It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘Pope Francis Thanked Me for My Courage’

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
LGBT Catholics 'Disappointed,' Fearful After Pope Francis Met Kim Davis



Activists who represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics tell The Advocate they are concerned about now-confirmed reports of a meeting between Pope Francis and antigay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, fearing that such a meeting could set back what little support there is for the disenfranchised faithful.

"The news that Pope Francis met with Kim Davis while failing to respond to repeated requests for dialogue with LGBT Catholics and their families will be deeply disappointing to many Catholics, gay, trans, and straight alike," says Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, in an email to The Advocate.

"It put the weight of the Vatican behind the US Catholic bishops’ claims of victimization, and supports those who want to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to exercise their civil rights.

www.advocate.com...


Whether you agree with Kim Davis or not (I don't by the way) what she did was to not carry out an activity that she should have and it was not an activity she would carry out in a religious capacity. If the Pope did meet her and if he did agree with her standing up for her own beliefs is neither here nor there to anyone - doesn't mean she shouldn't be fired as she refuses to carry out a legal activity that is required of her based on her job responsibilities. I see nothing to suggest the Pope has said she shouldn't face whatever the appropriate discipline would be for her not carrying out her duties as defined in her employment contract.

Should her job have a caveat where those activities can be declined due to personal beliefs? Different question, but I'm not sure the LGBT community have any real voice in this.




posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


From your link:

Most of all, despite what Ms. Davis said, a meeting with the pope does not “kind of validate everything.” Again, the pope meets with many people, some of whom he may know well, others of whom may be introduced to him as a reward for long service, and perhaps others who will use a meeting to make a political point. Meeting with the pope is a great honor, but it does not betoken a blanket blessing on “everything” one does. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked “Ted.”

It's been fun reading these past few days all the articles written by people on both the right and the left who either feel all squirmy and uncomfortable about admiring this the pope as much as they do - or laughing at that discomfort and calling the progressives that like him hypocrites

Honest to Betsy - he's the Pope. Anyone that doesn't understand what that actually means is deluding themselves

You know Annee - I think it's interesting how much we all call for tolerance and understanding but can't accept that there are things that actually require tolerating and understanding from all of us

I have my own ideas about Francis. I genuinely like and respect the man - but I don't actually know him. I seriously doubt I'll ever have the chance to catch him alone over a glass or two of nice red wine and ask him what he really thinks about certain things. But, how fun would that be? :-)

I imagine that it's possible that the pope gave her an attaboy for her unshakable belief and rigid stance against gayness - or he just admired her for her Joan of Arcness. I'm not sure she doesn't have that coming

I don't agree with Ms. Davis - but I've been watching these past weeks how everyone has piled on - attacked everything about her - including her looks

Before the law was passed - we were unsure how this would go - this was huge for a lot of people. Huge

We won. Looking at it from the other side it now seems like it was inevitable

There comes a point when you see people (or a person) circling their wagons. We're in a position and we have plenty of time to think, and decide - do we really need to set the whole thing on fire?


edit on 10/1/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

My issue is there are thousands of Catholics who are deserving of an audience with the leader of their faith. She is not.

The Pope refused to meet with any LGBT Catholic group.

But, thought it OK to meet with, basically a criminal, who has stomped on the oath she took to uphold the Constitution?

As far as her not knowing gay marriage was coming, she's held this job for only about a year. She already had her own plan in motion. She halted ALL marriages the day of the ruling.

Her scum lawyer is using publicity stunts. It has been suggested that some body knew somebody, who knew somebody that got her in. I personally don't believe she was reached out to.

No one is taking away her religious freedom, she can believe whatever she wants. More then one judge has declared she is not "burdened" as her job is only to verify clerical information.

The only people supporting her are the extreme right Fundies. Catholics are not. Read some of the Catholic blogs.

This has triggered an international crap storm. It isn't just me.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee



My issue is there are thousands of Catholics who are deserving of an audience with the keader of their faith.


Her folks are Catholic I believe - not that that has anything to do with it - maybe :-)

Pope Francis doesn't owe America anything - he has his own agenda. We can agree with it or not - but the people he chose to meet with are a very varied group, and I imagine he and his crew chose them for reasons that have nothing to do with placating any political groups here in the USA

Francis made a statement earlier on in his papacy:

“If someone is gay and searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Two years ago Tuesday, Pope Francis uttered these words, sending shockwaves throughout the Catholic Church and the world.


Which prompted this headline:
The Pope Francis Statement That Changed the Church on LGBT Issues

I know people were expecting more. What the pope actually did with that one simple statement is impressive. He can't change the church over night - but in a way he did. We won't see the results of that change immediately

The Catholic church, the Protestants - Islam - none of this is going to change overnight. The religions are a little bit like the Ents I think :-)


No one is taking away her religious freedom, she can believe whatever she wants. More then one judge has declared she is not "burdened" as her job is only to verify clerical information.


All true. She's done her time in jail - felt the wrath of an enormous opposition - been more or less abandoned by her own people

I get why it pisses people off. What is it you think Francis sees in her?

edit on 10/1/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

. . . . but the people he chose to meet with are a very varied group, and I imagine he and his crew chose them for reasons that have nothing to do with placating any political groups here in the USA



My mother was Cathoilic too. My integrity would stop me from "using" the Pope.

I don't believe for one second the Pope chose to meet Kim.

