Vatican: ‘Pope Francis’ Meeting with Kim Davis ‘Should Not Be Considered Form of Support’

Davis Bergoglio-compressedROME — The Vatican released a statement on Friday providing clarification about the Roman Catholic pontiff’s meeting with Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis last week, remarking that the encounter should not necessarily be considered as suggesting official support for the embattled clerk.

“The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” wrote spokesperson Federico Lombardi, stating that he sought to clarify the meeting out of a desire to “contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

“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,” he explained. “The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.”

Lombardi then provided a one sentence statement about the meeting with Davis.

“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,” he said.

As previously reported, Davis met with Jorge Bergoglio, also known as “Pope Francis,” in Washington, D.C. last Thursday following the pontiff’s address to Congress and just before he flew to New York City. Davis was in the area to receive an award from Family Research Council.

“The pope spoke in English,” she told Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican. “There was no interpreter. ‘Thank you for your courage,’ Pope Francis said to me. I said, ‘Thank you, Holy Father.’”

  • Connect with Christian News

Davis said that she asked a Catholic “monsignor” if it would be okay to hug the pontiff, and was told that the greeting would be permissible.

“So I hugged him, and he hugged me back. It was an extraordinary moment,” she relayed. “‘Stay strong,’ he said to me. Then he gave me a rosary as a gift, and he gave one also to my husband, Joe. I broke into tears. I was deeply moved.”

Davis advised that she plans on giving the rosaries to her parents, who are both Roman Catholic.

“[H]e said to me, ‘Please pray for me.’ And I said to him, ‘Please pray for me also, Holy Father.’ And he assured me that he would pray for me,” she recalled.

As previously reported, Davis has been in headlines in recent weeks for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She spent six days behind bars last month when she would not comply with a judge’s order to do so because of her religious beliefs.

Davis is currently still under scrutiny after removing her name and title from the licenses being issued by Deputy Clerk Brian Mason as the ACLU is seeking to have her punished for allegedly violating a court order not to interfere with the issuance of the documents. She has stated that from the beginning she only wished to have her name removed from the licenses as she is not seeking to stop “gay marriage” in Kentucky.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Nidalap

    Hey, he hugged her! She’s holy now, right congressman Brady? 🙂

  • respectourdifferences

    I appears that Mat Staver, Ms. Davis’ lawyer, has a hard time telling the truth. First, he presented a picture from a prayer rally in Peru and said that it showed 100,000 people gathered to pray for Ms. Davis. Then that was exposed as a lie. Then he says that Ms. Davis had an audience with the Pope in which he expressed support for her, as a government official, refusing to perform the duties of her job. Now that has been exposed as a lie.

    For someone who supposedly supports Christian values, it seems odd that Mr. Staver is so comfortable with lying. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      Haven’t heard about the 1st issue you raise, but I don’t think the target in the 2nd issue to be Mat Staver. The reason is, many of us believe that when the Pope meets with someone, it’s an attempt to show support to someone. Otherwise, why bother? In this case, the Vatican has made, IMO, a meeting with the Pope, null & void, of no consequence. It’s my belief that Mr. Staver, when Ms. Davis was offered the prayed-over prayer beads that it was a sign of support for Ms. Davis. Otherwise, why do it?

      So now the question is not of Mat Staver’s honesty, but of the Pope’s intention. Was his visit an attempt to provide support for what he believed was a positive statement by Ms. Davis? If this is the Vatican’s way of remaining Politically Correct (PC), then it has now royally screwed over any positive affect the Pope’s visit may have had and will have. Disingenuous at best.

      • Names_Stan

        I don’t disagree with your points, but I think there’s a potential third possibility that could be the main factor.

        I think it’s going to be fairly well evidenced that the Vatican wasn’t responsible for some or most of who was chosen for these backstage passes. Davis was likely picked by a conservative bishop who knew exactly what he was doing.

        I suspect the Vatican was furious when it became evident they got used.

        There’s just no logical reason the Pope’s Vatican handlers would have given her an audience, if they would’ve vetted her. The rest of the trip was too carefully planned and played hard at a balance between left and right factions.

        I also suspect everyone in one of these quick audiences gets the beads.
        (And to be fair, I normally read the stories before I comment, but just not interested enough for this one. So some of these things may be addressed already and I may be 100% wrong. I’m just not following it very close.)

        • respectourdifferences

          He didn’t give her an audience. The only audience he held with a member of the general public was with a former student, who is gay, and the student’s partner and family.

          • Names_Stan

            Yeah, wrong word for sure. I think my characterization of “backstage passes” is pretty close to what the reality was.

            But prior to the Vatican statement, “audience” was being used widely in the media. Probably still is. At any rate, that word means something specific when it comes to Pontifex, and Davis’ deal wasn’t one.

      • respectourdifferences

        “The reason is, many of us believe that when the Pope meets with someone, it’s an attempt to show support to someone.”

        Having people in a receiving line, greeting them, telling them to stay strong (which we all need a supportive word as to now and then) and telling them he is praying for them – as he would tell anyone – does not equate, as the Vatican has clearly pointed out – support for her violating oath of office and denying rights to citizens, as an elected official – based upon citation of her personal religious beliefs.

        “Otherwise, why bother?”

