Vatican Source: Pope Blindsided By Meeting With Controversial Kentucky Clerk
Source: CBSChicago
A close advisor to Pope Francis tweeted that the Pope was, in his words, exploited by those who set up what the CBS 2 source says was a meeting that never should have taken place.
Some call it an attempt by highly placed church leaders in the U.S. to diminish the impact of the Popes visit.
Read more: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/vatican-source-pope-blindsided-by-meeting-with-controversial-kentucky-clerk/
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)when the pope was asked about it on the plane, I was NOT convinced that he was fully versed on the topic.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)pamela
(3,469 posts)The Pope spent his entire visit avoiding "culture war" subjects and then, bam!, he gets back to the Vatican and this story came out. The things he did talk about extensively get ignored as it's suddenly all about Kim Davis. Isn't that convenient.
It made no sense that he would have deliberately stepped on his own message.
This guy's purpose is to extend the reach and influence of the Catholic Church, after the beating its taken from the priest sex abuse scandal and people just being a bit more liberal these days. He can't overturn centuries-old dogma - at least not overnight - but he can change the emphasis and use other issues, such as climate change, to restore some of the Church's influence. WHY would he carefully put all that work into building this bridge, then destroy it? No, this clearly was a ratfck by some other players in the church who do not like what he's doing. (and who are complete fcking idiots because they NEED Pope Francis to be successful in restoring influence to the Church.)
Then what? He was used by his own people to unknowingly gives his approval of Kim Davis. She who is a symbol of the bigotry of so may self-proclaimed Christian homophobes inside and outside the Catholic Church.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Tess49
(1,577 posts)yardwork
(61,408 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)were wall to wal covering....why should he have?
How much mention did it get in Europe?
The Vatican I believe over Davis and her conniving and very bad lawyers from some extremist anti-abortion group aligned with the tea party.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)as an Argentinian now living in a tiny space carved out of Italy - how could he be expected to, out of the blue, knowledgeably expound on issues concerning the American constitution and laws?
I'm an ex-RC but I believe Pope Francis was used. First there was the fake photo of the Peruvian prayer meeting. Now are we to just accept OK THAT was a fraud but THIS is real? Give us a fkg break.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)melm00se
(4,972 posts)I doubt that he has time time to watch the evening news.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)And now back again.
I maintain what I stated from the beginning, that given that this was first announced by Mat Staver, can one give any credence whatsoever to his claim?
Did Pope Francis even know who Kim Davis was or what she represents? And screw Mat Staver's narrative to the contrary. I don't believe a word the comes out of his slimy, smarmy mouth.
DavidDvorkin
(19,404 posts)the uproar has caused the Vatican to invent this cover story.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Then it means all the Vatican cares about are appearances. If they really believe in their own dogma and have courage in their beliefs, then why should they care about public opinion?
Warpy
(110,900 posts)by the Archbishop of KY, reputedly a Ratzinger loyalist. I have no entry into the inner workings of church hierarchy, but I do know his schedule including that of meeting supplicants and other visitors was controlled by a panel of US bishops.
I have heard the "private audience with his Holiness" described elsewhere and by believers who have been there: they come into the room kneel down kiss the ring, get his hand put on their heads while he mutters something intelligible, they're assisted to a standing position and somebody puts a rosary into their hands and brushes them out the door as the next person enters through the entry. It's all very efficient, he's an old man and his time is limited.
Offhand, I'd say anything else is being made of whole cloth, not to mention unicorn dust and wishful thinking.
It's like boasting of tea with the Queen---and 50,000 of her other close friends.
Raster
(20,996 posts)...keep Gays and Lesbians from wedding. A Ratzinger loyalist would be rabidly anti-Gay and perhaps hoping for a tad of holy comeuppance. Davis is not Catholic, and her apostical Christian sect would see the Holy Father as Satan in White Satin.
rpannier
(24,304 posts)He is the President of the US Conference of Bishops.
He's likely the gateway, but he denies having anything to do with it, pointing out he was far away from the whole event
HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)rpannier
(24,304 posts)Charles Manson was nowhere near the Polanski house
It's fun when people try and claim geography as their plausible deniability
Raster
(20,996 posts)...I think this Pope knew exactly who Davis was and what she represented.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Bullshit!
I want heads to publicly roll!
The Pope know not what he did. What he did was very, very bad.
He pitted church against the state.
PatrickforO
(14,514 posts)This is so sad. These right wing religious nuts will lie, cheat, steal and exploit anything or anyone for the sake of political power.
Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)that Kim and her supporters would have turned this opportunity around for their own political agenda?
I believe Pope Francis was blindsided. What I would like to see is the person on his team that was responsible for this meeting, fired.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Generally, the Vatican leaves politics up to the local bishops because the Vatican does not know all of the political landscape.
