The Pope and the Clerk: On Rushing to Judgment

Let me put a few cards on the table:

1) I support full LGBT inclusion in the Church and in society. I rejoiced at the Obergefell decision.

2) I support freedom of religious expression and those who have conscientious objections.

3) I disagree with Kim Davis' decision to stop issuing marriage licenses. If her job requires her to act in contradiction to her religious beliefs, she should follow the example of early Christians and leave her job. The ancient liturgical document The Apostolic Tradition of Pseudo-Hippolytus lists professions that were forbidden to Christians. The expectation was that there are certain jobs that conflicted with the teaching of the Church: ancient Christians did not serve as as charioteers. It's not that they were charioteers who refused to race; they simply left the profession. Davis should follow the example of the third century Chrisitans and resign her position if she believes if conflicts with her faith.

4) Moreover, I think Davis' legal counsel is using her. They have their own agenda in mind, not her best interest. Frankly, I am surprised that her representatives have not been disbarred.

5) I like this Pope. I disagree with him on a few issues, but I firmly believe that he is making steps towards full reconciliation within the Church.

6) I like NPR. They tend to get stories right on the first go and tend to be the most unbiased news source in this country. I'm going to call them out on some stuff in this post precisely because they usually do a good job. Fox News or MSNBC dropping the ball on a story? Nothing out of the ordinary. NPR is capable of better, and so they're my media-stand-in.

With all of that being said, when Pope Francis met Kim Davis, the American media lost its mind.

The trip went incredibly well. The Bishop of Rome delivered a stirring address to Congress, ate with the poor, met with survivors of clerical sex abuse, and projected himself as a bishop of the people -- in keeping with his desire that the Church be poor and for the poor.

But just consider how the few days after his departure played out.

The first few days after his return to Rome, NPR lauded the visit, saying he "Moves Believers and Skeptics Alike" and "Strikes A Chord" with both Catholics and non-Catholics.

And then something happened. Lawyers at the Liberty Counsel started tweeting about Kim Davis' papal audience. And the tone of the conversation changed. NPR picked up the story and reported what Davis told ABC News:

Just knowing the pope is on track with what we're doing, and agreeing, you know, kind of validates everything.

That same day, NPR ran a story: "Pope's Commitment to Religious Freedom Highlighted on US Trip." Interviewee Emma Green, a reporter at The Atlantic, details all of the ways that Il Papa discussed religious freedom: he mentioned it at Independence Hall, he met with a group of nuns in a legal struggle against the contraceptive mandate, and he mentioned it before Congress. As Green puts it: "hints." But meeting with Davis? That's highlighting, because we all know how intimately the Bishop of Rome is concerned in the goings-on of a Pentecostal county clerk in Kentucky.

It's important to remember that at this point, there had been little news on the event. The story broke on 30 September, the date of the article above. The Vatican commented on it the same day, acknowledging that the Pope and Davis had been in the same place at the same time.

By the next day, NPR was touting that the visit "Puts a New Twist" on the papal visit. Credit where credit is due, one of the Vatican correspondents discussed the Pope's mid-air press conference this way:

We don't know exactly how this meeting occurred and what the pope knew about her. Of course, just later on a press conference on the way back to Rome after leaving Philadelphia, he was asked about the rights of conscientious objection for people, and then he gave a very milk-toast, bland answer about generic rights of conscientious objection for people without mentioning Kim Davis, without mentioning same-sex marriage. So it makes me think that maybe he didn't even know who this person was or what was going on in that meeting.

But this clarification came only in response to the anchor's question:

It would seem that everything on a papal trip is there to make a point. What might have been the point for Pope Francis in this meeting with Kim Davis?

Later, NPR ran a follow-up about the response of LGBT Catholics "disappointed" in the papal "meeting."

It's important to remember how little had come out at this point in the story. The only source of information on the meeting was from Davis and her lawyers. The Vatican had done little more than to begrudgingly admit that the meeting had occurred. And yet the entire week-long visit was recast by this single event.

Then, after two days and no fewer than four articles of confused "this changes everything" reporting, the hurricane stopped. The Vatican issued a statement. Turns out, the meeting didn't change everything. The Pope met Davis briefly in a receiving line. It wasn't a formal audience. He offered no express opinion on her situation. Because, as it turns out, the Liberty Counsel was blowing the event way out of proportion.

And the news media -- even our best news agencies -- swallowed the Liberty Counsel's version, hook, line, and sinker.

Cue the correction and clarification: NPR ran two consecutive stories after the Vatican announced the "meeting" was almost a non-event. Hindsight, it turns out, is much clearer. You can't draw a total conclusion about a person's policy from a single event, especially if that event is being framed entirely by somebody else's agenda. Francis met briefly with Davis in an impersonal, highly formalized setting -- but we only listened to how Davis and her lawyers framed the narrative. Because, as it turns out, Francis did have an official one-on-one audience, much like the one Davis described. But he met with a former student, a gay man, and that man's husband. They were welcomed via personal invitation, whereas Davis was contacted independently by the nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to the US.

Way back on the first day of the news cycle, Fr. James Martin, SJ, wrote a quick seven-point response to the unfolding story. Throughout, he urges caution in interpreting the events. He reminds us that the Vatican, not Davis, is the authority on the Pope's actions and intentions. That meetings take place but do not indicate specific endorsement of the individual. As Fr. Martin puts it:

Most of all, despite what Ms. Davis said, a meeting with the pope does not “kind of validate everything.” Again, the pope meets with many people, some of whom he may know well, others of whom may be introduced to him as a reward for long service, and perhaps others who will use a meeting to make a political point. Meeting with the pope is a great honor, but it does not betoken a blanket blessing on “everything” one does. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked “Ted.”

So the next time there's a "this changes everything" moment with the Pope, whether it's along the lines of "Who am I to judge?" or a meeting with a partisan figure, let's all wait. See how things unfold. Remember that every event has to be understood in the full context of the who the Pope is, both as the Bishop of Rome and as a man named Jorge. No single event defines a papacy or a visit.

So, NPR and every other news organization out there, wait a moment next time. Put the events in full context. And please, for the love of God, don't let the Liberty Counsel control the narrative.