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.
PRmerger said:
Whether it accomplished anything is irrelevant.

Perhaps she’s set a precedent for other county clerks in other jurisdictions.

Perhaps some young person, who previously hadn’t thought anything amiss about 2 homosexuals getting married, is now thinking, “Huh. I didn’t know there was something wrong with 2 men getting married! Maybe I should investigate this more…”

Perhaps. But it’s also a moral one. And a religious one. And one which is consonant with natural law.
Click to expand...
And maybe young people are saying I can get married three times and commit adultery and there are Catholics out there who will overlook all that if only I act like Kim. Big risk elevating her I feel
 
JimmyG88 said:
I certainly do apologise if you see an insult. I appreciate that there might be a divergence of styles but not an insult. I would call it rhetoric. I can see that strong challenges to an opinion are often classed as ‘uncharitable’. The only thing I can say about that is that it is subjective
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this one, Jimmy.

Mary.
 
Thomas_White said:
The point is she hasn’t accomplished anything, and the marriage licenses in the county are still issued under her authority as the elected government official. If she were truly taking a stand, I would think it would involve her resignation as the County Clerk. If she truly did take a stand while remaining in office by refusing again to permit her office from issuing marriage licenses there is the federal judge for her to answer to. I suggest the perception she has actually taken a stand is a political one.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Someone could write an inflammatory email and send it from my account, but even though it doesn’t have the writer’s name on it, it is still their work. Or, I could change my email account name to a nickname, take my name off the account, but I am still the author of the emails I write. Kim Davis is the County Clerk, and as such, she is still issuing marriages to SS couples. Truly taking a stand would be prohibiting anyone in her office to issue marriage licenses to SS couples or resigning her position.

I respect her as a child of God, but I see her actions in this as those of a diva who wants to have her cake and eat it, too. She really hasn’t taken a stand for anything.
 
PRmerger said:
Perhaps. But it’s also a moral one. And a religious one. And one which is consonant with natural law.
Click to expand...
I respectfully disagree. As County Clerk, the marriage licenses are still being issued under her authority. Pontius Pilate did not want Jesus crucified, however Jesus was crucified under Pilate’s authority. Should we absolve him of blame because he did not hammer the nails into Jesus’ hands and feet? I don’t think so.

Edit: The above example does not mean to insult Kim Davis’ religious beliefs nor do I mean to equate her with someone truly evil. I truly believe she loves Jesus as she says she does. It’s just the only example I could think of where something immoral happened under someone’s authority, yet that person did not have a physical “hand” in the doing. I respect Kim Davis as a child of God. I just don’t respect that way she’s handled this situation.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I respectfully disagree. As County Clerk, the marriage licenses are still being issued under her authority. Pontius Pilate did not want Jesus crucified, however Jesus was crucified under Pilate’s authority. Should we absolve him of blame because he did not hammer the nails into Jesus’ hands and feet? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
This is a good example.

He should have done what Kim Davis did: say “I won’t be part of this crucifixion. I won’t sanction it. It’s against my beliefs to kill an innocent man”.
 
PRmerger said:
This is a good example.

He should have done what Kim Davis did: say “I won’t be part of this crucifixion. I won’t sanction it. It’s against my beliefs to kill an innocent man”.
Click to expand...
Well, as a professor of Christology, the crucifixion was going to happen from all eternity no matter what Pilate did or did not do. It was part of God’s plan.

If Pilate would have resigned his post, fine. But Kim Davis did not resign her post, therefore, marriage licenses to SS couples are still being issued under her authority, her name on them or not. All of the marriage licenses issued to SS couples while Kim Davis is County Clerk have her tacit approval.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Well, as a professor of Christology, the crucifixion was going to happen from all eternity no matter what Pilate did or did not do. It was part of God’s plan.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
If Pilate would have resigned his post, fine. But Kim Davis did not resign her post, therefore, marriage licenses to SS couples are still being issued under her authority, her name on them or not. All of the marriage licenses issued to SS couples while Kim Davis is County Clerk have her tacit approval.
Click to expand...
Actually, it would have been under her tacit approval had she not done what she did.

But her actions make it, by definition, NOT TACIT–she clearly disapproves.
 
PRmerger said:
Irrelevant.

Actually, it would have been under her tacit approval had she not done what she did.

But her actions make it, by definition, NOT TACIT–she clearly disapproves.
Click to expand...
Because she still holds the title of County Clerk, and ALL marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the County Clerk whether her name is on them or not, SSM licenses are issued under her tacit approval no matter what she says. In fact, she is participating in SSM by virtue of being the County Clerk. Not a good example at all. Had she resigned, I would think differently, but she did not resign, even knowing that ALL marriage licenses are issued under her authority, SSM licenses included. When something is issued under your authority, you give tacit approval no matter what you say. Actions really do speak louder than words. She can say whatever she likes, but the fact is she retained her authority, and with that authority comes her approval. Doesn’t matter one iota what she says. Chicken Little said the sky was falling. Didn’t make it true.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Because she still holds the title of County Clerk, and ALL marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the County Clerk whether her name is on them or not, SSM licenses are issued under her tacit approval no matter what she says. In fact, she is participating in SSM by virtue of being the County Clerk. Not a good example at all. Had she resigned, I would think differently, but she did not resign, even knowing that ALL marriage licenses are issued under her authority, SSM licenses included. When something is issued under your authority, you give tacit approval no matter what you say. Actions really do speak louder than words.
Click to expand...
She has made it clear that she disagrees.

Therefore, there is no TACIT approval. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Opposite of TACIT.
And…
Opposite of APPROVAL.
 
PRmerger said:
She has made it clear that she disagrees.

Therefore, there is no TACIT approval. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Opposite of TACIT.
And…
Opposite of APPROVAL.
Click to expand...
I know what she said, but what she said is at odds with what she is doing. Her approval is TACIT because it is IMPLIED in her office as County Clerk. She has stood up for nothing as far as I can see. Her actions belie her words. As County Clerk, she is a PARTICIPANT in every SSM in the county.

It’s kind of a “put your money where your mouth is” situation. And she did not.
 
JimmyG88 said:
Look up Tacit
Click to expand...
I did. It means “implied consent.” She can SAY anything she wants, but as long as she is County Clerk, and as long as marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the County Clerk, she is giving her approval.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I know what she said, but what she said is at odds with what she is doing. Her approval is TACIT because it is IMPLIED in her office as County Clerk. She has stood up for nothing as far as I can see. Her actions belie her words. As County Clerk, she is a PARTICIPANT in every SSM in the county.

It’s kind of a “put your money where your mouth is” situation. And she did not.
Click to expand...
You are so right. Besides what I see as her own moral turpitude
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I did. It means “implied consent.” She can SAY anything she wants, but as long as she is County Clerk, and as long as marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the County Clerk, she is giving her approval.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was trying to agree with you and posted incorrectly on your comment. You clearly know what tacit means
 
JimmyG88 said:
Sorry I was trying to agree with you and posted incorrectly on your comment. You clearly know what tacit means
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s fine. 👍 I use it a lot in school, but actually I did look it up to make sure I was right! LOL 😃
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Thank you, and I agree with your statement.
Click to expand...
I can see her becoming a heroine to some. But I don’t see her actions as heroic. She is imposing moral standards on people while refusing the same moral framework herself. She is not a martyr. A martyr would have died in jail for her beliefs. I wonder did her parents convert or did she leave the church and embrace a set of beliefs that fitted her own disorganised lifestyle? As a servant of the state surely she should do her job or resign and continue her struggle without attempting to serve two Masters
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top