Pope Francis, Kim Davis meeting: development

I am getting notes that a statement has been released saying that the meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, doesn’t necessarily mean support from the Holy Father for what Davis did. HERE

Of course not, but…

watch the usual suspects start the usual conga line!

Statement regarding a meeting of Pope Francis and Mrs. Kim Davis at the Nunciature in Washington, DC (Fr F. Lombardi, Director of the Press Office of the Holy See)

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.

Dichiarazione su un incontro del Papa Francesco con la Signora Kim Davis alla Nunziatura di Washington, DC (P. F.Lombardi, Direttore della Sala Stampa della Santa Sede)

Il breve incontro fra la signora Kim Davis e il Papa presso la Nunziatura di Washington ha continuato a provocare una serie di discussioni e commenti. Al fine di contribuire a una comprensione obiettiva di ciò che è avvenuto posso precisare che:

Il Papa ha incontrato presso la Nunziatura di Washington successivamente diverse decine di persone invitate dalla Nunziatura per salutarlo in occasione del suo congedo prima della partenza da Washington per New York City, come avviene durante tutti i viaggi del Papa. Si è trattato di saluti molto brevi di cortesia a cui il Papa si è prestato con la sua caratteristica gentilezza e disponibilità.

L’unica “udienza” concessa dal Papa presso la Nunziatura è stata ad un suo antico alunno con la famiglia. Il Papa non è quindi entrato nei dettagli della situazione della signora Davis e il suo incontro con lei non deve essere considerato come un appoggio alla sua posizione in tutti i suoi risvolti particolari e complessi.

Furthermore, former Father Greg Reynolds is still excommunicated.

UPDATE:

If the nervous powers that be really wanted this story to go away, perhaps they shouldn’t have released a statement.  That statement guaranteed a couple more days, at least, in the news cycle.   Unless… their desire to placate a special interest group within and without outweighed their desire to make this news disappear.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Pope Francis, Kim Davis meeting: development

  1. ach7990 says:

    Ah! Of course! Of course we get clarification on THIS, but not all of the scandalous statements that have been made in the past 2 years. This is all the proof you need to know that nothing in the past has been taken “out of context” as the nice Catholic media wants you to believe, nor has the Holy Father been “mis-interpreted.” The Holy Father and the Vatican know darn well how their actions are perceived, and they see no issue with it. But now that the Holy Father finally did something that has been portrayed as defending those who are fighting the good fight, a clarification is made. Time to wake up. The lines are drawn and the facts are obvious.

  2. Kerry says:

    Yogi Berra’s clarifications were in English, and funnier!

  3. zama202 says:

    So…nobody really knows what Papa is doing in this matter. Business as usual under Francis.

    I must say, I have no idea why the Pope…leader on earth of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church…founded by our Lord, Jesus Christ…Only Son of God the Father…would have any trouble supporting Ms. Davis’ position.

    Oh well I guess we are all on our own for a while.

    Charles

  4. juergensen says:

    This statement does not deny any of the affirmations that Kim Davis says the Pope said to her.

  5. Reliquary says:

    People, I’m begging you, let the pope be the pope, and be what you are supposed to be: a saint. Only you can do this. “You had one job …” Don’t let the devil distract you into losing your peace and into spending your precious time, given to you for your sanctification, following what others say and don’t say about the Holy Father. Become a saint, and you will do what you were supposed to do to help this and all other situations.

  6. benedetta says:

    Given the times as they are, I think the advice by Reliquary above excellent and important advice. Nothing changes what we all as Catholics are called to do.

    I certainly agree that situations touching on religious liberty in this country are at this time, no longer straightforward, but “complex”.

    I guess those who pretend they are not potentates in the “Culture War” but actively generate animus against Christians in a variety of fora, some quite dark, and most online, have something to answer to like the gun advocates this morning. It’s fine to disagree, but why so much dark and disturbing hostility against people who practice religion in the culture in these times, hostility that advocates violence? It’s not the gun alone that commits the crime — it’s the paranoid hostility that has been encouraged to commit menacing and violence against Christians, sometimes quite young and innocent ones, with the gun that causes the destruction. I wonder if our Cultural Potentates will have the fortitude today to begin taking up that inquiry — one readily comprehends that Secular Media is on the side of those who foment hatred towards Christians — what of our own media though, like the National antiCatholic Reporter? When have you ever heard them advocate peace, tolerance, and kindness towards a prolifer, a person just wanting to help mothers and their babes? Hmmm.

