Pope met with Kentucky clerk Kim Davis during his US trip, according to her lawyers

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Stay with the topic of the original post
All posts must stay charitable
Charitably discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Brendan]

I agree a person has a right to object, but the right way for Mrs. Davis to object would have been to quit her job. Just say, this is no longer the place for me and leave. That’s the way a brave person of integrity would have done it.

Why so, should the Little Sister of the Poor quit their work? Would that be a sign of bravery and integrity?

Personally, I consider it braver to stay and try and defeat the effects of this unjust ruling.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

They’ve been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center

True. But the SPLC is a heavily left-wing ideological organization that doesn’t have much credibility these days.

After they listed the Family Research Council as a hate group, their action inspired a gay man to enter the FRC offices in DC to gun down their employees. A security guard stopped him at the cost of his own life.

Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”

Source: washingtonexaminer.com/fbi-video-domestic-terrorist-says-he-targeted-conservative-group-for-being-anti-gay/article/2528072

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I couldn’t disagree more with your last sentiment. Pope Francis is the most astute, canny individual I’ve ever observed.

Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

But it isn’t Kim Davis’ refusal to even do her job that irks me so about her. It’s that she wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If she finds issuing certain marriage licenses conflicts with her faith and she can no longer do her job, then she should quit or go to prison.

Lily, do you feel the same way about San Francisco Sheriff Mirkarimi, who refuses to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration law, in violation of his oath of office? Should he quit or go to prison?

 

[sallybutler]

I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple.

But it isn’t Kim Davis’ refusal to even do her job that irks me so about her. It’s that she wants to have her cake and eat it, too. If she finds issuing certain marriage licenses conflicts with her faith and she can no longer do her job, then she should quit or go to prison.

I do not believe that capital executions are ok given there are other punishments available. Should I continue to be paid as an executioner if I refuse to perform those executions.

I don’t believe divorce is acceptable if adultery was not involved. I am a judge. Should I refuse to say a divorce is approved when there is no evidence that the husband committed adultery (female adultery not listed as a cause for divorce).

At what point does a person’s beliefs become more important than the employers? Government or private notwithstanding.

 

[mikekle]

The Supreme Court decided that marriage equality is the law of the land.

Kim Davis and her legal team are upset because they don’t want the law of the land to apply to them. Her position is untenable.

There are more questions than answers about this supposed meeting with the Pope. “Under 15 minutes” could have been a 15-second meet-and-greet, much like a receiving line at a formal function. I doubt that the Pope requested a meeting with Kim Davis. I suspect her legal team was working furiously behind the scenes to make it happen.

And what happens if it is illegal to practice christianity…Will you renounce your faith, just to abide by mans law?

Jesus CLEARLY warned us times would come when people would be persecuted due to his name, they would be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, etc. NOWHERE does it say we are to give up our faith, we are to be obedient to Gods law no matter what is done to us here.

 

[LongingSoul]

Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove.

That is Pope Francis. To. A. Tee.

 

[Brendan]

It appears to me Kim Davis is an advocate for the institution of marriage but only on her own terms. The fact she has been divorced and remarried several times is not a violation of the sanctity of marriage according to her moral conscience (and possibly also her religion, although I am not sure of this), so this is not an issue for her.

She mentioned that in an interview. The previous marriages came before her conversion. So that is not indicative of those being a violation of her religious beliefs.

At least no more so that if a prostitute converted and began advocating chastity.

 

[sallybutler]

And what happens if it is illegal to practice christianity…Will you renounce your faith, just to abide by mans law?

If you take a job, you do what the boss says. That is how the private sector works. People say they want the government to act like the private sector. That is how the private sector acts.

 

[Brendan]

I’m Catholic. I’ve been Catholic all my life. I grew up in a cloister. I am a theology instructor at a Catholic college. However, if I swore an oath to follow the law of the US, I would issue a marriage license to a gay couple. It is their civil right to marry. I would not marry another woman myself, but I would issue a marriage license to a lesbian couple…

If a Supreme Court decision revised the 14th Amendment so that slavery was once again legal, and you were the government authority that certified slave auctions, would you issue those licenses too?

It would then become someone’s civil right to own slaves, as it once used to be

Would it be braver just to quit and have someone else certify the slave auctions, or to face potential jail time for refusing to issue such certificates?

 

[sallybutler]

If a Supreme Court decision revised the 14th Amendment so that slavery was once again legal, and you were the government authority that certified slave auctions, would you issue those licenses too?

It would then become someone’s civil right to own slaves, as it once used to be

Would it be braver just to quit and have someone else certify the slave auctions, or to face potential jail time for refusing to issue such certificates?

I would quit (been there, done that already).

 

[Mulligan2]

And what happens if it is illegal to practice christianity…Will you renounce your faith, just to abide by mans law?

