Kim Davis and the Pope

The Pope met with Kim Davis, gave her a hug, and told her to “Be strong.”

Conservatives greeted this news with cheers, while there was weeping and gnashing of teeth among Progressives.

Then word came from the Vatican that the meeting was not what it seemed. “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.”

And immediately the Progressives rejoiced, proclaimed Kim Davis a liar—some even said the Pope said she was a liar--and said that Francis offered “no support” for her position.

Let’s all just take a deep breath and look at what was actually said.

First, no one called from the Vatican called Davis a liar, and the statement did not say there was no support for her position; read it again: the meeting “…should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” This is not the same as saying he doesn’t support anything about what she did.

The question remains, did Kim Davis lie?

Let’s propose a scenario. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose the Pope did not know who Kim Davis was (a proposition I find questionable) and that he wouldn’t actually support her at all. This seems unlikely given his public statement earlier that civil servants retain their right of conscience, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume it anyway.

A member of the Papal Curia arranges a secret meeting between Francis and Davis that could become a propaganda victory for conservatives in the Vatican. He brings Davis in and only tells the Pope something to the effect that she’s gotten into trouble for her religious views. The Pope meets Davis, says encouraging things to her, and tells her to “Be strong”—words that fit the situation and would not be unlikely in this scenario.

What does Kim Davis know? She knows what the Pope said about freedom of conscience and civil servants, and that the Pope spoke encouraging words to her; she does not understand the politics in the Vatican behind the power play, so she quite naturally interprets the events as support for her, and describes it as such.

Did she lie? No—she wasn’t intentionally deceiving anyone, but she did misunderstand the situation.

Then the Pope finds out about what happens. He doesn’t want to get involved in the situation, so he issues the statement above and to distance himself from the event. The statement is noncommittal because of internal Vatican politics or because he doesn’t want to insert himself into American politics, but he’s hoping people will read between the lines.

I don’t think this is a completely accurate reconstruction of the situation, but it is at least plausible and, given the premises, likely. But to the Progressives, the only possible interpretation of Francis’s words is that he called Davis a liar—which objectively he did not—and that he does not in any way support her. This push to demonize her illustrates the irrational hatred of Davis that seems to characterize any Progressive discussion of her situation.

And Progressives accuse Conservatives of engaging in witch hunts!

A CORRECTION: The interview in which the Pope said that civil servants should have a right not to participate in same sex weddings occurred after his meeting with Davis.

MORE INFORMATION: It turns out we do have an account of what happened with Kim Davis and how it happened by someone with direct knowledge of the situation. See this article.