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.
Kim Davis is a modern American hero!….They should pin a medal on this woman, with such courage and fortitude…my fifth favorite movie of all-time…A man for all Season’s…the life of saint Thomas More. My library of natural history books is bursting at the seams…I need another bookcase…just acquired Fishes of New Guinea by Ian S.R. Munro…along with Randall’s Reef and Shore Fishes of the South Pacific, including Tahiti, New Caledonia and the Pitcairn islands…sweeet!
Also, just for fun, if you dig into those survey questions, you find that in Mississippi, the approval for interracial marriage drops to to 54%, with 17% “not sure”. Alabama scores better at 67% with 12% unsure.
So it’s progress to be sure, but they’ve had almost fifty years to get used to the idea.
Oh, Nick. Your little man-crush is getting out of hand.
Did you really not get the point I was making? If not, I feel sorry for you. But let me explain for you that I do not believe that we should get to vote on what rights others get to have. The “tyranny of the majority” if you will. And before you, or anyone starts talking about the right to be a bigot like Kim Davis…please…don’t
Oh, the assertion about women not being allowed to vote or slavery still making it on a vote were just so out there I assume all sane people here know that is just idiotic.
When you shoot from the hip, as philly is wont to do, you often shoot yourself in the foot. In his effort to link interracial marriage to gay marriage our liberal friend stated, “If allowed to vote on it, MANY states would still have interracial marriage be illegal.” As the intellectually honest liberal US Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “You, sir are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.”
The latest polling by Gallup on this issue was in 2013. Gallup noted that in 1958[where Philly is apparently still stuck] only 4% of Americans supported interracial marriage. Now, 87% support interracial marriage. Breaking it down, 96% of blacks and 84% whites support it. Regionally, East 86%, Midwest 86%, South 83%, West 93%.
There will be no contrition. Liberals never admit they spoke recklessly and/or are wrong. I probably would not have checked if our dear liberal friend had just qualified his assertion w/ “I think” or “probably.” But his unequivocal assertion made me research. I await the response, having a good idea what it will be.
Justice Alito is certainly correct. if they were allowed to vote on it, some states would still have same-sex marriage be illegal.
If they were allowed to vote on it, many states would still have interracial marriage be illegal. And women voting. And legal segregation. And voter suppression. Hell, some states would probably make slavery legal again if we let them vote on it.
Which is precisely why we DON’T let them vote on it!
And so far, Planned Parenthood has been investigated by Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, and NO wrongdoing was found. There are only a couple of PPs providing fetal tissue, legally. Sorry if you don’t like that, but it’s perfectly legal.
And fetuses are not babies, even if you say it a thousand times. But I have heard that if you stare into a mirror and say it exactly twenty-six times, the baby Sarah Palin murdered will appear.
phillyT – we can probably agree that you are against slavery. However, the same thinking used by abortion proponents is the same thinking as slavers and slave-holders. If I decide that blacks are 3/5s of a white man, then they are subhuman and I can do with them what I want.
If I call an unborn baby a foetus, then it is no longer human and I can do with it whatever I want.
They are one and the same – slavers and abortionists
Mike, that’s the true test for the devolvement of a thread, when someone starts yells about burning in hell, lol.
When the thread attracts commenters who start preaching about burning in hell for the practice of sodomy it is time to sign off.
Yep – men are included. They get STIs, too.
You are opposed because you are a man with very peculiar beliefs, some would say they are downright crazy.
Simple question: Does anyone here or elsewhere have a bona fide citation that proves Ms. Davis ever met personally with Pope Francis? I tend to not believe it. But I’ll listen.
Davidm
In this instance you speak for a religious fanatic who would impose her doctrine on others, when it has absolutely nothing to do with her and when it deprives others of their rights. Kim Davis has been divorced several times but takes a mulligan and is reborn. Then she imposes her new found fairy tales on others. If it was left up to the individual to decide what is right or wrong, in instances like this, we would be well on the way down the drain. You do not speak for the essence of what America is and what it is becoming. America is a country that has been well established as free from religious persecution. This individual and those that would support her are persecuting those who have, by law, been given certain rights by denying them those rights.
