Pope Francis meets secretly with Kim Davis on US trip

[rareboy]

I don't really care about him or his Church at this point.

I care about the damage they may do by validating and encouraging the Evangelicals (who should actually hate the Catholic Church BTW) in the US and African countries......

The Pope is going to cave to the right wing reactionaries.

 

[zombiekiller]

Another hypocrite pope.

Let's look at Kim Davis' history of sin according to catholic dogma.

Kim marries guy A. Kim while married to guy A committed adultery and got pregnant with guy B. Kim divorced guy A and marries guy C. Kim cheated on guy C and divorced him to marry guy B.

So, tell me again how Kim is so holy that she has become a god warrior for the pope and fight against the evil gays?

 

[gsdx]

So, tell me again how Kim is so holy that she has become a god warrior for the pope and fight against the evil gays?

She's born again. That means that her past is now forgiven, irrelevant, and forgotten.

 

[zombiekiller]

She's born again. That means that her past is now forgiven, irrelevant, and forgotten.

Yeah, except that she just divorced the 3rd guy and is now marrying the 4th guy. And she abandoned her twins that she had with the 3rd guy while married to the 1st guy and the 2nd guy had to adopt them.

It sounds like something from Jerry Springer.

Edit.

And these are the things that became public info. In other words, they're just the tip of the ice berg. Imagine all the Jerry Springer stuff behind the scene.

 

[gsdx]

^ She's still born-again. None of that is relevant (in her mind). God is all forgiving. She can do whatever the hell she wants as long as she asks God for forgiveness. That's how it works.

 

[T-Rexx]

It is likely that papal nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò will be "retired" by the Vatican over this incident.

Viganò is an acquaintance of Kim Davis' lawyer, Mat Staver. He has appeared at anti-gay and anti-abortion rallies with Staver. He is thought to be the source of the invitation extended to Davis to meet the pope at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington. Viganò was appointed by Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI.

It happens that Viganò turns 75 on January 16. This is the age at which bishops are required to submit an application to the Vatican for permission to resign. While bishops are frequently refused permission to resign their posts, Viganò's age presents an ideal opportunity for the Vatican to retire him without much controversy. It is very likely that Viganò's application to resign will be accepted, opening the door for Francis to appoint someone else (possibly less hateful and polarizing?) as the papal nuncio in Washington.

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/10/vigano/

On another note, it is stunning how blatantly Mat Staver has lied about events surrounding Kim Davis. He showed a photo to the Values Voter Summit which he claimed to be 100,000 people praying for Kim Davis at a rally in Peru. In fact, the photo was taken at a prayer rally in Peru in 2014, long before the Supreme Court legalized marriage equality across the USA. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Kim Davis or gay marriage.

Staver's law firm, Liberty Council, also claimed that parishioners at a church in Lagos, Nigeria fasted and prayed for Davis. They appear to be referencing a "church" which doesn't actually exist, except virtually. It's a Facebook account only.

This past week, Staver insisted that Davis had a private meeting with the pope, at the pope's own invitation. In fact, she stood in a room in which the pope asked those present to pray for him, possibly without the pope even knowing who she was, or that she was there.

 

[Telstra]

It doesn't matter if the pope know about Kim Davis views/news or not.
What is the pope's view about same sex marriage? It is a simple question and someone in the media should have asked him by now.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

It doesn't matter if the pope know about Kim Davis views/news or not.
What is the pope's view about same sex marriage? It is a simple question and someone in the media should have asked him by now.

why a any folkeee giv doodoo wots a folkees dress ups a relis polis tickticks etc etc so on type a nose
_yea is nots planet apes a free ofs yokes ans chains ans stickee tape?_
not alls planet apes
-oon nooooooo_
wot typeins?
_oooh noooooo_

maybe 1st world public sniff owns shit discova teys da wost tits

_at repeat at is_

it a wot apees dos besttees
_it a wot apees dos besttees_

anyway

tinku

repeat tinku

 

[Telstra]

why a any folkeee giv doodoo wots a folkees dress ups a relis polis tickticks etc etc so on type a nose
_yea is nots planet apes a free ofs yokes ans chains ans stickee tape?_
not alls planet apes
-oon nooooooo_
wot typeins?
_oooh noooooo_

maybe 1st world public sniff owns shit discova teys da wost tits

_at repeat at is_

it a wot apees dos besttees
_it a wot apees dos besttees_

anyway

tinku

repeat tinku

so you are saying why ask the pope.
Ask the pope because he has fans.

At last, did i understood this post?

 

[T-Rexx]

It doesn't matter if the pope know about Kim Davis views/news or not.
What is the pope's view about same sex marriage? It is a simple question and someone in the media should have asked him by now.

The pope has been asked this question many times, and his views are well known. He opposes gay marriage emphatically. Moreover, he regards adoption by gay couples as a form of "discrimination" against children. He is pretty much an anti-gay bigot.

However, when he was Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina, he offered same-sex civil unions as a "tolerable" alternative to gay marriage, prior to that nation's achievment of marriage equality. He famously said "Who am I to judge?" gay relationships, and he met privately with a gay former student and his partner at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, the day before he met Kim Davis. The pope had personally phoned the former student and asked him to come to Washington so they could meet again.

Bigot that he is, Francis would seem to be the most gay-friendly pope in history. And his views on marriage equality are identical to those of Barack Obama until May 2012.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Although I greatly am discouraged by Francis' meeting with Kim Davis, I think it important to consider the definition of bigot.

Merriam Webster online uses this: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

As little as I like Catholic dogma, whether concerning women, priest celibacy, or gays, I don't know that I see those views as hatred. Benighted, wrong, ancient, stymied, and many other things, but maybe not hatred. And the position today is definitely not as severe as it was.

