• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kim Davis meets the Pope

Outside of the fact that it make Davis look dishonest, in most cases it is better is the pope disagrees with your position. I mean a bunch of pedophiles isnt a good reputation you know.

So one wonders why a born again christian should seek to see the Leader of a bunch of pedophiles? Her lawyer apparently engineered Ms. Davis being in the audience- that goes against what you see as not good for 'your reputation'... :roll:

Then again her lawyer, Matt Staver (Liberty Council) claimed 100,000 people gathered in Peru to pray for Ms. Davis and had the picture to prove it- ummm but it was a year old and had NO THING to do with Ms. Davis... :doh

So I'd say the nicest thing you can say about this whole thing is it makes Ms.Davis look dishonest.... :peace
 
Good grief,

Who is doing this woman's PR?

Sounds like her lawyer.
It might just be time to find herself a real lawyer instead of a lawyer more interested in PR than keeping his client out of trouble.


This is what it sounds like when a pope gets mad.

On Friday, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi released an extraordinary statement, personally approved by Pope Francis, debunking nearly everything that has been reported this week about a meeting between the pope and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.


The private meeting between Davis, her husband, Joe, and the pope, which Davis’ attorney says took place at the Apostolic Nunciature (Vatican Embassy) in Washington, D.C. last Thursday? It didn’t happen. Instead, Davis was one of “several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet [Pope Francis] as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” Lombardi said in the statement.

The statement stressed that “the only real audience” — private meeting— “granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.” As CNN reported Friday afternoon, that student, Yayo Grassi, happens to be an openly gay man who brought along his partner of 19 years. “Three weeks before the trip, [Pope Francis] called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug,” Grassi told CNN.

The idea that Pope Francis has been following Kim Davis’ case and requested a meeting with her? (“I’m just a nobody,” Davis told ABC News after her lawyer began asserting that she had met privately with the pope. “It was really humbling to think he would want to meet or know me.”) Not so.
Father Tom Rosica, who assists the Vatican press office with English-language media, told the National Catholic Reporter that the encounter was not organized by staff at the Vatican, and might have been at the initiative of the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S., Archbishop Carlo Viganò.
...

Perhaps the most stinging line in the statement was this: “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness.” Translation? He was only being nice. And woe to those who take advantage of that kindness for their own purposes.


While the controversy stirred up this week has focused on the surprise of Pope Francis meeting with Davis, the two figures really at the center of this story are her lawyer, Mat Staver of the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel, and Viganò, who has served as the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington since 2011.

As of Friday morning, Staver was sticking to his story, telling the Associated Press that Davis did indeed meet privately with the pope. By his own admission, Staver was not at the nunciature for the encounter, but he disputes the Vatican’s characterization, a characterization approved by Pope Francis, who was obviously in attendance.

That’s not out of character for Staver, who was forced to admit last week that a photo he presented at the Values Voters Summit, which he claimed showed a 100,000-person prayer rally to support Davis in Peru, was taken in 2014 and did not, in fact, have anything to do with Davis.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-real-story-behind-the-1269547693457462.html
 
So one wonders why a born again christian should seek to see the Leader of a bunch of pedophiles? Her lawyer apparently engineered Ms. Davis being in the audience- that goes against what you see as not good for 'your reputation'... :roll:

Then again her lawyer, Matt Staver (Liberty Council) claimed 100,000 people gathered in Peru to pray for Ms. Davis and had the picture to prove it- ummm but it was a year old and had NO THING to do with Ms. Davis... :doh

So I'd say the nicest thing you can say about this whole thing is it makes Ms.Davis look dishonest.... :peace

She is just milking her 15 minutes and securing her new job doing the guest speaker thing and a book deal.
 
She is just milking her 15 minutes and securing her new job doing the guest speaker thing and a book deal.

Well she has arrived, She has been portrayed on SNL for the season opener (along with the Pope :) )
 
Well that is a really nifty "fact" for yourself.

I've said before, I'm an atheist. To me, the pope is a guy in a dress. I think what gays do is none of my business. I believe in the sanctity of private property and I think that small business people should not be forced into an activity they are religiously opposed to. I think individuals have the right to worship as they wish because the same right to do that gives me the right to believe as they wish. I dislike hypocrisy. Davis should have the right to not sanction gay marriage because it violates her code of ethics. I think the state should make an accommodation for her because the law changed after she was elected. I think she should not run for that office when her term expires. Finally, I think that liberalism is a disease that is slowly eating away at the values and principles that made this a great nation. There you go. Now I've given you lots to bitch about. Bitch away.
 
