Vatican spokesmen contradict Viganò’s account of meeting with Pope Francis about Kim Davis

Father Thomas Rosica with Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi during the Synod of Bishops in Rome, October 2015. (CNS/Paul Haring)Father Thomas Rosica with Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi during the Synod of Bishops in Rome, October 2015. (CNS/Paul Haring)

Father Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., and Federico Lombardi, S.J., former director of the Holy See Press Office, issued a statement on Sept. 2 that challenges Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s version of his meeting with Pope Francis in October 2015 to discuss his controversial encounter with Kim Davis. The statement contradicts Archbishop Viganò’s account of his meeting with the pope, in which he said Francis had never reproached him for organizing the meeting with Ms. Davis.

Father Rosica, C.E.O. of Salt and Light Media Foundation, has acted as Father Lombardi’s aide for English-language media.

Advertisement

Archbishop Viganò arranged the pope’s controversial meeting with Ms. Davis on Sept. 24, 2015, in Washington, D.C. The encounter created a media frenzy in the United States that threatened to overshadow the pope’s historic visit in September. Ms. Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, had been briefly jailed for refusing to sign the marriage licenses of homosexual couples seeking to register their marriages in the midst of a national debate in the United States about same-sex marriages.

The statement contradicts Archbishop Viganò’s account of his meeting with the pope, in which he said Francis had never reproached him for organizing the meeting with Ms. Davis.

The pope’s meeting with Ms. Davis raised many questions in U.S. media about the pope’s intentions and was viewed by social conservatives in the United States as a papal stamp of approval for Ms. Davis. The Vatican furiously sought to downplay the encounter, with Father Lombardi saying the meeting by no means indicated papal support for Davis and insisting that the only private audience Francis held in Washington was with his former student: a gay man and his partner.

According to Archbishop Viganò’s account, Pope Francis was so upset by what had happened that he asked Cardinal Parolin to summon the nuncio to Rome.

Archbishop Viganò wrote in a recent statement released to lifesitenews.com that in his hour-long meeting with Pope Francis on Oct. 9 “to my great surprise...the pope did not mention even once the audience with Davis!”

He added that immediately after his meeting with the pope, he phoned Cardinal Parolin and told him, “The pope was so good with me. Not a word of reproach, only praise for the success of his visit to the USA.”

At which point, according to Archbishop Viganò’s account, Cardinal Parolin replied, “‘It’s not possible because with me he was furious about you.’”

Father Rosica said the archbishop told them that he never intended to harm the pope with his idea to have Ms. Davis at the nunciature.

Father Lombardi and Father Rosica say Archbishop Viganò failed to mention in his account that he had invited them to meet with him in his Vatican apartment on the evening after his audience with Francis. At that time he seemed “shaken” and offered a very different version of what the pope said.

Father Rosica, who kept notes of the meeting, said the archbishop told them that he never intended to harm the pope with his idea to have Ms. Davis at the nunciature. When Father Rosica asked Archbishop Viganò if the visit had been arranged and approved by the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Conference at that time, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., and the cardinal archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, “He did not answer.” The question was relevant as it was widely rumored that the U.S. bishops had not approved the pope’s meeting with Ms. Davis.

Father Rosica quoted verbatim the former-nuncio as telling them (speaking in Italian): “The Holy Father in his paternal benevolence thanked me for his visit to the USA but also said that I had deceived him [in] bringing that woman to the nunciature.”

Archbishop Viganò added, “The pope told me: ‘You never told me that she had four husbands.’”

Father Lombardi confirmed Father Rosica’s record of the meeting as “reliable.”

Father Lombardi: “As nuncio, he should have known better about this situation.”

He recalled that Archbishop Viganò had spoken the night before the Davis meeting with Pope Francis and his collaborators and obtained their consensus. But to Father Lombardi’s mind this “did not detract from the responsibility of the initiative of the meeting with Kim Davis and the consequences were mainly of Viganò himself, who had evidently desired and prepared them.”

Father Lombardi commented, “As nuncio, he should have known better about this situation.”

Father Lombardi stated that the meeting between Pope Francis and Ms. Davis “was organized by the nuncio who inserted it in the context of the pope's many and quick greetings at his departure from the nunciature.”