  7. LarryW2LJ says:

    What’s bothersome and somewhat irksome is the non-Catholic reaction to Pope Francis. As long as he is perceived to stand up for the environment, against Capitalism (that he actually said unfettered Capitalism, matters not), etc, everything is hunky-dory.

    As soon as it was perceived that he might have been supporting Kim Davis, I started hearing comments such as, “Oh, I had such high hopes for this Pope. What a disappointment!”

    Nothing I can do about perceptions – but bothersome and irksome, nonetheless. One of the occupational hazards of living in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey, I guess.

  8. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Nicely boldfaced, Fr. Z! benedetta justly says, “I certainly agree that situations touching on religious liberty in this country are at this time, no longer straightforward, but ‘complex’ ”, yet Kim Davis’s is also one ‘case’ with all its distinguishing features: Pope Francis’s generalization on the plane is all he more worth attending to, with this particular experience partly informing it. “I can’t 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” and so on. Not all that ‘can’ exist (as including hypotheticals and particular instances that can and do exist), but a basic sweeping endorsement of (possibilities) of “conscience objection”.

    In this context, my Italian is pretty imprecise: does “entrato” here mean “enter into” in terms of ‘do his “homework” concerning’ or ‘discuss in the course of this conversation’ or could it mean either or both?

  9. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    It strikes me as interesting to compare and contrast the ‘cases’ of Kim Davis and Francesca Pardi, in all sorts of ways – for example, nature of interaction, response of woman involved, media responses, and explanations from Vatican spokesfolk:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/28/pope-inadvertently-gives-blessing-to-childrens-book-on-gay-families/

  10. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Reliquary saying “let the pope be the pope” reminded me of something I ran into the other day while looking up something else, in Patrick Toner’s 1910 article about “Infallibility”: “for the purpose of putting an end to the Great Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has a right in such circumstances to remove reasonable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputable, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency without thereby setting up a precedent that could be erected into a regular constitutional rule, as the Gallicans wrongly imagined.

    “A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred”.

    Were such a case ever to occur, some people whose primary job is their own sanctification would seem inescapably also to have other jobs to do as well, even as it seems some did at the Council of Constance.

  11. jhayes says:

    John Allen:

    Rosica also said that Francis had personally approved issuing Friday’s statement after learning the reaction the encounter had generated.

    “Lombardi called me this morning saying he’d just met with the pope, and that we had to send out the statement,” he said.

  12. frjim4321 says:

    Nice of Father Lombardi to confirm what I’ve been telling people for two days.

  13. benedetta says:

    However, the Holy Father really did head out to meet the Little Sisters of the Poor, at their convent, because, he cares for them, and has never supported the Obama administration’s grave fomenting of hatred towards Christians, and onerous taxing to conscientious objectors. That’s pretty clear not just from his visit but from, everything, he said, and did, all along the visit.

    Just because we can now minimize Kim Davis meeting the Holy Father, we are not now excused from paying attention to what the Holy Father apparently of his own will and mind and intention did and said, at the White House, at Congress, at the U.N. on the topic of religious liberty.

    And, let’s hope the Cultural Pontificators of our secular nation, in the dark places and from their bully pulpits, pay attention to what they have fomented: an ideology that seeks out Christians to murder them just for praying in public or going about their daily life. It’s a gun plus ideology that harms Christians in many places, and, according to my experience and reckoning, harassment of ordinary Christians in this country has been going on complicit with Obama administration and main stream media, with their knowledge and encouragement since 2007, by their own words and admission and triumphant snark. Appalling that commander in chief comes out to scold ordinary citizens for something, a propaganda campaign of hatred against Christians, that his elite and amen corner has sponsored and engineered since circa 2007. Look it up: before that time, the dark web harassment of Christians as well as mainstream menacing did not exist.

  14. Robbie says:

    It’s a strange situation when the Vatican feels compelled to clarify the Pope’s meeting with a woman who stood up for traditional marriage, but not a peep from them or the media about the Pope’s meeting with a Communist thug.

  15. jhayes says:

    Venerator Sti Lot, the breitbart article you linked says that the Vatican issued a clarification concerning the Pardi book, as well:

    In point of fact, Pope Francis never saw the book in question. The Vatican response was a routine letter prepared by the Secretariat of State, which sends out 60,000 such letters every year acknowledging the different messages and gifts that arrive to the Pope.

