Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement, Vatican says

  • Thread starter Thread starter EmperorNapoleon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So the thousands of people who were invited to greet the Pope at the White House were also all having formal meetings with the Pope?
Can you offer your source? Thousands of people were invited to greet the Pope at the White House?

Really? Thousands?

I had not heard this.

And, yes, if they received invitations, that would presuppose that it’s a formal meeting.
 
Can you offer your source? Thousands of people were invited to greet the Pope at the White House?

Really? Thousands?

I had not heard this.

And, yes, if they received invitations, that would presuppose that it’s a formal meeting.
Pelosi and Biden took communion at Pope Francis installation mass. So the Church must approve of them.
 
Source, please, for their religion.

If they are Catholic, they are bound to follow the laws of the CC.
I already posted what information is available. We don’t know anything about the religious beliefs of her other two husbands, but we at the very least know that she was married the first and second times by Baptist ministers and the third marriage was by a minister from the the Universal Life Church. Her present marriage was performed by Rowan County Judge Jim Nickel. I would assume that her present husband also belongs to the Apostolic Church.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3228324/Anti-gay-marriage-court-clerk-Kim-Davis-conceived-twins-adulterous-affair-lover-married-Godless-wedding-got-restraining-order-claiming-violent-man-called-w.html
 
Not really. The Church views baptisms and marriages by other Christian churches as valid baptisms and marriages. If you convert, as long as it isn’t from JW or Morman, your baptism is valid. Same with marriages, although I think there isn’t even that restriction. If you have a civil marriage, it is valid.
And for the second marriage of a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment, does the Church recognize it as a valid marriage?
 
I already posted what information is available.
So there you go. You don’t know the status of her prior marriages.

If the first husband was a Catholic, he was bound to follow the laws of the Church and marry in a Catholic Church, unless he received a dispensation.

Do you know if he received this?

No?

Then you can’t know the status of their first marriage, which means we don’t know the status of their second marriage…

and she could very well be validly married to her current husband.

QED.
 
And for the second marriage of a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment, does the Church recognize it as a valid marriage?
Only if the first marriage wasn’t valid.

So, for example, if the woman was young (say, 18), and the man was Catholic, and they got married in a Baptist church without a dispensation, that would make the marriage invalid, objectively.

But we can’t really know.

That’s why we have marriage tribunals in the CC.
 
Excellent.

So you’re not opposed to Kim Davis protesting the law?

You think it’s permissible for folks to refuse to follow an unjust law, yes?
It isn’t under the law for a state employee. In that instance of civil disobience, a person should be prepared to accept the legal consequences. It’s that simple. It’s a legal matter.
 
And for the second marriage of a divorced and remarried Catholic who has not obtained an annullment, does the Church recognize it as a valid marriage?
Probably not, but you would have to ask a Church lawyer to be sure.
 
It isn’t under the law for a state employee. In that instance of civil disobience, a person should be prepared to accept the legal consequences. It’s that simple.
Of course.

She protested. She was jailed.

Good for her for being, like St. Thomas More, imprisoned for a just cause–refusal to obey a law which contravenes God’s law.
It’s a legal matter.
Indeed.

Just not only a legal matter.
 
Of course.

She protested. She was jailed.

Good for her for being, like St. Thomas More, imprisoned for a just cause–refusal to obey a law which contravenes God’s law.

Indeed.

Just not only a legal matter.
What part of he resigned do you not understand? That is what Kim Davis should do.
 
What part of he resigned do you not understand? That is what Kim Davis should do.
sb, where would you sit in this situation in 2011? A New Jersey hospital who performed abortions among other general day surgeries, suddenly had this situation…

"The abortion team had always drawn its staff from nurses who had expressed no qualms about helping end a child’s life. Promoted from that team to a supervisory position over all the nurses, the new assistant manager announced that – since she and others had to help with abortions – she saw no reason why every nurse shouldn’t help. Hospital officials agreed, and passed a new, mandatory policy to make it so…”As long as you work here,” she told the 12 nurses who openly protested, “you’re going to have to do it. If you don’t, you’re going to be fired or transferred out.”

“I knew we were going to lose our jobs,” says Lorna, who, at one point, amid the flurry of discussions with the managers, was asked to provide a patient with a bedpan. Retrieving it, she found an aborted baby inside. Horrified and sobbing, she called for help, telling the manager who responded, “I don’t know what to do with this. I can’t do this.” She soon found herself in the office of the vice president of nursing, where she was accused of refusing to help patients and threatened with termination. She wasn’t the only one called in. “Our jobs were hanging by a string,” Beryl says. “We were like, ‘All right. If they’re going to fire all 12 of us, fine. But this is against what we believe God wants us to do.’ We didn’t come into this profession to do [abortions]. We told them we weren’t comfortable with it and didn’t feel they should force us. And if that meant our jobs, well… God was going to provide.”