He added, “This certainly did not allow the pope and his collaborators to realize the significance of this meeting.” The former Vatican spokesman said that it was for this reason that “I insisted on this context when I answered the questions that had been asked to me when the meeting had become public.”

Father Lombardi, who was then the Vatican press officer, observed that Archbishop Viganò “now affirms that he had made an agreement with Kim Davis that he did not speak of the meeting before the pope returned to Rome, but only afterwards.” He asked, “I wonder if this aspect—that the meeting would have been made public by Kim Davis after the trip, had been really discussed by Viganò with the pope's collaborators since this would have provoked many reactions”

He concludes, “It seems to me only that the meeting had been planned as being a private one with the pope for a person who was presented to him as worthy of appreciation, even if there was much discussion about her.”

Father Rosica reports that during the October 2015 meeting in Rome, Archbishop Viganò “expressed great concern that no media should know that he had been summoned to Rome to meet with the pope.”

“No one is to know when I am leaving on early Monday morning on a flight to the USA because I have an episcopal installation in a U.S. diocese.”

But, Father Rosica responded, “The media already knows your return flight.”

According to their statement, Fathers Lombardi and Rosica then showed him what the media had reported, and Father Rosica informed Archbishop Viganò that “a journalist has a tape recording of you or one of the monsignors at the nunciature who phoned Kim Davis at her hotel the evening before her meeting with the pope.”

Archbishop Viganò was shocked at this and even more so when Father Rosica played the recording of a person at the nunciature telling Ms. Davis: “A vehicle will pick you and your lawyer up at the hotel tomorrow morning and bring you to the nunciature. Change your hairstyle so people will not recognize you so quickly.”

According to Father Rosica, the archbishop told them “not to make any statements to the press without checking with the nunciature first,” and “when we left him, he seemed troubled and thanked us for our visit.”

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Francis Clinch
1 year ago

Now Is a good time for the Archbishop to quit stirring this pot.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

Good reporting. I would still like to see the written summary Vigano gave the pope and Parolin re Kim Davis, since this is still the memory of two men against that of another and these things can be open to interpretation years later. Kim Davis is now an outcast and there used to be a time when Pope Francis was not afraid of bad publicity by meeting an outcast. Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well who had many past husbands. But, that was before twitter. Glad to see the journalist work on this but it is a side story to the main event - the McCarrick affair.

J Jones
1 year ago

Yes, poor Kim Davis, a woman who violated the bible's teachings on marriage 6 times aand then used the Bible's teachings about marriage and the Constitution to violate Constitution.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

J - getting your boot in on this unworthy outcast. But, what does it mean to violate the Constitution, when the addition of homosexual sex marriages was only discovered in 2015 by 5 of the 9 Justices (Obergefell v. Hodges). It certainly was not the original intent or any intent up until 2015. Did Obama violate it in 2004 when he was in favor of civil unions when he said “Marriage is between a man and a woman,” during his Senate campaign? Did opponents of slavery violate the Constitution when they opposed the Dredd Scott ruling? This is a positivist understanding of what the US constitution means, which itself is unconstitutional.

J Jones
1 year ago

Oh, Tim, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court. Until there is another ruling, THE SUPREME COURT.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

Right - it's unconstitutional until the next ruling. What sound thinking.

J Jones
1 year ago

Tim, are you an American?

That is the way it works here in the U.S. Frustrating for all of us, I know, when SCOTUS doesn't rule the way we wish they would --- and don't worry, they are about to rule the way you would like them to on this topic and abortion and then that new ruling will define what is Constitutionally protected, whether I like it or not.

Reality and democracy are messy, Tim.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

J, are you rational? I know thinking is messy and strains some to the breaking point.

Vincent Couling
1 year ago

MSW over at NCR offers some really invaluable insights into this Vigano affair ... https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/vigan-s-latest-statement-part-concerted-campaign-attack-papacy ... some excerpts ...

"Viganò's latest statement part of concerted campaign to attack papacy. ...

