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

[OriginalJS]

A lot of them were women in formal dress, Joe. Some members of the Pope’s own family were there, with whom he did meet privately.

In all honesty, I don’t see how Davis, whose parents are Catholic, could have been confused.

Was Kim Davis baptized in the Catholic Church? Anybody know?

 

[PRmerger]

If one government employee is allowed to object and keep his or her job, they all should be allowed, and that would cause havoc.

So you disagree with what St. Thomas More did?

Was he not a government employee? Did he not refuse to follow the law?

 

[PRmerger]

It said that the people that a particular unnamed Vatican official objected to, i.e. the gay Episcopal former bishop Gene Robinson, a gay Catholic man, Aaron Ledesma, and Sister Simone Campbell, were only a handful out of the thousands invited.

A handful out of the thousands invited?

Where does it say they were invited?

I read it to say that they were a handful out of “many thousands” who were potential invitees.

 

[Brendan]

Why should the Vatican involve itself in American political issues? Pope Francis has more than a billion Catholics to shepherd. He doesn’t need to be bothered with this. This is for the American public to sort out.

Religious Freedom is a moral issue as well. The Pope specifically mentioned that twice during his visit.

 

[mommy_k]

It doesn’t matter if the meeting was 1 minute or an hour. The Pope met her to give spiritual comforting words. Not an endorsement for a legal battle. She should have accepted this graciously, should have been honored to meet him, and not involved her lawyer or used this meeting for any other purpose then her personal consolement.
Examples like this point to capitaiizing on everything and giving a bad impression to the world.

 

[Brendan]

I believe as you do with the exception that I think government workers who cannot do their job - in full - because of a matter of conscience need to find other employment. .

So you object when a government official uses their position to combat an unjust law?

Should Oskar Schindler have simply resigned his position in the Abwehr, instead of using his position to extract what justice he could.

Your premise seems to imply that you would have approved of his resignation.

 

[Thomas_White]

There is the development concerning Msg. Charamsa, a Vatican official who has had duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a teacher at the Pontifical Universities. He has publicly announced he is homosexual and has a boyfriend. The Monsignor said in his announcement that the Church is homophobic and its treatment of homosexuals is inhumane. These are apparently his beliefs. He asked for change.

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

 

[PRmerger]

There is the development concerning Msg. Charamsa, a Vatican official who has had duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a teacher at the Pontifical Universities. He has publicly announced he is homosexual and has a boyfriend. The Monsignor said in his announcement that the Church is homophobic and its treatment of homosexuals is inhumane. These are apparently his beliefs. He asked for change.

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

That’s a good question and point acknowledged.

I don’t think a priest who embraces homosexuality ought to be able to keep his position.

He can profess his views as much as he likes outside of his role Vatican official, and ought not be silenced.

However, if he wants to continue his role in the Vatican then he must keep silent.

How do I reconcile this with my views on Kim Davis being able to object to the law? I suppose because through her conscientious objection we may be able to change the law, but we as Catholics know that no amount of conscientious objection will change the Divine Law.

 

[Darryl1958]

Kim Davis was probably there because the Nuncio Vigano knew who she is. But it does not follow that Pope Francis knew who she is even if he shook hands with her. Someone from the nunciature could have told the Pope, “Here are twenty people we selected for this event, could you please shake all their hands and give each one of them a rosary.” In this case the Pope would be relying on these officials to make the decision about who they thought should have the honor of getting a handshake from him.

People are making it sound like the Pope was the dupe of Vatican officials.
Maybe that is true.
Nevertheless, the fact that Kim Davis was there to meet the Pope is not random.

It is also not random that the Pope met his former student. The CNN exclusive would hardly be called an exclusive if the relevant fact about that former student or friend was that he was a student and a friend of the pope. If his claim to fame is the B he was given in class, the fact that he met the pope would not be newsworthy.

 

[Brendan_64]

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

He has not been sacked because he is gay, or even because he is in a gay relationship. He was sacked because he chose to make a public spectacle by declaring his secret lifestyle to all and cynically doing this just before the eve of the Synod, thus attacking Church teaching and attempting to manipulate things just as the Synod is about to start. His actions are not the actions of a conscientious objector, but the actions of one who is burning his boats regarding his vocation and timing the announcement of this in a cynical attempt to manipulate.

 

[Darryl1958]

There is the development concerning Msg. Charamsa, a Vatican official who has had duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a teacher at the Pontifical Universities. He has publicly announced he is homosexual and has a boyfriend. The Monsignor said in his announcement that the Church is homophobic and its treatment of homosexuals is inhumane. These are apparently his beliefs. He asked for change.