Apparently even the nurses union was on the side of the hospital. The nurses brought in a team called the Alliance Defending Freedom to argue their legal case.

As a court date drew nearer, the hospital came up with another threat: if the 12 would not help with abortions, administrators would hire nurses who were willing to do so. Soon, officials intimated, there might not be work enough for everybody… in which cases those nurses willing to do anything might well enjoy greater job security than those only willing to do most things.

“The case settled with the hospital agreeing to leave the nurses alone.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/363575/hospital-tried-force-nurses-help-abortion-wesley-j-smith

Do you think that the nurses should have resigned their jobs from the start or that they had the right to refuse a certain task based on their conscience?
 
sb, where would you sit in this situation in 2011? A New Jersey hospital who performed abortions among other general day surgeries, suddenly had this situation…

"The abortion team had always drawn its staff from nurses who had expressed no qualms about helping end a child’s life. Promoted from that team to a supervisory position over all the nurses, the new assistant manager announced that – since she and others had to help with abortions – she saw no reason why every nurse shouldn’t help. Hospital officials agreed, and passed a new, mandatory policy to make it so…”As long as you work here,” she told the 12 nurses who openly protested, “you’re going to have to do it. If you don’t, you’re going to be fired or transferred out.”

“I knew we were going to lose our jobs,” says Lorna, who, at one point, amid the flurry of discussions with the managers, was asked to provide a patient with a bedpan. Retrieving it, she found an aborted baby inside. Horrified and sobbing, she called for help, telling the manager who responded, “I don’t know what to do with this. I can’t do this.” She soon found herself in the office of the vice president of nursing, where she was accused of refusing to help patients and threatened with termination. She wasn’t the only one called in. “Our jobs were hanging by a string,” Beryl says. “We were like, ‘All right. If they’re going to fire all 12 of us, fine. But this is against what we believe God wants us to do.’ We didn’t come into this profession to do [abortions]. We told them we weren’t comfortable with it and didn’t feel they should force us. And if that meant our jobs, well… God was going to provide.”

Apparently even the nurses union was on the side of the hospital. The nurses brought in a team called the Alliance Defending Freedom to argue their legal case.

As a court date drew nearer, the hospital came up with another threat: if the 12 would not help with abortions, administrators would hire nurses who were willing to do so. Soon, officials intimated, there might not be work enough for everybody… in which cases those nurses willing to do anything might well enjoy greater job security than those only willing to do most things.

“The case settled with the hospital agreeing to leave the nurses alone.”

Read more at: nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/363575/hospital-tried-force-nurses-help-abortion-wesley-j-smith

Do you think that the nurses should have resigned their jobs from the start or that they had the right to refuse a certain task based on their conscience?
I’m sorry, but I feel that if your boss asks you do do something that you feel is wrong, you either do it or quit. It is one of the few situations that I feel there is no grey, only black and white.

I’m sorry if that is not politically correct in these forums. But it is the way I was brought up. I am responsible for my behavior and I needed to suffer the consequences if I thought I was right. If that meant I went to jail, fine. If I had to quit, fine.

I was also told that I should not ever expect the rest of the world or my boss or even my mother to agree with me. Of course, my mother would at least give me points for suffering the results of my decision, even if she thought I was wrong.
 
Can you offer your source? Thousands of people were invited to greet the Pope at the White House?

Really? Thousands?

I had not heard this.

And, yes, if they received invitations, that would presuppose that it’s a formal meeting.
Why would an invitation to greet the Pope at the White House presuppose a personal audience? There is a major difference between the two.
 
Can you offer your source? Thousands of people were invited to greet the Pope at the White House?

**Really? Thousands?

I had not heard this.**

And, yes, if they received invitations, that would presuppose that it’s a formal meeting.
While the guest list apparently irked the Vatican official who spoke to the Wall Street Journal, several other church officials in the Vatican and the U.S. said privately they didn’t consider the issue a problem or worth coverage.
They said there are far more important issues to think about in connection with the pope’s Sept. 22-27 trip to Washington, New York and Philadelphia, and they noted that the guests in question represented a handful of people out of many thousands.
huffingtonpost.com/entry/conservatives-upset-that-gay-catholics-were-invited-to-meet-pope-francis-at-the-white-house_560046a8e4b00310edf7f068

And just imagine, all those many thousands got a “formal meeting” with the Pope 😉
 
I’m sorry, but I feel that if your boss asks you do do something that you feel is wrong, you either do it or quit. It is one of the few situations that I feel there is no grey, only black and white.

I’m sorry if that is not politically correct in these forums. But it is the way I was brought up. I am responsible for my behavior and I needed to suffer the consequences if I thought I was right. If that meant I went to jail, fine. If I had to quit, fine.

I was also told that I should not ever expect the rest of the world or my boss or even my mother to agree with me. Of course, my mother would at least give me points for suffering the results of my decision, even if she thought I was wrong.
But as Pope Francis says, conscientious objection is a human right. Those have to be accommodated in a legal way because they are part of the foundation of dignity for the human person.

Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. “If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.

I found the California State code that upholds this here

A. Conscientious Objection

Conscientious objection means an objection by an individual to performing an act that the individual sincerely believes is wrong. The objection may be based on ethical, moral, religious, or philosophical grounds. When directly related to working conditions, a conscientious objection is considered to be a compelling reason for restricting availability for work, voluntarily leaving work, or refusing a job offer or referral to work.

In determining whether the reason for a refusal is attributable to conscientious objection, an essential factor to be considered is whether the individual genuinely believes that the action or condition to which he or she objects conflicts with his or her convictions or whether the individual merely chooses, for other personal reasons, to place a limit on acceptable employment. The degree to which the claimant’s beliefs are commonly held or considered reasonable by others is immaterial.

A conscientious objection will constitute good cause for refusing a job offer or referral provided the objection is genuine AND a conflict actually exists.

B. Religious Beliefs

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . "

First Amendment prohibitions apply to state and federal governments only, and do not apply to private employers. Private employers are, however, governed by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they have over 15 employees. That Act prohibits covered employers, government, and labor unions, from discriminating against persons because of their religion:

“The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The principle behind this is that conscientious objection has an important role in forming the conscience of the society. It affirms the fact that no one person or organisation holds the key to objective truth.

“In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality.” - GAUDIUM ET SPES
 
But as Pope Francis says, conscientious objection is a human right. Those have to be accommodated in a legal way because they are part of the foundation of dignity for the human person.
Yes, but I’ve not heard of another situation where a conscientious objector remained in a government position they refused to perform. In any every other circumstance I can think of, the person resigned. What is the point here? If the County Clerk refuses to do her job some other employee will do it.
 
The principle behind this is that conscientious objection has an important role in forming the conscience of the society. It affirms the fact that no one person or organisation holds the key to objective truth.

“In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality.” - GAUDIUM ET SPES
So just out of curiosity, would you also uphold the right of a public official who tried to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in a country where such marriages are not yet legal such as Italy based on his sincerely held belief that such marriages should be legal? If you believe in the right to conscientious objection, you must extent that right to people who want to do things based on their conscience that you would disagree with or think are immoral.
 
But as Pope Francis says, conscientious objection is a human right. Those have to be accommodated in a legal way because they are part of the foundation of dignity for the human person.

Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. “If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.”

I found the California State code that upholds this here

A. Conscientious Objection

Conscientious objection means an objection by an individual to performing an act that the individual sincerely believes is wrong. The objection may be based on ethical, moral, religious, or philosophical grounds. When directly related to working conditions, a conscientious objection is considered to be a compelling reason for restricting availability for work, voluntarily leaving work, or refusing a job offer or referral to work.

In determining whether the reason for a refusal is attributable to conscientious objection, an essential factor to be considered is whether the individual genuinely believes that the action or condition to which he or she objects conflicts with his or her convictions or whether the individual merely chooses, for other personal reasons, to place a limit on acceptable employment. The degree to which the claimant’s beliefs are commonly held or considered reasonable by others is immaterial.

A conscientious objection will constitute good cause for refusing a job offer or referral provided the objection is genuine AND a conflict actually exists.

B. Religious Beliefs

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . "

First Amendment prohibitions apply to state and federal governments only, and do not apply to private employers. Private employers are, however, governed by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they have over 15 employees. That Act prohibits covered employers, government, and labor unions, from discriminating against persons because of their religion:

“The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

The principle behind this is that conscientious objection has an important role in forming the conscience of the society. It affirms the fact that no one person or organisation holds the key to objective truth.

“In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality.” - GAUDIUM ET SPES
The information that you cite is from the CA Department of Employment Development. This agency places people who are unemployed and the information you cite relates to people who have refused work as a result of conscience objection. It states: “This section discusses refusals of work due to a conscientious objection to some aspect of the prospective employment.”

It has nothing to do with elected officials or public employees.
 
Yes, but I’ve not heard of another situation where a conscientious objector remained in a government position they refused to perform. In any every other circumstance I can think of, the person resigned. What is the point here? If the County Clerk refuses to do her job some other employee will do it.
Up thread I posted the 2011 New Jersey case of a state hospital being made to accommodate 12 nurses who refused to assist in abortion surgery based on conscientious objection. Here in Australia a few years ago, teachers in public schools were allowed to abstain from distributing secular sex education material that included a complimentary condom. There are other examples I could find also to demonstrate the principle in action.
 
So just out of curiosity, would you also uphold the right of a public official who tried to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in a country where such marriages are not yet legal such as Italy based on his sincerely held belief that such marriages should be legal? If you believe in the right to conscientious objection, you must extent that right to people who want to do things based on their conscience that you would disagree with or think are immoral.
That would be a case of an individual creating a law outside of the legal process. That involves denying the legitimate lawmaking process. Conscientious objection is someones personal response to an established state law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top