The proper name for this kind of thing is "sandbag." After many people spent months deciding every moment, every venue, every text, every encounter of the papal trip, at the end of a dinner Viganò springs this idea on the pope: Let's have you meet with Davis. He then goes on to say that he explained to the pope who this woman was. And, the pope asked him to clear it with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, because the pope intuited there might be a political difficulty. Viganò says Parolin was asleep by the time he got to the hotel where he was staying and so, instead, he briefed the cardinal's two principal assistants, Archbishops Angelo Becciu and Paul Gallagher. They signed off. The meeting happened. Viganò goes on to rant about how all hell broke loose when the meeting became publicized.

Notice anything strange about the account? Viganò speaks about this proposed meeting with three non-Americans: the Argentine pope, the Sardinian sostituto and the British foreign minister. Wouldn't it have been wise to check in with an American prelate? Viganò did not mention it in this latest dossier of his, but the fact is that he had consulted with at least one U.S. prelate before the meeting with Davis took place, and he was urged not to do it. I did not know about the meeting until the story broke a few days after the pope had left the U.S. At that time, I spoke with Cardinal Donald Wuerl who, as Archbishop of Washington, had been intimately involved in the planning of every detail of the pope's time in the capital city. That conversation was on background but I have asked the cardinal's permission to put it on the record now given Viganò's latest statement, and he agreed to do so.

Back in 2015, when this all transpired, Wuerl told me then that Viganò had asked him about the advisability of a meeting between the pope and Davis and Wuerl had advised against it. Viganò also told Wuerl that he had asked Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, then-president of the U.S. bishops' conference, and that he also had advised against it. NCR has asked Kurtz to confirm this but has not received a response.

It should not surprise that Wuerl — and almost any American bishop — would advise against having the pope meet Davis. Viganò may think she was a "prisoner of conscience" but that misstates her case. ...

It should be obvious to discern why Viganò championed Davis then as now. His 11-page dossier was filled with anti-gay slurs and complaints about a "lavender mafia" that tried to do him in. I suspect the reason Pope Benedict XVI exiled him from Rome and Francis sacked him early on is because they saw what we can now all see: This is an ambitious, gossipy, mean-spirited little man.

This latest self-revealing dossier comes at the same time that Viganò's magnum opus of last week is falling apart. Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register, who played a key role in disseminating Viganò's original dossier, now appears to be realizing that perhaps he has been taken for a ride. Now Viganò admits his "memory isn't helping me know" as to whether his instructions were written or not. This from a man so precise? Now he says he doesn't know if the supposed strictures against McCarrick were communicated to Wuerl or not. Another source isn't sure if there was a decree or just a private suggestion that McCarrick keep a low profile.

For this, the pope should resign? The pope should dignify the charges of this man who seems incapable of telling the truth, get down in the mud with this score-settler, and why? Because Fr. Gerald Murray and some conservative Catholic women think Viganò is credible? This man whom we learned during Vatileaks lied about needing to stay in Rome to care for his brother, except that his brother was not in Rome but in Chicago, was not ill but healthy, and had not spoken with his archbishop brother for years. This man whom his sister now calls a "farabutto" or "scoundrel."

I have a better idea. Let's admit it was a huge mistake for Benedict to get rid of the headache Viganò was at the Vatican by making him America's headache, and let's thank Francis — the guy who actually sacked McCarrick — for preserving the dignity of the papacy by refusing to get into the Viganò gutter. And, let's recognize, too, that Viganò is part of a concerted campaign to attack Francis and everything he says must be seen in that distorting light. "

Tom More
1 year ago

Had the liberal media not learned of the meeting, the pope would have returned to Rome having met with two homosexual men and without being upset with having met with a woman who, God forbid, believes that marriage involves a relationship between one man and one woman. Instead of playing to the media, the pope should have the moral courage to say, "Vigano briefed me on the Davis meeting and I believe a person has to have strong moral convictions to go to jail instead of compromising one's religious beliefs." No one seems to want to address whether or not it was truly Christian to have met with her. Vigano would not have set up the meeting had he not believed that Jesus Christ himself would meet with her. What justification does Francis and his minions have for believing that Christ would have done otherwise.