    On Friday morning, the Vatican press office published a clarification, saying that the Vatican’s response to Ms. Pardi was “a simple, pastoral response” that was supposed to remain private. “In no way does the letter from the Secretariat of State intend to endorse behavior and teachings that are not in line with the Gospel.”

    “The Pope’s closing blessing is meant for the person the letter is addressed to,” the notice adds, “and does not refer to any teachings that are not in line with Catholic teachings on gender theory. Indeed these teachings remain unchanged, as the Holy Father recently stressed. So a misuse of the letter’s contents is completely out of place

  16. It’s just sad that people are so eager (looking at you, Archbishop Cupich, Fr. Jim…) to disassociate the pope — and the Church — from someone who has courage to resist what is immoral and tyrannical. (Yes, tyranny: how else is five people usurping power over 320 million citizens described?)

    No, we wouldn’t want the Church to be associated with anything too…controversial, no!

    In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in Korematsu v. U.S., that it was lawful to round up citizens of Japanese descent and force them into concentration camps. Those orders were carried out. Now, I don’t know how many people protested; I don’t know if anyone in the military, or in civilian public service, resisted those orders.

    But golly, wouldn’t we be proud to remember bishops and clergy who moved quickly to disassociate the Church from any unsavory association with such…people!

    The hardships and persecutions that are coming for Christians as a result of the redefinition of marriage aren’t going to hit the clergy the worst. That’s what people keep saying: oh, they’ll come after priests; we should pass laws protecting the clergy. The blast is coming against the laity; it already has. People can mock Ms. Davis all they want, or tut-tut at her; but she went to jail rather than back down, and that’s something precious few would be willing to do, or have faced.

    And that our bishops have had nothing to say*…is a shame.

    * Other than Archbishop Cupich who said, in effect, don’t stand too close to…that woman.

  17. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Speaking of ‘what someone’s job is’, recalling this:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/28/abortion-suicide-and-same-sex-weddings-are-now-your-job/

    I just read this:

    https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/un-bureaucracy-to-push-lgbt-rights-despite-tensions/

    “The event was accompanied by a declaration from 12 UN agencies, including the World Food Programme, the UN Children’s Fund, and the UN Refugee Agency, telling countries to repeal laws that criminalize “same-sex conduct between consenting adults, […] legally recognize sex change in identity documents […].

    “Festus Mogae, former president of Botswana, made a plea to African countries.

    “He called ‘same-sex sexual activity’ the ‘most basic of rights,’ and quoted Mother Teresa on human rights as support for this cause.”

    Everyone on earth’s job as being to guarantee the possibility of “‘same-sex sexual activity” and the legal recognition of the “preferred gender” of “Transgender people” (presumably “including those
    who may identify with other terms”) “as part of the UN’s ‘sacred mission’ to promote human rights.”

  18. Reliquary says:

    Venerator, indeed, seeing to one’s own sanctification will lead a person to do many things. If we see to it first, then God will show us and give us the strength to do, in peace and charity, what He is calling each of us to do. Each person’s role is absolutely unique and irreplaceable and mysterious in God’s wonderful plan of salvation. Our Holy Father says that he asks God to repair whatever his faults may be. What better guarantor have we than God Himself? But do we trust Him to be?

  19. MikeM says:

    The press release was clearly crafted to let people make of it what they make of it. A reasonable person would recognize as obvious that a brief meeting with Ms. Davis is not necessarily an endorsement of every aspect of everything that she’s ever said or done…

    On the other hand, he met with her, her case relates to one of the primary themes that he discussed throughout his visit to this country, and his basic support for someone in a case like hers was reiterated on his flight back to Rome. It wasn’t some spontaneous misjudgment that got her to the nunciature. It was a deliberate call. And, given that it related to one of his main messages for the country, it was presumably orchestrated from his core team and didn’t arise as a manipulation from some distant figure.

    That really shouldn’t be taken to mean that Pope Francis supports (or even knows) every legal claim that she’s made… But it does seem to mean that he wanted to make a statement about cases of that general sort.

  20. pannw says:

    Thank you, Fr. Martin Fox. It is very encouraging to see a priest of Christ stand up for the Truth with apparent righteous anger. It happens far too rarely these days. I am often left to wonder and honestly doubt that many of His priests even believe anymore. How could they, while either neglecting to preach the Truth or even distorting it or outright rejecting it. Do they even study Scripture? The many warnings Our Lord gave? It is no wonder St. John Chrysostom said, “Hell is paved with the skulls of priests.,” and that he doubted many bishops ever got to Heaven. If they don’t want to do their duty for their own soul’s sake, how can we laity depend on them to care for ours? God help them. I really do not pray for our priests nearly enough. God forgive me.

