Pope Francis meets with Kim Davis. The Left melts down.

WDTPRS ^ | 9/30/15 | Fr John Zuhlsdorf

[markomalley]

The catholic Left are desperate to silence the so-called “culture warriors”, especially to squelch Catholics who uphold clear Catholic teaching in the public square.

You may have heard that during his visit to these USA Pope Francis is reported to have met privately with the “culture warrior” Kim Davis, the Christian, non-Catholic, county clerk in Kentucky who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  She went to jail for a time rather than knuckle under.

We don’t know for sure what Pope Francis said in this private meeting, but Davis didn’t say that the Pope told her to stop fighting.  She wasn’t disappointed afterward.  Quite the opposite, it seems.

We also shouldn’t read too much into the meeting.  After all, Popes meet with people like Idi Amin Dada and Fidel Castro.  Those meetings don’t signal approval.  Popes meet with world leaders as well as long lines of unknown and then nearly instantly forgotten people all the time.

That said, someone inside the papal circle set up and approved the meeting with the non-Catholic Kim Davis. She wasn’t plucked at random out of the crowd.  Perhaps we can conclude that Pope Francis thinks we can’t cooperate or accept same-sex marriage and we must actively resist it.  That clearly is what some people are taking away from it.  Come to think of it, it is reasonable to believe that the Pope of Rome doesn’t not think that men should marry men and have sex with other.  Yes, that seems pretty reasonable.

Liberals are turning on Francis for this.

Take a look at the combox of the National Sodomitical Reporter (aka Fishwrap) which reprinted the ultra-liberal RNS David Gibson piece.  NSR is pro-sodomy (one of the peccata clamantia) a sin that crieth unto heaven for vengeance).  Therefore, they are pretty worked up over there about the meeting.

So far, no comment from the Wile E. Coyote of the liberal catholic media, although a combox under a recent posting is getting pretty shrill.

Not so, however, from another of the usual suspects, Jesuit James Martin at Amerika.  He protests muchly, in a loooong piece, that the meeting didn’t really mean very much at all.

It is clear that liberals didn’t like the meeting.

Meanwhile, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has this to say:

The Catholic and secular Left are beside themselves. They thought they owned the pope, and now they are in a state of disbelief. If they don’t get what they want at the Synod next month, watch for them to turn on him with a vengeance. [True.  Yet I think that the Synod may be so inconclusive and vague that they will claim it as a victory.]

Charles P. Pierce at Esquire is calling the Holy Father’s meeting with Kim Davis “a sin against charity,” and the “dumbest thing this Pope has ever done.” Nice to know he acknowledges the existence of sin. But to say that it was “dumb” of the pope to meet with this heroine, or to characterize it as a “hamhanded blunder,” is to seriously misread Pope Francis. He is, after all, a real Catholic, not a “pretend Catholic” (the pope used this term this week to describe the Mayor of Rome, a gay marriage enthusiast).

Pierce is so despondent with the pope that he said the Davis meeting “undermines his pastoral message, and it diminishes his stature by involving him in a petty American political dispute. A secret meeting with a nutball?” It would be more accurate to say that the meeting elevates the pope’s stature with real Catholics. Not surprisingly, Pierce does not see calling Davis a “nutball” as “a sin against charity.”

Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile is ripping the pope as “a more sinister kind of politician,” one who “secretly supports hate.” Signorile has a reputation of being quite open about his brand of hate speech, so that may account for his aversion to secrets. It is driving him mad that the pope broke bread with this courageous woman, which is why he said the meeting “is only encouraging the bigots.” By “bigots” he means practically every man and woman who ever walked the face of the earth, up until the day before yesterday.

Bless the Holy Father for being so inclusive that he reached out to Kim Davis. If the “pretend Catholics” who consider themselves his base get nasty, they will be answered by the Catholic League.

Any way, those are some different views of the Kim Davis meeting.

UPDATE:

At WaPo fid this:

No more Mr. Cool Pope

By Alexandra Petri

Yes, the pope met with embattled anti-gay-marriage clerk Kim Davis.

She reported that he clasped her hands, asked her to pray for him and told her to “stay strong.” The Vatican confirmed that the meeting occurred but refused to comment on details.

So much for “he’s-not-a-regular-pope-he’s-a-cool-pope” mania.

What’s really surprising is that we’re surprised.

The fact that we were expecting something different from Pope Francis says what a remarkable job he’s doing of making us forget that he is, not to put too fine a point on it, the pope.

[..]

[piusv]

I could care less what “the left” thinks. All I care about is the Catholic Faith and the man who purports to lead and defend it.

[NYer]

Catholic ping!

[ronnietherocket3]

I’m sitting here wondering why there are so many people so excited with this meeting, a meeting that was kept private by the Vatican and Francis. This meeting and Francis’ suggested approval of Kim Davis’ actions should have been shouted from the rooftops...while Francis graced us with his presence in the US.

But it wasn’t.

I would be irritated if a priest publicly announced that he had met with me in private, even if I were planning to tell someone that I had. Likely, the Pope held that it was her decision whether to announce the meeting or not.

[celmak]

I could care less what “the left” thinks.

You asked, "I’m sitting here wondering why there are so many people so excited with this meeting?"? Maybe I should ask it a different way; maybe it's because "so many people" like to see the left's head explode? You were asking about the "so many people, and there are "so many people" here that are not "the left". Maybe you don't care about anybodies thoughts but your own? Then why ask your question???