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

[Thomas_White]

But the ideal situation to accommodate that would be to find a job for that soldier still within the service but not needing to perform that particular duty. That is something the Church urged as per the USSCB letter I’ve posted above.

If Ms Davis can still perform all her other duties but someone else do the particular duty of signing ssm licences, there’d be no skin off anyones nose. The reality is that the next official to come into the job will be aware of the need to grant ssm licences before accepting the position.

It seems to be what has occurred, and the issue with Kim Davis is perhaps already settled. As for the example of the soldier, it was sometimes possible to move him to another job and sometimes not. There was both the situation of a soldier who one bright day would decide to take a stand and declare he want longer wanted any part of the army and the war in Vietnam, and the situation of the individual who refused induction altogether. In both those instances there were consequences.

This is not abstract for me. As it happens, I served in the U.S. Army during the war and worked for a time in administrative separations. These things were complex, sometimes involving AWOL, desertion, court martial and a bad conduct discharge. Soldiers would experience the sudden illumination they were conscientious objectors only at the very moment they learned they were headed to Vietnam as an infantryman. Excuse me if I seem skeptical, but I saw enough of these soldiers eventually rounded up by the M.P.'s and taken to the stockade to await court martial and discharge. At that point, they would show up in my office in the company of M.P.'s, and I interviewed them all.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Right now Atheism and Islam are fighting for the soul of the United States of America. The Atheists won now. Atheism is the official religion of the US Government.

Give 50 years of Muslims having multiple kids, atheists having none, and Christians having one maybe two, your comment will not be true.

Because children born to Muslims never convert to other religious views?

Because Muslims can never be counted on to be good US citizens?

Because people only become atheist by being born to atheist parents?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Sure.

I believe we do know, and the answer is no, as he made clear that conscientious objection was a human right when asked about Kim Davis’ case.

I believe he has answered. You can pretend he hasn’t if you like.

Yup.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I’ve read the entire transcript of his press conference on the plane going back to Rome from the US, and Kim Davis’ name is never mentioned, although he does endorse conscientious objection. So do I. Can you provide a link to where the pope said anything specific to Kim Davis? I don’t think he ever has, but if you can provide a link, I will change my mind. Thank you…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Some people believe Christians should stand up and defend their faith when laws of man conflict with Gods law, not just give up and quit.

Lets say Kim Davis did just resign and move to another job, this would not even be a news story then, we must remember all it takes for evil to grow, is for good people to do nothing.

There are different ways of standing up and defending one’s faith. Mrs. Davis took the misguided way of the person who wants to have her cake and eat it, too. I can never understand how people come to have such a sense of entitlement that they actually believe special accommodations should be made just for them. It’s beyond my comprehension. I’ve known severely handicapped men in the “Wounded Warrior” program, for which I volunteer, and they expect NO special accommodations, and if anyone deserves them, it is these wounded men and women. Many have traumatic brain injury and expect no special privileges. It really speaks to their character. I admire them greatly.

Since I still have to use a cane to walk while I’m in physical therapy for my legs (was run over by a truck), the school has offered me a handicapped parking place. Although thankful, I declined because there are more handicapped people than I at that school, who need that space. I’m getting better slowly; some of them are not.

I guess I do not sympathize with Mrs. Davis because I feel NO sense of entitlement. I NEVER expect people to make special accommodations for me.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

The difference between this situation and Kim Davis is that this Priest came into ‘the job’ knowing exactly the position of the Catholic Church and understanding his duties based on that. He was the one who has changed… not the employer.

Ms Davis accepted her job being perfectly okay with all the duties on the duty statement and the rules were changed by the employer. She most probably would never have accepted the job in the first place had she known that one of the duties would be to give marriage licences to same sex couples.