I've said before, I'm an atheist. To me, the pope is a guy in a dress. I think what gays do is none of my business. I believe in the sanctity of private property and I think that small business people should not be forced into an activity they are religiously opposed to. I think individuals have the right to worship as they wish because the same right to do that gives me the right to believe as they wish. I dislike hypocrisy. Davis should have the right to not sanction gay marriage because it violates her code of ethics. I think the state should make an accommodation for her because the law changed after she was elected. I think she should not run for that office when her term expires. Finally, I think that liberalism is a disease that is slowly eating away at the values and principles that made this a great nation. There you go. Now I've given you lots to bitch about. Bitch away.

Your view seems a bit too hypocritical to me. On one hand you are atheist and have nothing against groups like gays for example but on the other hand you support people using their business or their job as a excuse to discriminate against people. As a atheist you should be aware that if laws reflected your position that most atheists wouldnt be able to do very much in this Christian dominated society. There would be 'No Atheists' signs all over the place. We would not be able to get married, drive cars, get jobs and on and on. Forcing us to go back to the world where we pretend to be Christians so that we can survive. Hell I still do that in some cases.

Davis has the right to resign her office in accordance with her beliefs. She has no right to make the world bend around her silly beliefs. It doesnt matter if a law was changed or new laws come in effect after someone is elected, they still have to follow the law like everyone else. We dont have a pick and choose judicial system. The line that you are totting is the smae line that racial bastards used to try and argue against interracial marriage. It was bull**** then and it is bull**** now, no matter how you rationalize it.
 
I've said before, I'm an atheist. To me, the pope is a guy in a dress. I think what gays do is none of my business. I believe in the sanctity of private property and I think that small business people should not be forced into an activity they are religiously opposed to. I think individuals have the right to worship as they wish because the same right to do that gives me the right to believe as they wish. I dislike hypocrisy. Davis should have the right to not sanction gay marriage because it violates her code of ethics. I think the state should make an accommodation for her because the law changed after she was elected. I think she should not run for that office when her term expires. Finally, I think that liberalism is a disease that is slowly eating away at the values and principles that made this a great nation. There you go. Now I've given you lots to bitch about. Bitch away.

This makes no sense if you truly "hate hypocrisy". We have limits to what should be accommodated within our laws, and we have set some of those limits when it comes to personal codes prior to this, when it was interracial couples getting married. The same events have happened in the past, and those in Davis' position were not given the accommodation to refuse to be involved in such a marriage. Some were fined, others forced to resign. In fact, one of them was just recently basically forced to resign.
 
Here's the real story of what happened:
Pope Francis: Kim Davis Is A Liar And I Don’t Support Her Bigotry |

I know the site itself is biased but you can find similar versions anywhere. It's just the one I pulled up.

The Pope doesn't support Kim Davis.

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.

That headline was not in sync with what the Vatican said (above).

Nobody called her a liar. And there was a caveat that said it shouldn't be considered "a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects". He may indeed support her "bigotry" but doesn't support her taking it to her elected job. Or he may be disgusted by her "bigotry" but thinks it's always okay for elected officials to claim religious objection. Who knows? But the statement doesn't agree with that "journalist's" interpretation and screaming headline.
 
Very Interesting article about Kim Davis's attorney Staver and the Liberty Council
From the Daily Beast:


The Vatican quickly realized they had to weigh in. Admitting that Francis had some brief encounter with Davis,
the statement from the Holy See’s press office made clear that the meeting “should not be considered a form of support” for Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Moreover, the Vatican didn’t even consider Davis a “real audience,” saying she was just one of dozens paraded in front of the pontiff at the Vatican embassy.


That sounds like a diplomatic way of saying this: Francis met Davis, but he probably had no idea who she was. And regardless, as James Martin, the Jesuit priest and author, notes in America Magazine, “despite what Ms. Davis said, a meeting with the pope does not ‘kind of validate everything.’”

The Liberty Counsel didn’t back down at all. They argued that Pope Francis made clear in an interview that he does in fact support their client by virtue of the fact that he supports conscientious objection.

Staver argued that whether or not his story was factually accurate, it was symbolically accurate:
Pope Francis supports conscientious objection, and since the Liberty Counsel sees Davis as a conscientious objector (many disagree with that assessment, by the way), then they don’t think it’s a lie to present Francis and Kim’s meeting the way they have.