Vincent Couling
1 year ago

Good heavens! " ... the pope would have returned to Rome having met ... with a woman who, God forbid, believes that marriage involves a relationship between one man and one woman." This woman married and divorced (a total of 4 marriages!), having the child of a different man while married to one, etc. Sure, who am I to judge, but goodness, the scriptures are pretty clear about Jesus talking about divorce and remarriage, but nowhere ... I repeat, NOWHERE ... does Jesus have anything to say about homosexuality. For Kim Davis to have judged gay men entering into civil marriage (the law of the land, the law she was supposed to uphold as a civil servant) on her so-called Christian principles ... all the while being an adulterer in the eyes of the Magisterium ... isn't that just a tad hypocritical? Nothing prevented her from leaving her job if she had such conscientious objection to the law of the land! Now that would have been putting principle before expediency! This sort of gives the lie to Thomas More's desire that the Pontiff should say "Vigano briefed me on the Davis meeting and I believe a person has to have strong moral convictions to go to jail instead of compromising one's religious beliefs." If one claims to have strong moral convictions, then one should apply those to one's own personal life before demanding this of others ... motes versus beams in eyes and all that.

I don't think that Pope Francis would object to meeting anyone for pastoral reasons ... but to have Vigano deceitfully use the Pope in this way to make a political Culture-Warrior statement is beneath contempt! No wonder Viagno's resignation was accepted so very promptly! That Vigano's case of sour grapes has led him to behave in such a despicable manner towards the Holy Father is beyond comprehension ... and that the ultra-conservatives would sanction such behaviour from a deceitful, mendacious bishop towards the Supreme Pontiff illustrates their partisan politicking for precisely what it is.

Jorge Rebasa
1 year ago

Vincent, it is really pathetic how Vigano acted as Nuncio, his orchestrating Davis, a smug hypocritical Pharissee, who was no Catholic and not even part of the American Catholic church, to be thrust before the Vicar of Christ. This had nothing to do with Catholicism but cultural wars which is why Vigano was removed as Nuncio. He had abdicated his christian salt. It is all clear now, as Pope Francis suggested to journalists, after a few days of investgations, that Vigano, Pentin, EWTN, Chaput, Burke and the usual suspects (e.g. imposters on these forums using fake names) have malformed consciences. They have struck like the serpent at the heel of the Vicar of Christ. And yet today the Pope continues hammering at these external ritualistic zealots for failing to visit widows, orphans and the most fragile of them all
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2018-09/pope-francis-angelus.html

Disconnect these conservative hypocrites from the internet and what would become of them? Nada. They are a big fat nothing. Clamging gong, noisy cymbal.

Our God reigns. It is better to stop even commenting on these satanic attacks on the Church as they only delight the Devil in dividing us due to his minions

Jong Ricafort
1 year ago

Guillermo Luaces
Very well said, I've been reading all your comment...oh my i'm a fan of yours precise attack on
those people who still believe Vigano's credibility. Pope Francis cannot be touch by satan and his human
cohorts, he is a Master in the Art of Spiritual War, remember how he uses the media strength to overturn all
this deception by calling it "fake news" a snake tactics of satan back in the garden of eden, where the first "fake news" was uttered and deceived Eve.
May God continue to bless your effort to defend the Pope & Church.
Godbless

Giorgio Battaglia
1 year ago

@Vincent In the same passages in which Christ talks about divorce and remarriage, scriptural teaching on marriage is reaffirmed by Him: "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" - Matthew 19:4-5 which makes it clear that marriage is only between a male and a female; Christ also condemns fornication so there is absolutely no way homosexual activity could be condoned by Him considering the fact that there is no such thing as "marital homosexual relations" thus making such perverted sexual acts always fornication anyways; as per Old and New Testament biblical teaching, such acts are also explicitly described as being abominable and worthy of death. If this bothers you and you feel that you can pick and choose, you are not Christian but an impostor.

Daniel Montiel
1 year ago

Watching you people pretend that civil marriage is the same as religious marriage / holy matrimony is almost as bad as your lie that someone who believes that civil marriage is the proper place to apply religious tests - in violation of the US Constitution, let's not forget.
Well, the *scariest* of your positions may be your pretense / assumption that Christ would eagerly or happily meet with someone using both their office and the name of Jesus to illegally discriminate against US Citizens. *sigh* You people do not do well when your nature gets pointed out, do you?