So local Catholic officials say "We want you to do a meet-and-handshake with some people while you are here". They are not required to provide the full political background of everyone who will be there.
That is doubtful. The guy who most likely pulled it off is a bishop who was thrown out of Rome for the Vatican bank scandal. He's not exactly friendly with the current Pope. But he's also powerful enough that he can not be "fired".
Baitball Blogger
(46,570 posts)The right have played these political dirty tricks for so long that they probably see nothing wrong with it. The end justifies the means.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)She's pretty vile. I think there's more to the story.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)If anything Davis is less vile than he is.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's a matter of public record. Ignorance is purely optional.
I think the Pope was on an inhuman schedule even for a person half his age.
And I think he was manipulated and blind sided - and at this point - in retrospect - is saying to himself
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They are so very duplicitous. This article is about the 3 day anti gay marriage conference the Vatican had in Rome. The invited guest list includes Tony Perkins, the whole NOM crowd, you name it. Hoodwinked indeed.
Vatican Strengthens Ties with Evangelicals and Mormons Against Gay Marriage
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
When they explain that event away I'll buy their current sales pitch.
progree
(10,864 posts)Did you have to ask? You knew this was coming.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It's not just that they can't discuss it, they can't even comment on it. It upsets their entire narrative so they just ignore it.
Darb
(2,807 posts)It's their religion and they have their reasons for it and they have the right to believe whatever they want. I do not agree with them on this issue however, and I don't think that the Pope is all that white hot on making a big to do about LGBT issues, but many in that particular church are traditional regressives. Their chosen place, their raison d'etre, depends upon it. Hard to get them to back off of that after a lifetime of service to it. The Fundies are out and out frauds in it for the money. It's their vocation, just so happens their belief system puts the "avowed straight" men in charge of their world, how convenient. But there are lots of overlapping douchebags with outdated points of view.
My opinion is to embrace the positive that they believe and do, and let them come to a sort of peace with the changes that are happening in society at their own pace. Many will die off before they change, so be it.
No sense denigrating their leader, who appears to be headed in the right direction, because they haven't come over to your point of view fast enough. They are paternal. They are authoritarian. Many of them aren't going to give it up. Attacking them will only steel their resolve.
Attitudes are changing for the better. I know you cannot wait, but don't seek out the negative, it's a world crowded with idiots.
How's that?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)unrelated sermon at me, evading and avoiding all of the facts and points in the article which it seems clear you did not even read.
You know nothing about me, and your personalized attacks on me are far outside the bounds of respect. The personal nature of your lecture coupled with the lack of response to what I actually posted says much more about what you think than your sermon does.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Don't piss down my leg and tell me its raining.
yardwork
(61,408 posts)No question about that.
Submariner
(12,482 posts)A kinder and gentler bigot, but still a bigot.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)by folks who have made deception a profession.
All evidence to the contrary, any shred of evidence to hang onto the firmly held belief the Pope is a bigot will do!
Now what? Defending Liberty Counsel and Kim Davis?
yardwork
(61,408 posts)progree
(10,864 posts)http://news.yahoo.com/pope-wades-u-gay-marriage-debate-historic-visit-192049390.html
Pope Francis waited until his historic U.S. visit was over to make his most direct comments on the nation's debate over gay marriage, saying government officials should have the right to refrain from actions that violate their religious beliefs.
That statement came in response to a reporter's question on the papal plane about Kim Davis
"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. "If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."
Francis alluded to the Roman Catholic Church's objections to gay marriage during some of his U.S. talks, citing concerns about "juridical" changes to the definition of the family. Still, he largely avoided the issue, the subject of intense debate.
Kind of inline with his misogynist philosophy, so no huge surprise here -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218213940#post17
Is not the Pope capable of clarifying his position, or do we have to rely on lame 3rd hand PR spin attempts?
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)1) I find it extremely difficult to believe that with all of the people he has at his disposal a first class loon like David would get within a mile of him unless he wanted her there. I am supposed to believe that they managed to punk his handlers, his advance team, his advisers and his security staff? That NO ONE recognized her name and warned him off.
2) If people are going to insist that I believe my first thought, then such gullible fools have no business running the most powerful Christian corporation on Earth.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)It would apply just as easily to someone who conscientiously objected to serving in the military or on a jury that had to consider the death penalty.
That article makes the link to LGBT issues -- the Pope did not.
progree
(10,864 posts)And he met with Kim Davis beforehand, so I don't think he was confusing the conscientious objection issue with the military or the death penalty or anything other than refusing to certify gay marriages.
I believe the Reuters reporter over your wishful thinking.
