She seems dim enough to sincerely misunderstand the etiquette of papal meet-n-greets. Her inaccuracy very well might have been an honest mistake in that specific regard.
We have enough other ill-intentioned nonsense on her part already, we can probably give her a pass on this one.
Excellent coverage in WaPo. Including this little snippet:
"On Friday, the Vatican said Davis was among “a number of guests” who were “invited by the Nuncio,” a church term for the ambassador, to greet the pope. “Very brief greetings,” Rosica told the Associated Press. “And in the pope’s characteristic kindness and warmth and hospitality, he shook people’s hands and gave them rosaries. We should understand it as that. In terms of why this person was invited, you have to ask those questions of the nunciature.”
“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family,” Rosica said.
From Evita, Rainbow Tour:
[Aide #2:]
More bad news from Rome; she met with the Pope
She only got a rosary, a kindly word
[Che:]
I wouldn’t say the Holy Father gave her the bird
But papal decorations, never a hope
Him, no, his people, yes. He’s the dang Pope, as Kim might say.
She’s dim enough to not understand the implications of anything she’s doing. She’s following the instructions of her handlers. It is Liberty Counsel and the professional gay haters who are in charge, and what they misunderstood was their ability to fleece the public for any length of time. But that should be no surprise: right wingers often operate under the mistaken assumption that everyone is as ignorant as those with whom they keep company.
That said, what dim bulb Davis is fully accountable for is her bigotry and hate. And personally I can find no way even under the most stretched of circumstances to associate the word “sincerely” with anything about Kim Davis.
And that’s why Pope Francis wouldn’t stay in the Papal Apartments. He’s much safer somewhere else
Oct 3 The Vatican dismissed a priest from his post in a Holy See office on Saturday after he told a newspaper he was gay and urged the Catholic Church to change its stance on homosexuality.
Monsignor Krzystof Charamsa was removed from his position at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s doctrinal arm where he had worked since 2003, a statement said.
Charamsa, 43, and a Polish theologian, announced he was gay and had a partner in a long interview with Italy’s Corriere della Sera newspaper on Saturday…he Vatican said Charamsa’s dismissal had nothing to do with his comments on his personal situation, which it said “merit respect”.
But it said giving the interview and the planned demonstration was “grave and irresponsible” given their timing on the eve of a synod of bishops who will discuss family issues, including how to reach out to gays.
It said his actions would subject the synod, which Pope Francis is due to open on Sunday, to “undue media pressure”.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/03/vatican-preist-gay-idUSL5N12307H20151003
that’s not a smock, that’s a SCHMATA!
You can tell when Kim Davis is lying, ';cause her lips are moving!!
Here is a less generous take on Kim Davis’ and Matt Staver’s “story” about meeting with the Pope.
He’s been said to be retiring in January, long predating this. Many of the American Bishops wish he’d go sooner.
Poisoned, it’s believed.
At least when Pope Francis says some of his best friends are gay, we know we can believe him.
Apparently, some initial reactions on this site (including my own) were a bit premature. The whole story sounds a lot less like an endorsement. Well, that teaches me. Nobody should have trusted Clerk Davies and her weaselly lawyers in the first place.
As for the dismissed gay priest: the main issue seems to be the lack of celibacy. Having a long term partner violates one of the seven sacraments, and it does not really matter what gender the partner is. A straight priest who’d have made it public that he has a long term female partner would have faced consequences as well. Going public is the red line, and I can somehow understand that the Vatican insists on its rules being equally applied. I would not have these rules, but I am not catholic, and the church can certainly define requirements for its priests, like celibacy. Unlike the Davies nonsense, this would really be a First Amendment case, if it were in the US.
Correct, and if a thousand year old disciplinary rule in the Western Church, aka the Latin, Roman Catholic were rescinded (unlike the below bishop ranked clergy of the Eastern Catholic and the Eastern Churches aka the Greek and Oriental Othodox who are allowed to be heterosexually married before taking orders) then, this would have been an issue.