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

[Good_Tidings]

What might that mean?

Texas has history of rewriting textbooks to adhere to an ideology.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

We have to ask ourselves then, who do we serve. We cannot serve two masters and if the laws of the land are contrary to God’s laws then we must not obey them. “Choose this day who you will serve,” just as Joshua asked the people this, so to must we ask ourselves this question.

The USA does not have the right to ‘marry’ same sex couples, let alone have the right to compel anyone to administer this for them. All authority comes from God (Christ Himself said this) and nobody in authority has any right to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will, to compel anyone else to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will, or to punish anyone for refusing to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will. Authority to rule and pass laws comes from God, not from people.

A government that punishes a person for refusing to obey God’s law, and for disobeying a law that runs contrary to God’s law, is placing itself above God. A country has absolutely no right to do this. If we give credence to such laws then we too are guilty of placing man’s law above God. Is that not idolatry?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You are seriously going to compare Kim Davis to a homosexual couple?

That is amazing.

Where did I compare them? There are two statements, but no comparison. The couple were actual friends of Pope Francis, though, who did have a private audience with him. Mr. Grassi has known Pope Francis since the 1960s. There is no comparison.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Just to clarify: it sounds as if you’re saying that the CC teaches that “children are the sole focus of a marriage”. (You preface “I would follow the Church’s rules” with the comment regarding children being the sole focus).

If that is what you indeed were saying, then I will have to correct you and say that the CC does not teach this.

Yes, it did kind of come out like that. I’m sorry, thanks for pointing it out. I didn’t mean it to come out that way, but it’s sort of confusing the way I wrote it. I do know children aren’t the sole focus of a marriage to the Church, only that a couple be open to children (and that’s not the sole focus, either).

If I were a homosexual woman (I’m not), I would follow the Church’s rules and never marry (civilly or in any church) even if I saw nothing at all wrong with homosexual marriage.

 

[anthony022071]

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”.

Conscientious objection is important but it is wrong to stress that without talking about natural law and the truth of Catholic doctrine. The reason why people people should refuse to obey laws that support homosexual marriage is because homosexual marriage and sodomy are contrary to natural law and are abominations. That is the deeper issue. It isn’t just about conscience. And the reason why the Catholics or the Catholic Church should be free to practice whatever the Church teaches is because the Church is founded and sustained by Christ and it teaches the truth. To defend conscientious objection and religious freedom without upholding truth suggests moral and religious relativism.

 

[Brendan_64]

even if I saw nothing at all wrong with homosexual marriage.

In which case you would be in obstinate denial of Church teaching. As Catholics we are called to accept all that our Church teaches, and if we struggle with any teachings we must
accept that we are wrong and the Church is right, and therefore work to conform our view to what the Church teaches.

Any Catholic (be they homosexual or heterosexual) who sees nothing wrong with homosexual ‘marriage’ (assuming that he or she knows what the Church teaches on this) is in obstinate denial of Church teaching.

I would follow the Church’s rules just as I would follow the government’s if I were a government employee.

So as a government employee if one of their rules contradicted one of the God’s rule, you would see God’s rule as subservient to the rule of government and therefore comply with it as a dutiful employee and serve your employer?

Where exactly does the authority to rule, and create rules come from? From God or from men?

 

[Brendan_64]

To defend conscientious objection and religious freedom without upholding truth suggests moral and religious relativism.

 

[simple_soul]

We have to ask ourselves then, who do we serve. We cannot serve two masters and if the laws of the land are contrary to God’s laws then we must not obey them. “Choose this day who you will serve,” just as Joshua asked the people this, so to must we ask ourselves this question.

The USA does not have the right to ‘marry’ same sex couples, let alone have the right to compel anyone to administer this for them. All authority comes from God (Christ Himself said this) and nobody in authority has any right to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will, to compel anyone else to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will, or to punish anyone for refusing to act in a way that is contrary to God’s will. Authority to rule and pass laws comes from God, not from people.

A government that punishes a person for refusing to obey God’s law, and for disobeying a law that runs contrary to God’s law, is placing itself above God. A country has absolutely no right to do this. If we give credence to such laws then we too are guilty of placing man’s law above God. Is that not idolatry?