Particularly given some background (thanks BlueNorthwest)
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
When they explain that event away I'll buy their current sales pitch.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)American onlookers just assumed that's who the reporter was referring to. But there's no indication that the Pope would have understood that. In fact, he said he wasn't familiar with specific cases.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/pope-francis-describes-his-trip-to-the-us.html#
The Pope was also asked to comment on several issues that he didn't touch on during his trip like the case of Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who refused to give out marriage licenses because of the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage. Reporters never mentioned her name and it wasn't clear if Pope Francis was familiar with the incident, but he did offer a comment on the issue writ large.
"I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right," he said. "And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: 'This right has merit, this one does not.'"
When asked specifically about government workers, he said, "It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.
progree
(10,864 posts)But he met with Kim Davis, so it is highly unlikely to me anyway, that he was unfamiliar with this particular incident.
Gee, he had just met with a government worker who is a conscientious objector, but yes, we don't have objective proof of exactly what he was referring too, true.
Well, not quite, but nice try. He said, "I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection".
What's your spin on #14, BTW?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)He met with her in Washington. This plane interview took place almost a week later, after going through a couple dozen events and meeting hundreds of people.
The reporter didn't mention Kim Davis, only the issue of conscientious objection, so only someone much more familiar with American politics would have gotten that reference.
And with regard to the meeting, he barely speaks English. Didn't you notice that all he did was read prepared scripts in English and chat in the most basic way? He said the same thing to most people -- have courage. So someone arranged for her to have a meet and greet and he was his usual friendly self. That the Vatican never meant for it to mean anything beyond a courtesy to whomever requested the meeting is shown by the fact that the Vatican didn't at first acknowledge it had even happened. It wasn't part of the plan.
(And just for the record, the Cardinal Mueller who arranged the Mormon summit that you linked to, is part of the conservative group trying to undermine the Pope.)
progree
(10,864 posts)[font color = blue]>>The reporter didn't mention Kim Davis, only the issue of conscientious objection<<[/font]
According to your reporter, that is. The Reuters reporter says something different. So we have dueling reporters.
[font color = blue]>>so only someone much more familiar with American politics would have gotten that reference.<< [/font]
I think it is an enormous leap of wishful thinking on your part after having met with Kim Davis less than a week ago. And it is a leap in faith to think he wasn't briefed on the significance of it.
[font color = blue]>> (And just for the record, the Cardinal Mueller who arranged the Mormon summit that you linked to, is part of the conservative group trying to undermine the Pope.)<< [/font]
Ooooh ooohh! The conspiracy theory again. (and he's old, ill-advised, overly busy, blah blah)
... The colloquium rallied around the theological concept of complementarianism, the belief that men and women have different roles in a marriage and religious leadershiphusbands are spiritual leaders, and wives submit to them in love. To be complementary is to complete or fill the lack in the other thing. It opposes egalitarianism, the theological belief that men and women are equal in all respects in marriage and in religious leadership positions. Traditional Catholic, evangelical, and LDS belief interprets the Bible to support a complementarian relational structure.
... Pope Francis did not spearhead the colloquium, as many casual observers might think. It was organized and led by German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, a strong conservative voice at the Popes Synod on the Family last month. Müller is the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican group that sponsored the event. Still, Pope Francis gave an opening address to attendees, in which he affirmed the Churchs teaching that children have a right to a mother and a father.
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)The Reuters reporter doesn't include the text of the question, and reporter I linked to specifically notes that it didn't name Kim Davis. So do numerous other reports.
And again, he'd been there a week and he doesn't speak English. Do you think if you were in Italy for a whirlwind tour with a couple dozen events, and met hundreds of people, some individual Italian's name would stick in your mind a week later? Get real.
I acknowledge that Pope Francis has a traditional view of marriage. But I don't believe he set up that meeting with Kim Davis. I think someone pushed her on him and he barely remembered the encounter a week later, after everything else he had been through.
progree
(10,864 posts)[font color = blue]>>And again, he'd been there a week and he doesn't speak English. Do you think if you were in Italy for a whirlwind tour with a couple dozen events, and met hundreds of people, some individual Italian's name would stick in your mind a week later? Get real. <<[/font]
You just said her name wasn't mentioned, according to your reporter. You get real. I think you have to be in la la land to think he wasn't fully briefed, and long aware of, the situation of the clerk refusing marriage licenses for which she went to jail for -- whether or not he remembers the name or not. This has been a hot issue in the U.S. since late June. And in many parts of the country, not just Kentucky.
[font color = blue]>>I acknowledge that Pope Francis has a traditional view of marriage. But I don't believe he set up that meeting with Kim Davis. I think someone pushed her on him and he barely remembered the encounter a week later, after everything else he had been through.<<[/font]
And I believe otherwise (re: "he barely remembered the encounter" . I have absolutely no doubt he has been briefed on this for months. And for sure before he made his trip to the U.S. And before the meeting with her.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And your question just shows how US-centered you are. This is a man who is Pope for Catholics around the world. The US is just one country, and Kim Davis isn't Catholic. He was busy preparing for addresses in front of Congress and the UN, and for the Synod of Bishops next week.
