Pope does not support Kim Davis

[thereselittleflower]

Guys, really? Does no one bother to read what they are quoting?

Now, the Vatican has told the media that his meeting with Davis didn’t act as an endorsement. Davis reportedly visited at the invitation of the Vatican ambassador, but spokesman Federico Lombardi explained, “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.” Lombardi said the Vatican felt the need to “clarify” what had happened.

 

He can't possibly know of all the particular details and aspects of her particular situation.  He can't endorse something he doesn't have intimate enough knowledge of.  That would be a supremely stupid thing to do. So the vatican official clarifies what didn't happen in the meeting.

And then the author takes what CBS reported from some unknown, unnamed insider, which are often wrong, as the gospel truth? 

So instead of actually acknowledging the Pope didn't do something he could not do because of LACK of information,  the author spins a tale not supported by actual facts but rather hearsay, conjecture and bigotry?    

This is plain silliness.

Has everyone forgotten the Pope's words on the plane AFTER he met with Kim Davis, supporting EVERYONE'S right to not be coerced to act contrary to their consciences?

 

 

The Pope doesn't have to know every Intimate detail but he is capable of knowing the overall story.   But this is not about what he endorses.   It's the fact that he met with her and lots of people don't like it and so he is trying to save face, by claiming he was manipulated into going, which is a crock.   Either way you slice the story, he is liar.

Shiloh,  bless you.   There is no proof he ever claimed he was manipulated into going.

 

 

That's what the Vatican is claiming.  I assume they have his blessing.  They are claiming  he was exploited in a meeting that should have never happened and that he does not endorse what she did and her opposition to gay marriage.    It's all about face saving, because at the end of the day he is just another Leftist communist/Marxist wearing religious garb.   He is a liar and a Leftist.  Kind of goes together.

No shiloh, that is not what the Vatican is claiming according to that article.   I quoted what the Vatican said according to this article.  The Vatican did not say he was exploited.

What you are referring to is something ELSE the article claimed from some supposed insider reported by CBS, which has no actual evidence to back it up.   It is hearsay - and in a court of law would be tossed out for lack of evidence.

Being quick to believe the worst in others does not exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Steve_S]

Guys, really? Does no one bother to read what they are quoting?

Now, the Vatican has told the media that his meeting with Davis didn’t act as an endorsement. Davis reportedly visited at the invitation of the Vatican ambassador, but spokesman Federico Lombardi explained, “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.” Lombardi said the Vatican felt the need to “clarify” what had happened.

 

He can't possibly know of all the particular details and aspects of her particular situation.  He can't endorse something he doesn't have intimate enough knowledge of.  That would be a supremely stupid thing to do. So the vatican official clarifies what didn't happen in the meeting.

And then the author takes what CBS reported from some unknown, unnamed insider, which are often wrong, as the gospel truth? 

So instead of actually acknowledging the Pope didn't do something he could not do because of LACK of information,  the author spins a tale not supported by actual facts but rather hearsay, conjecture and bigotry?    

This is plain silliness.

Has everyone forgotten the Pope's words on the plane AFTER he met with Kim Davis, supporting EVERYONE'S right to not be coerced to act contrary to their consciences?

 

 

The Pope doesn't have to know every Intimate detail but he is capable of knowing the overall story.   But this is not about what he endorses.   It's the fact that he met with her and lots of people don't like it and so he is trying to save face, by claiming he was manipulated into going, which is a crock.   Either way you slice the story, he is liar.

Shiloh,  bless you.   There is no proof he ever claimed he was manipulated into going.

 

 

That's what the Vatican is claiming.  I assume they have his blessing.  They are claiming  he was exploited in a meeting that should have never happened and that he does not endorse what she did and her opposition to gay marriage.    It's all about face saving, because at the end of the day he is just another Leftist communist/Marxist wearing religious garb.   He is a liar and a Leftist.  Kind of goes together.

No shiloh, that is not what the Vatican is claiming according to that article.   I quoted what the Vatican said according to this article.  The Vatican did not say he was exploited.

What you are referring to is something ELSE the article claimed from some supposed insider reported by CBS, which has no actual evidence to back it up.   It is hearsay - and in a court of law would be tossed out for lack of evidence.

Being quick to believe the worst in others does not exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

I just read about 15 stories on this.

Firstly, it was a vatican advisor that tweeted that the pope was "exploited." They did not name him, but this is across several stories on several news sites, both liberal and conservative, including mainstream and non-mainstream. I'd say it's safe to assume that this was confirmed.

Secondly, a lot of the language you see in the statement from the vatican is clear political doublespeak. The message is that they are backing away from the issue. There is simply no doubt about this, particularly in light of the fact that they felt the need to say that, no, kim davis did not get a "private audience" with the pope, the only private audience that the pope gave anyone was with a "gay ex student". Why would they disclose that the student was gay? There is a blatantly obvious political bent to this. It should not be like pulling teeth to get the supposed "leader of the church" on earth to come out and condemn something like gay marriage as unequivocally sinful. Something is wrong with that in the first place. It is just ridiculous to me.

