Thursday, October 1, 2015


(Associated Press report below my comments)

It is significant that Pope Francis met with Kim Davis for almost 15 minutes at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, DC and that Kim, her husband and lawyer were able to get in and out without any detection.

It is significant that Pope Francis met with the Little Sisters of the Poor in Washington, DC given their battle with President Obama who want them to provide abortion and artificial contraception coverage for their employees' health insurance.

His little gestures speak loud and clearly without shrill language especially in the case of Kim Davis whose advocacy for natural marriage has been loud and clear.

When one reads Laudato Si, one realizes that Pope Francis basis his entire encyclical not only on the environment, but on human relationships on natural law. When we poke natural law in the eye by having dominion over it rather than cooperating with it, it brings damage to our relationship with God, with each other and the environment. Everything is inter-related. The pope has powerful words about this concerning the human embryo all the way to the most guilty in our midst.

He offers hope--the mercy of God that leads to conversion and the healing of our relationship with God, each other, the environment and natural law. At the core of this conversion is the acknowledgement of our sin, both Original and Actual that contributes to the crisis we see in the interrelated relationships of God, people and environment.

Enshrining unnatural sex into a civil institution and calling it marriage is part and parcel of the ecological crisis we are experiencing. It is no wonder Pope Francis met with Kim Davis as her heroic battle to set things aright plays deeply into Pope Francis' vision for a world where the ecological rift is healed through pro-active human activities to set things aright!

But the gay political lobbies which have effectively marginalized Christians in their efforts to prevent the ecological disaster of so-called same-sex marriage thought they had a benign ally in Pope Francis as do those in the abortion industry.

In fact Pope Francis decries the politics and economies that exploit the ecology of God, people and the environment and has the harshest words for them.

But this is the Associated Press's take on the "mistake" that Pope Francis made in allowing an audience to Kim Davis and her husband:

Observers question pope’s support for defiant clerk’s views

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The private meeting Pope Francis held with defiant Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is a strong papal endorsement of religious resistance to gay marriage, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he approves of how she’s waged her fight, experts said Wednesday.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said their encounter in Washington last Thursday was private. Out of deference to the Vatican, Davis’ attorney, Mat Staver, would not say how it was arranged. The Vatican essentially confirmed it, without further comment.

Davis said she grasped the pope’s outstretched hand, and he told her to “stay strong.”

Davis refused to issue any marriage licenses in Rowan County, Ky., rather than comply with the Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide. She served five days in jail rather than resign. Some of her deputies now issue licenses without her authority, and she claims they are invalid.

“Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything,” Davis told ABC News.

But Vatican observers say that’s reading too much into the visit.

“You can’t take his presence with somebody as his affirmation of everything that they stand for,” said Cathleen Kaveny, a theologian and legal scholar at Boston College. “He thanked her for her courage and told her to stay strong. That’s a commitment to her voice in the conversation. I don’t think it’s necessarily commitment to her policy views.” (wishful thinking, but the pope's gestures as we have learned is the way Pope Francis communicates in a very powerful way.)

Staver’s revelation that Francis met his Apostolic Christian client at the Vatican Embassy after speaking to Congress provided a stunning coda to the pope’s triumphant visit, which ended Sunday.

Francis largely steered clear of culture war issues, telling the U.S. bishops to avoid “harsh and divisive” language despite the challenges they face in society. (We see here, the Pope not using harsh and divisive language, but making his point another way, through a kind gesture!)

From the start of his six-day tour, Francis encouraged Americans to preserve religious freedom, but did so among a list of many other issues.

Davis and her husband met with the pope for less than 15 minutes, Staver said.

That’s puzzling to Francis DeBernardo, who runs the New Ways Ministry, which seeks acceptance for gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender Catholics.

The pope had turned away a crush of advocacy groups lobbying to see him, and held some meetings, including with donors to Catholic schools and heads of Catholic nonprofits. That he carved out even a few minutes in his event-packed schedule for Davis was noteworthy, DeBernardo said.

“It throws a wet blanket on the goodwill that the pontiff had garnered during his U.S. visit last week,” DeBernardo said.

Two years ago, Francis said “Who am I to judge?” when asked about a supposedly gay priest, but he has also affirmed marriage is between a man and woman. He didn’t emphasize church teaching on marriage during this trip because he wanted to offer a “positive” message about families to America, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reporters.


Anonymous said...

I think Pope Francis loves all people including those who identify themselves as gay and lesbian. The saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" comes to mind. The sin being sex(the actual act itself not the person's inclination) outside of natural marriage is what is to be hated and not the person.

Jusadbellum said...

Of course. That's how virtually everyone lives their lives. We distinguish between the sin and sinner - which is why we can ask for pardon for one while not declaring the sin to not matter. Sin remains sin even after sinner is forgiven and moves on with their lives.

But gay activists refuse to make the distinction. For them, their very metaphysical identity is wrapped up in the act of sodomy. So to declare sodomy sinful and want them to cease and desist is "heard" by them as you demanding they cease to exist. So they react with the same vitriol anyone would who is assaulted physically.

