The lawyer for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has stated that she met with Pope Francis during the pontiff’s visit to Washington D.C. last week and received encouragement from him in the meeting. It is a surprising disclosure, if true, but Attorney Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel insists that the Pope spoke to Davis and her husband in English and said “Thank you for your courage” and told her to “stay strong.”
The Vatican is mum on the alleged meeting or who was present on September 24 at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington. That was the same day that he had spoken to Congress.
That adds an interesting political wrinkle for Democrats who generally love (as do I) this Pope for his views on climate change, poverty, and other issues. The Pope however also spoke against abortion and does not support same-sex marriage. If he also supports Davis, it can create some difficult issues with the party line on the Clerk. After all, as we discussed today, you have one Democrat who reveres the Pope so much that he is actually dispensing the Pope’s drinking water to family from the glass used during his speech before Congress.
Of course, there is no reason why either Republicans and Democrats cannot still oppose the position of Davis even if (and that is still an “if”) the Pope supports her position. After all, many support the right to choose even when they are personally against abortion and remain practicing Catholics. Yet, it is intriguing that this is one of the people that the Pope would choose to meet if the account is correct.
I am surprised if the Vatican agreed to this meeting. Even the people on rope lines are often screened for the Pope though he is known to plunge into crowds. If this was a truly arranged “meeting,” it is pretty significant that Davis would be selected for such a meeting and encouragement. Politicians like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have been criticized for their support of Davis, who asserts the right to impose her religious views of the legitimacy of a marriage before performing her purely ministerial functions. Reporters have been trying to get the Vatican to confirm whether the Pope has added his voice of support.
Of course, the Vatican could spin the meeting as support for someone following her faith rather than endorsing her legal position. Nevertheless, the alleged meeting may be the most surprising in this even-filled Papal visit.
The church is protected by the First Amendment and have NEVER been compelled to marry anyone. Why are people so ill informed?
Wedding Chapels are businesses and are not churches, so they do not have the same protections under the First Amendment.
Annie wrote: “The church is protected by the First Amendment and have NEVER been compelled to marry anyone. Why are people so ill informed?”
Ill informed? Please educate me. Where in the First Amendment does it mention protecting a church? You are way out on a limb on this one.
The First Amendment is about protecting individuals from the laws of Congress, and less than 100 years ago, the court through its incorporation doctrine applies it also to laws of the States and local governments.
Annie wrote: “Wedding Chapels are businesses and are not churches, so they do not have the same protections under the First Amendment.”
ROFLOL! I guess you never heard of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Citizens United v. FEC.
Lisa
No priest or preacher or clergyman will marry a same sex couple if the priest or preacher or clergyman objects to such a marriage. There is no law or court that has said that they must perform a same sex marriage.
If you think that they must perform a same sex marriage, you are VERY misinformed.
Isaacbasonkavich –
What about the gay couple who goes to a priest/preacher or clergyman to get married, whose rights trump whose?
Lisa N wrote: “What about the gay couple who goes to a priest/preacher or clergyman to get married, whose rights trump whose?”
Or what about a Christian Judge or Notary? Will they be forced to violate their conscience for the alleged “good” of the State?
Back before Obergefell, the commenters here claimed that no Christians would go to jail if the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage. I warned them that they would. Now they sing a different tune. When more go to jail, they will turn to a more aggressive stance of how the needs of the State outweigh the religious convictions of the individual. What is sad is how blind they are to how this violates the principles of liberty and religious freedom which have been the cornerstone of our civilization.
I wish we had a Thomas Jefferson in the White House right now. He would be attending church meetings in the capitol building, and the secularists would be throwing a fit yelling out how he is violating the separation of Church and State.
Annie
Sorry. I was typing while you were posting.
Incorrect that public funds pay for abortions.
Planned Parenthood procedures and services are billed to Medicaid. Individually. A procedure. A bill. Abortions are not billed. They are not paid for by federal funds. This has been true for years.