[thereselittleflower]

Guys, really? Does no one bother to read what they are quoting?

Now, the Vatican has told the media that his meeting with Davis didn’t act as an endorsement. Davis reportedly visited at the invitation of the Vatican ambassador, but spokesman Federico Lombardi explained, “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.” Lombardi said the Vatican felt the need to “clarify” what had happened.

 

He can't possibly know of all the particular details and aspects of her particular situation.  He can't endorse something he doesn't have intimate enough knowledge of.  That would be a supremely stupid thing to do. So the vatican official clarifies what didn't happen in the meeting.

And then the author takes what CBS reported from some unknown, unnamed insider, which are often wrong, as the gospel truth? 

So instead of actually acknowledging the Pope didn't do something he could not do because of LACK of information,  the author spins a tale not supported by actual facts but rather hearsay, conjecture and bigotry?    

This is plain silliness.

Has everyone forgotten the Pope's words on the plane AFTER he met with Kim Davis, supporting EVERYONE'S right to not be coerced to act contrary to their consciences?

 

 

The Pope doesn't have to know every Intimate detail but he is capable of knowing the overall story.   But this is not about what he endorses.   It's the fact that he met with her and lots of people don't like it and so he is trying to save face, by claiming he was manipulated into going, which is a crock.   Either way you slice the story, he is liar.

Shiloh,  bless you.   There is no proof he ever claimed he was manipulated into going.

 

 

That's what the Vatican is claiming.  I assume they have his blessing.  They are claiming  he was exploited in a meeting that should have never happened and that he does not endorse what she did and her opposition to gay marriage.    It's all about face saving, because at the end of the day he is just another Leftist communist/Marxist wearing religious garb.   He is a liar and a Leftist.  Kind of goes together.

No shiloh, that is not what the Vatican is claiming according to that article.   I quoted what the Vatican said according to this article.  The Vatican did not say he was exploited.

What you are referring to is something ELSE the article claimed from some supposed insider reported by CBS, which has no actual evidence to back it up.   It is hearsay - and in a court of law would be tossed out for lack of evidence.

Being quick to believe the worst in others does not exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

 

I just read about 15 stories on this.

Firstly, it was a vatican advisor that tweeted that the pope was "exploited." They did not name him, but this is across several stories on several news sites, both liberal and conservative, including mainstream and non-mainstream. I'd say it's safe to assume that this was confirmed.

Secondly, a lot of the language you see in the statement from the vatican is clear political doublespeak. The message is that they are backing away from the issue. There is simply no doubt about this, particularly in light of the fact that they felt the need to say that, no, kim davis did not get a "private audience" with the pope, the only private audience that the pope gave anyone was with a "gay ex student". Why would they disclose that the student was gay? There is a blatantly obvious political bent to this. It should not be like pulling teeth to get the supposed "leader of the church" on earth to come out and condemn something like gay marriage as unequivocally sinful. Something is wrong with that in the first place. It is just ridiculous to me.

Steve - a tweet from an individual is not an official communication of the Vatican.   There is no evidence that what was said is indeed true.

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[thereselittleflower]

The substance of the meeting with Kim Davis was not a private audience with the Pope:

“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,” he said.

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/vatican-source-pope-blindsided-by-meeting-with-controversial-kentucky-clerk/

 

This is all much ado about nothing.

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Steve_S]

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

It came from a vatican official, a direct advisor to the pope. This wasn't the janitor. In that way it is not gossip. Social media is an effective means of communication that many, many officials make use of to disseminate information in a way that gets out the message but gives them the sort of cover that allows the argument you are making. This statement, coupled with them obviously backing away from the meeting officially, is a pretty clear denunciation of kim davis. They could've qualified this. They could've also denied the reporting on the tweet, but they did not.

[thereselittleflower]

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

It came from a vatican official, a direct advisor to the pope. This wasn't the janitor. In that way it is not gossip. Social media is an effective means of communication that many, many officials make use of to disseminate information in a way that gets out the message but gives them the sort of cover that allows the argument you are making. This statement, coupled with them obviously backing away from the meeting officially, is a pretty clear denunciation of kim davis. They could've qualified this. They could've also denied the reporting on the tweet, but they did not.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

There was NO OFFICIAL meeting with Kim Davis.    She was simply one among many greeting the Pope as he left.  She had no private audience with the Pope, they did not discuss her situation.  He merely greeted her.

There was nothing secret about this meeting along with several dozen other people, contrary to what's been claimed in this thread.  People have tried to make it something it was not.  The Vatican is clarifying.   Some in the vatican believe she should not have been invited to greet the Pope before he left because of  how others would try to misuse it, making it into something its not.   Some believe it was orchestrated without the Pope's knowledge.

That is the context.