The idea that nutty Kim Davis would have been seen as an important part of his visit is beyond ridiculous.
And the proof is that the Vatican's first reaction was to neither confirm nor deny that the visit had taken place. If she had been an important issue for them, they would have highlighted her meeting, not discounted it. But she meant basically nothing to anyone except for the conservatives who managed to blindside the Pope with the surprise meeting.
progree
(10,864 posts)[font color = blue]>> that the reporter on the PLANE didn't mention her name in his question.<<[/font]
Is that right? According to your reporter. I wasn't on the plane. You weren't on the plane. Was my Reuters reporter on the plane? Was your New York Mag reporter on the plane?
We just have dueling accounts of what was said on the plane.
[font color = blue]>>And your question just shows how US-centered you are. This is a man who is Pope for Catholics around the world. <<[/font]
No, I grew up overseas, so I'm not "US centric".
Gay marriage is a big issue, and very hot in the U.S, the country he visited for a week. Amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is a big issue the Catholic Church is dealing with not just in the U.S. but in Europe (remember the Ireland referendum?). To think he would be unaware of the status of gay marriage here in the U.S., and the situation of clerks refusing marriage licenses here is jaw-droppingly ridiculous.
[font color = blue]>>The idea that nutty Kim Davis would have been seen as an important part of his visit is beyond ridiculous. <<[/font]
The idea that gay marriage is not a big deal to the pope and the Catholic hierarchy in Rome is beyond asinine.
[font color = blue]>>Kim Davis isn't Catholic. <<[/font]
And so what? He didn't meet with her or what? He didn't encourage her or what? He only meets with Catholics? He only addressed the Catholic members of Congress? He wouldn't remember her because she wasn't Catholic? Please, please clarify.l
[font color = blue]>>He was busy preparing for addresses in front of Congress and the UN, and for the Synod of Bishops next week. <<[/font]
The old senile goat can't multitask, I guess.
[font color = blue]>>the conservatives who managed to blindside the Pope with the surprise meeting.<<[/font]
We're back to the conspiracy theory, the innocent old senile poorly advised mishandled pope. OK, THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK..
Your capacity for wishful thinking just amazes me.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of the plane interview, and it contradicted the Reuter's story?
The reporter doesn't mention Kim Davis by name and omits the key fact that she was preventing her subordinates from following the dictates of their own consciences (by threatening to fire them), since all but her son were willing to marry gay couples.
Here it is:
http://catholicphilly.com/2015/09/news/world-news/text-of-popes-qa-with-media-on-plane-to-rome/
Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?
Pope Francis:
I cant have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection. But, yes, I can say the conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying this right that has merit, this one does not. It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chanson de Roland when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font and they had to choose between the baptismal font or the sword. They had to choose. They werent permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.
Terry Moran, ABC News:
Would that include government officials as well?
Pope Francis:
It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.
And with regard to your discounting the possibility of conservatives seeking to undermine Pope Francis, if you think the idea of such a "conspiracy" is ridiculous, then you are discounting thousands of years of Church history.
progree
(10,864 posts)So like I said, we have dueling accounts.
[font color = blue]>>And if you don't believe in the possibility of a conservative Catholic conspiracy meant to undermine the Pope, then you have no awareness of hundreds of years of Church history.<<[/font]
I just don't believe that the Pope is so ignorant of the issues as you imply, or so under the control of others. In this instance with this pope in this point in time. I'm well aware of the long brutal history of the papacy. And I don't doubt that there are politics in this papacy and every papacy. But not to the extent that he would be uninformed about the status of gay marriage in the U.S. and that Kim Davis is currently the icon of resistance against it. She is a nut to you and me, but to some Catholics (and Protestant fundies) she is more like Joan of Arc.
[font color = blue]>>The Pope also met with prisoners while he was here, and with Mark Wahlburg. And the visit with the prisoners was more important, because the Vatican put it on the public schedule. <<[/font]
I don't think the pope wanted to make a big hoo hah about gay marriage during his trip, because yes, other issues were more important to him. Likewise, his visit to encourage the Little Sisters of the Poor in their lawsuit against the ACA contraceptive insurance mandate was unscheduled and low key. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218213940#post17
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)and you provided a reporter's paraphrase. There is no place in that entire verbatim text where it shows the reporter stating to the Pope that the question was about Kim Davis.
progree
(10,864 posts)The question was pretty darn explicit, and so was his answer. In his response, I have no doubt that he is agreeing that a government worker has a "right" to not issue a marriage license to gay people. That has been my only point all along. That makes him anti-gay marriage rights in my book.
progree
(10,864 posts)Your edit to #61 came after my first reply to it.
That's pretty specific if you ask me.