    So yes, may God bless you, Father Fox.

  21. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Reliquary (10:04 AM), Well said! Let us each then ask Him to guide us in how much or little of our precious time to spend following what others say and don’t say about the Holy Father, to keep us from error when we legitimately do so, to repair whatever our faults may nonetheless be in doing so, trusting Him to be our guarantor in this, too.

  22. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Following up on MikeM’s comment, as far as I can see, there is not one word in Fr. Lombardi’s statement that is not strictly consistent with this account:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/01/exclusive-pope-francis-initiated-meeting-kim-davis/

  23. Someone please be the Garrigue says:

    The Herald has an interesting interpretation:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/10/02/vatican-distances-itself-from-kim-davis-after-pope-francis-meeting/

    The Vatican has downplayed Pope Francis’s meeting with Kim Davis, a court clerk from Kentucky who has become a cause celebre in the United States because of her refusal to authorise a same-sex marriage.

    In a statement Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi said “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 was widely criticised in the American media for meeting Ms Davis, a four-times married evangelical Christian, during his visit to the United States. But in his statement Jesuit Fr Lombardi said that: “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.”

    http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2015/9/2/thats-the-ticket-slut-shaming-kentucky-clerk-who-is-open-to-compromise-legislation

  24. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    The bishops of the United States caved on Humanae Vitae, with the single exception of Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington. The only bishop who informed the police that it was a mortal sin to remove obstacles (people) from the doors of abortion clinics was Bishop René Gracida. Every other bishop in the country remained silent while Catholic police officers committed mortal sin in broad daylight. We now know that 66% of bishops actively covered up sexual abuse by their priests. Only ten or fifteen bishops in the country have announced that pro-abortion politicians are not to be given Communion. Most bishops have been silent. Many bishops have made clear to their priests that if they fail to commit the mortal sin of giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, they will be punished. Virtually all bishops support the importation of illegal aliens, and never, never publicly note that 25 Americans are killed EACH DAY by illegal aliens, either murderers or drunk drivers. That’s 25 homicides EACH DAY that apparently mean nothing to the Pope or to any bishop. Now we see bishops and priests trashing Kim Davis–whose position on the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couple IS THE POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    It seems clear that a system is in place that selects men for the episcopate who are utterly indifferent to mortal sin–either their own or others’.

  25. majuscule says:

    I can see where this is going.

    Didn’t I read somewhere that Papal Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò is leaving his post at the end of the year? (Just did a quick search and I can’t confirm this. I’ll keep looking…)

    He is now being portrayed as an arch conservative–possibly the “evil” person who “blindsided and exploited” the Holy Father by inviting Kim Davis to meet him.

    If Archbishop Viganò is leaving his post, the reason will now be because he arranged the Kim Davis meeting, not because he is 74 years old or any other reason

  26. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    More detail from Liberty Council, legally representing Kim Davis:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/liberty-council-speaking-out-on-pope-kim-davis-meeting/

    “Some have speculated whether the meeting was about Kim Davis’s legal case, but the subject of her case never arose. Kim Davis once said she felt ‘validated,’ but what she was referring to are the Pope’s direct words to her when he thanked her for ‘her courage’ and said, ‘Stay strong.’ ”

    And more reflection upon the matter, including the level of detailed reporting about ” the minute issues that Pope Francis could not be well apprised of”:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/vatican-steps-back-still-supports-kim-davis-carefully/

  27. MarylandBill says:

    I find the last part of the statement to be very interesting.. .”in all of its particular and complex aspects.” This sort of denial can be read all sorts of way. Yes, it could be a suggestion that the Pope does not really support Ms. Davis, but it could also be read that she supports her goal, just not necessarily her approach (i.e., some have suggested that Ms. Davis should have publicly resigned rather than refused to issue the licenses).

    It is perhaps my wishful reading of it, but I take this to mean that Pope is not looking to throw out Catholic teaching on marriage and family.

  28. majuscule says:

    From the chicago.cbslocal.com link that DisturbedMary provided above:

    Not even Lombardi knew about it ahead of time, nor did the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which would have opposed it. (Emphasis mine.)

    Now that’s interesing. I’m trying to figure out exactly who said that and how they knew.

