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.
LongingSoul said:
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)
Click to expand...
LongingSoul said:
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”:

As noted in another comment, nobody has said a Kim Davis did not have a right to her conscientious objection. This is not even the issue.

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)
Click to expand...
Kim Davis was the public authority when it came to issuing marriage licenses. It is a different scenario. She was not acting as a citizen,and the difference is fundamental. If she could not in good conscience perform her sworn duties as the public authority, she should have resigned.
 
LongingSoul said:
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”:

As noted in another comment, nobody has said a Kim Davis did not have a right to her conscientious objection. This is not even the issue.

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)
Click to expand...
Kim Davis was the public authority when it came to issuing marriage licenses. It is a different scenario. If she could not in good conscience perform her sworn duties as the public authority, she should have resigned.
 
We should do what they do in Israel and leave marriage and divorce to the religious authorities and not have the state involved at all.
 
Dwyer said:
We should do what they do in Israel and leave marriage and divorce to the religious authorities and not have the state involved at all.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree more.

It would require massive rewrites of Family, Trust, Estate, Property and Tax law–but I would be entirely in favor of that.
 
Dwyer said:
We should do what they do in Israel and leave marriage and divorce to the religious authorities and not have the state involved at all.
Click to expand...
Who takes care of the messy matter of children and alimony and property rights during a divorce?

Why should the religious authorities be involved with that? And would the Westboro Baptist Church have its own laws on alimony compared to the Episcopal Church?

Or would all religions have to follow one law regarding property rights, alimony etc?
 
meltzerboy said:
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.
Click to expand...
She did not ask that the names of other county clerks be removed. However, State forms are usually approved by the legislature on a State-wide basis. It would seem that an accommodation offered to Kim Davis should be available to every county clerk.

Here is the most crucial point as stated by BostonBarrister:

“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.”

Kim Davis has suggested that the licenses issued by her deputies do not have the " full effect of the law." I believe that she has been disabused of that notion.
 
LongingSoul said:
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)
Click to expand...
Nobody has said Kim Davis did not have a right to conscientious objection. Kim Davis was the public authority when it came to issuing marriage licenses. It is a different scenario. She was not the citizen, and if anything her actions were what was oppressive of the rights of citizens. If she could not in good conscience perform her sworn duties as the public authority, she should have resigned.
 
BostonBarrister said:
I couldn’t agree more.

It would require massive rewrites of Family, Trust, Estate, Property and Tax law–but I would be entirely in favor of that.
Click to expand...
Yikes! What a mess that would be. There would be different rights, different rules and different systems for everyone. In some religions women have no rights. It would be crazy!
 
HCTC said:
Yikes! What a mess that would be. There would be different rights, different rules and different systems for everyone. In some religions women have no rights. It would be crazy!
Click to expand...
Not at all–marriage would no longer be an institution recognized by law, and so entering into one, leaving one, or never having entered into one would not impact in the eyes of the law.

It could be replaced by civil partnership–but those areas of law that I listed would need to be rewritten.
 
BostonBarrister said:
Not at all–marriage would no longer be an institution recognized by law, and so entering into one, leaving one, or never having entered into one would not impact in the eyes of the law.

It could be replaced by civil partnership–but those areas of law that I listed would need to be rewritten.
Click to expand...
But how would that work?

What if someone was a member of a religion which didn’t recognize property rights for women?

The couple divorces and the elders in this church would be authorized to distribute their property and the woman would get nothing?
 
PRmerger said:
But how would that work?

What if someone was a member of a religion which didn’t recognize property rights for women?

The couple divorces and the elders in this church would be authorized to distribute their property and the woman would get nothing?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I am expressing myself poorly.

Marriage would not be a factor. People could become married within their churches or not, and that would have no legal effect.

There would instead be domestic or civil partnership–entirely arranged and administered by offices of the government.
 
BobCatholic said:
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)
Click to expand...
She has every right to her own opinion, and to express that opinion, and to worship and believe as she sees fit.

If her faith prevents her from carrying out the duties of her office, then she ought not to be a county clerk.
BobCatholic said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not a double standard. A disabled person’s situation isn’t analogous to Ms. Davis’ situation. The ADA requires that reasonable accommodation be made for disabled persons so that they can do a certain job. It doesn’t say that they don’t have to actually do the job. It doesn’t require, for example, that we hire blind persons as bus drivers, or deaf persons as conductors of orchestras, or illiterate persons as librarians.
 
BostonBarrister said:
I’m sorry, I am expressing myself poorly.

Marriage would not be a factor. People could become married within their churches or not, and that would have no legal effect.

There would instead be domestic or civil partnership–entirely arranged and administered by offices of the government.
Click to expand...
Well, that sounds like what we already have. Just a semantics change.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, that sounds like what we already have. Just a semantics change.
Click to expand...
I’ve been reading these forums for about a year–although I almost never decide to get involved.

But one thing is crystal clear. Semantics are important.

In fact, they are at the crux of the debate. Had we been talking about a government structured civil partnership, instead of the venerable institution of marriage (which historically was fundamentally more connected to property rights than any sacramental reality), then we wouldn’t be having so much fuss.

Fred & barney could get their domestic partnerships certified, and there would be no stain or implication upon any religious institution. Because marriage has such a history of being tied up with both church and state–we have this whole to do.
 
BostonBarrister said:
I’ve been reading these forums for about a year–although I almost never decide to get involved.

But one thing is crystal clear. Semantics are important.
Click to expand...
Well, yes.

But not all the time.

Sometimes it’s just…semantics.
In fact, they are at the crux of the debate. Had we been talking about a government structured civil partnership, instead of the venerable institution of marriage (which historically was fundamentally more connected to property rights than any sacramental reality), then we wouldn’t be having so much fuss.
Click to expand...
Fred & barney could get their domestic partnerships certified, and there would be no stain or implication upon any religious institution. Because marriage has such a history of being tied up with both church and state–we have this whole to do.
Click to expand...
We can argue for marriage being between a man and woman without appealing to religion.

So religion need not ever be a part of this conversation.

Kim Davis could have protested the new law without ever appealing to her religious convictions.
 
PRmerger said:
Kim Davis could have protested the new law without ever appealing to her religious convictions.
Click to expand...
She and her lawyer evidently do not believe so. Else why make up lies about her encounter with the Pope?
 
PRmerger said:
Well, yes.
We can argue for marriage being between a man and woman without appealing to religion.

So religion need not ever be a part of this conversation.

Kim Davis could have protested the new law without ever appealing to her religious convictions.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

But then it is simply one opinion in the democratic process: no faith-based protection for abstention from civil duties.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
She and her lawyer evidently do not believe so. Else why make up lies about her encounter with the Pope?
Click to expand...
Puzzling that you would know that she “made up lies” while having absolutely no real knowledge about what did or did not occur regarding her meeting with the Pope.

You might want to ask yourself why you are so invested in this that you would commit calumny based upon something you have no certainty about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top