[font color = blue]>>Would you continue to insist on your Reuters version even if you read the actual text<<[/font]
I'm even more convinced that he had the Kim Davis situation in mind (who he met, you remember), when he answered the question. Your #61 is a bombshell, thank you!!!
[font color = blue]>>The reporter doesn't mention Kim Davis by name and omits the key fact that she was preventing her subordinates from following the dictates of their own consciences (by threatening to fire them)<<[/font]
Like I've said 1,000 times, I am certain he is well briefed on the status of gay marriage in the U.S., that some clerks have refused marriage licenses, etc., and, in particular the situation with Kim Davis, who he met with.
progree
(10,864 posts)Given his response, I think the pope is agreeing that a government worker has the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses -- that was the question he was asked.
But I'd also agree that (given the transcript in #61 and all we have discussed), that he might not agree with her "right" to prevent her subordinates from doing so. He might or he might not, I don't know.
So where does that leave us?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)That her right to her own conscientious objection doesn't give her the right to prevent her subordinates from following their own consciences -- as she attempted to do.
Whatever the Pope was told about her situation, I doubt anyone told him that. Or if they did, it could explain why he led off by saying that he couldn't speak to all situations of conscience.
P.S.
Does this change your mind about anything? She and/or her lawyer were lying about the private meeting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting.html?_r=1
ROME Vatican officials announced on Friday that Pope Francis did not hold a private meeting with Kim Davis last week in Washington as has been widely reported but that Ms. Davis was among dozens of guests ushered into the Vaticans Embassy in Washington for a brief meeting with him.
progree
(10,864 posts)[font color = blue]>>That her right to her own conscientious objection doesn't give her the right to prevent her subordinates from following their own consciences -- as she attempted to do.
Whatever the Pope was told about her situation, I doubt anyone told him that. <<[/font]
I do doubt that he was kept in the dark about this aspect of the gay marriage controversy that has been raging for months in the country he visited for a week. But it doesn't really matter:
[font color = blue]>>Or if they did, it could explain why he led off by saying that he couldn't speak to all situations of conscience. <<[/font]
The transcript (#61) was pretty darn explicit to me that he was agreeing that a government worker has a "right" to deny gays marriage licenses. That's good enough for me to label him as anti-gay marriage rights.
HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)the government worker's remedy is to resign the position. In the US, no one is compelled by law to be a government worker.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)were very general. As one reporter noted, they could have equally applied to a conscientious objector to war.
More questions
(3 posts)What Pope Francis said about conscientious objection just opened a huge Pandora's box, and a swarm of priests might just fly out! If conscientious objection overrules authority, it follows that:
Priests can be conscientious objectors,too.
Which means that, as conscientious objectors, they might perform gay marriages, or...
Marry, or...
Marry one another, or...
Facilitate their parishioners use of birth control or abortion.
The possibilities for undermining Church authority are endless!
The question is, was Francis perhaps aware of this?
By the way, Kim is an objector, but if she refuses to even do her job, how can she be called conscientious?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)They're afraid he's undermining it every time he opens his mouth. And their worst fears were confirmed by his address to the Bishops while he was here.
In a way, the Bishops are the Pharisees, concerned with authority and law; and the Pope is modeling himself after Jesus, who taught love. Some of the Bishops are quite alarmed about this.
I agree with you that Kim is not a conscientious objector. And she prevented other people from acting based on their own consciences, so she's a hypocrite as well.
colorado_ufo
(5,715 posts)That is why Davis is not a conscientious objector. She CAN quit her job, if she wishes, and take employment which corresponds to her personal beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is the only possible explanation.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)I live in the South and you can always tell the women Pentecostals. Long hair that's never cut. Long skirts to the ankle. I guess drinking caffeine is okay. Now the men of course look normal; no restrictions on them .. don't you know. For the most part nice people, but they stick to their own. They're right up there with the FLDS. One thing for certain is they are not Roman Catholics.
trillion
(1,859 posts)machines where one man gets 15 wives. That said, speaking in tongues is actually fun. I haven't done it in years but probably should as it was fun.
I grew up going to a pentecostal church until highschool and it made me the liberal I am today. I suppose there are right wing nutcase churches that are repressive. Ours didn't have hair requirements or obedience to husband requirements. In fact, I remember a sermon on divorce - I was in the 8th grade and the minister was explaining how it's not a sin and don't look down on people for it and how it was best for everyone involved including the kids if bad marriages ended. Seriously, they created my whole liberal out look. I moved to the west coast and went into total shock when I found out that a whole lot of churches were anything but progressive and open minded. I ran into non progressive pentecostals as an adult and couldn't believe that religion could be twisted so badly. Guess it depends on the sect/minister/church etc. That said, I went back to church in the early 2000's and didn't have a pentecostal church anywhere close so tried out the close churches - I couldn't handle them. The only church I could only handle the United church of Christ - we had the gay minister with the rainbow mantle who was female and married to a woman. She was preforming church weddings. It was massisvely liberal and completely in line with what I learned growing up in the pentecostal faith. They are actually a methodist bent. Now I'm a Buddhist/Christian Mix. My gay minister taught us that Christ is A way and not THE way. Very important lesson. All those non believes aren't going to hell after all, so says she. My point is, I don't know about the pentecosts you ran into but it wasn't like my experience at all. Kim Davis is an appalling bigot who is anything but Christian.
yardwork
(61,408 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)NealK
(1,788 posts)Her 15 minutes of infamy are taking forever to be over.
