I can't figure out why I should care about this. He says what he believes. People want to see him as a political figure, but he's not. Being a man of convictions does not make him a political figure. He doesn't live in a world where he cares about anyone's laws but God himself. He's going to say and do things that I agree with, and disagree with. He isn't going to fit in some box--conservative, liberal, socialist, whatnot. People need to stop seeing him as lining up with some political side. He see Global Warming as dire. He wants to spread the wealth. He's against gay marriage and abortion. He belive in forgiveness, including "forgiving" things many of us see as either not needing forgiveness, and things that are unforgivable. He's the Pope.
I half believe this, half think she's a nut who's trying anything to keep her name in the spotlight. Now that the other clerks are issuing marriage licenses she's not having any luck preventing anything in her county, right?
Honestly she fell off my radar so I don't know where things stand with her. Even if it comes out that she didn't meet with him at least she's managed to eek out another 15 minutes.
Oh, I believe she met with the Pope AND is a attention-seeking nutjob.
I doubt the Pope himself really knows much about her story..she just had the right advocate to get her in front of him.
Popes have been political since, well, the beginning of popes. Way back in the 5th century Pope Leo was negotiating with Attila not to sack Rome; medieval popes claimed that Emperor Constantine had given them political authority over the western half of the Roman empire; into the 19th century popes ruled the Papal States; and now popes are literally heads of states.
So, yeah, being political is part of the job description.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I just can't muster any caring about this. How many marriages in this country are "real" according to Catholic doctrine? I'm not Catholic married - I'm in a heterosexual, civil marriage. I'm venturing my marriage is like 90% or more of other marriages in the US, so what the head of the Catholic church and an intellectually lazy, fundie attention whore think should have no material impact on any of them.
I can't believe anyone is saying the Pope isn't political. He's the head of a state. He has ALWAYS been political, for hundreds of years.
Popes have been political since, well, the beginning of popes. Way back in the 5th century Pope Leo was negotiating with Attila not to sack Rome; medieval popes claimed that Emperor Constantine had given them political authority over the western half of the Roman empire; into the 19th century popes ruled the Papal States; and now popes are literally heads of states.
So, yeah, being political is part of the job description.
“He told me before he left, he said, ‘stay strong.’ That was a great encouragement. Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we're doing, it kind of validates everything to have someone of that stature,” Davis said.
She's seeking validation from a religious figure that her faith believes at best as the head of a church that "prays through saints" and "worships statues of saints" is an idolater and at worst, as "God's representative on Earth" the anti-Christ. How hypocritical.
We already know she's a huge hypocrite. So it surprises me not at all that she would want to meet with someone that her religion would say is a heretic or the anti-christ. Whatever gets her back in the spotlight is good for her.
I just can't muster any caring about this. How many marriages in this country are "real" according to Catholic doctrine? I'm not Catholic married - I'm in a heterosexual, civil marriage. I'm venturing my marriage is like 90% or more of other marriages in the US, so what the head of the Catholic church and an intellectually lazy, fundie attention whore think should have no material impact on any of them.
I can if he is actually telling her to continue denying rights to gay couples. If he was just like, "Hey, they are dirty sodomites, but do your job." I probably wouldn't care. If he actively telling her to "stay strong" and advocating for people to USE religion as a reason to be a bigot? Yeah, I care.
She's seeking validation from a religious figure that her faith believes at best as the head of a church that "prays through saints" and "worships statues of saints" is an idolater and at worst, as "God's representative on Earth" the anti-Christ. How hypocritical.
I'm thinking that's because this isn't about what is right or wrong, good or bad, or about religion at all. It's about her being right. And anyone that agrees that she's right is OK in her book.
It's more Narcissistic than hypocritical, imo.
Amen to that. "Look, the Pope is patting me on the back to say how awesome I am."
And even more "how can I spread my fifteen minutes into thirty."
He's saying what he believes because he believes it's right. I get that.
But to meet with her given what has gone on here was a political action. And to respond to that with a "why do people think he is a political figure?" is weird.
And btw, I'm not saying political as in conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat - he doesn't fall into any category easily and I don't think he's trying to. But political in the sense that he is trying to use his power to influence the policy of other nations. In that sense, meeting with her was political. As was many other things he did while on his trip here.
Again, if you're trying to make a political point, doing it quietly and privately is extremely ineffective. As stated by many, he met with 100s of people privately. He is not sharing any details of this meeting. He wasn't even the one who leaked it out. Now that it has been leaked, he's still saying nothing. Call this meeting whatever you want, but I don't agree that it was political in its intent.
Church politics and our politics are not the same.
Again, if you're trying to make a political point, doing it quietly and privately is extremely ineffective. As stated by many, he met with 100s of people privately. He is not sharing any details of this meeting. He wasn't even the one who leaked it out. Now that it has been leaked, he's still saying nothing. Call this meeting whatever you want, but I don't agree that it was political in its intent.
Church politics and our politics are not the same.
He had to know it wasn't going to stay a private meeting, considering who he was meeting with. The Bigoted Mouth of the (Sorta) South wouldn't let such an opportunity pass by without getting media attention for it.
That still doesn't make his intent political. ETA: Look, I get that people are disappointed or whatever, but he's the Pope. Expecting that he approaches things like we do, or our political figures do, just doesn't make sense.
Well, even if his intentions weren't to be political, he got all up in American politics by meeting with someone who is in the middle of a political battle. And if he, in fact, took sides by condoning her actions, then that meeting became political.
I don't like either of them, so I don't care who said what, when, or anything. But she's a big mouth, so of course this was going to be brought to everyone's attention whether he wanted that or not.
I don't think he really cares how it's perceived. And what's more, I don't think he should. It would be uncharacteristic of his actions as Pope.
I just can't muster any caring about this. How many marriages in this country are "real" according to Catholic doctrine? I'm not Catholic married - I'm in a heterosexual, civil marriage. I'm venturing my marriage is like 90% or more of other marriages in the US, so what the head of the Catholic church and an intellectually lazy, fundie attention whore think should have no material impact on any of them.
I can if he is actually telling her to continue denying rights to gay couples. If he was just like, "Hey, they are dirty sodomites, but do your job." I probably wouldn't care. If he actively telling her to "stay strong" and advocating for people to USE religion as a reason to be a bigot? Yeah, I care.
I care as much as I would care about Huckabee or JimBob or the Ayatollah telling her that. Sure, they have huge followings, but they are figureheads of religious philosophies that (should) have NOTHING to do with civil marriage in this country. Their support or encouragement of her feelings is irrelevant. Even the coverage of this meeting lends weight to the notion that her objection something at all to do with religion and not, instead, willful abdication of her job responsibilities. So in my mind, we should ignore it entirely since it lends credence to the notion that it matters AT ALL what her religious convictions are. I think I may have just talked entirely in a circle, but you know what I mean.