Are you saying Mrs. Davis didn’t know SSM could very well become a law during her time as County Clerk? That would be awfully naive on her part if she didn’t.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

These are two quite different examples of conscientious objection and neither “dangerous” nor physical “danger” is what they share in common–or not as those words are commonly defined and understood. Whether or not Kim Davis still refuses to perform her job duties as an elected official is a question for a federal judge. Whether she has a right as a conscientious objector to refuse to perform her job duties is a separate question. I believe she has a right to claim conscientious objector status but not to remain in an elective office if she refuses to perform the duties of that office. The issue is the rule of law and not that of her right to conscientiously object. If the President of the United States refused to uphold the rule of law and, as a matter of conscience, defied the Supreme Court, he would surely face impeachment. This is the difficulty–consequences are unavoidable in both examples. The example of Kim Davis would not meet the definition of ‘danger’, so call it what one will. It is a problem as it is in all the examples.

The instance of a soldier refusing to perform his or her sworn duties is a problem if not the same circumstances. If an infantryman would claim conscientious objector status but would nevertheless be permitted to remain in that position while refusing to perform his duties in combat would be utterly irresponsible. It is an extreme example but true to the principle.

An excellent post. I agree with you.

 

[LongingSoul]

It seems to be what has occurred, and the issue with Kim Davis is perhaps already settled. As for the example of the soldier, it was sometimes possible to move him to another job and sometimes not. There was both the situation of a soldier who one bright day would decide to take a stand and declare he want longer wanted any part of the army and the war in Vietnam, and the situation of the individual who refused induction altogether. In both those instances there were consequences.

This is not abstract for me. As it happens, I served in the U.S. Army during the war and worked for a time in administrative separations. These things were complex, sometimes involving AWOL, desertion, court martial and a bad conduct discharge. Soldiers would experience the sudden illumination they were conscientious objectors only at the very moment they learned they were headed to Vietnam as an infantryman. Excuse me if I seem skeptical, but I saw enough of these soldiers eventually rounded up by the M.P.'s and taken to the stockade to await court martial and discharge. At that point, they would show up in my office in the company of M.P.'s, and I interviewed them all.

For sure rights can be exploited. That’s the same for most of the human rights. In the juridical system nothing should be accepted as genuine based only on the claim. There’s a process of discernment required.

But still there’s the need for conscientious objection as one way ensuring efforts are primarily towards promoting peace rather than being poured into winning wars. Again quoting the US Bishops 19620’s document…

**We cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties, provided that this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself. (GS, n. 78)

We should look upon conscientious objection not as a scandal, but rather as a healthy sign. War will still not be replaced by more humane institutions for regulating conflict until citizens insist on principles of non-violence. John F. Kennedy once said, “War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”**

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you saying Mrs. Davis didn’t know SSM could very well become a law during her time as County Clerk? That would be awfully naive on her part if she didn’t.

What difference would that make? If I aspired to be a politician, a teacher, a doctor or any other public servant… it would be with the attitude of promoting the common good and Christian values. Taking part in building the best society I could. To suggest that public service should be avoided because the standards might change in the future, is too bizarre to even address.

 

[HCTC]

For sure rights can be exploited. That’s the same for most of the human rights. In the juridical system nothing should be accepted as genuine based only on the claim. There’s a process of discernment required.

But still there’s the need for conscientious objection as one way ensuring efforts are primarily towards promoting peace rather than being poured into winning wars.

[/INDENT]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that there has not been a single post to this thread that disputes the validity of the concept of conscientious objection.

 

[LongingSoul]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that there has not been a single post to this thread that disputes the validity of the concept of conscientious objection.

Many of the posts assert that conscientious objection means ‘resigning quietly’ disturbing no ones peace. I say conscientious objection is by nature an act initiating serious examination of morality of an issue within the environment that adjudicates it.

 

[meltzerboy]

Many of the posts assert that conscientious objection means ‘resigning quietly’ disturbing no ones peace. I say conscientious objection is by nature an act initiating serious examination of morality of an issue within the environment that adjudicates it.

Are you saying it is a form of civil disobedience?

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you saying it is a form of civil disobedience?