Now, phenomenologically this almost universal gay inability to distinguish is itself a sign of the disorder that exists in their minds. To sincerely not be capable of seeing the difference between a man and a choice to act a certain way is to be sincerely mistaken. To be objectively disordered in one's mind. It doesn't mean they're stupid or lack IQ or are incapable of other high order functions. But it does mean that their intellect has been darkened in that specific part of life.

Think of all the disagreements we have among all the groups we belong to that are NOT presumed to be motivated by murderous hatred and then ask why the gays insist we MUST only and exclusively be motivate by nothing but irrational bigoted hate to distinguish sin from sinner.

Anonymous said...

It had to happen - someone who tries to be all things to all people will suddenly find they have slipped into a void and then they get this type of thing said about them:

"And he doesn’t even have the political courage to speak of his bigotry directly. Knowing it would hurt his popularity, he slithers around in secret, watering the seeds of hatred and violence against gay, lesbian and transgendered people."

Far better to have the courage of your convictions and be open about these things rather than to meet in secret ...


TJM said...

As Father Z would say, they are throwing a nutty!

gob said...

We have heard quite a bit of conversation about baking a wedding cake for a gay about Kim Davis and marriage licenses. What if, instead of being a clerk who issues marriage licenses, Kim were a mail carrier who refused to deliver mail to a gay couple....or an emergency room physician who refused to treat an AIDS patient? How far can it go...and still have the Pope extend his hand and say "Stay strong."?

Jusadbellum said...

gob, your inability to make the distinctions in this case are proof for everyone with eyes...

You don't see that being dragooned into agreeing with someone else's moral declaration is a tad bit different than merely providing goods and services to the general public. How would the postal clerk differentiate a gay address from a non-gay one? How would a doctor differentiate a gay AIDS patient from a non-gay one?

Giving someone their mail is no dragooning into ratifying their moral declarations. Nor is giving someone medical care.

But being forced by force of State sanctions or police force to honor and ratify the moral declarations of others is not the same thing.

Can I order state officials to participate in Eucharistic adoration? May I order state or federal officials to worship Jesus Christ in a Mass or force them to go to confession?

Besides, the reverse has happened and no one got sued or jailed: men have approached Muslim businesses demanding Gay cakes and been turned down, on video... and others called up Gay bakeries and asked for homophobic messages to be put on cakes and been refused service...and no one got sued or jailed.

As for state employees picking and choosing which laws to abide by... that has been happening for decades among Democratic Mayors and sheriffs and prosecutors as well as clerks against all manner of federal, state, and local laws and none to my knowledge has gone to jail or been forced to resign because of it.

gob said...

Jusad....Mail carriers know the people on their routes. I know. I have been a mail carrier. You seem not to have a clue. Have you ever been to a doctor? They get a detailed medical history. You can be sure the doc would know how the patient got AIDS. You're blowing a "dragooning" smoke screen because you can't offer a reasonable response to my inquiry.

Then, there's the case of the Irish cop who doesn't arrest Catholics....or the white cop who arrests mostly non-white young men. Get the cobwebs out, Jusad....

Jusadbellum said...

gob, do you have any cases at all of a mail carrier intentionally not delivering the mail to someone they don't like? Any cases of a doctor refusing to treat someone with HIV? Slippery slope much?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think you all are missing one critical point about the pope's endorsement of conscientious objection. The employer can still fire the one objecting or if serious enough, place them in jail as was done with Kim. The one objecting needs to realize the consequences of her objection under law.

I would hope that an employer would simply place the employee in a situation that doesn't offend her conscience.

This has ramifications too for photographers and bakers in terms of gay weddings. If I owned a business like this, I'd simply ask someone else to do it and pay them.

gob said...

Good grief, Jusad. Please READ my post....where it says "WHAT IF". I'm doing a hypothetical here...

If you can't understand...well...I'm gone...

Fr. McD.....your idea of hiring someone else to do what you don't want to do reminds me of the execution we had in Georgia a couple of nights ago. The woman hired a hit man to kill her husband. He got life...she got killed. Asking someone else to do it and paying them, does not mean that you didn't do it.

Jusadbellum said...

Gob, the hypothetical is not analogous to the case at hand.

Not joining in someone else's religious ceremony is not the same thing as refusing to deliver their mail or treat their medical condition. Refusing to give someone 'dignity' is very different from refusing to serve them. Facebook can refuse to honor priests' honorary title "father" but it still allows them to have facebook pages.

As for conscientious objection - yes, the price is often to be jailed (or worse). But in a land where we supposedly celebrate "diversity" how hypocritical are we if we demand total fealty to every ideation of only SOME people but not others?

We allow Sikhs to wear beards in the military, we allow kosher or hilal food for prisoners to respect their religions, but we can't allow a work-around for a clerk?

The unintended consequences will be religious affiliated clubs rather than general public accommodation businesses. So a baker will only serve members of a coalition of churches. You need to be a member of the club to order cakes there. It'll go that route with education and finance too.

gob said...

Bless your heart, use WAY too many words to say too little...

Anonymous said...

No, Gob, Jusad has to try and make things simple for you because you continually miss the point.