Yeah, but if that was actually what he wanted to say, he could have said it. “In all of its particular and complex aspects” is wiggle-room phrase trying to play the middle.
But there is a good chance he does support her flouting the law. I would bet he would support civil disobedience against a lot of laws, and he does think gay marriage is wrong. What he has spoken against is the fact that the catholic church seems to spend a lot of time criticizing the gays and very little time helping the poor, and this kind of falls into that category.
I can think of one motive - not to look the pope “look bad” but to utilize the clout of the pope to support their cause when he isn’t eager to do so in a straightforward fashion. It could also be to burn bridges between the Catholic community and the not-homophobic community. The pope does not approve of “the gay” but he also doesn’t approve of being all about homophobia when there are other things to do. The more the pope’s message is about homosexuality, the less is it about poverty, he knows that, and people who would rather tackle homosexuality than poverty know that.
I’m curious who invited her and whether that person was asked or “asked” to invite her by someone else. If it was the bishop in whose diocese she lives, that would be a little different in my eyes than if someone like Mike Huckabee “asked” a bishop to extend the invitation to her.
This is the part where we are supposed to infer absolutely nothing from the fact that she made the guest list, right?
Because it’s a well-recognized tradition to meet with a broad sampling of obscure state officeholders when you visit the United States, in order to show respect for our traditions of federalism?
Do tell me another one.
Please not, I do not claim(and have no reason to believe, if nothing else, she’s a filthy schismatic protestant heretic and he’s the pope) that their meeting implied agreement and support on all matters; but the notion that choosing to meet with her was anything but a calculated act of political expression is just too silly to entertain.
I believe that the pope may easily not have known who she was. Why would he? It’s very typical Amerocentrism that thinks this gets the same coverage worldwide that it does here. European channels are likely spending a lot of time monitoring a massive humanitarian crisis at the moment. Also there’s the fact that Pope also met with a same-sex couple he apparently knows on a personal level. Anyone want to put money on whether he told them to “stay strong?”
That being said… you’re 100% right. If the Pope had given her an extra special subtle thumbs-up, she was stupid to say anything about it.
Yeah, the heart of the matter is the Church is still the Molestation cover up, Gay hating, women’s reproductive rights opposing organization it has always been.
Whether Pope Frances is a genuinely progressive guy that is being used a front-man or a conservative guy putting forward his most progressive face is really a moot point.
From everything folks who were there have said, Kim Davis waited in line with a bunch of other people, she said a few words to him, he said “stay strong”, and gave her a rosary. While Catholic doctrine might be 100% against gay marriage, that doesn’t mean the Pope was giving her ‘mission’ a thumbs-up, but nor did he say any of the things in the headline Cory invented.
As another news story put it, he also told Mark Wahlberg to ‘stay strong’, but that doesn’t mean he’s a fan of Ted.
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.
She was invited by the catholic church where the pope was performing this duty at. There’s zero doubt that she was vetted through his office as the swiss guard does not like the pope coming into contact with random strangers, and would check on people personally invited to meet him.
I think Francis is genuinely a person who believes that poverty is an issue of far greater importance than homosexuality - he lived his life that way long before being pope. But I agree he’s just a person who was put in place as head of the church, the church is still the church. What is interesting to me, though, is why the church put him in the position.
The Catholic church is huge, but it isn’t booming. Their leadership is concerned about the fall off in sales faith. I think when they chose Ratzinger, the leadership said to themselves, “We’ll shore up that loss by doubling down on bigotry.” But it didn’t work. Benedict didn’t put asses in the pews. His direct complicity in the molestation of children probably didn’t help. I don’t know exactly why he resigned, but it was the first papal resignation in 600 years so I think there is a good chance it’s connected to that scandal (or dementia).
But Benedict was in place for just 8 years. I don’t think the choice of a Jesuit who was clearly a poverty-over-gay-bashing kind of guy represents a huge change in the church leadership, I think it represents an “Oh shit, doubling down on hate didn’t work” realization. They figured their only shot was to pick a guy who could credibly put a kinder face on the church. The church changes over time to ensure its survival. It is still anti-gay, anti-woman and pro-abetting-molestation. But having to shift their focus off those things makes me think that a hundred years from now, if the church is still around, it will probably have a lesbian priest who would turn in a child molester in a heartbeat in it. Of course it will probably be firmly against human-robot marriages. Stupid bigots.
Per the article I linked above, this student was gay. Which by no means is a Papal endorsement, but goddamn if it doesn’t lend credibility to the idea that the Pope did not single KD out for special treatment…
The Pope isn’t all that people are making him to be, but he is managing to convince an archaic organization stuck in the mindset of the 50’s, trying to fight against communism, that the 60’s happened and that all the evolution from WW II to the 90’s is not that bad. I do think the Pope is some 20 years behind, which is still good for current Church standards.
To me this whole “Kim Davis Meeting” seems like the kind of faux pas created knowingly by some reactionary still trying to stop the changes.
Still I am expecting the time when the Roman Catholic Church will be only about as out of touch with modernity as I am when it comes to smartphones - 20 years behind is better than 60 but about 3 or 4 years would be nice.
Kim Davis and people like her are hateful, hypocritical, spiteful, disgusting, bottom-dwelling, pond-scum sucking, jackwagons who usurp the teachings of Jesus to conform to their own hate message of exclusion.
The Pope could have blessed the woman’s vagina and it wouldn’t change that fact.
Yeah, I highly expect that Pope Francis was chosen to soften the image of the church and hint that they might be open to some modernization in emphasis and a tad on execution even if their views will stay largely the same. It’s a sham.
This is a backtrack. The Vatican vets everyone who has more than 2 minutes speaking time with the Pope - and this meeting was specially set up.
Also, the Pope met with representatives from the Little Sisters of the Poor who are suing the government over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide insurance that covers contraception. I believe that representative was vetted, as well.
One time back in the mid-1980s I had a “private audience” with the then-Pope. This meant about 30 people in a very large room in the Vatican. We were there as part of a work conference, which was not religious at all. A photo op, basically. The only person from our group who wasn’t in the room was self-excluded: she had divorced her physically abusive husband, which meant (apparently) she was no longer able to partake in any sacrament, and somehow she thought this meant she couldn’t be in the same room as the Pope because he would be giving everyone a blessing, which she’s not allowed to get anymore.
I brought a saint medal into the room to send to a very dear college friend of mine, because I knew having it blessed would mean something to him, but the taste left in my mouth was of that poor woman, about 20 years older than me, crying like a child on the bench outside the room.
The Pope at the time was JPII, who was thought of very much like this Pope – a foreigner with progressive ideals – but the reality for Catholics was still medieval.
