Did Pope Francis's meeting with Kim Davis undermine the rest of his message?

Pope Francis had a fairly brief meeting with Kim Davis, the county clerk who refused to sign gay marriage licenses. He still holds onto what I consider some outdated concepts about sex and family. At the same time, he usually tends to put these things in the background while speaking quite strongly about fairness and income distribution. I wouldn't agree with everything he stands for, of course, but there are some things in his bag of ideas that are cogent remarks on the condition of today's society.

On the plane headed back to Rome, Francis talked about the concept of conscientious objection. "Without referring to Kim Davis, the pope said conscientious objection is a right that is part of every human right." I can understand some of that thinking. Who wants to be forced to do something against their convictions, but I guess Kim Davis could, of course, resign from her position. Solders in war, who often have conscientious objection to a particular war, have a harder time getting out of the military. Back in the days of the draft, people were sometimes forced into military service against their will.

Job descriptions do change as society evolves. County clerks now have to follow the broader definition of marriage, people who join the military, during peace time, often face changes in the job when a war starts.

Still, the pope does say many good things about compassion and income distribution even though his less than ideal opinions on sexuality threaten to undermine his stance among us liberals. This pope has also spoken out about global warming, but those views are definitely undermined by this world's continuing explosion in population growth. Now passing the 7 billion mark. We may not be able to address global warming without a significant slowdown in population growth. Old ideas on sex and family certainly undermine that.

Pope Francis has more credibility on similar issues than the last two popes

Pope Francis has been a strong critic of the income gap, the dark side of capitalism and selfishness. The last two popes had similar views, but this pope has more credibility. He seems more humble, himself, in things like his choice of pope mobiles and clothing. Also he is less pushy about the church dogmas that aren't that friendly toward birth control, gay rights and feminism. The other popes were more pushy on those dogmas so they ruined their credibility among liberals when it came to what they were saying about things like poverty and greed. What this pope says resonates better with us liberals creating more of a resounding chorus. The other popes might have tried to sing that tune, but it was more cluttered with emphasis on parts of the dogma that would turn the rest of the liberal choir away.

Also, the past two popes came at a time when the Catholic Church was besieged in the midst of the priestly sex abuse scandal. That scandal is probably starting to wind down now. It clouds the credibility of any stand that the church takes on ethical issues, but even that ugly black eye seems to be starting to recede into the history books by now.

On the topic of gay rights and population growth, the pope is still not willing to drop old ideas, but he does seem to speak more softly on these things. Using the concepts of grace and forgiveness, he puts out a welcome mat to more diversity of people and dialog. This is also an important step forward. Less of the witch hunt mentality that pope Benedict was accused of.

Personally, I still think it will be difficult to solve climate change unless we address the population problem. Even this pope has said he doesn't expect us to be reproducing like rabbits (I forgot the exact quotes), but church dogma puts a lot of obstacles in the way of new thinking on sex and family issues.

I still think this pope has taken many steps in a good direction and, for the most part, has been a positive influence in the ongoing discussion. He does have a kind heart. Change is often step by step.

Have we all fumbled the situation in Syria? Now here comes the flood of refugees

Maybe we should have intervened to help the moderate democratic forces in Syria?

Who knows. We did intervene in Libya and it's still a mess.

Obama has taken heat for being cautious about trying to "save" the Middle East with our military. Maybe we just make it worse. Also, it really isn't Obama's call. It's an international situation and Europe plays an important role. Europe is not enthusiastic about "sending in the troops;" even thinking about troops as being a force for humanitarian aid.

With that in mind, is Europe now reaping what it sows; or failed to sow?

Syria has crumbled while Europe and United Nations debated and gridlocked. Now the flood of desperate refugees is showing up on Europe's doorstep. This may be the biggest problem Europe faces today. Forget the banking crisis, refugee flood may be even worse. It's totally a mess, at least according to the news, but part of the mess is from Libya also. Europe and Obama did try to help out in Libya.

Russia has been a true stumbling block on Syria also.

Much of the Middle East is such a mess of religious bigotry and over population. I feel for all those desperate folks washing up on Europe's shores. And we, in USA, think we have an immigration problem. Imagine the situation in Europe! Overwhelming.

Immigration to the US is slowing to a very moderate pace, these days. It's from countries in Latin America where most of the people seem to assimilate fairly well into US society. Catholicism is a major religious force in Latin America where many US immigrants come from. It's getting more tolerant of diversity and the new pope is helping. Birth rates are going down in Mexico, at least, from what I hear. The heavy religious bigotry that we see in so much of the Middle East is more serious stuff.

Both the pope of the Catholic Church and the president of Iran are sounding better

Two religious leaders have been in the news recently starting to soften their stances. The pope of the Catholic Church and the President of Iran.

The pope seems to be putting church opposition against gay people more into the background and not emphasizing it. At least he's starting to put more compassion for all of humanity into the foreground.

The president of Iran is starting to talk about Jewish people in a positive way and a Jewish person even came to New York as part of the Iranian delegation to the recent UN conference. He's trying to improve relations with the US and other western nations as well. Hopefully, these are steps toward a more accepting and peaceful world.

Some folks might say that the president of Iran isn't a religious leader, but since Iran is basically a theocracy, I would qualify him as a religious leader also.

Seems like both the pope and the political / religious leader of Iran are starting to move toward more acceptance of diversity within the institutions that they lead. I'm cautiously hopeful.

Power Corrupts or Power Amplifies

An acquaintance of mine was wondering why they invited President Bush to Pope John Paul's funeral when they didn't invite mass murderer Charles Manson. He said Bush has killed more people.

My phrase "power amplifies" came to mind.

I said, "you would rather have Bush as your neighbor than Charles Manson." "If Bush wasn't in a position of power, where every little act, or mistake, is amplified into great consequence, he would likely be a nice neighbor." "Might invite you over to a back yard barbecue."

On the other hand, if Charles Manson were the President, the entire world might be obliterated in nuclear war.

Power amplifies.

Bush seems about as nice as most average Americans. Maybe he is a little more "career driven" than many. Anyone in his position of power can do things that have consequences effecting the lives of millions, actually billions. I doubt I would trust many of my neighbors in the White House. Some, yes.

If the President sneezes, the world catches a cold; figuratively. An average person sneezing might not be noticed.

So power amplifies.

Does power also corrupt? Can power change one's personality from "nice guy" to "power maniac?" Have you ever had a friend who changed when they became the "boss?"

There is the old phrase that says, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Several friends of mine have admitted that they became "a different person" when they got behind the wheel of an automobile. "There goes Mr. Nice Guy." The dog eat dog world of I-5 traffic brings out a different side of their personalities.

Just about everyone, I know, drives, but I wouldn't call them mass murderers, even though automobile related deaths are high on mortality lists.

The popular phrase, "power corrupts" may have some truth to it, but I still prefer to think, "power amplifies."

Saying "power amplifies" may let people off the hook, a bit, since it basically just says that the more power one has, the more oomph there is to one's actions.

Oomph to one's actions either good or bad.

I did vote for Kerry, however.

Sculpture of cross outside Assumption Church in Bellingham. Notice bird having dinner before flying away. Shards of glass are part of the sculpture. At base, it says sculpture was installed year 2000. I walked past after hearing news of Pope's death. Bell was ringing.