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

[Joe_5859]

What would be wrong if it was an endorsement? As Catholics, we don’t believe in gays marrying.

I don’t understand why political correctness has to enter into our faith.

I don’t think it’s political correctness but rather being cautious about wading into a divisive current event that is ongoing and they don’t care to spend the time getting up to speed on the complex particulars.

I don’t blame them.

 

[exnihilo]

This makes me wonder if we ever know much truth about anything. If what transpired during a simple meeting just a week ago is so confused how can we know about about the truth about things that happened decades or centuries in the past?

The Vatican for some reason is far too often unable to present a clear picture of things. I did wonder if Davis and her attorneys overstated things, but the Vatican’s habit of not adding clarity makes it a tough situation to judge.

The man about whom I wrote was a Catholic. When he received his draft notice, he did not try to get a medical exemption; he did not go to Canada; he did not hire a lawyer and stall the inevitable; he did not ignore the notice and go on about his life trying to avoid arrest. He went to the induction center, refused to pledge, and went to prison. That is a conscientious objection of the sort that i, personally, can respect. In my humble opinion, if Ms Davis conscientiously objects to issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, she should resign her elected position. That would be a conscientious objection that I would respect.

I’m glad you hired him. As for Davis I respect her position because when she was elected in her state SS’M’ was illegal. A usurper court changed the law. She is following her state’s law. She is following the will of the people in a land where we supposedly go to war with other countries to bring democracy. She went to jail supposedly for ignoring the law. But lots of high ranking officials don’t face any penalty for ignoring the law i.e. Jerry Brown (now Governor of CA), Eric Holder (former AG of the US), and Obama. They put the little people in jail but not these guys.

 

[HCTC]

I’m glad you hired him. As for Davis I respect her position because when she was elected in her state SS’M’ was illegal. A usurper court changed the law. She is following her state’s law. She is following the will of the people in a land where we supposedly go to war with other countries to bring democracy. She went to jail supposedly for ignoring the law. But lots of high ranking officials don’t face any penalty for ignoring the law i.e. Jerry Brown (now Governor of CA), Eric Holder (former AG of the US), and Obama. They put the little people in jail but not these guys.

The bad news is that we live in a country where getting a marriage license is not a Sacrament. The good news is that neither do we need to be concerned about someday living under Sharia law.

 

[exnihilo]

The bad news is that we live in a country where getting a marriage license is not a Sacrament. The good news is that neither do we need to be concerned about someday living under Sharia law.

We used to live in a country that respected natural law. We used to live in a country that more or less respected Christian values. There is no real protection against Sharia law. There is nor real protection against Secular Humanism the greater and more immediate threat. A country is going to follow a religious or philosophical tradition. Right now it certainly isn’t Christianity.

 

[Joe_5859]

This makes me wonder if we ever know much truth about anything. If what transpired during a simple meeting just a week ago is so confused how can we know about about the truth about things that happened decades or centuries in the past?

The Vatican for some reason is far too often unable to present a clear picture of things. I did wonder if Davis and her attorneys overstated things, but the Vatican’s habit of not adding clarity makes it a tough situation to judge.

Sounds like a good argument in favor of apostolic succession and the role of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church to me. There’s no way the ecclesial game of “telephone” could pass on Divine Revelation in whole and in tact without divine assistance.

 

[HCTC]

We used to live in a country that respected natural law. We used to live in a country that more or less respected Christian values. There is no real protection against Sharia law. There is nor real protection against Secular Humanism the greater and more immediate threat. A country is going to follow a religious or philosophical tradition. Right now it certainly isn’t Christianity.

We use to live in a country that legislated Christian behavior. When I was a child in the south, stores could not open on Sunday. The blue laws, as they were called, criminalized breaking the fourth commandment: Remember to keep holy the Sabbath. When i wax nostalgic, I recall that having all the stores closed on Sunday was a good thing. We went to Mass, and in my opinion we had a richer family life.

Of course we didn’t have computers, the Internet, the majority of women working, soccer, girls softball; until I was four years old, we didn’t have TV. My point is that change happens, and our tendency is to feel that the old ways were better. The fact is that the law today does not support Christianity like it use to because that offends and marginalized people who are not Christian. Just as we would be offended and marginalized if we had to live under Sharia law.

Now it is encumbered upon us to take responsibility for our own Christian values. In my humble opinion, if our values are in decline, it is our fault. In order to live our Christian values, it is not necessary for us to impose Christian behavior on everyone in the country.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Kim Davis is the next Rosa Parks. What she did took alot of heart. The Vatican should invite her to Rome and video record it. What is the big deal. You know liberalism has crept in when we are afraid to proclaim the good news.

Fr Tad’s article is very good below.
thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=174628

 

[TCEL]

Now it is encumbered upon us to take responsibility for our own Christian values. In my humble opinion, if our values are in decline, it is our fault. In order to live our Christian values, it is not necessary for us to impose Christian behavior on everyone in the country.

What do you think of when you think of Christian behavior? Can you be a little more specific?

 

[Thorolfr]

The bad news is that we live in a country where getting a marriage license is not a Sacrament.

Even some other Christians don’t consider marriage to be a Sacrament. Lutherans, for example, have only two Sacraments and marriage is not one of them.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yet, what of the remarks the Pope is supposed to have made on the plane back home? That “government officials” should be allowed to be “conscientious objectors”…?

Was that also a lie? Just wondering. Seriously.

The transcript I have of the Pope’s remarks on the plane simply says that he believes in a human being’s right to conscientiously object. According to this transcript, he said nothing about “government officials.”

I was not, of course, on the plane. I can only go by the transcript.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Kim Davis is the next Rosa Parks. What she did took alot of heart. The Vatican should invite her to Rome and video record it. What is the big deal. You know liberalism has crept in when we are afraid to proclaim the good news.