    Not that the USCCB has any power anyway. (Not dissing them. Correct me if I’m wrong!)

  29. Bosco says:

    Hmmm…well, there is this today, October 2, published as a CNN Exclusive:

    “CNN Exclusive: Pope held private meeting with same-sex couple in U.S.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/pope-gay-washington/index.html

    I suspect Ms. Davis’ meet was hastily arranged to make the ‘gay’ encounter referenced above seem even-handed.

  30. benedetta says:

    Who cares who approved or did not approve of the woman’s meeting the Holy Father with countless others on a papal visitation. The only relevant question is, does the Holy Father think the United States, its leadership and intelligentsia, politically empowered and elite, have some work to do in the area of basic human rights or not? It’s a simple question. Even if you take out that particular meet and greet, the fact is that he hammered on that very theme over and over and over again. And why? Because the U.S. has a serious problem right now in the way that the elites of the culture foment hatred towards Christians, quite openly and for consumption in mainstream outlets, constantly, for one thing, and, taxing or restricting the liberty of Christians is in vogue and encouraged at the highest levels of our government, right now, on the ground.

    Let’s do a little doctor who, shall we? Let’s say you are sitting down with your great grandparents, time traveling, for tea by the hearth, in the old sod, or the mother land, or even right here, it can be the penniless rural peasants and shepherds or it can be the uber literate, cosmopolitan New Yorker subscribers, take your pick. And you say to them, You know, Da, Granny, in 2007 to 2015, a young man in his employable, wife and children ready years will take to arms and go out and shoot at an AME prayer meeting, just for being Christians — or to a movie theatre and say that he gained value that way — or at a college, asking people or not their faith first, and, women will have abortions by the tens of millions, and if one asks in conscience whether they can pray in public they will be harassed, publicly, and shamed, publicly. If one asks their elected leader why the body parts of the babies are sold she will go all witch crazy shrill scream at you. Even though, she, the elected, is supposed to serve, you, the citizen. And that we all had the sinking feeling that even if we managed to change gun laws, help the mentally ill, and have pray-ers go through metal detectors on their way to the sanctuary, that still with harassing and trashing Christians in the media, the culture, and on social media, dark media, and in public places, we still won’t feel quite safe, and how is that our fault when our president goes on tv to “shame” us, for an animus that we did not create, but our leaders did and encouraged? And, Da, and Granny, this was from progress, these are our progressives.

    If they are Catholic they will ask, where were the priests, where was the Pope? And we will say, the Pope visited the White House, Congress, and the U.N., but no one would listen to him. Sure, he was popular, but we had no collective power to assert our rights to live in peace. We lived in fear, we prayed, and we offered it up.

    Today’s NY Times: the shooter’s mother was “fiercely protective”. Just as in a time ago when one or another “tendency” would be blamed on being a “mama’s boy”, today the Times says little about the Satanist interest, the social media that encouraged him to target certain people with violent murder by semi automatic weapon, the broken home, the no father, or the querying of Christians, one by one, as to their faith, his enthusiasm for guns, just like the AME shooter. It’s the fiercely protective mother’s fault, got it? And if we are to join in the NYTime’s trade in passing the buck on blame and ducking the obvious, the culture ,and their participation in it, though they are never culture warriors, just covert vigilantes, apparently, in that war, then the next question we reasonably ask as a reader is, and why didn’t those neighbors get control over those cockroaches or barking dogs which bothered the disturbed recluse kid with the gun and the combat boots? Because, our progressive society has no room for kindness, tolerance, encouragement, fellowship. They were all on the social media.

    Our country has missed countless metanoia moments. Even if we all, the ordinary in our neighborhoods get it, our leaders in the media and politics haven’t the first clue. It’s appalling to hear them demand that we solve their gridlock when they can’t even reduce some tens of millions of abortions per year and their consumption for it as a big business with lavish digs extends to taxing the Little Sisters of the Poor out of existence in our country. For Shame.

  31. Clinton R. says:

    What are we supposed to think anymore? Our pope and bishops are supposed to lead the faithful with clarity. Instead the enemies of the Church crow over the pope’s supposed acceptance of homosexuality based on the Pontiff’s visit with a longtime homosexual friend and his partner. Seems the Vatican is backing away from Kim Davis because it conflicts with the agenda at the Synod. I pray otherwise, but we should be prepared for the worst. A major schism just might erupt from this synod. I am still wondering why a synod is being convened when the teachings of the Church on marriage and Communion for the divorced and remarried and homosexuality are crystal clear.