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

The more relevant question as an analogy to the Kim Davis affair is whether this Monsignor ought to be sent to jail because of his beliefs?

So I will ask you: Should he be sent to jail?

Another relevant point is to note the difference between the Vatican and the US government. The Vatican has an official morality. Morality in fact is a large part of the reason for a Vatican in the first place. The US government is an organization that has gone to great lengths to avoid all appearances of having an official morality. Moreover, governments in the West in general in recent years have gone to great lengths to accommodate the religious beliefs and the sensitivities of their employees in the name of diversity.
Why should this not apply to a Christian’s beliefs too?

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s a good question and point acknowledged.

I don’t think a priest who embraces homosexuality ought to be able to keep his position.

He can profess his views as much as he likes outside of his role Vatican official, and ought not be silenced.

However, if he wants to continue his role in the Vatican then he must keep silent.

How do I reconcile this with my views on Kim Davis being able to object to the law? I suppose because through her conscientious objection we may be able to change the law, but we as Catholics know that no amount of conscientious objection will change the Divine Law.

PR, do you object to the priest’s conscientious objection even though he accepts the consequences of his behavior? IOW, perhaps he knew he would not be able to continue his role in the Vatican, but still felt it was his moral duty to follow his conscience no matter what the personal outcome might be to himself or the future consequence of his action might be with regard to Church policy toward other priests.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, do you object to the priest’s conscientious objection

I haven’t followed the story much so I don’t know what his “conscientious objection” consists of.

What is he doing to protest?

Is he professing that the Divine Law of God must be changed?

 

[Brendan]

There is the development concerning Msg. Charamsa, a Vatican official who has had duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a teacher at the Pontifical Universities. He has publicly announced he is homosexual and has a boyfriend. The Monsignor said in his announcement that the Church is homophobic and its treatment of homosexuals is inhumane. These are apparently his beliefs. He asked for change.

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

What injustice is he objecting to?

 

[PRmerger]

What injustice is he objecting to?

Priestly celibacy. Oppression of his homosexual feelings.

 

[Brendan]

Priestly celibacy. Oppression of his homosexual feelings.

Neither of those are injustices.

 

[PRmerger]

Neither of those are injustices.

This is not helpful.

You need to see the argument from his side.

We aren’t currently arguing whether it’s unjust or not to have priestly celibacy or to profess that homosexuality is disordered.

We are arguing about his right to object to something he believes to be wrong.

Do you believe he has this right?

It’s a pretty straight forward question, Brendan.

 

[Darryl1958]

Neither of those are injustices.

They are considered to be injustices in mainstream modern thought. These kinds of things, I would submit, are the main reasons that people in our society object to Christianity.

 

[Thomas_White]

The more relevant question as an analogy to the Kim Davis affair is whether this Monsignor ought to be sent to jail because of his beliefs?

So I will ask you: Should he be sent to jail?

Not if he didn’t violate a law for which this is a penalty. His publically calling for a priesthood that rejects celibacy and accepts the practice of homosexuality most definitely is at the very least advocating for a major change in Canon Law. To the extent he has violated that law, I believe he should accept the consequences just as Kim Davis should.

Another relevant point is to note the difference between the Vatican and the US government. The Vatican has an official morality. Morality in fact is a large part of the reason for a Vatican in the first place. The US government is an organization that has gone to great lengths to avoid all appearances of having an official morality. Moreover, governments in the West in general in recent years have gone to great lengths to accommodate the religious beliefs and the sensitivities of their employees in the name of diversity.
Why should this not apply to a Christian’s beliefs too?

It is the official morality of the Vatican that the Monsignor has violated. It is what is applicable and what is relevant in the example. It has been my thinking that an example such as that of the Monsignor is where this leads if a conscientious objector would have the right to remain in a position in an institution or organizatio when that person’s actions are in conflict with those of the institution.

I certainly do not support SSM. My concern is where this leads when conscientious objection presumes the right to remain in a position where the person objects to performing the duties of that position. In my thinking, this is about as reasonable as a combat infantryman who declares he is a conscientious objector remaining in that position during combat with his fellow soldiers.

 

[PRmerger]

Not if he didn’t violate a law for which this is a penalty. His publically calling for a priesthood that rejects celibacy and accepts the practice of homosexuality most definitely is at the very least advocating for a major change in Canon Law.

Can you cite the Canon Law re: homosexuality which he wants to change?