Fr Tad’s article is very good below.
thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=174628

I respect you and your opinion, but I totally disagree. Rosa Parks was a woman of dignity and courage. She didn’t renege on an oath she made to God and her fellow humans. Rosa Parks saw all people as equal and children of God. Rosa Parks did not care about publicity. Rosa Parks did not lie. Rosa Parks is considered a heroine. Many consider Kim Davis a hypocrite and a publicity hound. Rosa Parks will always be remembered and cherished. Kim Davis will be forgotten in a week or two.

 

[HCTC]

What do you think of when you think of Christian behavior? Can you be a little more specific?

Well, “specific” Christian behavior would depend on your faith. But in the paragraph you quoted I wrote as a Catholic. Perhaps I should have written: “Now it is incumbent on us to take responsibility for our Catholic values…” etc. However, I followed suit with the post to which I responded:
“We used to live in a country that respected natural law. We used to live in a country that more or less respected Christian values. There is no real protection against Sharia law. There is nor real protection against Secular Humanism the greater and more immediate threat. A country is going to follow a religious or philosophical tradition. Right now it certainly isn’t Christianity.”

 

[TMC]

It is now being reported that the Vatican is very unhappy with Archbishop Vigano (the Apostolic Nuncio to the US) over this incident. There are even reports he may be quietly “retired” as a result.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You are certainly right that conscientious objection is a complicated area, and conscientious objection exemptions were given during the Vietnam War based on religious affiliation. The objector had to be a member of an organized religion that was categorically opposed to war - not just the Vietnam war but all war. In the case of Ms. Davis that would equate to belonging to a religion categorically opposed to marriage.

The man about whom I wrote was a Catholic. When he received his draft notice, he did not try to get a medical exemption; he did not go to Canada; he did not hire a lawyer and stall the inevitable; he did not ignore the notice and go on about his life trying to avoid arrest. He went to the induction center, refused to pledge, and went to prison. That is a conscientious objection of the sort that i, personally, can respect. In my humble opinion, if Ms Davis conscientiously objects to issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, she should resign her elected position. That would be a conscientious objection that I would respect.

I agree with you 100%. I respect your male friend’s actions.

 

[LittleFlower378]

You can bet the LGBT community is dangerously powerful. I wonder if they put huge false guilty pressure on the Vatican and the Vatican broke.

From what I understand Kim Davis repented of her prior life. I think Kim Davis will go down in the history books as a hero.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It is now being reported that the Vatican is very unhappy with Archbishop Vigano (the Apostolic Nuncio to the US) over this incident. There are even reports he may be quietly “retired” as a result.

Source?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You can bet the LGBT community is dangerously powerful. I wonder if they put huge false guilty pressure on the Vatican and the Vatican broke.

I don’t think the LGBT community can “pressure” or “break” the Vatican! I worked there for a year, and nothing “breaks” them. If the LGBT community could have “broken” the Vatican they would have done so long ago.

Kim Davis, in my opinion, did not have the courage to resign her position for her beliefs. She wants to have her cake and eat it, too. I think the next election will show she can’t, but no one will remember her name by then.

I believe Kim Davis has the right to object to SSM and resign, but not to demand that the marriage licenses be rewritten so her name is not on them. I would feel that way about anyone, myself included, who had a government position.

 

[FollowChrist34]

The transcript I have of the Pope’s remarks on the plane simply says that he believes in a human being’s right to conscientiously object. According to this transcript, he said nothing about “government officials.”

I was not, of course, on the plane. I can only go by the transcript.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

Well, here is the transcript as published:

Pope Francis: I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying ‘this right that has merit, this one does not.’ It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren’t permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

(Editor’s note: He’s referring to provencal poem: Song of Roland in which Crusaders forced Muslims to choose between being baptized or being killed by the sword. The Pope says they were not allowed to choose conscientious objection)

Terry Moran, ABC News: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

So I guess the next place we go is that Kim Davis is not a human person…

 

[TMC]

Source?

I have seen it a few places, including the NY Times. Always attributed to “high placed Vatican sources.” Take it for what its worth. I suppose we will know its true if the Archbishop retires in the next few months or so.

Seems to me there is reason to believe that the Vatican is unhappy. It is a bit out of the ordinary that the Vatican has been explicit in saying that the Nuncio is the one who set up the meeting, and that the Pope was not briefed on the details of her situation. Also unusual that the spokesman made a point in saying that the Pope had personally approved making that statement (that he was not fully briefed).

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You can bet the LGBT community is dangerously powerful. I wonder if they put huge false guilty pressure on the Vatican and the Vatican broke.

From what I understand Kim Davis repented of her prior life. I think Kim Davis will go down in the history books as a hero.

This, which was posted by another poster is the quintessence of conscientious objection. This is an example of courage of one’s beliefs:

• Originally Posted by HCTC View Post
  You are certainly right that conscientious objection is a complicated area, and conscientious objection exemptions were given during the Vietnam War based on religious affiliation. The objector had to be a member of an organized religion that was categorically opposed to war - not just the Vietnam war but all war. In the case of Ms. Davis that would equate to belonging to a religion categorically opposed to marriage.

The man about whom I wrote was a Catholic. When he received his draft notice, he did not try to get a medical exemption; he did not go to Canada; he did not hire a lawyer and stall the inevitable; he did not ignore the notice and go on about his life trying to avoid arrest. He went to the induction center, refused to pledge, and went to prison. That is a conscientious objection of the sort that i, personally, can respect. In my humble opinion, if Ms Davis conscientiously objects to issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, she should resign her elected position. That would be a conscientious objection that I would respect.*

The man written about should be in history books, but I think he is humble enough not to care about that.