    If we were blessed to have a pope who spoke as was characteristic of the Petrine office pre Vatican II, we would not see this mess. The loss of the practice of issuing anathemas has been disastrous.

  32. Maria says:

    Fr Martin Fox and Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick — thank you for upholding the church teachings. I appreciate it very much. When everybody is shooting arrows at the Church, you are there standing up. Your standing up give hope and shows faith and courage.

    “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.” — a lukewarm statement.

  33. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    jhayes (9:32 AM),

    Yes, exactly! Unsolicited sending with standard letter response vs. apparently unsolicited Papally-initiated invitation, Pope probably knows nothing about it vs. apparently “he thanked her for ‘her courage’ and said, ‘Stay strong’ ”, loud ostentatious exploitation attempt by Francesca Pardi vs. thorough humble discretion on the part of Kim Davis & co. – I have not read enough about the whole range and sequence of ‘media’ reactions in either case to have a real comparative sense of that.

  34. SimonR says:

    I think this perhaps the darkest day of this Pontificate.

    On the one hand, the Pope has basically abandoned and humuliated Kim Davis with the “clarification”.

    On the other hand, there is the news and video of the Pope meeting a “gay couple”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34428407

    How has it come to this after two great Pontificates of John Paul and Benedict?
    I wish Benedict had not resigned :-(

    Why bother anymore?

  35. Bosco says:

    @SimonR,

    Hang in there for Christ. He is all that matters.

    Remember this…?

    “Let’s roll!” – Last Words of Todd Beamer – September 11, 2001, UA Flight 93, died Stonycreek Township PA, age 22, fighting terrorist hijackers.

  36. tskrobola says:

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-real-story-behind-the-1269547693457462.html

    The headline on Yahoo! is “Vatican smackdown statement on Kim Davis”

    Interesting this:

    “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.”

    So the Holy Father and his inner circle rushed to the parapets to protect the Church’s image with radical leftists AND to publicly promote the Pope’s personal encounter with a dear gay friend and his gay partner….

    While the stunning rebuke of Kim Davis arrived at light speed, no clarifications will ever come forth regarding the dozens of stories of liberation theologists, divorced and remarried folks, gay and lesbian folks, etc. etc. who claimed to be personally contacted and championed by the Pope.

    And oh by the way, the Pope did single out radical pro-abort John Kerry for a personal touch on his way up to the podium to speak at Congress.

    ….anybody left out there who still thinks this Pope is not a radical lefty?

  37. Kathleen10 says:

    Thank you to Fr. Martin Fox and Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick.
    Ooh boy, I am carefully choosing my words. Whatever I end up saying here, I’m surely suppressing quite a bit.
    I am disgusted. Outraged. Scandalized and appalled, by what has happened to Kim Davis. (grammar be hanged) This woman, who put her life on the line in a very real way, claims she did it for Jesus Christ. For that she is absolutely vilified by the government, the media, and every God-hater and now, dissed by the Vatican and yes, Pope Francis. He has to know he pulled the rug out from under her. How awful. I could use more adjectives but I won’t. The lying liars at the Vatican have made this exponentially worse. One wouldn’t think it could get uglier then it does. The joke’s on them however. Say whatever about the left they get many successes, but one thing they do often is overplay their hand. People SEE this. Catholics and non-Catholics are talking about this. I’m about ready to agree we are the Whore of Babylon. Why should I ever argue that point again, when even I agree it may turn out to be true. We were the Bride of Christ but now we just look like a tired old whore.

  38. Kathleen10 says:

    Thank you to Fr. Martin Fox and Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick. God bless you and any priests, bishops, Cardinals or religious like you.
    Ooh boy, I am carefully choosing my words. Whatever I end up saying here, I’m surely suppressing quite a bit.
    I am disgusted. Outraged. Scandalized and appalled, by what has happened to Kim Davis. (grammar be hanged) This woman, who put her life on the line in a very real way, claims she did it for Jesus Christ. For that she is absolutely vilified by the government, the media, and every God-hater and now, dissed by the Vatican and yes, Pope Francis. He has to know he pulled the rug out from under her. How awful. I could use more adjectives but I won’t. The lying liars at the Vatican have made this exponentially worse. One wouldn’t think it could get uglier then it does. The joke’s on them however. Say whatever about the left they get many successes, but one thing they do often is overplay their hand. People SEE this. Catholics and non-Catholics are talking about this. I’m about ready to agree we are the Whore of Babylon. Why should I ever argue that point again, when even I agree it may turn out to be true. We were the Bride of Christ but now we just look like a tired old whore.
    Ok maybe I didn’t suppress all that much.