The main crime here is that this woman has unilaterally imposed her will on others when she has absolutely no place in their affairs. You can pontificate all you want about this percentage of Kentucky and your god and natural law but in the end this sort of activity is precisely why the colonies separated from Great Britain and, other than the wars of colonial expansion and theft and plunder, why so many Americans have given their lives in those few righteous wars. Gays, Gypsies, Jews, Protestants, etc., your stance pertains potentially to any minority that desires equal status.
Slaveowners, racists, and bigots have continually throughout history had god on their side. Et tu David?
The choice is quite simple, which is more important, denying a right or receiving a right? There is not much more than that to it.
david
Those committees are investigating the videos of the illegal disposition of fetal tissue – not federal dollars paying for abortions. The Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976. The Republicans have had plenty of time to investigate funding irregularities.
And I’m fine with PP Mission statement saying that they believe in the fundamental right of each individual throughout the world to manage his or her fertility.
Mike wrote: “Those committees are investigating the videos of the illegal disposition of fetal tissue – not federal dollars paying for abortions.”
But what you said was, “But there are no congressional committee investigations, nor have there been any congressional committee investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood abortions are paid for with federal funds.”
Why don’t you admit you were wrong with the first assertion?
Also, some of their investigation does include federal funding:
September 22: The Oversight and Government Reform Committee formally noticed a hearing for September 29 to examine the use of taxpayer funding by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA) and its affiliates. PPFA President Cecile Richards is expected to testify.
“On Thursday the E&C will hold a hearing, “Protecting Infants: Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Providers Who Violate the Law.” The Subcommittee will review two bills to strengthen enforcement against providers who violate the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.”
The idea of tying funds directly to illegal federally funded abortions is a canard because funds are fungible and can be used for purposes other than what they are being reported for.
David, managing one’s own fertility is an essential part of one’s own healthcare.
Annie wrote: “David, managing one’s own fertility is an essential part of one’s own healthcare.”
Of course, but it is a very narrow part of one’s overall health. Also, notice that Planned Parenthood’s mission statement is not just about women, but about women and men managing their fertility.
I am just trying to educate others here, Annie. Why do you oppose me?
David,
Why do I oppose you? Are you being serious? The answer would be because you are wrong. Do you similarity ask males here why they “oppose” you? When I disagree with you it is not for the express purpose of opposition, it’s because I think you are wrong. Also David, a woman’s reproductive health is a huge part of her healthcare when she is in her fertile years.
“It’s quite another thing when he offers encouragement to a public official who is denying public services on grounds of bigotry…
There’s no evidence at all for bigotry. She might be, she might not be. How can we know? It’s just assumed or it’s just projected onto her. But that’s not evidence!
That’s why i have the Catholic Church to “teach” me what to believe, concerning faith and morals, without the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, to instruct us, nobody seems to know what to believe, even those who claim to follow, “sola scriptura”…one would think that if these matters were as self evident and without any ambiguity, we would all come to the same conclusion. It is clear, abortion is murder, gravely sinful and those physicians who practice this demonic activity, will answer…those who indulge in the perversion of sodomy are also evildoers…these sodomites will answer for this reprehensible behavior…I am not a perfect Catholic not by a long shot…but I have a conscience and when in doubt I appeal to Holy Mother Church, to teach me about faith and morals…nuff said…long live the Pomacanthidae baby!
Pygoplites – there is a new DVD set called Catholicism. Very interesting.
“It’s quite another thing when he offers encouragement to a public official who is denying public services on grounds of bigotry and who is also trying to interfere with her deputies who are trying to comply with their legal obligations to provide these public services.”
PRabbit, you do make a good point.
It seems that I would be the only one in this thread to express serious concern that the Pope, whom I generally admire a great deal, is interfering with matters of American constitutional law. It’s one thing if he wants to praise commercial bigots – the flower shops, bakeries, photographers and pizzerias.
It’s quite another thing when he offers encouragement to a public official who is denying public services on grounds of bigotry and who is also trying to interfere with her deputies who are trying to comply with their legal obligations to provide these public services.
This is really bad.
