My detailed response to "The Pope and Kim Davis: Seven Points to Keep in Mind" in "America" Magazine

The Pope and Kim Davis: Seven Points to Keep in Mind by James Martian, S.J. in "America" Magazine: Click Here

A response to some of the points: 

1. In none of the mentioned private meetings did the Pope reportedly sanctify discrimination; 

2. Who cares how the meeting was arranged? This is a non-issue. The issue is that he publicly spoke about hospitality to LGBT people, while in private he reportedly sanctify discrimination against these same people; 

3. Did the Pope not know much about the other people and groups he met with privately? If not, then these meetings are pointless and meaningless theater. An article by the editors in today’s online issue of “America” again defends the Pope by claiming he is not informed about the people he meets: “How much information they gave the pope is another question.” This article specifically states the following about the meeting with Ms. Davis: “And so I think one has to read these private meetings cautiously….the Vatican has said we are not going to deny the meeting took place, but they are…playing it down quite considerably, because this kind of event tends to get blown up by one side or another for their own political purposes. And the pope, we saw very strongly in his speech to the Congress, he wants to overcome the polarization.” (Ellipses not mine.) (See article here, October 1, 2015) 

Decrying the reported sanctification of discrimination by the Pope is NOT serving a political purpose. It is serving the Gospel that condemns discrimination. And if the Pope wants to overcome polarization, then he had better take a long, deep look at himself (and “his” Church) and ask for forgiveness for the polarization they perpetuate around women and LGBT people; 

4. Again, this is not about a liberal or conservative "political" agenda. It's about an article of faith called radical hospitality. Defending the Pope by citing that "the only source for what happened during the meeting is Ms. Davis" without telling us what the Pope ACTUALLY said is denying responsibility and hiding behind Ms. Davis' "skirt." Here is a video of Ms. Davis' lawyer detailing what was said in the meeting. 

5. The Pope and others call Ms. Davis' situation a case of "conscientious objection," although the Pope did admit that “I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection.” Perhaps he was not thinking about Ms. Davis in his comments about of conscientious objection. Yet, when asked by ABC News journalist, Terry Moran, “Would that include government officials as well?”, the Pope responded, "[Conscientious objection] is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.” 

The Pope does not seem to understand the difference between being a conscientious objector to same-sex marriage and (in the US) STILL serving as a governmental official where that conscientious objection is illegal in her role (because it constitutes discrimination). The point has never been about Ms. Davis' objection; the point has always been that legally she cannot act on her conscientious objection based on her personal or religious beliefs when serving as a governmental official. The Pope, Ms. Davis, and the Jesuit author of the article do not understand this aspect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, as is evident in their statements; 

6. This is not an issue about scoring political points! It's about illegal discrimination. Period. 

7. The Pope did not have a private meeting with Mark Wahlberg, so that comparison is specious. The point that meeting with the Pope does not "validate everything" or "does not betoken a blanket blessing on 'everything' one does" contradicts point 5 where the Pope sanctified conscientious objection by a governmental official. See that transcript here. 

Furthermore, of course "America," a magazine for the Catholic Church provided by the Society of Jesus, i.e., the Jesuits, has to defend the Pope wholeheartedly. To me at least, the reasoning in their defense of the Pope is thin and perfunctory, and it seems like an attempt to do an about-face on an event they are wish had never taken place.