Unlikely Pope Francis’ Meeting with Kim Davis was “By Chance”

During Pope Francis’ recent visit to the U.S. the Pontiff sat down with Kim Davis–the Kentucky clerk jailed for declining to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in violation of her deeply-held religious beliefs–and her husband.

Many are trying to downplay the significance of the Pope’s conversation with the Davises–and some have even gone so far as to call it a “chance” meeting, as if they just happened to bump into each other while strolling around the Vatican Embassy.

When he travels, the Pope’s security detail is one of the largest of any public figure on earth. As Family Research Council explains, running into Pope Francis at the embassy would be a little like bumping into President Obama by chance during a tour of the White House. It simply could not happen.

FRC writes,

Pouncing on the private nature of the meeting, everyone from Reuters to the Associated Press is casting doubt on the nature of the get-together, and whether — in fact — the Vatican actually invited the Davises to meet the Pontiff. Some reporters are now insisting it was a random encounter, which is laughable considering the amount of security involved in the Pope’s visit. In a place like the Vatican Embassy, there’s absolutely no way the two parties could have accidentally crossed paths. As Liberty Counsel explained, the Davises were actually transported to the meeting by van by the Vatican’s own men. Kim was even asked to wear her hair up so that she’d be less recognizable.

Ultimately, the Davises ended up in a private room, where “no one else [was] present.” When the Pope arrived, he stretched out his hands and encouraged Kim to “stay strong,” something that wouldn’t have made sense unless he was familiar with her case. Now, several days later, the Vatican’s communications shop seems intent on giving the media a story where there is none. Pressed by reporters, Spokesman Federico Lombardi appeared to backtrack on the significance of the meeting, suggesting that no one should construe the invitation as an endorsement of Kim.

Later on after this meeting, as he was leaving the U.S. to return to Europe, Pope Francis answered a reporter’s question regarding whether or not government officials could decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying of conscientious objection,

“It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”

People may speculate about the nature of Pope Francis’ meeting with the Davises, but that statement to reporters seems pretty clear.

Photo Credit: Jeffrey Bruno from New York City, United States [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Pope: Conscientious Objection to Same-Sex Marriage “a Human Right”

Before concluding his first visit to the United States, Pope Francis voiced support on Monday for people who decline to solemnize or otherwise facilitate same-sex marriages.

According to NBC News, Pope Francis was asked, “Do you … support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example when issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples?”

According to NBC, the pontiff responded, saying:

“I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. . . . Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying, ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ . . . It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”

Given the Catholic Church’s longstanding history fighting for rights of conscience on issues ranging from military service to abortion, Pope Francis’ remarks really come as no surprise. Bishop Anthony Taylor of the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock summed it up very well a few years ago, when he told a crowd gathered outside the Capitol Building, “Government must not require what conscience forbids or forbid what conscience requires.”

Photo Credit: Jeffrey Bruno from New York City, United States [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

Atheist Group Wants “No Gods” Monument on Arkansas Capitol Grounds

According to various news sources, the Freedom From Religion Foundation based in Wisconsin is seeking to place a monument on the Arkansas Capitol grounds that would read at least in part,

“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no Heaven or Hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Freedom depends on freethinkers. Keep state and church separate.”

If the wording of the proposed monument sounds familiar, that’s because it is very similar to a sign the group tried to force a city in Michigan to display in 2012.

At that time, the group was trying to combat Christmas decorations the City of Warren had displayed. The proposed sign read,

“At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world, Religion is but Myth and superstition that hardens hearts And enslaves minds.”

The sign was rejected by local officials who found it inconsistent with the Christmas decorations the city displayed. The group sued the city, but lost when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there was no need to place an anti-religion sign alongside a Nativity scene and other Christmas decorations.

This latest move by the Freedom From Religion Foundation appears to be an attempt to counter the proposed Ten Commandments Monument the Arkansas Legislature authorized for display on the State Capitol grounds earlier this year. If the Sixth Circuit court ruling is any indicator, however, it seems unlikely the State of Arkansas can be forced to put up an anti-religion display without legislative approval.