I think her scum lawyer weasled his way in through connections and is now using it as the publicity stunt he had intended.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
She's done her time in jail -


Her altering already issued marriage licenses and interfering with the other clerks doing a job ordered by the court has not been addressed yet.

Condition of her release was not to interfere.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee



I think her scum lawyer weasled his way in through connections and is now using it as the publicity stunt he had intended.


I think her scum lawyer does not actually have that kind of influence - neither do any of his connections

But if I'm wrong - I would seriously love to hear that story

:-)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Annee



I think her scum lawyer weasled his way in through connections and is now using it as the publicity stunt he had intended.


I think her scum lawyer does not actually have that kind of influence - neither do any of his connections

But if I'm wrong - I would seriously love to hear that story

:-)


Oh, I think the Family Value people definitely have connections and pull.

None of them are so saintly behind the scene.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


None of them are so saintly behind the scene.

No doubt about that - but this is the pope, the papacy - and the Catholic church...

I'm pretty sure Francis is not afraid of them - or any kind of crapstorm

In fact - I think he's pretty much looking to cause a few crapstorms :-)

I understand why you're angry

I think you're missing my point - but my point isn't that important in the grander scheme of things. From here on out - the fight against the fundies is going to be on other fronts - this one is done. Kim Davis is not a threat to anyone - she's just a nuisance

And a person



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

I understand why you're angry



Probably not.

It's more like someone undeserving cut in line because of connections.

Who else got cut because of this publicity stunt?

It's pretty much backfired so, in a way, it's worked out IMO.

Also: I'm a major supporter of separation of church and state. That alone gives me reason.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


Who else got cut because of this publicity stunt?


You don't actually know that it's a publicity stunt

I know - it's infuriating :-)


Also: I'm a major supporter of separation of church and state. That alone gives me reason.


Me too - what's that got to do with who the Pope sees on his own time?



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

You don't actually know that it's a publicity stunt



"Private" meeting --- immediately announced in the media (after Pope got on plane) ---- by Kim's lawyer.

Following Peru hoax.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Condition of her release was not to interfere.


I was real careful to note this at the time. Her release wasn't actually conditional. Bunning ordered her not to interfere. She neither agreed nor disagreed. She was released because the 4 plaintiff couples in the lawsuit got their licenses while she was in the pokey. The contempt order was lifted. The judge pretty much HAD to let her go.

Most likely, when the legislature meets in January, they'll make special provisions to declare all the licenses issued in the interim legal, even if they aren't exactly legal under current law. And they'll also detail accommodations for religious objections in the future. If that's how Kentucky wants to handle it, that's within their rights and fine with me.

As far as how the meeting between the pope and Kim Davis was arranged, I don't think it was the pope's idea. The thought is laughable. And the Family Values people have some pull, but not that much. More likely, the same American bishops, who have been trying to sell the idea of "Christian Persecution" in this country for years (Obamacare contraception, etc.), arranged the meeting for political purposes. The pope probably didn't have much of an idea about who Kim Davis is. It's unfortunate, though, because he apparently pissed off a lit of LGBT folks by having a private meeting with religious right's "American Darling". Just my take on the situation.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Annee
Condition of her release was not to interfere.


Her release wasn't actually conditional. Bunning ordered her not to interfere. She neither agreed nor disagreed. She was released because the 4 plaintiff couples in the lawsuit got their licenses while she was in the pokey. The contempt order was lifted. The judge pretty much HAD to let her go.


Yes, I kinda know that. You know how I simplify.

She was ordered not to interfere. She did not follow the order, but she never actually agreed to. However, she is still in violation by her actions.

I'm sure things are in the works to legally take care of the situation in January. I think "they" are just trying to ignore her til then.

I always appreciate you coming in with the correct details.


Correct me anytime.


edit on 1-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
More likely, the same American bishops, who have been trying to sell the idea of "Christian Persecution" in this country for years (Obamacare contraception, etc.), arranged the meeting for political purposes. The pope probably didn't have much of an idea about who Kim Davis is. It's unfortunate, though, because he apparently pissed off a lit of LGBT folks by having a private meeting with religious right's "American Darling". Just my take on the situation.


Yes.

In my various readings it was suggested connections to an American Bishop.

I don't believe for a second, the Pope himself, reached out to her. But, the damage is done.

And her scum lawyer has no scruples.

Comments "across the board" on various sites are mostly negative.

It seems the major issue is: it sends the wrong message.




edit on 1-10-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Too funny listening to some of you.

The Pope was right, she was right to stand up for her deeply held beliefs. Even though after reading up on all of it, I'm not fully sure of her true intentions.

The funny thing is this is a no win situation as is, somebodies rights are going to be trampled, some of you are just fine with it as long your sides rights aren't, and the other sides are. I've been advocating for a way to preserve everyone's, but so many want instant gratification, you act like a few more months to sort it out is a big deal. Our governments federal and local are such clusterfu#s they can't even get together like adults and hash this thing out, pretty sad.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: EverydayInVA
. . . some of you are just fine with it as long your sides rights aren't, and the other sides are.


She has the right to her belief. No one disputes that.

She is not "burdened" as her job is only to verify clerical information. Exactly the same as before.

She took an oath to abide by the Constitution.

What she is doing is denying other people's rights, by forcing her religion on them.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Hoax story. Pope did not meet Kim Davis.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Hoax story. Pope did not meet Kim Davis.



posted on Oct, 1 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logman
Hoax story. Pope did not meet Kim Davis.


Actually, it appears to be true.




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join