I beleive what or where this starts to get confusing is that everyone has an inherent right to have a conscientiouse objectuion. This, from what I am gathering of what his Holiness Pope Francis is saying and from what I understand is Church Teaching, is God’s law.

I just wanted to bring these thoughts/points to the front. I thought it had been shared earlier in the thread that was added to this thread but can not seem to find it so here it is again.
I really do believe these are very valid points to keep in mind;

papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/

My thoughts in this, from the very beginning, was that Pope Francis was not just giving Kim Davis his support but giving his support to all who conscientiously object. Especially after reading his response to Terry Moran about it. After reading the full response I am more convinced now than I was before that if I, like Kim Davies, conscientiously object to marriage being for everyone, I have that right to do so. I also have the right to conscientiously object to marriage being exclusively for one man and one woman. Bothe conscientious objections need to be respected. I believe the first and foremost law that needs to be protected, and according to what I understand about the Church’s teachings and what his Holiness Pope Francis seems to be trying to teach us, is that conscientious objection is a just law and what we should be focusing on is how we go about working our laws to reflect this right we all have with fraternity and love with compassion and mercy. Not trying to manipulate the Pope, Church teachings, and anything else we can think of to try and prove to ourselves and each other who is write and who is wrong in the bitter arguments that keep coming up about almost everything.

If no one has read his full response to Terry Moran here is what I read recently;
catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

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.

If Pope Francis was so exclusively for just Kim Davies stand and not for Conscientious objection then why did he use the example of Chancon Roland.

I could go on but my battery is running out…and. I am afraid I will just start ranting and don’t want to do that. Just wanted to give others or some anyway more food for thought. I apologize if I have already said things that were already said, I did not have much time to catch up on the whole thread.

Just wanted to bring up the point that we all have the inherant right to conscientiously object and from what I understand this is God’s law.

 

[meltzerboy]

I beleive what or where this starts to get confusing is that everyone has an inherent right to have a conscientiouse objectuion. This, from what I am gathering of what his Holiness Pope Francis is saying and from what I understand is Church Teaching, is God’s law.

I just wanted to bring these thoughts/points to the front. I thought it had been shared earlier in the thread that was added to this thread but can not seem to find it so here it is again.
I really do believe these are very valid points to keep in mind;

papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/

My thoughts in this, from the very beginning, was that Pope Francis was not just giving Kim Davis his support but giving his support to all who conscientiously object. Especially after reading his response to Terry Moran about it. After reading the full response I am more convinced now than I was before that if I, like Kim Davies, conscientiously object to marriage being for everyone, I have that right to do so. I also have the right to conscientiously object to marriage being exclusively for one man and one woman. Bothe conscientious objections need to be respected. I believe the first and foremost law that needs to be protected, and according to what I understand about the Church’s teachings and what his Holiness Pope Francis seems to be trying to teach us, is that conscientious objection is a just law and what we should be focusing on is how we go about working our laws to reflect this right we all have with fraternity and love with compassion and mercy. Not trying to manipulate the Pope, Church teachings, and anything else we can think of to try and prove to ourselves and each other who is write and who is wrong in the bitter arguments that keep coming up about almost everything.

If no one has read his full response to Terry Moran here is what I read recently;
catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

If Pope Francis was so exclusively for just Kim Davies stand and not for Conscientious objection then why did he use the example of Chancon Roland.

I could go on but my battery is running out…and. I am afraid I will just start ranting and don’t want to do that. Just wanted to give others or some anyway more food for thought. I apologize if I have already said things that were already said, I did not have much time to catch up on the whole thread.

Just wanted to bring up the point that we all have the inherant right to conscientiously object and from what I understand this is God’s law.

What you say may have some truth to it according to Catholic teaching; however, it must be added that one’s conscience needs to be well-formed, that is, based not only on an individual’s reason but also on one’s knowledge concerning the reasoning and faith found in Church doctrine. If this were not so, I think the situation might become one of every person behaving differently from one another according to their own way of thinking rather than respecting what the Church teaches and striving to conform their own conscience to its moral values. If one is not Catholic, the situation may be somewhat different but still, in keeping with Church belief, there seems to be conformity between acting according to natural law and Church doctrine.