Flying Squirrel
(3,041 posts)Now we get to see where the Catholic church stands, they can't continue to duck the issue. (Or can they?)
NealK
(1,788 posts)But that crazy homophobic moron is an asset for the Repukes with her pathetic martyr-attention-seeking whining. She makes me sick. They gave her a cheap fucking award FFS.
trillion
(1,859 posts)on the cover. They had 3 covers with blacks in a row then blew it by putting on a massive racist. I haven't read the story yet. Not sure if I can stand it without canceling my subscription. Of course, maybe the rolling stone will rip him to shreds. Does anyone here know? I can't stand to read it to find out.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And the Borgias had nothing on this modern day cabal of conservative archbishops/bishops put in place by Ratzinger. Pope Francis should employ a food taster, and have the cardinals check their signet rings in with security at the door.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/ne
The man is a real player within the institutional church.. . Vigano is well-known to be a Ratzinger loyalist and he always has been a cultural conservative, particularly on the issue of marriage equality. In April, in a move that was unprecedented, Vigano got involved with an anti-marriage equality march in Washington sponsored by the National Association For Marriage. (And, mirabile dictu, as we say around Castel Gandolfo at happy hour, one of the speakers at this rally was Mat Staver, who happens now to be Kim Davis's lawyer.) In short, Vigano, a Ratzinger loyalist, who has been conspicuous and publicly involved in the same cause as Kim Davis and her legal team, arranges a meeting with Davis that the legal team uses to its great public advantage. Once again paraphrasing New Orleans lawyer Lamar Parmentel from The Big Easy, the Vatican is a marvelous environment for coincidence.
(Also, I have been remiss in not mentioning that, because of the way John Paul II larded the cardinalate with conservatives, the pope was surrounded by conservative American clerics, including his host in Philadelphia, Charles Cardinal Chaput, who's really something of a dog's breakfast. While presiding in Denver, Chaput led the movement to deny communion to pro-choice American politicians. And, after this pope met with survivors of sexual abuse in Philadelphia, Chaput reached deeply into the Corporate Works Of Mercy to declare, "In some ways, we should get over this wanting to go back and blame, blame, blame. The church is happy to accept its responsibility, but I'm really quite tired of people making unjust accusations against people who are not to be blamedand that happens sometimes." What a guy! As a pastor, Chaput would make a terrific collection agent.)
Ratzinger's fingerprints are all over this story. Vigano is a Benedict loyalist. Robert Moynihan, whose newsletter, Inside The Vatican, got the story first, is an actual lifelong Ratzinger protégé. And the Vatican press office acted just the way I'd want it to act, if I were the guy setting this up. First, it issues a silly non-denial denial, and then it merely confirms that the meeting occurred. At which point, the office clams up, leaving the story festering out there in the news cycle, and leaving the pope out there in the American culture war to twist in the wind. And, if this scenario is in any way accurate, it had its desired effect. The impact of what the pope actually said and did in America has been fairly well ratfcked.
Of course, this speculation depends vitally on the proposition that Papa Francesco didn't know who Kim Davis was, or anything about her current public display of faith-based goldbricking. I don't find that so very hard to believe; for all the attention it's gotten over here, it's not an international story of any consequence. (Whether he should have known about it, or have been briefed about it beforehand, is another matter entirely, as Dan Savage pointed out on Chris Hayes's program Wednesday night.) And, it can be argued, I guess, that I'm engaging in apologetics here. But the whole thing is just a little too hinky, and I know too well how these birds operate. They've had millennia to get really good at it.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)And we shouldn't be helping them.
We don't agree with him on sexual morality and abortion, but we do on the environment, the global economy, human rights, "do unto others," and the death penalty. Whether we're Catholic or not, we're better off with a person like Pope Francis in that position.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)humans who are your equals, not beggars for scraps from your table. 'Do unto others'. How dare anyone claim that teaching when they discriminate and denigrate minority members? Do unto others by bad mouthing their families and claiming they are influenced by devils?
Is that what you would like done unto you? You get upset that Francis is criticized for denigrating LGBT, what would you do if that denigration shoe was on the other foot?
Do unto others indeed.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)elmac
(4,642 posts)how much she makes on her book deal, speaking to those dumb enough to pay.
bvf
(6,604 posts)that Frank was "blindsided" by this, given the identity of his handlers.
Fuck him doubly.
the_sly_pig
(740 posts)I'm not churchy at all. Encouraging one person to 'stick to her guns' is a ridiculous waste of precious time. Opponents, however, will get a ton of mileage out of this story.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Fuck the pope- get your pedophile house in order before making judgements on others.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)If a Roman Catholic bishop or cardinal had anything to do with that meeting, I'll bet you a dollar and a donut that that cleric will be living in a shithole, crapping in a bucket as Bishop of Bumfuckistan or something, in two shakes of a Lamb of God's tail....
nadine_mn
(3,702 posts)with meeting Kim Davis. I don't think the Pope knew who she even was. She isn't Catholic, she is just a conservative pawn being tossed around for different agendas.
I think it is supreme arrogance to think that the Pope, who truly has a global mission and is trying to deflect attention from gay marriage and abortion and focus on poverty and the climate, is gonna give 2 shits over some po-dunk American hick.
His visit was very carefully orchestrated - this was a jerk move by some bishop or politician with an agenda.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)The Pope has been trying to spread his message about economic justice and the environment- he has been careful in every country he has gone to to try and avoid pushing hot-button issues or highly partisan issues so that he can try not to alienate people who's minds he is trying to change.
And I say this as someone who holds a great deal of anger for the Vatican and the Church.
Logically, this move would not have been in line with the carefully planned visit.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)yardwork
(61,408 posts)I think that extremists within the Catholic hierarchy may have set up the pope to distract from his other messages.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)I can assure you of this fact, having been there. There is far too much intrigue by the bishops and their staffs of loyalists in their attempt to affect church policy. I believe that it has much to do with celibacy and the lack of normal family relations. The clerical culture is saturated with rumors and secret silliness that seems to compensate for their stunted life.
colorado_ufo
(5,715 posts)This meeting surprised me on so many levels, most of all the fact that Davis is NOT Catholic! On a tight schedule, with one family driving 18,000 miles from Argentina to see him, for instance - why would he choose to meet with her, of all people? It's not as if she were a martyr to the Christian faith; the news flap is all over her two-bit job as a county clerk.
After the great care he took to make his addresses broadly to everyone, why would he suddenly involve himself in this contrived political dustup? It's like on Sesame Street: "One of these things does NOT belong here . . ."
The pope had a terrifically busy schedule and trusted his advisers to help him arrange it, to maximize his time in the USA. He may or may not have known the whole story about Davis, but in the end, I feel certain that Pope Francis got thrown under the proverbial bus.
Check out this Esquire story: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38440/pope-francis-swindled-kim-davis-meeting/
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This week the Vatican hosted a three-day, international, interreligious colloquium called Humanum, The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium. Its goal was to propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman. Speakers came from nearly two dozen countries and a variety of religious traditions, including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and Taoists.
The presence of American evangelicals and the LDS Church was particularly notable. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, and Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, each gave speeches, and representatives from the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council in Washington attended. President Henry Eyring of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints first presidency spoke and Elder Tom Perry of the LDSs Quorum of the Twelve also joined. In the United States, this trio of faiths has worked together to stand against the governments Affordable Care Acts contraception mandate, but it was the first time they were coming together at the Vatican to talk about marriage."
http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/
So please read the piece and comment on it. Thanks.
MH1
(17,537 posts)As I have said elsewhere, it's clear that this Pope was elected with one primary purpose: to expand the reach and influence of the Catholic Church, after the reduction in influence that has come from the sex abuse scandal and social changes.
That expansion can occur in more than one direction, and that is what I would think that he is trying to do with events like that. There is commonality in the doctrine of the Catholic Church with other conservative churches, when it comes to the role of men and women. I don't like that doctrine at all, but I can see the sense of leveraging that commonality for the Pope's primary goal.
Speaking of leverage, the reason I might "defend" this Pope (even though I am against several Catholic positions around gender and sexuality), is that while somewhat diminished over the last couple decades, the Catholic Church is FREAKIN' HUGE and if they are on our side regarding climate change and economic issues, that is a helluva lot of leverage with a helluva lot of people, and that's a GOOD THING. And if over time they just stop talking about their effed up ideas on things like contraception and gay marriage, and instead use their megaphone to talk about CLIMATE CHANGE, we are all better off.
That event referenced in the article was almost a year ago. No rational person who is paying attention will claim that the Pope's positions on those issues have changed markedly in that year. However THIS YEAR he was emphasizing something different. Until someone on his "team" (using that word loosely) thrust him right in the middle of a blazing culture war that does not help his objective one iota.