        Do you not find value in the Pope simply telling someone to stay strong and letting them know that he is praying for them?

        “In this case, the Vatican has made, IMO, a meeting with the Pope, null & void, of no consequence.”

        See my comment directly above.

        “So now the question is not of Mat Staver’s honesty”

        No. Mat Staver said that Ms. Davis had an “audience” with the Pope. She did not. Further, Mat Staver decided that he knew the intent of the Pope’s words and created, out of whole cloth, something that did not exist.

        “If this is the Vatican’s way of remaining Politically Correct (PC), then it has now royally screwed over any positive affect the Pope’s visit may have had and will have.”

        No, this is a clarification by the Vatican that the Pope speaking to Ms. Davis in a receiving line, telling her to stay strong, and saying that he would be praying for her, is not endorsement of her actions as an elected official regarding violating her oath and refusing to do her job based upon her religious beliefs, and further clarification that they do not appreciate the attempts by Mr. Staver to use the Pope’s extraordinarily short time with Ms. Davis in a false and misleading way to suggest that the Pope supports the actions of Ms. Davis.

        Mr. Staver’s attempts to do so are disingenuous at best. Further, for you to suggest that the Vatican making this clarification someone erases all positive effects of his visit to the US seems without merit.

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          ‘Thank you for your courage,’ made by the Pope versus “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,” are obviously opposite statements…unless the Pontiff was referring to the courage required to see the Pontiff himself?

          Several dozen people are not thousands, so Ms. Davis was in a select group. With the opposition of the two statements, I believe something has to give one way or the other because only one can be true. Support (“Thank you for your courage”) not equal to (“not be considered a form of support”)

          • respectourdifferences

            I think it is quite a leap to suggest that a general statement of “thank you for your courage” is the opposite of “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,”

            “Support (“Thank you for your courage”) not equal to (“not be considered a form of support”)”

            Of course the Pope saying to someone “thank you for your courage” is a form of support. For instance, if the Pope had been told that everyone in the receiving line was facing a personal challenge, such a statement would make complete sense.

            What you are suggesting is that Mat Staver is telling the truth, and the Vatican is lying. If the Vatican, at the request of the Pope, is engaging in lies, then the Pope’s words don’t carry much weight either way, do they?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Hence my dilemma. Thank you for understanding.

          • respectourdifferences

            Of the two possibilities, and given what I know about the history of both Staver and Pope Francis, i would suggest that it is a fairly good bet that Staver is the one lying. He has a long and sordid history of lies and hyperbole.

  • FoJC_Forever

    She is a pawn in a religious, political, and social game. Those who practice false religion are easily fooled and used by others who practice false religion. Those who call upon Jesus (the) Christ are required to seek the LORD each day, throughout the day, not play into political, social, and religious agendas.

    Judgement is coming, and all those who practice their own form of religion or belief system will be cast away into Eternal Damnation. Those who are seeking the LORD with a pure and honest heart will have the Work of Salvation completed in them and will be ushered into the Eternal Kingdom of God.

    Jesus isn’t fooled by the manipulations of His Word, nor is He obliged to serve those who only serve themselves and serve others who do not love God.

    Follow Jesus, find Truth.

    • Nathan Z Solomon

      I agree, but doesn’t the statement by the Vatican make the Pope’s meeting null & void with both parties? Doesn’t it also make the Pope of no value?

      • Names_Stan

        Oh the pope having no value is just assumed from FOF’s point of view. I don’t think he’s ever actually met a story where an actual real Christian was involved, regardless of denomination.

        Hopefully someday they’ll do a story on him, and that will change.

      • FoJC_Forever

        He made a point to embrace a former student is homosexual. One has to wonder what kind of relationship they actually had, given the sexual history of catholicism. A few days later, they fire a priest for openly confessing he is living in Sin. A bit confusing, but that’s what false religion produces.

        • Nathan Z Solomon

          We don’t know what was said between the Pope and the homosexual couple. Jesus openly accepted adulterers, tax collectors (duplicitous in their allegiance to Jews and Rome as well as general thieves) and other sinners. But Jesus was also able to say, “Go and sin no more” and even express a tone of life that was self-convicting. The woman at the well, Zacchaeus, and many others, I’m sure, felt a sense of where this man (Jesus) was and that they weren’t there, they were sinners, but they wanted so much to have a relationship with this one called Jesus. They stopped their sin, repented and (Zacchaeus returned all that he stole) and the told others. I truly hope that’s what the Pope was able to do. But again, we don’t know.

          • FoJC_Forever

            It doesn’t matter what he says, either way, catholicism isn’t Christianity. Catholicism is just another worldly religion, albeit worse because it’s pretending to be Christianity. It isn’t the only religious institution pretending to be Christianity, but it is the largest and most influential.

            Follow Jesus, find Truth.

          • Teijo Kakkila

            son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman
            Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own
            brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be
            a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the
            Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a
            Protestant; and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from
            their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature
            our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a
            Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all
            information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the

            Bottom line; a jesuit can say whatever.

          • Snowflake0446

            Doesn’t that bring them in line with Islam in that they can also say anything to an infidel? Interesting.

  • RWH

    The Pope most likely gave her the rosary, thinking that she was Catholic. If he knew that she was a Pentecostal, would he have given her something that she would have deemed religiously useless?