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.
_Abyssinia said:
Source?
Click to expand...
I can’t find anything about it, and I’m a good Internet researcher. Of course, it might not be on the Internet yet.

The whole thing is sort of spinning out of control. Kim Davis was in a receiving line. The pope didn’t know her, didn’t have a private audience with her. Rosaries were given to all present, which numbered “about thirty.” The pope believes in conscientious objection, he doesn’t believe in SSM, which we knew long ago.

I was in a receiving line and kissed St. JP II’s ring and received his blessing when I worked in Vatican City, but I would not say I “met” the pope. I “met” him for 15 seconds tops. So did a lot of other people. I cherish those 15 seconds, of course, but they were only 15 seconds. It’s the same with Kim Davis, though in my opinion, she’s not acting like she cherished the few seconds she got to shake our beloved pontiff’s hand.
 
Is this perhaps why Pope Francis sought to avoid entanglement in partisan U.S. politics, you think?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
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.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Her name on the certificates looks like her participation or approval. It is scandalous. The certificate is also a physical piece of paper that her name will always be on.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I can’t find anything about it, and I’m a good Internet researcher. Of course, it might not be on the Internet yet.

The whole thing is sort of spinning out of control. Kim Davis was in a receiving line. The pope didn’t know her, didn’t have a private audience with her. Rosaries were given to all present, which numbered “about thirty.” The pope believes in conscientious objection, he doesn’t believe in SSM, which we knew long ago.

I was in a receiving line and kissed St. JP II’s ring and received his blessing when I worked in Vatican City, but I would not say I “met” the pope. I “met” him for 15 seconds tops. So did a lot of other people. I cherish those 15 seconds, of course, but they were only 15 seconds. It’s the same with Kim Davis, though in my opinion, she’s not acting like she cherished the few seconds she got to shake our beloved pontiff’s hand.
Click to expand...
The Pope also said something to her.
 
HCTC said:
I agree, except that the right to conscientious objection has consequences. We once hired a painter who had spent time in prison for refusing to swear alliengence in order to be drafted. In a less democratic country the consequence could have been death.

Ms. Davis certainly has the right to conscientious objection, but without a consequence our country ceases to be a government of laws.
Click to expand...
👍
 
LittleFlower378 said:
I disagree. Her name on the certificates looks like her participation or approval. It is scandalous. The certificate is also a physical piece of paper that her name will always be on.
Click to expand...
If she finds she cannot do the job she swore an oath before God to do, she can always quit. Then her name won’t be on anything coming from that office. That is what courageous people do. Other posters have provided examples of courageous people who did just that.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
If she finds she cannot do the job she swore an oath before God to do, she can always quit. Then her name won’t be on anything coming from that office. That is what courageous people do. Other posters have provided examples of courageous people who did just that.
Click to expand...
You simply fail to understand the part of conscientious objection to healthy civil life.
 
Thomas_White said:
Is this perhaps why Pope Francis sought to avoid entanglement in partisan U.S. politics, you think?
Click to expand...
Although I know Pope Francis loves all people as children of God, I certainly wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t want to be involved in US politics.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
If she finds she cannot do the job she swore an oath before God to do, she can always quit. Then her name won’t be on anything coming from that office. That is what courageous people do. Other posters have provided examples of courageous people who did just that.
Click to expand...
Are you saying then because she didn’t resign, like you think she should have, that she isn’t courageous? I know you disagree with her, but to make personal comments about her courage, seemingly insinuating that she isn’t courageous because she didn’t resign, is not very nice, in my opinion. Correct me if I have misunderstood you.
 
LongingSoul said:
You simply fail to understand the part of conscientious objection to healthy civil life.
Click to expand...
I think I understand it perfectly. One does not ask that things be “altered” to suit their beliefs. They do the job they were sworn to do, or they go to prison and stay there.

As I said, other posters have posted accounts of people who courageously conscientiously objected. You might want to read them because those people were really courageous.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Are you saying then because she didn’t resign, like you think she should have, that she isn’t courageous? I know you disagree with her, but to make personal comments about her courage, or lack of it if that’s what you believe, is not very nice, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I’m saying what HCTC said about conscientious objection:
  • Originally Posted by HCTC View Post
    I agree, except that the right to conscientious objection has consequences. We once hired a painter who had spent time in prison for refusing to swear alliengence in order to be drafted. In a less democratic country the consequence could have been death.
Ms. Davis certainly has the right to conscientious objection, but without a consequence our country ceases to be a government of laws.* (Bolding mind)

