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

[Inisfallen]

Msgr. Charles Pope said:

I believe Msgr. Pope is wrong. Ms. Davis is (I think she still is) an elected official. Presumably she took an oath of office. If she finds herself in a position where she must either violate her oath of office, or act in a way that her faith forbids, she must resign.

She cannot simply refuse to carry out those functions of her office with which she disagrees.

That is a very dangerous precedent. Should a Muslim county clerk be permitted to refuse to issue liquor licenses? Should a follower of Tony Alamo, if elected to office, be permitted to refuse to issue building permits for Catholic churches and schools?

 

[PRmerger]

I believe Msgr. Pope is wrong. Ms. Davis is (I think she still is) an elected official. Presumably she took an oath of office. If she finds herself in a position where she must either violate her oath of office, or act in a way that her faith forbids, she must resign.

She cannot simply refuse to carry out those functions of her office with which she disagrees.

So do you believe St. Thomas More should not have opposed King Henry VIII?

 

[BostonBarrister]

I don’t believe she needs to resign, she simply cannot interfere with issuance of licenses–she need not issue them herself.

 

[BostonBarrister]

So do you believe St. Thomas More should not have opposed King Henry VIII?

Thomas Moore offered to vacate his position, rather than perpetuate the dispute. King Henry accepted that resignation–if in a rather particular and violent manner.

 

[BobCatholic]

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

They’re not allowed to. They’ll have a fatwa on their head and risk their lives.

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

Never said that. But Islam is not just a religion, it is also a political philosophy.
I encourage people to practice their Islamic religion, but I am free to disagree and lobby against their political philosophy of total subjugation of non-muslims and using the government to do so. In the same way I oppose the subjugation of non-atheists by the atheistic regimes that slaughtered 200 million in the 20th century and are hoping to “improve” on that figure in the 21st. Just look at the overpopulation rhetoric, and them calling for elimination of 90% of the world population. They’re not exactly keeping it hidden, though the media love to bury that.

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

That, and they also become atheist by going to universities which are dominated by one political viewpoint that is very intolerant of dissenting viewpoints - especially if that viewpoint is by a Christian.

 

[PRmerger]

Thomas Moore offered to vacate his position, rather than perpetuate the dispute. King Henry accepted that resignation–if in a rather particular and violent manner.

He offered to resign, this was accepted…and then what was the reason for imprisoning him, and then eventually executing him?

 

[BostonBarrister]

He offered to resign, this was accepted…and then what was the reason for imprisoning him, and then eventually executing him?

The rules were different then–and such that they were, Henry wasn’t a big rule follower.

The acceptance of the resignation and the beheading were in fact the same act.

 

[PRmerger]

The rules were different then–and such that they were, Henry wasn’t a big rule follower.

Fair enough.

What is it that you believe St. Thomas More should have done, were he to be living in Kim Davis’ milieu?

The acceptance of the resignation and the beheading were in fact the same act.

What?

So St. Thomas More would have been better off to simply refuse to sign the thing, whatever it was called, that KH commanded him to sign?

The result would have been the same.

 

[BobCatholic]

I believe Msgr. Pope is wrong. Ms. Davis is (I think she still is) an elected official. Presumably she took an oath of office. If she finds herself in a position where she must either violate her oath of office, or act in a way that her faith forbids, she must resign.

She cannot simply refuse to carry out those functions of her office with which she disagrees.

That is a very dangerous precedent. Should a Muslim county clerk be permitted to refuse to issue liquor licenses? Should a follower of Tony Alamo, if elected to office, be permitted to refuse to issue building permits for Catholic churches and schools?

You assume something, and I must test that assumption.

The religious or ethical belief is to the PERSON not the OFFICE. So if a PERON in the OFFICE has a religious or ethical belief that prohibits them from exercising a part of their duties in the office, you are saying they have no right to have their own opinion, the first amendment is null and void to anyone who has to work for a living (so human rights are only for the rich who don’t have to work for a living)

THAT is the dangerous precedent.

The OFFICE has multiple people working in it. Someone else can do the objectionable task.

Interesting if someone has a disability that prevents someone from physically doing something, we are REQUIRED BY LAW to give them a reasonable accommodation (Americans with Disabilities Act). But if someone has a religion or ethical belief that prevents someone from morally doing something, we do not.

That is a double standard.

This is tantamount to saying people with ethical beliefs can never work for a living again. Just like some would say someone who is in a wheelchair should never work for a living again.

 

[BostonBarrister]

Fair enough.

What is it that you believe St. Thomas More should have done, were he to be living in Kim Davis’ milieu?

What?

So St. Thomas More would have been better off to simply refuse to sign the thing, whatever it was called, that KH commanded him to sign?

The result would have been the same.

I said no such things–I simply offered some clarity as to what transpired.

He took the stand that he believed in, even though he was relatively sure that it would cost him his life.

Very laudable.

 

[BostonBarrister]

You assume something, and I must test that assumption.

The religious or ethical belief is to the PERSON not the OFFICE. So if a PERON in the OFFICE has a religious or ethical belief that prohibits them from exercising a part of their duties in the office, you are saying they have no right to have their own opinion, the first amendment is null and void to anyone who has to work for a living (so human rights are only for the rich who don’t have to work for a living)

THAT is the dangerous precedent.