Jorge Rebasa
1 year ago

His sister, Rosanna, calls him a “scoundrel”, and his brother, Lorenzo, a Jesuit priest biblical scholar, calls him a “liar”.

“Rosanna si sente tradita dai due fratelli e va giù pesante: «Carlo Maria, quello lo sappiamo che è un farabutto”

Viganò e la casa in Svizzera: "Carlo Maria è un farabutto"
Il vescovo anti-Papa accusato dalla sorella in una telefonata

- Stefano Zurlo - Sab, 01/09/2018 - 15:41”
http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/vigan-e-casa-svizzera-carlo-maria-farabutto-1570323.html

wait for Charles Chaput and Raymond Burke to defend the “farabrutto”

Vincent Couling
1 year ago

It seems Vigano has long had a reputation of being "difficult" ... as reported in La Croix, "According to the Il Sismografo website, a whole section of the report on the Vatileaks affair, which was requested by Pope Benedict and transmitted under seal to his successor, deals precisely with Archbishop Viganò and certain lies contained in his letters to Benedict XVI." https://international.la-croix.com/news/the-true-the-false-and-the-blurry-in-archbishop-vigans-accusations/8320

Patrick Murtha
1 year ago

There are those so ready to say, What would Jesus do? And yet, with one point here, we know very clearly what Jesus did. In some of the comment, and, indeed in the article, there is criticism over the fact that the Nuncio asked the pope to meet a woman who had "four husbands." If the pope were offended by such a meeting, which, pray God, he was not, I say there lies a great irony. Did not Christ meet with the Samaritan woman who had "five husbands" and was not even married to man she was then living with? The fact is, Christ desired the salvation of souls, which would require the woman to abandon her own adultery, the person living in sin as a homosexual to abandon his sin as well. This I'm-scandalized attitude is a true hypocrisy. Let the pope rather say the same thing to the gay man, to the sodomites and to the pedophiles, as to the woman with four husbands, "Go and sin no more." That is Christ-like.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

Patrick - I agree. He could have inquired about her faith now, and counselled her to lead a more Christian life. The message "go and sin no more" would have been fine. He should have also counselled the gay couple with the same words.

It does seem that Vigano has been proven correct on one main point. He briefed several Cardinals and the Pope beforehand about the meeting with Kim Davis and received approval for the meeting. That was denied by many until now. There was regret later because of the political fall-out.

J Jones
1 year ago

Tim, be sure and drop Pope Francis a note that "the response 'go and sin no more' would have been fine".

Do you HEAR yourself?

Vincent Couling
1 year ago

Tim, you do your job well ... Vigano would be so very proud of you! Just enough truth (peppered with a hell of a lot of untruth) to make people uncertain!

Pope Francis explained the truth to Juan Carlos Cruz: "I didn't know who that woman was, and he snuck her in to say hello to me -- and of course they made a whole publicity out of it. And I was horrified and I fired that nuncio." Bringing documents during a horrendously pressurized Papal visit ... everyone tired from lack of sleep and non-stop engagements ... is the way a mischief-maker covers his foxy tracks. Vigano had already planned the whole thing ... the wily fox just needed to give a slyly benign cover for why the meeting with Francis should go ahead ... "According to Fathers Lombardi and Rosica's statement, Father Rosica informed Archbishop Viganò that “a journalist has a tape recording of you or one of the monsignors at the nunciature who phoned Kim Davis at her hotel the evening before her meeting with the pope.”

Archbishop Viganò was shocked at this and even more so when Father Rosica played the recording of a person at the nunciature telling Ms. Davis: “A vehicle will pick you and your lawyer up at the hotel tomorrow morning and bring you to the nunciature. Change your hairstyle so people will not recognize you so quickly.” "

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

Vincent - Pope Francis sees the left-wing as the gay wing, so the rest of the left has left, and we are left with the gay heresy. Fathers Rosica & Lombardi confirm the Pope Francis and other were debriefed about Kim Davis conscientious objection (the memo Vigano shared) but the pope was angered because Vigano didn't include her multiple divorce past. But, after initial denials, all now agree (NYT, and these witnesses) there was some briefing prior to the meeting, which contradicts the Cruz summary of a complete denial: "I didn't know who that woman was." Did Cruz lie or exaggerate this?