  39. benedetta says:

    OK I give up. Who gets to say whom it is alright for Pope Francis to greet and give a rosary to? Bullying media mobs? Or…? I for one am pleased for the report that Pope Francis visited with his old friend and student, a gay man with a long term partner, because that makes it ok for him to tell Kim Davis to “stay strong”, and, for him to use his visitation to greet and be with all people wherever situated. It’s obvious from his official comments (see, everywhere) that he doesn’t approve of the Obama and Elite beat down of Catholics and the Little Sisters of the Poor and many others through onerous tax and anti Catholic rhetoric. I for one pray that from the experience with the Holy Father that Kim Davis will find peace and return to the Faith. One is only asking for the same peace that his longtime student and his partner enjoy. I ask for it for myself and mine, but apparently, in this progressive and enlightened country, that is not possible?

  40. TheDude05 says:

    Hey Benedetta has a gun ever committed a crime? How can an inanimate object commit a crime? You said the gun alone did not commit the crime. I agree that a mentally unhinged human committed the crime and that it is a part of our culture choosing to obey what is beneath us rather than what is above us, but to say material can be accused of criminality gives too much credit to the material. If I gave you a match would you be scared of it? What if I gave it to an arsonist? It’s the person who has the opportunity and the will to do good or evil not the inanimate object. Until we properly place guilt we can never have peace or justice.

  41. Benedict Joseph says:

    Earlier this week I commented here:
    “That the Holy Father visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and received Mrs. Davis is wonderful and deserves our deep gratitude — it certainly has my gratitude — but why is it accompanied by surprise? That is the problem.”
    I was surprised and I suspended my disbelief much against my instincts, but, surprise, surprise, it didn’t really happen, kinda, ya know. Guess what…well, color me plain stupid. After all the lunacy, ineptitude, and manipulative condescension displayed since March 2013 how could I have fallen for this one? I assure you the only gratitude I will articulate again in relation to this protracted shell-game, worthy only of Time Square, is when it finds its terminus.
    Utterly untrustworthy. It’s as if the Demoncrat Party had found a liaison for worldwide religious deception. Unbearable, and they couldn’t care less.
    And God reward Fathers Vincent Fitzpatrick and Martin Fox for their courage in conveying the the truth, plainly and without caveat.

  42. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    What a parse-fest it seems Fr. Lombardi is throwing!

    Is “Il breve incontro” with Kim Davis merely on of the instances of “ha incontrato presso la Nunziatura di Washington successivamente diverse decine di persone invitate dalla Nunziatura”?

    Well, it does not exactly say that, as far as I can see. Neither does it seem to prevent the reader from falsely concluding that – ‘falsely’, that is, if each, or many, of the ‘meeting(s)’ with ‘diverse “dozens” of “persons” ‘ had different specific characteristics from those described by Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel.

    Yet, whatever it was, it is (somehow) clearly distinguished from “L’unica ‘udienza’ ” (those quotation marks being translated as “real” in the English version!).

    It now seems clear that “one of his former students” is Yayo Grassi. Who is “la famiglia” (that definite article is translated “his” in the English version)? Well, Daniel Burke’s CNN article says Mr. Grassi “brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends” and later elaborates, if vaguely, “Grassi said that he asked for the meeting in Washington because the friends he brought along have been through difficult times and wanted to receive of a blessing from the pontiff.”

    Burke reports, “Grassi said the visit was arranged personally with the Pope via email in the weeks ahead of Francis’ highly anticipated visit to the United States.

    ‘Three weeks before the trip, he called me on the phone and said he would love to give me a hug,’ Grassi said” later adding “On Friday afternoon, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that Grassi had asked to present his friends to Francis in Washington.” (Is there any written source for this and the quotation given from Fr. Lombardi?) Burke also writes, “In the video, Francis says he recalls meeting Grassi’s boyfriend in Rome.” (Where does one see this “video of the meeting [which] shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug”? Burke writes, “At the end the meeting, the Pope hugs both Grassi and Bagus and kisses them on the cheek.” His article has a still photo of the Holy Father giving one of those European-style kisses to some dark-haired young man.)

