So Kim Davis met the Pope. He has also met with LGBT advocates and with prisoners in jail . . . and kissed a baby dressed up as a pope.

My point is that the media -- and Davis' attorney from the right-wing Liberty Council -- are hyping the significance of this meeting a bit out of proportion, as suggested in this breathless headline:  "The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win."

Even Davis and her attorney say the meeting lasted less than 15 minutes, that it included Davis and her husband being given rosaries blessed by the pope (a pretty standard papal gift), that the pope thanked Davis for her courage and told her "to stay strong," and that they promised to pray for each other.   No one has even suggested that any substantive discussion took place.

From what we've seen of Pope Francis, this sounds to me like a pastoral visit, recognizing and giving comfort to someone in need.   As a Vox reporter put it:   Of course he met with her:  "he was just emulating the guy who founded his religion."  It seems obvious that the pope and the Vatican wanted to keep it personal and pastoral and avoid creating a political news story;  otherwise, why keep the meeting a secret?

The further fact, as reported by Reuters is from Pope Francis' meeting with the press aboard the plane heading back Rome.   He was asked if he supported those, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.  His answer:  "I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. . . .  And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

That is not a ringing endorsement of Davis' cause, especially since the pope did not address at all the specific problem of one elected official's conscientious objection interfering with other people's rights, as in the Davis case. 

So what does this tell us about whether the pope lent his moral authority to Kim Davis' case?   Not much.    She is in fact being freely allowed to exercise her right to conscientious objection.   What she is not allowed to do is deny constituents their legal right to marry.

Once the judge was satisfied that the deputy clerks in the office could carry out the duties without her participation, Ms. Davis was released from jail on the condition that she not interfere either directly or indirectly with this function of the office.   She does not have to endorse or approve of gay marriage.

This accommodation, which allows her not to have anything to do with licenses for gay couples except not to interfere with the proper, legal functioning of her office, is compatible with Pope Francis supporting her conscientious objection.   Nothing he said suggests that he thinks the federal courts are being unfair to her.   In fact, one might say that Judge Bunning is also supporting her conscientious objection by his accommodation.

The fact is that Kim Davis and the Liberty Council have lost their bid to halt gay marriage in Rowan County, Kentucky.   They have no case, but they are still trying to pretend that they do.   And having been granted a meeting with Pope Francis does not give her cause any more legitimacy than those prisoners in jail or the baby whose parents dressed it in a cute pope costume.   (Note to the parents:   Save the costume;  you can use it again on Halloween.)

So let's stop the hype.   The law is clear, and the law is being carried out.  I'm cynical enough to think the Liberty Council's motive in continuing to pursue this is as much about fund raising as it is about ideological principle.

Ralph