The OFFICE has multiple people working in it. Someone else can do the objectionable task.

Interesting if someone has a disability that prevents someone from physically doing something, we are REQUIRED BY LAW to give them a reasonable accommodation (Americans with Disabilities Act). But if someone has a religion or ethical belief that prevents someone from morally doing something, we do not.

That is a double standard.

This is tantamount to saying people with ethical beliefs can never work for a living again. Just like some would say someone who is in a wheelchair should never work for a living again.

Not true–REASONABLE accommodation must be made, but not UNCONDITIONAL accommodation. They are not the same.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not true–REASONABLE accommodation must be made, but not UNCONDITIONAL accommodation. They are not the same.

And that was what Kim Davis was asking for - a reasonable one. Remove her name from the marriage certificates issued to homosexual couples.

But you disagree with that.

 

[BostonBarrister]

And that was what Kim Davis was asking for - a reasonable one. Remove her name from the marriage certificates issued to homosexual couples.

But you disagree with that.

Me? No, I have no opinion on that. I don’t know enough about the request, to whom it was made, or the circumstances surrounding what if any response.

I think she should be allowed to abstain from participation in the issuance of such licenses so long as others in her office will issue them, and the licenses issued by those others have the full effect of law.

 

[HCTC]

I don’t believe she needs to resign, she simply cannot interfere with issuance of licenses–she need not issue them herself.

An accommodation was made for Ms. Davis so that she did not have to personally issue licenses to same sex couples. It has been reported that now she wants her name removed from the forms and that legislation is required for that to happen.

What is your opinion? Should her name, and possibly the names of every county clerk in the State of Kentucky, be removed from marriage license forms to accommodate Ms. Davis?

Here is the oath of office:

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of theCircuit Court:

“I, …, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of … County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.

Effective: January 2, 1978

History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

 

[PRmerger]

I said no such things–

I have no idea what you mean. You said no such what?

I don’t believe I asserted that you said anything at all.

I asked 2 questions:

What is it that you believe St. Thomas More should have done, were he to be living in Kim Davis’ milieu?

So St. Thomas More would have been better off to simply refuse to sign the thing, whatever it was called, that KH commanded him to sign?

 

[BostonBarrister]

An accommodation was made for Ms. Davis so that she did not have to personally issue licenses to same sex couples. It has been reported that now she wants her name removed from the forms and that legislation is required for that to happen.

What is your opinion? Should her name, and possibly the names of every county clerk in the State of Kentucky, be removed from marriage license forms to accommodate Ms. Davis?

Here is the oath of office:

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of theCircuit Court:

“I, …, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of … County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.

Effective: January 2, 1978

History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

I see no intrinsic value to the name of the Clerk or any Government official being imprinted upon a document other than person executing the document. Typically, the affixation of such names is one of the vanities of office. If my opinion is important, I think the legislature should take them off.

 

[BobCatholic]

Me? No, I have no opinion on that. I don’t know enough about the request, to whom it was made, or the circumstances surrounding what if any response.

That’s why you need to read up on the issue rather than let the media tell you what to think

She filed an appeal.

I think she should be allowed to abstain from participation in the issuance of such licenses so long as others in her office will issue them, and the licenses issued by those others have the full effect of law.

And this was what her appeal said.

 

[BostonBarrister]

I have no idea what you mean. You said no such what?

I don’t believe I asserted that you said anything at all.

I asked 2 questions:

What is it that you believe St. Thomas More should have done, were he to be living in Kim Davis’ milieu?

So St. Thomas More would have been better off to simply refuse to sign the thing, whatever it was called, that KH commanded him to sign?

If St. Thomas took the same action he did in his time, offer to surrender his post rather than comply, I would think of highly of him as I do now.

Better off? I guess that depends on how you define better off. He likely would have lived longer, and enjoyed better retirement benefits. However, there would have been other costs…

 

[BostonBarrister]

That’s why you need to read up on the issue rather than let the media tell you what to think

She filed an appeal.

And this was what her appeal said.

I’m pretty sure I don’t let the media tell me what to think–I don’t even watch TV news because I think it is all pretty badly presented.

I am sure that you don’t know me well enough to opine as to where my thoughts come from.

Her appeal to the US Circuit was not structured as you suggest.

It is available online, and you can read it in its entirety rather than depending upon whatever flawed source of information you got your understanding from.

 

[meltzerboy]

An accommodation was made for Ms. Davis so that she did not have to personally issue licenses to same sex couples. It has been reported that now she wants her name removed from the forms and that legislation is required for that to happen.

What is your opinion? Should her name, and possibly the names of every county clerk in the State of Kentucky, be removed from marriage license forms to accommodate Ms. Davis?

Here is the oath of office:

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of theCircuit Court:

“I, …, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of … County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.

Effective: January 2, 1978

History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

The question is whether the removal of her name from the form is reasonable accommodation or not. Has Kim Davis requested the removal of OTHER clerks’ names as well? That would certainly be unreasonable.