 

[T-Rexx]

^ IMO, the most hateful thing anyone can do is to deny love to another person.

 

[NotHardUp1]

That seems a bit abstract, as the Catholic Church doesn't prevent the love of two gay Catholic men, only refuses to legitimatize it.

The most hateful things I am aware of include depriving people of a living, or shelter, or peace. And then there is active persecution and torture. Terrorism is also hateful, including crossburning, lynchings, concentration camps, and salt mines.

Yeah, I'd like Catholics today to be more accepting, but not giving their imprimatur is far from hateful in my scale. So many others are doing active harm rather than just withholding approval.

 

[T-Rexx]

That seems a bit abstract, as the Catholic Church doesn't prevent the love of two gay Catholic men, only refuses to legitimatize it.

On the contrary, the Catholic church teaches that ANY act of love between same sex individuals is sinful. In fact, it teaches that even fantasizing about same sex love is sinful!

The most hateful things I am aware of include depriving people of a living, or shelter, or peace.

Depriving a person of the possibility of love IS depriving that person of peace. I would also argue that it is depriving that person of a living and shelter as well, since marriage is so intimately tied to these things.

 

[otters]

On the contrary, the Catholic church teaches that ANY act of love between same sex individuals is sinful. In fact, it teaches that even fantasizing about same sex love is sinful!

Now I'm really flabbergasted. When you follow the concept "what is sinful" — and it's you who is quoting out of context, but one must guess you have read and understood the entire context —, how can you find that illogical, or an injury? It isn't at all, particularly as exactly the same applies regarding hetereosexual people who aren't married to each other.

 

[otters]

Depriving a person of the possibility of love IS depriving that person of peace. I would also argue that it is depriving that person of a living and shelter as well, since marriage is so intimately tied to these things.

I'm really flabbergasted regarding that statement, too:
a) Are you US Americans — albeit presumably enlightened — obsessed with a certain religious ceremony?
(And: if there's something metaphysical or "holy", why do they perform, e.g. in Las Vegas apparently, disgusting clowneries?)
b) Is the concept of civil marriage actually unknown in that part of the world where you live?
c) Don't you know that already famous Anti-Catholic Martin Luther declared that marriage "is an external worldly thing"?
So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

 

[Spensed]

Now I'm really flabbergasted. When you follow the concept "what is sinful" — and it's you who is quoting out of context, but one must guess you have read and understood the entire context —, how can you find that illogical, or an injury? It isn't at all, particularly as exactly the same applies regarding hetereosexual people who aren't married to each other.

Apples and oranges. According to the Church, straight folk can get married and thereupon have married sex without sin. Gay folk, on the other hand, have an intrinsic disorder, or whatever the hateful language from the hierarchy is currently, and never get to have sex without sin. Their lot is to lead a blue balled celibate life. It a nonsense to see an equivalency of moral standards in the way the Catholic hierarchy views gays and straights.

Ironically, given the theme of conscience, I suspect that many gay Catholics use the primacy of an informed conscience (as per the Catechism) to ignore the current hierarchy's inconsistent teachings on gays (gays=good/gay sex=bad). Just as many straight Catholics do the same thing with contraception, etc.

Strange that the folk, who attacked the critics of the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis, have now gone silent, when the Vatican distanced the Pope from Kim Davies and effectively indicated that those critics were right.

 

[Spensed]

I'm really flabbergasted regarding that statement, too:
a) Are you US Americans — albeit presumably enlightened — obsessed with a certain religious ceremony?
(And: if there's something metaphysical or "holy", why do they perform, e.g. in Las Vegas apparently, disgusting clowneries?)
b) Is the concept of civil marriage actually unknown in that part of the world where you live?
c) Don't you know that already famous Anti-Catholic Martin Luther declared that marriage "is an external worldly thing"?
So: Why do you care what any religious body or corporation is thinking regarding the topic marriage?

Because marriage is generally inextricably linked with many rights that can only be enjoyed by married couples, e.g. tax treatment as couples, inheritance rights, social security, immigration rights, etc. Some of those can be enjoyed by contractual arrangements, but by no means all.

Then there is are the civil rights and status arguments, now recognized by the US Supreme Court, if not apparently by you. LOL.

As they say, don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

 

[otters]

Apples and oranges. According to the Church, straight folk can get married and thereupon have married sex without sin. Gay folk, on the other hand, have an intrinsic disorder, or whatever the hateful language from the hierarchy is currently, and never get to have sex without sin. Their lot is to lead a blue balled celibate life. It a nonsense to see an equivalency of moral standards in the way the Catholic hierarchy views gays and straights.

Ironically, given the theme of conscience, I suspect that many gay Catholics use the primacy of an informed conscience (as per the Catechism) to ignore the current hierarchy's inconsistent teachings on gays (gays=good/gay sex=bad). Just as many straight Catholics do the same thing with contraception, etc.

Still, the Roman Catholic legislature is a lot more consistent than many other legislatures — the Canon Law is one of the roots of the Common Law, e.g.

Strange that the folk, who attacked the critics of the Pope's meeting with Kim Davis, have now gone silent, when the Vatican distanced the Pope from Kim Davies and effectively indicated that those critics were right.

LOL, I was attacking hasty and biased critics, and I will do so in any case — I'm not going to be silent

 

[otters]

Because marriage is generally inextricably linked with many rights that can only be enjoyed by married couples, e.g. tax treatment as couples, inheritance rights, social security, immigration rights, etc. Some of those can be enjoyed by contractual arrangements, but by no means all.

Then there is are the civil rights and status arguments, now recognized by the US Supreme Court, if not apparently by you. LOL.

As they say, don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

Oh, I had hoped that you were able to perfectly reply to my post #56, but apparently, you don't know what Civil Marriage is
"Comparative Law" would help a lot, ask the SCOTUS