YabaDabaNoDinoNo
(460 posts)parade route where the Pope randomly stopped to interact with the people; papal staff knew Who the f who she was and what it would mean if the meeting took place.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)It is his way of saying that walls of communication need to come down. Meeting with someone is not an endorsement of that persons position, Cupich said.
So Cupich doesn't think he was 'blindsided' at all. It's a named archbishop, versus an unnamed Vatican source.
lostnfound
(16,138 posts)That he has a friendship with the man. The fact that the official Vatican spokesman chooses to disclaim the meeting with the clerk and honor the meeting with the gay couple is a clear signal how the meeting should rightly be interpreted.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)because they've seen that meeting Davis has alienated a lot of people, so they've dragged out the literal "but one of his best friends is gay" line. And a lot of people are keen to take that as meaning the Davis meeting doesn't count as 'real', or that it's been 'disclaimed. If you are happy to take the Vatican's direction on the 'right' way to interpret their actions, then your opinion has been decided for you by them.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"Next week, American Religious Right leaders including the Southern Baptist Conventions Russell Moore, pastor Rick Warren, Archbishop of Philadelphia Charles Chaput, and Latter-Day Saints official Henry Eyring will be joining opponents of LGBT equality from around the world at an interfaith conference on the complementarity of man and woman in marriage hosted by the Vatican.
The conference follows a synod at which Catholic bishops considered, but ultimately rejected, proposals to soften the churchs stances on homosexuality, as well as those who have been divorced.
Although he is not listed as a speaker, another prominent American opponent of LGBT equality will also be attending the conference. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in an interview on Newsmax TV today that he plans to attend the conference in Rome and expects the Catholic Church to make a very clear statement that pertains to marriage and what the Church views marriage to be to provide clarity to the confusion coming out of the recent synod."
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-will-join-anti-gay-leaders-vatican-marriage-meeting
So the Vatican which produced that event and invited those it invited needs to contextualize that event with their current actions regarding Davis.
In addition, persons defending the Vatican need to read up on that event then explain to us why that was also very liberal and pro-equality.
mcar
(42,206 posts)Those hard liner cardinals and bishops would hate the pope's messages here.
WestSeattle2
(1,730 posts)of the country? If the goal was to diminish the impact of the visit, then it would have benefited the 'plotters" to release the news of the meeting before Philadelphia.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)If they revealed it while he was here and he had been duped, their little plot would have been given national news coverage. It would make sense to wait until he had left and then reveal the meeting. I would have to know just who chose those to be ushered in for a brief meeting with the pope. My knowledge of how this is usually conducted is that the local bishops arrange to select who will be presented. I find it absolutely astounding that this person was selected. Usually, those who are provided this honor are extremely active in local church matters. Why a woman who isn't a Catholic and three times divorced was chosen is difficult to understand. I will reserve my judgment until all the facts are revealed. Perhaps we will never know how it transpired. However, I will take the Vatican at its word that the pope was unaware of the situation until proven otherwise.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Roman Catholic leaders are not all ultra conservative but many of them are extreme radicals. And they hate the Pope for calling them out.
Loki
(3,825 posts)and they would do anything to diminish his popularity with Catholics and non-Catholics throughout this country and the world. Pope Francis can hold his own and it shows. Opus Dei includes people like Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and possibly John Roberts if that gives you any idea of their ideology.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Right after the meeting, the pope came out and talked about conscientious objecting.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)To the OP, you did not even bother to respond to facts offered to you. Only you know why that is, but it sure looks furtive and evasive and less than direct.
pamela
(3,469 posts)Posted this last night while camped near Taos-good Internet there but I eventually went to sleep while there were only a few responses. Woke up this morning and traveled north of Taos into the wilderness of one of the nations newest National Monuments-Rio Grande del Norte. Beautiful campsite but bad Internet and cell signals.
I'll go back and read through the thread better once we get settled in our new campsite but I really just thought it was an interesting article with a different take on the meeting then the right has been pushing this week. No hidden agenda on my part. The Catholic community has been an important constituency for Democrats in the past, I hate to let them be totally co-opted by the right but I also have no tolerance for their anti-LGBT views.
Hope this goes through. Sorry if my motives looked suspect. I'm not a very prolific poster even on good wifi days. Don't really have the stomach for it.
Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)He's been trying to walk a fine line.... advocating existing church doctrine while trying to shift focus from the more divisive aspects of that doctrine to the more universally acceptable. This requires a political dance that involves embracing conservatives while simultaneously maintaining a "God is love, we are all equal before God" approach that does not shun and reject "sinners" and attracts the more liberal minded to the church's other teachings. This Kim Davis situation proves that what he's attempting is not sustainable. Religions are about morality - right and wrong. It creates firm lines, not the blurry ones the Pope has been trying to walk. It's great to promote the more positive aspects of the Church's message but trying to play hide-and-seek with their bigotry is not going to fly.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Now I feel better about that meeting.