Require proof? Republicans are able to convene multiple congressional committees to investigate anything (or anyone) they hate. There haven’t been any congressional committees investigating Planned Parenthood billing for abortions. Had there been any – you would be sure to have heard about it.
The monies coming from Medicaid to PP do not pay for abortions. PP, like any other medical provider only gets reimbursed from Medicaid for services that have already been provided, such as providing birth control products, STD screenings and more. The Hyde Amendment prohibits Federal funds being used to pay for an abortion. I would think this should be common knowledge by now.
Annie wrote: “The monies coming from Medicaid to PP do not pay for abortions.”
Please do not be naive. The monies are fungible. Of course they pay for abortions, regardless of the law and what the monies are supposed to be spent for. I would think this would be common knowledge by now.
Has no one heard of the Hyde Amendment?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/142
H/T to Huffington Post:
Pope Meets Dope!
I am not anti abortion as in making a law that it be illegal. On a personal moral basis, I consider it murder and a sin. I am not pro abortion, unless it is to save the life of the mother who might be in imminent danger because of the pregnancy. I am not in favor or abortion for any other reason because people can give the child up for adoption and there are plenty of loving, deserving couples who desire to be parents. I do think that there should also be a restriction on how late into the pregnancy it should be allowed to murder/kill/abort the child. When? That is a question above my pay grade.
Deciding to have an abortion or not have an abortion is a personal decision that each woman makes. It is between her God, her conscience and herself. It isn’t my decision.
HOWEVER………What I AM anti and fervently against is the taxpayer funding of abortion. This is the big crux of the Planned Parenthood issue. They are taking money from the taxpayers, many of whom ARE very much against abortion, and using it to fund abortions.
That PP does abortions would be none of anybody’s business …..EXCEPT for the fact that we are paying for it. If we pay for it, it IS our business.
PP should be privately funded. There are plenty of foundations, charities etc which could be the vehicle to fund their organization. Keep public money out of it and you have no basis for the public to get involved.
Max,
You’d think they would have some real governing to do instead of holding a kangaroo court over a woman’s right to health care.
Max
The videos are manufactured political propaganda. But c’mon. How can you support an equally ridiculous assertion that some woman has ‘recognized’ her infant? How is this substantiated?
Annie,
But never let them admit their war is on the ownership of a woman’s vagina.
Max,
The drive to bring back the bad old days is very strong in regressives.
Annie,
Dead babies in abortion clinics or dead babies in back alleys?
Women bleeding out in kitchens or women cared for and alive in clinics?
These are the choices being afforded by the GOP.
Annie,
When living in the ‘Land of It’s Never When We Do’…
… It’s never when Ben Carson harvests fetal tissue.
Max,
It is the height of ignorance to try to portray PP as somehow ‘inviting’ these women in to have an abortion, just so they can “sell” fetal body parts, as these nuts do. What lunacy. Women are going to have abortions whether they donate the fetal body parts or not.
Annie,
A miscarriage in a hospital is far different than an abortion at PP.
These cretins know that difference. They rely upon the ignorance of others to spread their lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/
“Ben Carson defended the use of fetal tissue for medical research Thursday, after a blog published excerpts of a 1992 paper describing work the neurosurgeon-turned-presidential candidate carried out using aborted fetuses. In an interview with The Washington Post, Carson called the revelation “desperate,” and ignorant of the way medical research was carried out.
“You have to look at the intent,” Carson said before beginning a campaign swing through New Hampshire. “To willfully ignore evidence that you have for some ideological reason is wrong. If you’re killing babies and taking the tissue, that’s a very different thing than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it.””
KCF
The claim, “selling baby parts” comes about because of these videos.
So, why insist that something is true when, in fact, the mother of one of those babies is on record stating that her baby was NOT filmed by PP. Deal with facts…
Blah blah blah, “selling baby parts”, do you not realize that hospitals and clinics that serve women who have had a miscarriage also ask women if they want to donate the fetus for research? Why are we not hearing an outcry over this? If one has had a misscarrige in the hospital, it is routine to ask them about donating the fetus.