QUOTE]

An absurd question that does not warrant a reply.

 

[Trader]

Lily, do you feel the same way about San Francisco Sheriff Mirkarimi, who refuses to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration law, in violation of his oath of office? Should he quit or go to prison?

You might also mention a certain president who refuses to enforce immigration laws; marijuana laws; the Defense of Marriage Act (before it was partly overturned); and permits, at least, the IRS to selectively deal with applications for tax exempt organizations for political reasons. I have not heard him invoke reasons of conscience for these refusals.

 

[meltzerboy]

She mentioned that in an interview. The previous marriages came before her conversion. So that is not indicative of those being a violation of her religious beliefs.

At least no more so that if a prostitute converted and began advocating chastity.

Thanks for the information. And that is my point. Now certain things, such as gay marriage, are a violation of HER faith and conscience (but NOT that of the couple who has the legal right to marry) so she refuses to do her job as a civil official. But what about a clerk who refuses to sign a marriage certificate for a divorced person because THAT is a violation of HER faith and conscience? Should she too not be forced to do so or should she do her job despite her religious belief and conscientious objection? If the former, does the violation of one’s religion and moral conscience have ANY limits in the public arena?

 

[Trader]

mikekle;13323325:

And what happens if it is illegal to practice christianity…Will you renounce your faith, just to abide by mans law?

QUOTE]

An absurd question that does not warrant a reply.

It is an absurd question in the US for now, but what if you are in Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Cuba? It remains an easy question in theory, but in practice I hope none of us are faced with that choice.

 

[sallybutler]

Mulligan2;13323383:

It is an absurd question in the US for now, but what if you are in Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Cuba? It remains an easy question in theory, but in practice I hope none of us are faced with that choice.

I would quit my job before I’d refute my faith
.

 

[Dwyer]

The Commissars now want to throw Christians into the Gulag system.

All Catholics are “obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions” and where such unions are given the legal status and rights that belong to marriage, “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty,” said St. Pope John Paul II in a 2003 letter issued by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

In addition to Catholics in general having a duty to clearly oppose homosexual marriage, a Catholic politician “has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against” such unions, and if it already is the law, the politician still must oppose it and has a “duty to witness to the truth,” said St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI . . .

Thus, for “those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty,” state the two popes.

“One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application,” they said. “In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/st-pope-john-paul-ii-pope-benedict-gay-marriage-clear-and-emphatic

 

[Cathoholic]

People have basically asked: “WHY a discreet meeting?” . . . .WHY NOT an open meeting?”

Part of the reason is diplomatic. Agree or disagree, consider the turmoil the country has just experienced with the divided Supreme Court decision on same sex “marriage” seeing it somehow reflected in the Constitution.

It would be inappropriate (at least diplomatically speaking—I’m not saying the Pope should or should not have publicly addressed this issue here in America) for the Pope to come into another country and undermine a “law” that was just invented by the countries leaders (in this case the Supreme Court).

I don’t know completely why the meeting was so secret but also think about it for a moment. Davis has been subjected to MANY threats.

Security for the Pope is undoubtedly difficult. The Vatican does not want to expose the Pope to any security risks. Nor does the US State Dept.

Even Congressmen and woman were asked to refrain from approaching the Pope and even to avoid a simple handshake!

foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/22/reminder-to-lawmakers-please-do-not-touch-pope/

cbsnews.com/news/congressional-leaders-tell-lawmakers-no-touching-pope-francis/

newsday.com/news/nation/during-pope-francis-entrance-congress-asks-members-not-to-shake-hands-fist-bump-or-chat-1.10872867

This may or may not have been part of the “secretive” equation explanation.

---

As Genesis315 has pointed out. Now there IS Vatican confirmation of the meeting (reported in the New York Times–bold mine).

Pope Francis Met With Kim Davis, Kentucky County Clerk, in Washington

By JIM YARDLEY and LAURIE GOODSTEIN SEPT. 30, 2015 New York Times

ROME — Pope Francis met privately in Washington last week with Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who defied a court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, adding a new element to an American tour that saw Francis attract huge crowds and articulate left-leaning positions on poverty, immigration, the environment and inequality.

Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details. . . .

nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html

I’m still not sure why some people here were acting like this story was mere lies. I saw no evidence of that and nobody offered any evidence of this other than personal conjecture.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

The Vatican said the Holy Father usually meets with individuals privately. Her parents are Catholic. Perhaps they were the ones that asked Pope Francis to speak with her.

I have been saying that she should have just resigned, but I haven’t been following her case very closely. With the Holy Father supporting her, I need to rethink my opinion on this matter.

I got the impression (could be bad media tricks, again) that she was blocking other employees from doing the marriages because her signature was required and she made it so the weddings they do are somehow be invalid? I don’t understand that part. If those that work for her sign, are they using her stamp or her authority?