To put it in theological terms, the Liberty Counsel expects us to ignore the letter of what they say
and pay attention to the spirit of what they say. This explanation is an odd strategy for, you know, attorneys. “Your honor, you’re getting tripped up here on the evidence! Look at the big metaphorical picture!”

This kind of deceptive wordplay isn’t a new game to the Liberty Counsel.

....


Founded in 1989 by husband and wife attorneys Mathew Staver and Anita Staver, the nonprofit’s goal is to provide legal services to those causes they feel are “dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family,” according to the group’s website. In other words, they provide pro bono legal representation to people who are fighting on their side of the culture war.

The group is notorious for opposing homosexuality and abortion, and fighting for its version of religious freedom.

....

Staver’s fear-mongering tactics have certainly paid off, as Bethany Rodgers explains in the Orlando Sentinel. Since its creation, she writes, “the nonprofit has ballooned from a tiny venture collecting less than $200,000 in yearly donations to a multipronged organization that hauled in more than $4 million in the 2013 tax year.” The group employs 10 attorneys, and has several offices in the U.S., and another one in Israel.

To be clear: This is not some fringe right-wing group enjoying little to no influence in the world. Whenever there’s a fight to be had over gay marriage, abortion, or religious freedom, you can almost count on someone from the Liberty Counsel showing up. That’s why Staver’s stunt with the pope, though maddeningly unfortunate, is business as usual for the culture warrior....

Read more:

The Shady Group That Played Pope Francis - The Daily Beast
 
Last edited:
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.

That headline was not in sync with what the Vatican said (above).

Nobody called her a liar. And there was a caveat that said it shouldn't be considered "a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects". He may indeed support her "bigotry" but doesn't support her taking it to her elected job. Or he may be disgusted by her "bigotry" but thinks it's always okay for elected officials to claim religious objection. Who knows? But the statement doesn't agree with that "journalist's" interpretation and screaming headline.

Absolutely correct. Basically, the Vatican spokesman thinks that the Vatican embassy made a mistake inviting her, because she is controversial. The Church is finding new found support of this pope, the likes of which they have not seen in a very very long time, and is doing everything it can to accentuate the positive. This is damage control because a hot button momentary celebrity was invited to meet privately with the Pope, seemingly supporting... well... pretty much what you would expect the Church to support. So to try and clean the crap off the shoe of his holiness, Lombardi basically says "the Pope is kind to everyone put before him, it does not necessarily reflect his support". But he did support her. I don't, but he did. I say do your ****ing job or get another one.
 
That's BS... the Pope clearly knew who she was. He thanked her for her struggle and asked that she "stay strong". Huge gay marriage news doesn't escape the Vatican ffs.

You are assuming the Pope is well versed in American politics as well. He really isn't, since the Vatican works far differently than the U.S. government.
 
Very Interesting article about Kim Davis's attorney Staver and the Liberty Council
From the Daily Beast:



Read more:

The Shady Group That Played Pope Francis - The Daily Beast

What about that shady group who used the little 5 year old girl as a prop for the illegal immigration debate? That was prearranged months before.

Is the Pope just gullible or mentally challenged? Or in cahoots.

However he personally feels about homosexuality, the Vatican just fired one of their own for 'coming out'.
 
That's BS... the Pope clearly knew who she was. He thanked her for her struggle and asked that she "stay strong". Huge gay marriage news doesn't escape the Vatican ffs.

I wonder what the Vatican itself says? http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php...9-560e788f9364&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1


"Statement by the Director of the Holy See Press Office
Vatican City, 2 October 2015 (VIS) – The director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., today issued the following statement regarding the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis, an American public official who spent five days in prison for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C. 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 D.C. 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”."

Sure does sound like the Pope had no clue wtf Davis was. Btw the "only real audience" the Pope had was with a former student and that male students boyfriend. Thats right the Vatican just said that the "only real audience" was not with Kim Davis but with a gay couple, sounds pretty damn powerful to release that official Vatican statement arguing against Kim Davis's claims. Who are you to believe? Are you going to believe Kim Davis and her lawyers or The Vatican and the Pope? Personally I think that all are lying in some shape or form. Not exactly the most trustworthy crowd.
 
I wonder what the Vatican itself says? http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php...9-560e788f9364&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1


"Statement by the Director of the Holy See Press Office
Vatican City, 2 October 2015 (VIS) – The director of the Holy See Press Office, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., today issued the following statement regarding the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis, an American public official who spent five days in prison for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
“The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C. 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 D.C. 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”."

