before we point fingers...(it's a bad form anyhow!)


it's quite weird to see so many people reacting so strongly when the news of kim davis, the kentucky clerk who refused to do her job, met up with pope.  all the sudden, people are crying in despair, waving their hands and calling him a hypocrite.

whoa. chill out for a bit here.

1. pope asking kim davis to change in public would be a poor form. (that would be forceful, whether it's right or not). public shaming or condemnation is not a great way to convert people. remember this is the man who said: who am i to judge?

2. if the meeting was made public, it wouldve been swarmed by 3rd parties, either in support or outrage, which would change the nature of the meeting.

3. popes traditionally give out possibly thousands of rosaries daily. so pope giving kim a rosary is not out of custom, nor it means he personally supports kim.

4. apparently he said: '(kim,) stay strong.'  after all, yes, one should look right into the depth of their reasoning IF they would have any chance in the world in reversing their fundamental philosophy.  and to look into oneself, one needs to be strong.  being strong is not a bad thing! and being strong does not mean one is morally superior or even righteous.  if she is to keep her idea, she needs to be strong. if she is to change her idea, she needs to be strong. bullying someone to be weak, to be pushed over, is not a proper discourse.

i dont think there's reason to panic. weve been duped many times, but remember, he also met prisoners at heavy duty prison in philadelphia and gave blessing and rosaries. doesnt mean that he promotes people to go whack their rival gangs...

if pope francis really did inspire one, this small incident should not pop all their bubble.  if someone was mildly interested, yeah, it's also fine to gossip and pick faults.  i dont think he did himself any favour by agreeing on this meeting, but hey, a man is free to meet whoever he wishes. and if we are to point fingers at things that we do not personally agree with, what is the point of having individuals in this world?  if dalai lama met up with kim, would people have same volatile reaction? and no, he does not stand for an ideal man, he stands for a particular vision: to hold the will of christ in this physical world, and that is subjective, religiously defined, therefore cannot be a universal ideal. i donno.

it is a twisted time and it is an exciting time. it is a scary time yet it is our time.

rather than to fear, perhaps, we should eat fear for breakfast. after fear, courage tastes great.


  1. "he stands for a particular vision: to hold the will of christ in this physical world"

    Actually there is a huge difference between Peter's Church and Christ's vision. People are thinking the worst of this clandestine meeting because the Catholic Church has probably one of the worst track-records of any organization ever created. So many atrocities and injustices have been and continue to be perpetrated or justified by them or in their name; Christ would have wept.
    [I encourage you to read the gospels not included in the bible - for they were chosen by the church to fit their purpose]

    "a man is free to meet whoever he wishes." - not when your opinion influences so many people (!)... He is lending attention and legitimacy to a woman who deserves none. Regardless of his intentions - and even now if he comes out as full force against her views - the fact that he met with her will fuel the maniacs that support her. Regardless of what anyone says now they will point to this event and say "see, the vatican supports us, we are righteous in our bigotry"

    "pope asking kim davis to change in public would be a poor form" - Pope Francis is forceful in other arenas as well- such as when he addressed Congress and asked them to change in a number of ways including the environment. If his strategy was to point out her sins in private to inspire reflection or even change - obviously it has not worked; one only has to read her statement to realize that she believes him to be in full support of her - but now since the meeting was private - nobody can claim to know what happened; leaving room for doubt. It is this doubt that is the most dangerous.

    "if she is to keep her idea, she needs to be strong. if she is to change her idea, she needs to be strong"

    No. If she is to keep her idea she is being hateful and bigoted. She is expounding hated and using religion as an excuse to justify abhorrent beliefs that people are not equal and should actively be kept from becoming equal under the law.

    If she is to change her views she would firstly be doing her job... and allowing professionalism and not radicalism to govern her business affairs.

    I don't think you need to be strong to accept people. I don't think you need to be strong to reject hatred and stop spreading it.... We are not born hating - we are taught. And I think the Church should be teaching people Jesus' vision of love and peace not what they have been for thousands of years.

    1. i agree there's no need for hate. hate is a result, not a cause, anyhow. and yes, christ did weep.

      the whole jail thing- if she cannot do her job, then she should get another job; she was a civil servant and her personal opinion, when it interferes with others' civil right, then yes, she should leave. i still have not understand why/how that was even a religious fight. if i was a jew and worked at mcdonalds and refused to deal with bacon cheeseburger, im just crazy.

      for any religious institution, a good review of the core literature is always a good thing. the physical presence of said religious institution and its influence is too big of a concept to discuss here i feel, and i dont think it's necessary in this particular subject matter (nice to have though)

      addressing the congress and addressing an individual is quite different- there is a size factor here. congress is composed by people who chose to represent them (by structure of democracy), that is not the same as an individual bringing a banner and collect followers.

      and we cannot force others to agree and change. we can only enforce legal civility. no matter what we say, if kim wants to keep her opinion, she will. by demanding her change her fundamental belief, we are exercizing inequality: that of group to an individual. that's awfully close to totalitarianism for me.

      a rigid concrete can break under impact. a well-woven metal rope can stand the same impact without breaking. they are both strong. the variety that one can see in the word 'strong...'

      i do not think it's in society's best interest to 'change' her thoughts, but that we make sure that her thoughts and actions do not impend on others' civil right. 1984 is a good read for that.

      i cannot help but to think acceptance of critical evalution of differences of thoughts is in fact, an acceptance of the situation, rather than the difference itself AND/OR the resulting conflict of the differences. reconciliation would be the goal, for me.