The Catechism provides justification for both in context…

"The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the law of the gospel." (2242)

 

[LongingSoul]

Evangelium Vitae gives another example of how conscientious objection applies…

"Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

**Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pt 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (**Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty—that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rv 13:10). In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it. (EV 72, 73)

 

[HCTC]

Many of the posts assert that conscientious objection means ‘resigning quietly’ disturbing no ones peace. I say conscientious objection is by nature an act initiating serious examination of morality of an issue within the environment that adjudicates it.

I think that “resigning quietly” is your own interpretation. When an elected public official resigns as a matter of conscience, there is nothing quiet about it. Kim Davis’ resignation probably would not have garnered the attention that her going to jail has; but she has been offered the accommodation of having a deputy issue the licenses to SS couples (she doesn’t have to sign the forms), and now she wants her name off the forms - which requires legislative action that would have to apply to all county forms. As county clerk she is responsible for the filing of all forms. Taking her name off of the forms doesn’t change that. So now, in my hunble opinion, she should do her job or resign if her conscientious objection is sincere.

 

[Inisfallen]

Quite a few years ago (in 1960), a famous Catholic said something very relevant:

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

That was Senator John F. Kennedy.

*That’s *how one should behave when one’s religious convictions prevent one from exercising one’s duties as a government official.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Quite a few years ago (in 1960), a famous Catholic said something very relevant:

That was Senator John F. Kennedy.

*That’s *how one should behave when one’s religious convictions prevent one from exercising one’s duties as a government official.

Msgr. Charles Pope said:

She could have quit her job. But as a citizen and a human being she does have recourse to civil disobedience. She ought not to be excoriated for exercising her human right to disobey a law she considers immoral and unjust.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/msgr-pope/kim-davis-is-right-to-fight-this-despotic-and-shameful-law/#ixzz3neHCuvTc

 

[PRmerger]

Because children born to Muslims never convert to other religious views?

Because Muslims can never be counted on to be good US citizens?

Because people only become atheist by being born to atheist parents?

None of the above questions are trenchant.

Point is: right now secular atheism has imposed its morality upon US society…

In about 50 years, as correctly pointed out because of atheistic views on reproductive “freedom”, vs Muslim views on family and women, there will be a change in paradigm.

 

[BostonBarrister]

I may not be much of a religious scholar, but I am pretty good attorney, and member of the adjunct faculty at my law school.

The idea of conscientious objection and protection for religious belief and expression within the workplace are well enshrined in US law. Both the liberties themselves, and the restrictions. Under the law, everyone has freedom to adhere to their own religion, but it is not an unlimited freedom.

If I professed a religion that had as an integral part of its creed that women were property, and should be extended no rights, I could not take actions (or fail to take actions) that would result in their full enjoyment of rights as a citizen.

I think the Federal district court in Kentucky got it right. Kim Davis is free to abstain from taking any personal actions she likes, so long as the citizens within her jurisdiction are free to exercise all of their federal rights. At the point her action, or lack of action, denies any citizen his or her rights, her constitutional freedom to exercise her religious beliefs ends.

 

[BobCatholic]

My goodness, what an emotionally charged post! If you are truly living in fear that the U.S. government could become a Muslim theocracy, you would be absolutely insisting that Kim Davis do her job or resign.

She did do her job. She didn’t do it the way the atheists wanted to be done. So the Christian was told “no human rights for her” because Atheism is the official religion of the government.

Unless you believe that ethical behavior is no longer a requirement to do a state government job (so you’ll jail whistleblowers and good government types), or that a religious or religious doctrine test is required for the job (Article VI section 3 of the constitution null and void thanks to your belief)

 

[BobCatholic]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that there has not been a single post to this thread that disputes the validity of the concept of conscientious objection.

But what about the validity of “conscientious objection” and “you still get to keep your job” and “you still get to be free, and not thrown in jail” or “you won’t have everything you own taken away from you”

There is one thing to say conscientious objection is valid. It is yet again another thing to say it is a human right (which you deny).