Pope Francis and Kim Davis “stay strong” against LGBT rights

"Stay Strong!" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Stay Strong!” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

I realize the risks of tipping golden cows. So, just in case you think I hate Pope Francis, check out this cartoon I did last week.

But I’m not blind either.

I’m not sure if this rumor is true yet or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me. There are several reports stating that the Pope thanked Kim Davis for her courage and to stay strong. Here’s The Guardian’s perspective. Here’s the official Papal Visit perspective. Here’s a perspective from The Huffington Post’s Gay Voices.

Sentiment and talk is sweet, but it means nothing unless it percolates down into policy. Clanging cymbals and tinkling bells. That’s all talk is. No matter how wonderful a person may be, when they are a part of a machine, the inevitable collusion and the endless struggle against it must prevail. Of course Kim Davis will continue to stay strong against LGBT rights. And of course the Pope will also stay strong against LGBT rights because he has to, if not personally, at least corporately.

Systemic evil and injustice requires complicit humans for it to prosper.

Even if we hear that this story is false, I know that those who care about LGBT rights are very discouraged.

 

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Ducatihero says:

    From the “official Papal visit perspective” “His words to her, “Be strong,” and his gift of a rosary seem to be the kind of thing the pope might do for anyone presented to him. From the perspective of “Gay voices” “Pope Francis… Proved to Be a Coward… [has] played us for fools… [and is] a sinister kind of politician.”

    So to what extent is his “stay strong” comment an encouragement as he would do to any human being (gay included) and to what extent a act of cowardice and sinister politics?

    If freedom is to exist, I have to take my part in supporting the same rights have to be available for all whether that offends me or not. I must therefor be equally supportive of the right to the freedom of expression of “religious-based objections” (including atheism) and the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.

    The Guardian invoked an allusion to Orwell’s 2 minutes of hat in 1984 with talk of anti-gay “hate speech”. In the film, an audience erupts into hate at a figure manipulated by big brother. This gives them release of frustration from living in abject misery and manipulates them to keep in line with government propaganda.

    Hate, it would seem, is a distraction used by fascists relying on the ignorance and prejudices of others. They don’t care about anyone of a different persuasion or who gets hurt in the crossfire, only adherence to their own militant power.

    “Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other.” Jung

  2. Caryn LeMur says:

    I continue to hope that the Pope was manipulated into a situation.

    To some of the world, the Pope represents the personhood of Jesus. And we read in the Bible that Jesus blessed children, a Samaritan leper, a Jewish tax collector, a Roman slave-owner, and summarized His approach to blessings when He said, “God makes his blessings – the sun – to rise on those that are evil and good… be as mature as your Father in Heaven.’ [Matthew 5]

    Hopefully, his advisors will let him know that he should also call in some gay couples, and say to them, the same words, “Be strong”. To be like Jesus is to greet even our enemies in the marketplace with the same welcoming greeting we give to those ‘that are like us’.

    The personhood of Jesus is not about ‘us versus them’; nor was Jesus invested in the politics of His time.

    I believe that the personhood of Jesus is for all people, all cultures, and all time.

    I hope the Pope shows the face of the Welcoming Jesus, who in turn, was showing the face of the Welcoming Father.

  3. I do hope for justice for all. The enormity of the machine tries to intimidate that hope though.

  4. Ducatihero says:

    “I do hope for justice for all. The enormity of the machine tries to intimidate that hope though.”

    Yes, it would seem therefor that perhaps “be strong” and not giving up on hope could be an encouragement for all and from what you say Caryn, maturity could be about blessing all equally in principle – even if the governments or institutions they represent are abhorrent to any one of us.

    I had Rage against the Machine’s “Killing in the Name of” going through my head there :O

  5. Tom Wilson says:

    I sometimes wish that I believed that religious institutions and leaders could be could be anything other than hindrances. Then again I contradict myself, because on some level I actually like Pope Francis, but not as a Pope – simply as a human being. I don’t remember what station I was watching, but supposedly the Vatican has confirmed at the Pope and Kim Davis had a private meeting. Unfortunately, I don’t have a hard time believing that Pope Francis would encourage Kim Davis considering Catholic theology on the topic.

  6. Gary says:

    There are just so many things wrong with this whole situation. I have come to the conclusion that the episode did indeed happen since Vatican staff were given the opportunity to comment and chose not to, but also chose not to deny the meeting took place. And in the end it reinforces my view that he has become a sort of hack political activist. I mean he chose to very publicly in a joint session of congress (which I believe was hugely inappropriate) chastise us over immigration and environmental issues. Neither of these come from a hard core church doctrinal position and are clearly controversial among people of faith. However, both are very popular with the political left. Yet on a subject which the church has a very strong and deeply ingrained doctrinal position, which happens to be extremely unpopular with the left (and I of course disagree with as well), he chose to go completely under the radar. I suppose this could signal that he doesn’t really agree with the church on this issue. But what it signals to me even more clearly is that he, and the church in general, have clearly lost their way and appear to be looking for ways to remain relevant.

    Personally I believe the time of relevance is long past.

  7. I can’t see how the church at large can be relevant on this issue.

  8. Gary says:

    Agreed. Though the “church” represented by the members (as opposed to the leadership) is now in majority support for gay rights. Of course this represents history repeating itself and re-enforces my belief that organized religion has lost its way.

  9. Caryn LeMur says:

    Well, it appears that Snopes.com has confirmed the meeting between the Pope and Kim D.
    http://m.snopes.com/pope-francis-kim-davis/

    In another group, one of our members has offered that the Pope also met with the following:

    Via the White House:
    – Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church, and
    – Mateo Williamson, a transgender Catholic Activist, and others… [ http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/9/23/pope-francis-welcomed-lgbt-inclusive-white-house-reception ]

    During the Festival of Families:
    – Mark Wahlberg .. . a supported of gay marriage [ http://www.christianpost.com/news/mark-wahlberg-apologizes-to-pope-francis-for-ted-2-video-146542/ ]

    Most likely, the meetings with the White House and Festival are like this: – – the Papal team agrees to (or sets up the meetings), and the hosts of the meetings then tried to ensure the Pope meets ‘their tribe’.

    However, the meeting with Kim D. was via a secret meeting at the embassy. But again, the Papal team may have set up the Pope to deliver a message that was from ‘their tribe’… that the Catholic Machine will welcome the anti-gay activist that defies the law of the land or her civil oath of office.

  10. Bernardo says:

    How to destroy a “feel-good” trip in ten minutes!!!

  11. Ducatihero says:

    Can there be freedom to have “religious-based objections” and say, be employed to marry couples with an exemption for SSM, and have a healthy coexistence with protection against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?

    I’m not quite up to speed with what the law is in the UK regarding this but I think there is something along that line of provision for that, which came in with SSM.

    Or is there no place for “religious objections” and should an unwilling to marry same sex couples be regarded as an act of homophobia deserving of jail time?

  12. Gary says:

    Actually Kim Davis had the right to not issue the marriage licenses HERSELF all along under existing law. Where she got into trouble was in preventing her entire office staff from issuing the licenses. In other words, she was using her political office to seek to cram her religious beliefs onto others by force. It is hard to imagine a greater abuse of political office. (Leaving Obama’s abuses out of it at this time)

  13. Ducatihero says:

    Oh right – I wasn’t aware of that Gary with preventing other office staff. Thanks for the info, that does give me a different slant on things then. I’d never be in favour of anyone forcing religious beliefs on another, I don’t think Jesus would be in favour of removing free will in such a way but be the one standing at the door and only entering in if welcomed.