.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Steve_S]

The substance of the meeting with Kim Davis was not a private audience with the Pope:

“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,” he said.

This is all much ado about nothing

Much ado about nothing indeed therese:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/pope-gay-washington/

Selected quotes from the story, which I did read in its entirety:

"Yayo Grassi, an openly gay man, brought his partner, Iwan Bagus, as well several other friends to the Vatican Embassy on September 23 for a brief visit with the Pope. A video of the meeting shows Grassi and Francis greeting each other with a warm hug."

 

"That was me," Grassi said.

Grassi, who is 67, added that he is willing to talk about his private moment with the pontiff because he was upset about media coverage of the Pope's meeting with Davis.

"I want to show the truth of who Pope Francis is," he said."

 

Grassi said the Pope has long known that he is gay, but has never condemned his sexuality or his same-sex relationship. In the video, Francis says he recalls meeting Grassi's boyfriend in Rome.

"He has never been judgmental," Grassi said. "He has never said anything negative."

[Steve_S]

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

It came from a vatican official, a direct advisor to the pope. This wasn't the janitor. In that way it is not gossip. Social media is an effective means of communication that many, many officials make use of to disseminate information in a way that gets out the message but gives them the sort of cover that allows the argument you are making. This statement, coupled with them obviously backing away from the meeting officially, is a pretty clear denunciation of kim davis. They could've qualified this. They could've also denied the reporting on the tweet, but they did not.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

There was NO OFFICIAL meeting with Kim Davis.    She was simply one among many greeting the Pope as he left.  She had no private audience with the Pope, they did not discuss her situation.  He merely greeted her.

There was nothing secret about this meeting along with several dozen other people, contrary to what's been claimed in this thread.  People have tried to make it something it was not.  The Vatican is clarifying.   Some in the vatican believe she should not have been invited to greet the Pope before he left because of  how others would try to misuse it, making it into something its not.   Some believe it was orchestrated without the Pope's knowledge.

That is the context.

Davis and her attorney, as far as I have read, both claim the meeting was private. Are they lying?

[thereselittleflower]

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

It came from a vatican official, a direct advisor to the pope. This wasn't the janitor. In that way it is not gossip. Social media is an effective means of communication that many, many officials make use of to disseminate information in a way that gets out the message but gives them the sort of cover that allows the argument you are making. This statement, coupled with them obviously backing away from the meeting officially, is a pretty clear denunciation of kim davis. They could've qualified this. They could've also denied the reporting on the tweet, but they did not.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

There was NO OFFICIAL meeting with Kim Davis.    She was simply one among many greeting the Pope as he left.  She had no private audience with the Pope, they did not discuss her situation.  He merely greeted her.

There was nothing secret about this meeting along with several dozen other people, contrary to what's been claimed in this thread.  People have tried to make it something it was not.  The Vatican is clarifying.   Some in the vatican believe she should not have been invited to greet the Pope before he left because of  how others would try to misuse it, making it into something its not.   Some believe it was orchestrated without the Pope's knowledge.

That is the context.

Davis and her attorney, as far as I have read, both claim the meeting was private. Are they lying?

Perhaps?  Perhaps not?

Can you link?

EDITED to add

 

I found a link from npr that says they had a 15 min meeting.   But it is described as taking each other's hand and giving each other a hug.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/30/444671535/kim-davis-and-pope-francis-reportedly-had-a-private-meeting-in-dc

 

Edited October 3, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[Steve_S]

It's gossip and nothing more.

Until the Vatican itself makes such a statement, it is an unfounded claim.

People seem very eager to grab hold of gossip that fits their preconceived ideas.

It came from a vatican official, a direct advisor to the pope. This wasn't the janitor. In that way it is not gossip. Social media is an effective means of communication that many, many officials make use of to disseminate information in a way that gets out the message but gives them the sort of cover that allows the argument you are making. This statement, coupled with them obviously backing away from the meeting officially, is a pretty clear denunciation of kim davis. They could've qualified this. They could've also denied the reporting on the tweet, but they did not.

I think you're missing the point entirely.

There was NO OFFICIAL meeting with Kim Davis.    She was simply one among many greeting the Pope as he left.  She had no private audience with the Pope, they did not discuss her situation.  He merely greeted her.

There was nothing secret about this meeting along with several dozen other people, contrary to what's been claimed in this thread.  People have tried to make it something it was not.  The Vatican is clarifying.   Some in the vatican believe she should not have been invited to greet the Pope before he left because of  how others would try to misuse it, making it into something its not.   Some believe it was orchestrated without the Pope's knowledge.

That is the context.

Davis and her attorney, as far as I have read, both claim the meeting was private. Are they lying?

Perhaps so.

Can you link?

http://www.people.com/article/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting-vatican-private-support

"Kim and Joe Davis were picked up by security at the hotel … and driven to the Vatican Embassy," lawyers said in the statement. "Kim and Joe Davis waited for a private meeting with the pope. There were no other people in the room."