Dolores Pap
1 year ago

Tim, reading your many posts, it seems that your universe is consumed by hatred for the 'other' and though I am no longer a practicing Catholic because I can't stand the degree of hypocrisy, and sanctimonious parsing of the the bible to control/condemn women and the LGBT community, your attacks on the US Constitution/Supreme Court with your anti-gay slurs is astounding.
Do you remember that when JFK ran for the presidency, the first question that was asked of him was if he would take his orders from his Church, or would he honor the Constitution that is the bulwark of our nation?

Neither you, nor Kim Davis seem to accept that the rights of citizens, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, must be held paramount, even if they conflict with the 'privately' held religious beliefs..
And for Vigano to undermine the Pope, plus interject himself into US politics is just base, unbecoming, and does more damage to your church and its standings in the public eye..

J Jones
1 year ago

Patrick, you rely on one fact, removed from the relevant context with surgical precision.

Kim Davis's four husband's were disqualifying in this context ONLY because they are evidence that Ms Davis disregarded Biblical teachings with regard to her own 3 divorces and 4 marriages and relied on civil law to enact each of those Biblically condemned divorces and remarriages.

She then claimed devotion to Biblical teachings on marriage, devotion so profound that she used the Bible she had defied to deny others the Constitutionally-protected civil marriage SHE availed herself of 4 times in defiance of the same Bible teaching and using the same civil ceremony.

Kim Davis is NOT the woman at the well.

She is an opportunist and, when convenient, a Pharisee.

Patrick Murtha
1 year ago

J. Brookbank, the point that I was trying to reinforce was that the sinner is a sinner and needs to be called conversion. The scenario that is presented is that the Shepherd is angered or annoyed at meeting a woman who has been married and divorce multiple times--this being the excuse--and yet ready and willing to meet a person living in sodomy. Even in the article the writer seems to focus on the fact that Kim Davis had four husbands, as a reason for the pope not seeing her. It is not her hypocrisy, according to the reports, that raised the ire of the pontiff, but her multiple marriages.

I should add that it seems hypocritical that her multiple marriages should be even a concern when it was not so many months ago that writers and commentators on America and other Catholic sites, as well as in the Catholic hierarchy, were calling for "mercy" (permitting the reception of Communion, even) for those who were divorced and either remarried or co-habitating. Now is it not hypocrisy to call for such "mercy" for supposed Catholics who feel unwelcome in Churches because of their own adultery, but then to refuse the same "mercy" to a protestant who does not have the doctrine of the Catholic Church to show her the true Way of Salvation?

Regarding her being a pharisee, I can't make that judgment as you have. It would require me to have more knowledge and more authority than I do. But the difference between same-sex marriage and adultery (in this case, "marriage" after a divorce), is great. Same-sex marriage is opposed to the end of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children. Since two people of the same sex cannot procreate as natural biology prevents this, a so-called marriage is then opposed to nature. Now, while Christ makes it perfectly clear that a person who divorces and remarries commits adultery and thereby lives in mortal sin, the degree of the sin, by nature, is less since the coupling is between people of the opposite sex and thereby is natural, though still adultery. Both sins, again, are mortal but they vary in degree according to what is proper and is permitted by nature.

J Jones
1 year ago

Patrick, this is myopic.

The main story abd the underlying principle her lawyers were arguing was religious liberty. That is about conscientious objection. You only get away with that in the court of public opinion and, in mist lawsuits, if you can prove it is a deeply and consistently and long-held conviction regardless of self-interest as opposed to conditional, circumstantial and dependent on one's own or temporal interests.

Kim Davis unfortunately fails on all scores. Contrary to Tim's insistence, she is not unworthy of kindness, of forgiveness, of peace, of Mercy.

But she is simply not a victim of anyone other than her own lack of self-awareness, Vigano and the religious liberty lawyers and advocates who took advantage of her misguided zeal to be a religious warrior in a fight she had already ceded by her previous choices.

The attention to Kim Davis's four marriages and three divorces in THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT is due strictly and only to the reality that they revealed that her "I live by the Bible and will go to jail to protect my right to live by the Bible and not Caesar's law" war cry was conditional: it did not apply to HER and her 3 divorces and 3 marriages.

Had Kim Davis not appointed herself Defender of the Bible Against Caesar, her marriages and divorces would be 100% her business to address with her pastor and God, or not.

This is similar to the congressman in PA who used his legislative role to restrict access to abortion for American women AND asked his mistress to abort their pregnancy. He can't have it both ways and still be a credible pro-life voice. He just can't.

And neither could Kim Davis be a credible advocate for marruage defenders relying on religious conscientious objection.

It is really no more complicated than that, Patrick.

Vincent Couling
1 year ago

Oh, Patrick ... unlike Kim Davis, the Samaritan woman was not pretending to be all about valiantly defending the sanctity of marriage!

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

I note the Left did the same with Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick when she accused President Clinton of coerced sex and rape, or Norma McCorvey of Roe v. Wade fame, when she became Christian and por-life.

J Jones
1 year ago

The villification of those three women was wrong.

And their circumstances are not equivalent, Tim.

This is intellectually dishonest and it exploits the lives of those three women.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

J - as usual, you provide no supporting data on any of your comments.

J Jones
1 year ago

Broderick and Jones are victims of sexual assault and, in seeking justice for crimes against them, were publicly identified. Nothing they did or said or believed before or during or after they were victimized is relevant. They addressed the perpeteator and they sought justice and redress for crimes committed against them. They have no obligation to any persons other than themselves and the truth.

Jane Doe publicly renounced a previous choice in her personal medical care as immoral. She had the right to change her mind about the morality of her private medical choice and she had the right to publicly express that change in thinking and morality. She has no obligation to person other than herself and her morality.

Kim Davis became publicly known when, as a civil servant, she refused to do her job issuing marriage licenses to all eligible citizens.

She had an obligation to the public which employed her and to the state and federal law which defined her job and the limits of her power.

The courts and the governor of her state rejected her claim that she had the right to keep the job and, in its execution, prioritize personal obligations above her statutory obligations.

Unlike Broderick and Jones, she was not a victim of sexual assault or any other crime. Broderick and Jones committed no crime and they did not violate any law. They are not appropriate targets for criticism, judgment or blame. Victims are innocent of their victimization. Kim Davis did violate the law.

Jane Doe took legal action to obtain medical care from her physician and later rejected the morality of her legal medical care. She committed no crime and she broke no laws. Davis did violate the law.

Davis defied state and federal law because, so she claims, rejected as Biblically immoral a specific legal action, and it was discovered that she had repeatedly violated the same Biblical teachings which she claimed had justified her violation of federal laws prohibiting the denial of marriage certificates to legally eligible persons.

(Had this been about a conversion of heart about ALL marriages that violate biblical teachings, she would have immediately denounced her own divorces and remarriages and denied marriage certificates to all but first time heterosexual brides and grooms.)

Kim Davis is a victim of no one other than herself and the lawyers who exploited her and apparently did not forewarn her that she was not a credible candidate for what amounted
to a claim of conscientious objection and that, like the pro-life politician who asked his mistress to abort their pregnancy, she would be rejected as hypocritical and --- quite logically --- be rejected as an unfit leader for the cause.

Apples and asphalt, Tim. You mixed apples and asphalt. It is intellectually dishonest and rhetorical, partisan nonsense.

It was a "gotcha" game you hoped would snare "the left", that amorphous catch-all Boogeyman in your comments here. The only one "gotten" was you for having created a blatant false equivalence.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

J - this is much better. I agree with you that the victims of Bill Clinton are in a different category. They are more like the #MeToo complainers. Impressed of your defense of them.

J Jones
1 year ago

So much for boogeymen of "the left", Tim.

You just demonstrated one of the problems with your approach in communicating here, Tim.

You make huge assumptions and leaps of logic.

You apparently assumed that a Catholic who understands that 1) Kim Davis was not a credible religious liberty conscientious objector and 2) that abusive clerics, not gay priests, are the problem would also take sides with Bill Clinton --- a pro choice, LGBT rights supporting Democratic president --- over women who were victims of his harassment, assault and humiliation.