    Burke links Robert Draper’s August 2015 National Geographic article which gives Mr. Grassi a certain prominence, and presents indirect quotations from Cardinal Archbishop Bergoglio’s 2010 e-mail correspondence with him: “it pained Bergoglio to know that he had upset his student. Grassi’s former maestrillo assured him that the media had badly misconstrued his position. Above all, said the future pope in his reply, in his pastoral work, there was no place for homophobia.” Burke also repeats a direct quotation by Draper from an e-mail of Mr. Grassi to him at the time which is presented as eliciting that response: “You have been my guide, continuously moving my horizons—you have shaped the most progressive aspects of my worldview”.

    One wonders if the timing of the release of this National Geographic article had anything to do with the invitation as reported by Mr. Grassi. (Interestingly, as reported by Burke, it is nowhere explicitly said that the Pope initiated this “audience”.)

    What, if any, implications does this new detail have on Fr. Lombardi writing, “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.”

    Did the Pope ‘enter into the details of the situation of Mr. Grassi “con la famiglia” ‘ and should ‘his unique “audience” with him and them be considered a form of support of his and their positions in all of its/their particular and complex aspects’, or not (for example)?

  43. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    benedetta,

    When you say, “One is only asking for the same peace that his longtime student and his partner enjoy” I suppose you are only referring to their freedom from anything like “the Obama and Elite beat down”. Daniel Burke’s CNN article describes Mr. Grassi as an atheist and does not venture any specific information about the faith of his catamite, though it reports that Mr. Grassi “asked for the meeting in Washington because the friends he brought along have been through difficult times and wanted to receive of a blessing from the pontiff.” One can only pray that Mr. Grassi will also return to the Faith (and not its interpretation by Cardinals Kasper, Danneels, Bishops Bonny, Bode, et al.).

  44. cwillia1 says:

    A private meeting means the pope wants to support the person. It does not imply endorsement of the details of her position, which are very complex. It does not imply endorsement of the way she handled the situation and her public statements. Kim Davis is being persecuted, support from the pope for her personally is welcome. It is not appropriate for the pope to jump into the situation.

  45. oldcanon2257 says:

    Time for some of us here to read or re-read Malachi Martin’s fiction “Windswept House”. The book was way before its time, down to details of intrigues like manipulating a papal abdication, etc. so that certain people could install their own choice on the throne of Peter for their own agenda.

  46. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    Fr. Lombardi has now issued a statement “Regarding the Meeting of Pope Francis with Mr. Yayo Grassi in Washington, DC”:

    “Mr. Yayo Grassi, a former Argentine student of Pope Francis, who had already met other times in the past with the Pope, asked to present his mother and several friends to the Pope during the Pope’s stay in Washington, DC. As noted in the past, the Pope, as pastor, has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue.”

    http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-see-press-office-issues-statement-on-popes-2

    I cannot find its Italian equivalent, if any. Fr. Lombardi seems to place the initiative with Mr. Grassi, and no longer uses the expression “one of his former students and his family”, introducing instead a reference to “his mother and several friends”. Might it be considered somewhat disingenuous that he eschews Mr. Grassi’s own apparent distinction between (as Daniel Burke writes) “his partner” and “several other friends”, and, in mentioning that Mr. Grassi “had already met other times in the past with the Pope” fails to note (if Mr. Burke is here correct) “Francis says he recalls meeting Grassi’s boyfriend in Rome”? Daniel Burke’s updated version of his article has replaced the still photo with a short film clip captioned “Pope Francis meets with, hugs same-sex couple 00:48”, but has not added any reference to the presence of Mr. Grassi’s mother.

  47. majuscule says:

    Someone somewhere in a comment on Facebook claimed that the woman was not Grassi’s mother.

    Well, FWIW, I read it on the Internet.

    (Why does my iPad automatically capitalize Internet? Oh well, it capitalizes God, too…)

  48. Elizabeth D says:

    each year my 6th gr catechism children seem to have no idea that they are supposed to capitalize God. Do they not teach this in public school? :-( Granted they can barely write at all, their spelling is often atrocious. But come on, even journalistic standard is to capitalize God. I did a lesson on this last year and kids still kept forgetting to capitalize God and even Jesus.

  49. midwestmom says:

    The pope can meet with
    Grassi in a spirit of friendship but, according to Grassi, there’s no way in hell he would do the same with Kim Davis. Is the Vatican ever going to take back control of their communications?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/04/pope-francis-gay-former-student-shocked-kim-davis-meeting