Posted on 10/04/2015 10:39:26 AM PDT by marshmallow
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kim Davis’ attorney is disputing the Vatican’s description and interpretation of her Sept. 24 meeting with Pope Francis.
Attorney Mat Staver told The Associated Press early Friday that the meeting was an affirmation of the Kentucky county clerk’s right to be conscientious objector.
He says Vatican personnel initiated contact with Davis’ camp on Sept. 14 saying the pope wanted to meet her.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksn.com ...
Nobody would be able to get on line to meet the Pope without a formal invite from the Vatican.
It’s a lousy day in my life when I believe a nice ordinary Kentucky lady over the Pope.
I honestly don’t know what to make of this whole situation.
I try not to use the Guardian. Can you tell me what this dishonest paper has to say?
Key word here is "secret". Davis didn't keep the meeting a secret. She didn't keep her word. Her word means nothing.
There's a scripture about doing good in secret and being rewarded openly. My view is, she should have kept her mouth shut about the 'secret' meeting, cherished it if it was a positive experience for her. Now that meeting has been tarnished publicly. Is she praying for the pope like he asked her to? Not my business if she does, it's her secret to keep.
Disregarding the gay couple, who were the other people who met with the pope? Why aren't they speaking out? Are they keeping their meeting a secret or were there no other people meeting with the pope?
At the end of the day, none of this matters. The pope is useless. Davis has her battles to fight with no shortcuts. Since she's not a Catholic, maybe she would have have better success with a Buddhist priest.
Her word means a lot to me.
Would you trust someone who can’t keep a secret?
I would trust this brave woman long before I would a nitpicking internet poster.
This is becoming a mess.
First she started off by fighting the gay marriage thing.
Now the focus is on the Vatican.
This is all diluting the initial reason why she was in jail. The gay marriage seems to have been put on the backburner since now the focus is on the lying vatican.
Either case, she’s in the news and that is what is important for all.
Maybe in a decade we’ll read how Davis took on her State and the Vatican...and won LOL.
Your “focus” is different from mine.
On the other hand, I've seen Philip Pullella report in Reuters that "receiving line" meme, attributing it to a 'senior Vatican official, who declined to be named.’
It's terribly confusing: I actually had to draw a chart showing who said what. But it seems to me the "lying" was done by Reuters/Philip Pullella or this "unnamed" source, not by "the Vatican."
It may seem like nit-picking, but it's not. If you want to call someone a liar, you really need to nail down who it is that lied.
See also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3344326/posts?page=23#23
It's been a hard story to get straight, since a lot of "anonymous sources" have chipped in their diversions and distortions, but you might find this of interest: (LINK)
Interesting about Fr Lombardi. I think Reuters is lying, or as least one reporter.
Someone else said if she’d met the Pope with other people, why haven’t we heard from them? I guarantee you, if they met the Pope with her, they’d be running to their local TV stations or GMA to spout.
This is starting to look diabolical.
The link of interest didn’t work.
Not sure what you mean by this ---- but the whole thing has been bizarrely confusing --- however, "the Vatican" (meaning official press spokesman Lombardi) spoke up to confirm that Kim Davis met with the Pope.
What Lombardi himself said, was calibrated lawyer-talk but not a denial or repudiation: he simply confirmed that the meeting took place (true), said it was one of many such meetings (true), and the Pope Francis did not necessarily endorse the "intricacies" of her case (which is no more than what Kim Davis' lawyer Matt Staver himself said.)
https://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/popes-words-and-meetings-support-conscientious-objection
Within hours, in flight back to Rome, the Pope explicitly supported the right of conscientious objection in cases where people refuse to participate in any aspect of "gay marriage." He explicitly said that applies to government employees/officials as well as private citizens.
So far, so good.
A couple days later, after "unnamed Vatican sources" (which could just as well mean "the invisible friends of of Philip Pullella at Reuters") started to cast doubt about whether this meeting happened at all, official Vatican Press Spokesman Federico Lombardi refuted that charge.
What Lombardi himself said, was chilly, calibrated lawyer-talk (not exactly warm or brave or bold) but not a denial or repudiation: he simply confirmed that the meeting took place (true), said it was one of many such meetings (true), and the Pope Francis did not necessarily endorse the "intricacies" of her case (which is no more than what Kim Davis' lawyer Matt Staver himself said.)
All the crapstorm thereafter has been generated by people who "prefer not to be named", and their media echo-chamber allies who endlessly repeat every insult, innuendo, and calumny. All the nasty memes: "a sense of regret"? Anonymous source. "Pope was blindsided"? Anonymous source. "They didn't know Kim Davis was toxic"? Anonymous source.
I, myself, thought the Pope was not as strong as he should have been. He should have addressed Congress flanked by Kim Davis and the Little Sisters of the Poor.
However, he supported her, and even the weaselly Lombardi confirmed the facts. That's not "knifing her in the back."
That distinction goes to a huge cast of twisters, shavers, and gibbering Orcs who all took turns mocking distorting, and twisting the knife. Too numerous to name. Though I would want to cast the spotlight on Thomas Rosica and Philip Pullella.
I absolutely trust Mat Staver; please note that in this case he and Pope Francis are not in disagreement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.