Precambrian Rabbit wrote: “It’s quite another thing when he offers encouragement to a public official who is denying public services on grounds of bigotry and who is also trying to interfere with her deputies who are trying to comply with their legal obligations to provide these public services.”
I applaud the Pope for offering private support. Kim Davis is not a bigot. She was put in a very difficult position and worked hard to get the appropriate State officials to recognize the problem. The governor of the State was wrong to violate Kentucky law and order the State to issue marriage licences. He is basing his action on the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell which was unconstitutional. Anybody with even a modicum of legal understanding knows that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to define marriage for the States. When the court goes awol and makes a bad decision, it is up to the people and the States to uphold the rule of law and reign in the excessive powers of the federal government. Justice Alito rightly predicted that the Supreme Court’s majority opinion would lead to the chaos we see happening before us.
Justice Alito in Obergefell v. Hodges:
——
…
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion,the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. Ante, at 26–27. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights.The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.
Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today’s majority claims.
Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed. A lesson that some will take from today’s decision is that Constitution or the virtues of judicial self-restraint and humility cannot compete with the temptation to achieve what is viewed as a noble end by any practicable means. I do not doubt that my colleagues in the majority sincerely see in the Constitution a vision of liberty that happens to coincide with their own. But this sincerity is cause for concern, not comfort. What it evidences is the deep and perhaps irremediable corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.
Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today’s decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.
——
P Rabbit – I am not a fan of Pope Francis and only hope he does more good than bad. Popes are well known for interfering in the politics of countries, I think it is an oath they have to take.
david, He doesn’t understand basics of the US govt. or the Constitution. But, it doesn’t stop him from pontificating. He didn’t realize Hitler was encouraging Jews to leave Germany in the 1930’s, but still rambled on. Hell, he knows nothing about BBQ, but spoke like he did, and had to be slapped w/ information before he kept quiet. Canadians are usually much more jovial than this guy. I think it’s living in France in his formative years that caused his attitude problem. That’s where he learned about BBQ. No feces. LOL!
Nope David, it doesn’t wash.
Republicans hate Planned Parenthood.
Republicans love committee investigations.
Republicans hate abortions.
But there are no congressional committee investigations, nor have there been any congressional committee investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood abortions are paid for with federal funds.
Gotta be a reason, David, and it ain’t because Republicans don’t want to be too hard on Planned Parenthood.
And the only ideology that is being pushed around here is your ideology. Planned Parenthood’s purpose is women’s healthcare.
But you’re a guy with very strange ideas about healthcare, women, and voting rights so I don’t expect that anything I might say will have any impact on you. Best if you go after someone who has more patience than I.
Mike wrote: “But there are no congressional committee investigations, nor have there been any congressional committee investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood abortions are paid for with federal funds.”
Your information is incorrect, Mike. Three congressional committees have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood.
House Investigation into Planned Parenthood
http://www.gop.gov/solution_content/plannedparenthood/
——
Recent undercover videos featuring senior level Planned Parenthood officials admitting unethical and potentially illegal procedures should be of great concern to every America. The practices described in these videos are despicable, and Planned Parenthood should be forced to defend their content.
Three House Committees – Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Oversight – immediately launched an aggressive investigation of these videos. Learn more about the House’s ongoing work into the abhorrent practices of Planned Parenthood:
…
The House Judiciary Committee will continue to probe the Department of Justice for answers on any possible violations of federal laws, and possible lapses in enforcement of laws already preventing the practices of Planned Parenthood.
The House Judiciary Committee will continue its hearing series entitled, “Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining the Horrific Abortion Practices at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider.”
As videos continue to be released and briefings continue to occur, the committees will continue to evaluate what questions need to be asked and documents requested.
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee will announce details for a September hearing in the coming days.
On Thursday the E&C will hold a hearing, “Protecting Infants: Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Providers Who Violate the Law.” The Subcommittee will review two bills to strengthen enforcement against providers who violate the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
——
Mike wrote: “Planned Parenthood’s purpose is women’s healthcare.”
Not exactly true. From Planned Parenthood’s mission statement: “Planned Parenthood believes in the fundamental right of each individual, throughout the world, to manage his or her fertility…”
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission