Pope Francis Brief Meeting with Kentucky’s Court Clerk is Proof of a Bigger Issue
Some people are visibly upset to learn that Pope Francis met with Kentucky’s Court Clerk Kim Davis and if what they wish to think that meant is what it really is then yes, they have a point. Those appearing to be on the other side of the debate also have their own ideas what that meant and to hear them tell it, one could see even more clearly why those who listen to Pope Francis speak of all as God’s children and his admonition that we should treat others as we wish to be treated are upset but all this leads us to much ignored and bigger question. To whom does opposition to Pope Francis meeting with anyone truly serves.
According to an article titled “Vatican Details Pope's Meeting With Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis” written by Bill Chappell for NPR.org, it is reported that “responding to a flood of interest in the surprise revelation that Pope Francis met with controversial county clerk Kim Davis, the Vatican says the event shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of all of Davis' views. Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Rowan County, Ky. News of the private meeting surfaced days after Francis and Davis met at the Vatican embassy, opening a new prism through which to view a papal visit that had focused on issues such as climate change and immigration” and apparently this is all either side needed to hear but what seems to escape so many are the particulars of that meeting and how it came to be. These concerns are also addressed in the same article but the question remain will those who are so outraged read any further or believe what else exist. You see, for some, it is better to remain ignorant of the whole story so that your anger will appear more justified.
The article goes on to report that “acknowledging that the meeting has "continued to provoke comments and discussion," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi addressed the topic Friday, expanding on his earlier refusal to provide details. Here's Lombardi's full statement, which was released in both English and Italian:
"The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion. In order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired I am able to clarify the following points:
"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. "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."
Davis, being one of "several dozen" people the pope met at the end of his visit to Washington, D.C., the Vatican says was brought to this meeting not by Pope Francis himself but through the Nunciature Office which means they chose to have her meet him for whatever reason they felt made sense to them. Now whether it was to drive a wedge between this Pope and his popularity with the people, give them a cause to get rid of him or came with monetary consideration only God Almighty knows now of course Davis’ people are going to spin this to suit their purpose and those with even average intelligence should have known this was going to happen. The article says that “after the meeting, Davis told ABC News, "Just knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything." My question is, what did they expect her and her crew to say? Did they truly think she would emerge from that brief meeting and say that the Pope beat her profusely about the neck and shoulders telling her that she was going to hell in a hand basket because she is refusing to treat others as she would like to be treated? If you refuse to admit that you are a sinner and the sins of others will always outweigh the sins you commit, then why not add “bearing false witness” to your list. Let’s hope not because if that is the case then we have much bigger issues America and these huge issues are getting more and more frightening with each passing day.
Now while you are considering that, add this to the mix. Does it really matter who Pope Francis or any other person meets with? If you say that it does and those who disagree must distance themselves from those that they disagree with is just as bad because it does nothing to close the divide that separates us. In order to close that chasm, we are going to have to sit down with those we disagree with respect their truth while we defend ours and if we do nothing else, agree to disagree and leave each other in the same empathetic manner that we came to the meeting with and for those of you who still refuse and do not think we should ever sit down with those we disagree with, let me remind you of what Jesus said to those who was complaining that he was sitting down with those less worthy of the Son of God. If memory serves, Jesus said that “those who are well is in no need for a doctor”. In common language, those who agree with you are not the ones you need to be trying to fellowship with, it’s those that don’t.
The bigger issue, our inability to get the whole story before going off half-cocked and bringing so many over the edge with us. We will stand responsible for those we drag over the edge with us and they will have to answer for following us over without doing their due diligence. Personally, I think I could handle being caste into hell for the sins that I commit but I don’t think I would take kindly to having to pay for someone else’s mistake, how about you?