But this Pope is very PR saavy...if it hadn't happened, he would have denied it, the bigot.

On Wednesday, the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, confirmed the meeting, but he declined to elaborate. “I do not deny that the meeting took place, but I have no other comments to add,” he said.

Mr. Staver said that Vatican officials had been aware of Ms. Davis, and that the meeting had been arranged through them — not through bishops or the bishops’ conference in the United States. He would not identify the Vatican officials.

Word.

They both conscientiously object to human rights for lgbt people.

Same here. If he met her and told her to knock it off, i'd be ok with it. I doubt that is what was said.

and moved on to the next person in the line to do the same thing.

It wasn't anything more than that. He probably met up to 20 people in that line up and has no clue who or what she is or represents. Hell he was probably lied to about the actions that put her in that meet and greet to begin with.

I can't find anything about a 'line' in the news.

(the meeting, not the existence of her gay friends)

If they met, there would be pictures. She would have pictures and she would have them plastered everywhere.

You don't just meet someone like the Pope without pictures.



Maybe she had a dream that she was at one of the Pope events. Maybe she met with on of these...

Maybe his new DU Fanboys will dial it down a bit on the papal love fest now.

The Vatican knows about the media. They did invent the word 'propaganda':

"Etymology: < post-classical Latin propaganda (in the title Congregatio de propaganda fide congregation for propagating the faith
...
1. R.C. Church. Usu. with the. (a) More fully Congregation of (the) Propaganda. A committee of Cardinals responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV (officially known since 1967 as the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples);
...
2. An organization, scheme, or movement for the propagation of a particular doctrine, practice, etc.

1790 J. MacPherson Let. 27 Sept. in A. Aspinall Corresp. George, Prince of Wales (1964) II. 98 All Kings have..a new race of Pretenders to contend with, the disciples of the propaganda at Paris or, as they call themselves, Les Ambassadeurs de genre humain."

Saw it on GMA this morning ...

Though I don't think it matters much. Has no effect on our laws, so if he met her, big deal. It doesn't make her any less in contempt.

but I have no other comments".

Jesus Christ people are in deep denial about this.

or a lot of people don't give a toss what the New York Times says - their dreamy Francis just couldn't possibly talk to that icky Kim!!!!!

In the couple of minutes while I was reading the thread, 'no' went up another 3 votes, so that's 3 in the "my dreamboat Francis can do no wrong!" category.

All this love for one powerful homophobe and hatred for a peon makes me wonder what the hell people are thinking.

He's The Pope Who Can Do No Wrong. If there was a DU poll about whether he was Immaculately Conceived, I think it would be close.

It makes no sense to me, one used her influence to deny the rights of lgbt people in Kentucky and the other has used his influence to deny the rights of lgbt people all over the world.

I guess denial runs deep in the church.

It's like watching a child stick their fingers in their ears and scream LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA!

"I do not deny that the meeting took place" is not exactly the same as saying 'The meeting did take place', nor is it the same as saying 'There was no meeting'.

Soon as she figgers out how to use photoshop.

Do you, honestly if only to yourself, think for a nanosecond that his spokesman's response would be "I do not deny the meeting took place"? Really? In what bizarre world would that statement ever be made about something that did not happen?

and the circumstantial evidence is strong. Yet every visit is recorded and her account even mentions photographers, so a picture should be easily produced.

As for why would such an ambiguous reply be made- such would come from a well-trained spokesman who was blindsided by an unexpected question. It is a more wordy version of 'no comment'.

If they did meet it was a very unwise move, at least from a PR standpoint and I in no way support religious interference in government activity. Yet if it is false, will anyone retract their statements?

Before it was known he did just shows how much of DU really puts a lot of stock in the Pope. They don't seem to understand how that hurts many DUers who are victims of the Pope's message of bigotry and intolerance.

Reply #4 had the link to the NYT article; it was posted 10 minutes after the poll started. When I looked at the thread 35 minutes after that, the 'No's stood at 41. Now there are 56.

I think the majority are actually saying "I don't care what the NYT or the Vatican spokesman says, the pope just can't have met with her. He's too nice to do that."

i watched so much of his visit

Let's see the proof.

He have them his blessing, they moved on.

She was not deputized, not the way Nixon deputized Elvis.

Now whether not he said "stay strong" and all this other BS, I seriously doubt it but did they meet and probably shake hands? Sure.

encounters with Francis. Tony was the Vatican's invited guest to a three day anti equality conference they had in Rome. Francis was the keynote speaker. Tony said it was euphoric.. Friday Tony gave an award to Kim and introduced her to Francis.

What is galling is that half of DU, ignorant of facts, have claimed this meeting did not take place. So tell you that it happened is important, your cohort has been pretending it did not and pretending their preacher is a nice guy for far too long.
So you know what?
It happened.

She's a hater.. who cares.

He thinks women and gay people don't deserve equal rights.

Bigotry, plain and simple.

Now, I know that the Vatican has proven on many occasions (including the priest rape coverups) to be fucking liars, but if they said it happened and she said it happened, I think it happened. Sorry that fucks with your worldview.

No longer about belief. We do have a nice record of how many are in denial about Frank's true nature.

So...

NOPE!

People sure want to be duped.

Pathetic.