HCTC, I apologize for copying your post, but you said things so well. 👍
 
turtle18 said:
Or else it sounds like somewhere in the Vatican a rooster is crowing.
Click to expand...
Yes. Sometimes we forget that the Vatican hierarchy is strongly divided on cultural issues, just as are the laity. Below is an article from the NCRegister on the Synod starting this weekend. I wonder if some of this publicity confusion about Kim Davis / the gay couple meeting is somehow tied into this internal pressure, or keeping the “new” status quo if you will. (not claiming it is)
Though the traditional teaching has had and will have strong defenders, it’s undeniable that a certain shift has already occurred in the Church. I went to the synod in Rome last year with the expectation that I’d see, firsthand, the pressure being put from outside on the assembled participants by homosexual activists, abuse victims, etc. The shock was that the radical steps were proposed from inside the synod’s own administration. They didn’t ultimately receive two-third of the votes needed to include them in the final document (though they did receive the majority of votes and were included as a kind of appendix at the Pope’s request).
Click to expand...
The Italian vaticanisti I most trust say that this is a typical tactic of the Italian radicals in secular politics. They put out quite strong positions that have no chance of passage and then retreat to less radical points, so that they can appear to be “reasonable,” willing to dialogue and not at all opposed to “compromise.”
Click to expand...
The fundamental problem, however, is that such proposals are now part of the regular discussion, and, given the current culture in Europe and America, it means that there’s a foothold in the thinking of the Church itself that will be used to push things still further.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to determine whether the committee running the synod is capable of — or even wants to do — battle with the challengers. Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who was seen by many as manipulating procedures last year, has made his role as president of the synod more difficult by stating publicly that he supports the Cardinal Kasper proposal. The instrumentum laboris (the tentative work plan) that the committee issued is vague and weak and shows serious deficiencies, particularly in the way it speaks of the relationship between conscience and objective truths.
Click to expand...
Read more: ncregister.com/site/article/synod-its-complicated/#ixzz3nS0rOzZ5
 
Marie5890 said:
cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/02/the-vatican-must-speak-on-conscientious-objection/

“One problem is that Davis’ legal difficulties stem not just from her own refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but from allegedly interfering with her deputies doing so. Arguably that’s tantamount to using a public position to enforce her own religious beliefs on others, something official Catholic teaching rejects.”
Click to expand...
She interfered with her deputies because those licenses still had her name on it. Did she interfere purely because she didn’t want them providing licenses to same-sex coupes because she disagrees with same-sex marriage? There are claims of further altering of licenses but we don’t know at this point why she would do that or even for sure if it invalidated the licenses.
 
TMC said:
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.
Click to expand...
_Abyssinia said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Lily_Bernans said:
I can’t find anything about it, and I’m a good Internet researcher. Of course, it might not be on the Internet yet.

The whole thing is sort of spinning out of control. Kim Davis was in a receiving line. The pope didn’t know her, didn’t have a private audience with her. Rosaries were given to all present, which numbered “about thirty.” The pope believes in conscientious objection, he doesn’t believe in SSM, which we knew long ago.

I was in a receiving line and kissed St. JP II’s ring and received his blessing when I worked in Vatican City, but I would not say I “met” the pope. I “met” him for 15 seconds tops. So did a lot of other people. I cherish those 15 seconds, of course, but they were only 15 seconds. It’s the same with Kim Davis, though in my opinion, she’s not acting like she cherished the few seconds she got to shake our beloved pontiff’s hand.
Click to expand...
Here is the NY Times piece nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting.html?_r=0 The bit about the Archbishop’s future is toward the end.

It is also out in stronger terms in several other places, some that are less reputable and I would not link to here. Simply search Google news for “Vigano”.

I am not saying that its true that the Archbishop is on his way out, but I am saying that the Vatican reaction has been remarkable and that I would not be surprised if the highest levels of the Vatican were upset. This was obviously a very important and well planned trip. The Pope had a message to bring to the US and the UN. But now this issue is dominating the news about his visit, instead of focusing on the issues the Pope focused on. That has to be frustrating.
 
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this, but Pope Francis also met with a same-sex married couple and embraced them while smiling. I saw the footage. Does that mean he supports SSM or rather that he affirms the dignity and worth of all people, including Kim Davis?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I think I understand it perfectly. One does not ask that things be “altered” to suit their beliefs. They do the job they were sworn to do, or they go to prison and stay there.

As I said, other posters have posted accounts of people who courageously conscientiously objected. You might want to read them because those people were really courageous.
Click to expand...
Conscientious objection is a political/civil position. It’s role is to stimulate the*** conscience of the society*** it is subject to. They are actually asking that society accommodate their personal beliefs in a reasonable. way. As a matter of fact the Church issued a position on wartime conscientious objectors asking for that same thing in 1969…

We are, therefore, concerned when we hear that some boards and military tribunals do not recognize a Catholic claim for military exemption by reasons of conscience. On the other hand, we are encouraged by recent court decisions and the actions of draft boards which uphold the primacy of conscience in this regard.

But it is not enough merely to declare that a Catholic can be a conscientious objector. Christians must “make humane provisions” for the conscientious objector and aid him in his “service to the human community.” What he often lacks is basic information about the draft and its alternatives. He meets opposition from those who should, in fact, be counseling and aiding him. Once granted the status of a conscientious objector, he often finds himself in menial and degrading alternative service in order to "test his sincerity."

Statement On The Catholic Conscientious Objector

Conscientious objection is an important human right and plays a part in forming the moral conscience of the whole of society. If society jails or excludes that person from mainstream acceptance due to their stance… there is natural examination of an important, deeper issue stimulated as occurred in Ms Davis’ case. She is now back at work having been afforded “humane provisions”.
 
meltzerboy said:
I don’t know if anyone mentioned this, but Pope Francis also met with a same-sex married couple and embraced them while smiling. I saw the footage. Does that mean he supports SSM or rather that he affirms the dignity and worth of all people, including Kim Davis?
Click to expand...
I saw it. One of the gentleman was a former student of the Pope’s. He and his partner have been together for many years. The Pope has know he was gay and was in a gay relationship for some time. From what I have read, it’s never been an issue for the Pope.

The Holy Father really does live out his ministry more as a pastor than anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top