614-15
civil authorities, 2242, 2256, 2313
disobedience of Adam and man and its consequences, 399, 400-02, 1733, 2515
moral authority, 1733, 1862, 2515
sin as refusal to God, 397, 1850, 1871
Click to expand...
And USCCB statements… usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/statement-on-the-catholic-conscientious-objector-division-of-world-justice-and-peace-1969-10-15.cfm
 
First Rule: when the secular press says something about the Pope, don’t read it (if it is written) or don’t listen to it (if it is spoken).

Second Rule: When you hear or read something the secular press says about the Pope (because, for some reason, you didn’t follow First Rule), ignore it, because it is selectively (out of context) quoted, misquoted, or outright wrong.
 
otjm said:
First Rule: when the secular press says something about the Pope, don’t read it (if it is written) or don’t listen to it (if it is spoken).

Second Rule: When you hear or read something the secular press says about the Pope (because, for some reason, you didn’t follow First Rule), ignore it, because it is selectively (out of context) quoted, misquoted, or outright wrong.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Only that the Kim Davis camp attempted to sensationalize the rather innocuous visit with the Pope as a way to claim his endorsement for her case. In other words, she tried to take undue advantage of the Pope and unfortunately cheapened the encounter
 
godisgood77 said:
Only that the Kim Davis camp attempted to sensationalize the rather innocuous visit with the Pope as a way to claim his endorsement for her case. In other words, she tried to take undue advantage of the Pope and unfortunately cheapened the encounter
Click to expand...
I had an ‘innocuous’ encounter with Pope StJPII in 1986 as an usher at the papal Mass in Brisbane. It is the most wonderful innocuous highlight of my life! :heaven:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top