AND 100% supportive of Jane Doe in her changing personal decisions and morality. That is what "pro-choice" means. It is not pro-abortion or anti-abortion and, for mist pro-choice people I know the position re: abortion is "keep it safe, legal and RARE".

More power to Jane Doe and HER control of HER body and HER morality and HER voice. She was never and is not an appropriate target for criticism or harassment.

YOU are the ideologue here, Tim.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

J - you are the ideologue. I comment on all things Catholic on this site, from abortion, to medical science, to the real presence, to interpretation of scripture, to the history of the Church, to magisterial authority... You are only around when it involves sex.

J Jones
1 year ago

Tim, I am a cradle Catholic, once a serious discerner of religious life, a longtime Catholic Worker, a straight celibate woman (see what I mean about assumptions based on your own imaginings?). I understand how much worldwide suffering the Church's teachings on sexuality have caused and continue to cause and, in this, I am like most American Catholics, huge numbers of Catholic sisters, brother's and priests and leaders as well as much of the world. I have very few concerns with my Church otherwise (well, there is that One True Faith nonsensical arrogance; the "His Excellency" pseudoroyal obnoxious arrogance of the Magistereum; the wealth of the hierarchy and the institution which contributes to the propensity of Catholic dishonest and/or naive insistence that the Church and the peole in the pews are the primary funders of Catholic social services, etc, when in fact the American people, the majority of whom are not Catholic, fund most Catholic services with tax dollars); I read the articles and comments here regularly; i do not see bigotry or harm in most Catholic debate; I engage in dialogue in real life not in comment boxes except for this one area in which the Church is responsible for great harm in the world.
I respond in the comments to people like you who I believe have good intentions but are mobilizing to use the internet in manipulative, misleading, logic-leaping, data-misusing, narriwly- and ideologically- sourced citations and rhetoric and, thus, you do harm. I challenge the Church and peoole like you because of the harm done to Catholics and non-Catholics alike the world over on daily basis by the teachings and the lockstep advovacy of Catholics like you.

Have a good day, Tim.

The world is far more complex than you would have it ---- much more both/and rather than either/or (and that is written into very core of our faith in the paradox of Jesus as fully God and fully man).

Again, have a good day.

Tim O'Leary
1 year ago

"well, there is that One True Faith nonsensical arrogance" - That Catholic cradle is rocking right off the bark of Peter.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (Jn 14:6). And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:17-19).

J Jones
1 year ago

Peace to you, Tim.

Henry Brown
1 year ago

That the Pope met with sinners should not shock anyone as we are all sinners
in thought, word and deed.

What I find surprising is that the vitriol is directed at Kim Davis and Vigano
but nothing at the two men who carry out activities not condoned by the Bible

- how dare Kim meet with the Pope !!!!!!
- nice of the Pope to meet with the two men.

The Pope should meet with all and any, sinners and saints.

I will leave it to the righteous among you to explain.

Mary Burke
1 year ago

Aren't we oppose gay 'marriage' ? He should have been honoured to meet with her! We need to oppose this for the sake of the children, they should never be placed with 2 men.... its tooooooo weird, just saying;)

Giorgio Battaglia
1 year ago

@Mary Burke Not only weird but also an abominable sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

Macey J Conrad
1 year ago

Contact Wilson today for any hacking Issues.
He helped me to get into my husband's phone remotely and he helped me to gain justice to my husband's infidelity activities. He is professional and nice hacker to work with ...Contact him on his website for hire or to know more about his services

www. hackingmaster. org

Advertisement

The latest from america

Ciaran Freeman spent last summer, after his year as an O’Hare fellow at America Media, combing through movies about Catholic schools and ranking them. The findings were published here. Since then, readers have written in to let Mr. Freeman know what films he overlooked in his top-10 ranking.
Our readersSeptember 13, 2019
I had never truly experienced what representation in media felt like until I watched Hulu’s “Ramy.”
Mansur ShaheenSeptember 13, 2019
Photo: AP/America
Published in 1953, the children’s book can act a parable for coming to grips with climate change.
Christopher PramukSeptember 13, 2019