Sure does sound like the Pope had no clue wtf Davis was. Btw the "only real audience" the Pope had was with a former student and that male students boyfriend. Thats right the Vatican just said that the "only real audience" was not with Kim Davis but with a gay couple, sounds pretty damn powerful to release that official Vatican statement arguing against Kim Davis's claims. Who are you to believe? Are you going to believe Kim Davis and her lawyers or The Vatican and the Pope? Personally I think that all are lying in some shape or form. Not exactly the most trustworthy crowd.

Lombardi simply made a "no true Scotsman" position, that a "real" audience means there is not a line of people waiting for that private audience. If you think the Pope is unaware of gay marriage news in the US, you are reaching. They didn't say the Pope didn't know who she was, they said that during her private audience they did not parse the DETAILS of her "complex" situation. The vatican INVITED her... if you think they just throw people at the pope with no background... you are also reaching. The vatican is the only one that has changed their story btw... if you want to talk about "who to trust". The language was very specifically written over a period of about a week to "soften" the churches support of Davis, because they are getting good numbers supporting gays. It is Vatican politics. That's all. I have no dog in this fight either way. I am just not willing to stretch reality to mimic what I like.
 
I read in the paper this morning that the Pope may fire the Archbishop that arranged for Ms. Davis to be there.
 
I read in the paper this morning that the Pope may fire the Archbishop that arranged for Ms. Davis to be there.

Correct.

From the tribune of the people:


— Pope Francis is expected to fire the church official who arranged the meeting.On Friday, the Vatican’s press office reiterated that the meeting with Davis was not meant to be interpreted as an endorsement of her views, but rather a simple exchange of pleasantries between the Pope and a group of admirers,
one of whom happened to be Davis. The Vatican also emphasized that the only one-on-one meeting that Pope Francis had during his time in Washington, D.C. was with Yayo Grassi, a gay man and former student of the Pope’s. But the Vatican appears to go one step further to make it clear that the Holy See in no way endorses Kim Davis’ bigotry.

Pope May Fire Archbishop Who Arranged Kim Davis Meeting | The Tribune of the People
 
I read in the paper this morning that the Pope may fire the Archbishop that arranged for Ms. Davis to be there.

Which paper? I've only seen that on blogs and internet partisan sites.

The Vatican did just fire a Polish priest on Sunday who announced he's gay. That was on CNN. That behavior seems a little off for a man who supposedly find Kim Davis to be a bigot.

Gay priest to be stripped of duties of Vatican - CNN.com
 
Which paper? I've only seen that on blogs and internet partisan sites.

The Vatican did just fire a Polish priest on Sunday who announced he's gay. That was on CNN. That behavior seems a little off for a man who supposedly find Kim Davis to be a bigot.

Gay priest to be stripped of duties of Vatican - CNN.com

It's in today's edition of The Dallas Morning News.

There was no mention of the Pope thinking that Davis is a bigot. He just didn't want people to think that it was an endorsement of her recent shenanigans.
 
It's in today's edition of The Dallas Morning News.

There was no mention of the Pope thinking that Davis is a bigot. He just didn't want people to think that it was an endorsement of her recent shenanigans.

I just looked at the DMN and don't see anything about it.

I don't think the Pope endorsed her and didn't endorse her. And who cares either way anyway? I just laugh at all of these links claiming he thinks she's a bigot, making people giddy like schoolgirls. He just fired a Priest 2 days ago for being gay.
 
if the pope intended to meet her and was aware of her vileness, then they deserve each other and he can be her 5th husband for all i care

but i doubt this was the case
 
Lombardi simply made a "no true Scotsman" position, that a "real" audience means there is not a line of people waiting for that private audience. If you think the Pope is unaware of gay marriage news in the US, you are reaching. They didn't say the Pope didn't know who she was, they said that during her private audience they did not parse the DETAILS of her "complex" situation. The vatican INVITED her... if you think they just throw people at the pope with no background... you are also reaching. The vatican is the only one that has changed their story btw... if you want to talk about "who to trust". The language was very specifically written over a period of about a week to "soften" the churches support of Davis, because they are getting good numbers supporting gays. It is Vatican politics. That's all. I have no dog in this fight either way. I am just not willing to stretch reality to mimic what I like.

Yes its politics, yes they are all probably lying, not exactly a good endorsement when the official release says that the meeting was nothing at all. Either way the Pope and Vatican thumbed their nose at Davis. Which I found funny. Btw by "Not exactly the most trustworthy crowd" I was talking about everybody Davis her lawyers, the Pope and the Vatican.

It all makes for good tabloid fodder.
 
Back
Top Bottom