 

[simple_soul]

What you say may have some truth to it according to Catholic teaching; however, it must be added that one’s conscience needs to be well-formed, that is, based not only on an individual’s reason but also on one’s knowledge concerning the reasoning and faith found in Church doctrine. If this were not so, I think the situation might become one of every person behaving differently from one another based on their own way of thinking rather than respecting what the Church teaches and striving to conform their own conscience to its teaching.

In some cases, maybe in many or most cases, it could take generations to have a “well formed conscience.” Heck, I know I’m still struggling to conform my conscience to what the Church teaches and I don’t know that I will fully understand her Teachings untill I reach Eternity. What do we do in that case? Go against thier right to conscientiously object? Or learn to be very patient, loving, merciful and wise, in other words fraternal, with each other as we all form our conscience to God’s will His Teachings.

 

[Brendan_64]

What you say may have some truth to it according to Catholic teaching; however, it must be added that one’s conscience needs to be well-formed, that is, based not only on an individual’s reason but also on one’s knowledge concerning the reasoning and faith found in Church doctrine.

That is correct.

It is not our right to conscientiously object that is paramount, but the unjust nature of the law to which we are objecting. Such objection must be based on a conscience formed according to what the Church teaches. As Catholics we are bound not to act in any way that goes against Church teaching, and it should be that that forms the basis of any conscientious objection. Therefore it is not about our ‘right’ to conscientiously object, but it is about our duty to always follow Church teaching, a duty which may result in refusal to obey man-made laws, or the rules of our employer.

 

[anthony022071]

wbko.com/home/headlines/330431931.html

…He says Vatican personnel initiated contact with Davis’ camp on Sept. 14 saying the pope wanted to meet her. He says Vatican security picked up her and her husband up from their Washington hotel and brought her to the Vatican embassy. He says Vatican officials told her to change her hairstyle so she wouldn’t be recognized since they wanted the encounter kept secret.

Staver disputed a Vatican spokesman’s claims that the pope only met with Davis in a receiving line. He said the couple was in a room with only the pope and Vatican personnel…

…He said an unnamed Vatican official initiated the meeting on Sept. 14, the day Davis returned to work after being jailed, saying the pope wanted to meet her. He said Vatican security picked up her and her husband from their hotel and told her to change her hairdo so she wouldn’t be recognized since the Vatican wanted the meeting kept secret.

Staver disputed a Vatican spokesman’s claims that the pope only met Davis in a “farewell lineup” or receiving line. He said the couple was in a separate room with Francis and Vatican security and personnel and that no member of the general public was present, to keep the meeting secret. He said the Vatican official who arranged the meeting insisted that it not be made public until after Francis had left the U.S., and gave him the “green light” to make it public after Francis was back in Rome…

…The Vatican nuncio in Washington is Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, an Italian best known for his role in the Vatileaks scandal, which helped bring about Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation: The scandal began in 2012 when an Italian journalist broadcast letters from Vigano, then the No. 2 Vatican administrator, to Benedict in which he begged not to be transferred for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions of euros. Vigano was eventually transferred to Washington to become ambassador.

He has since strongly taken up the religious liberty charge championed by U.S. bishops, suggesting that he might well have supported Davis in her battle over gay marriage: In a 2012 speech to the University of Notre Dame, Vigano denounced threats to religious liberty in the U.S. and abroad, citing a public school curriculum presenting same-sex relations as “natural and wholesome.”…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In which case you would be in obstinate denial of Church teaching. As Catholics we are called to accept all that our Church teaches, and if we struggle with any teachings we must
accept that we are wrong and the Church is right, and therefore work to conform our view to what the Church teaches.

Any Catholic (be they homosexual or heterosexual) who sees nothing wrong with homosexual ‘marriage’ (assuming that he or she knows what the Church teaches on this) is in obstinate denial of Church teaching.

So as a government employee if one of their rules contradicted one of the God’s rule, you would see God’s rule as subservient to the rule of government and therefore comply with it as a dutiful employee and serve your employer?

Where exactly does the authority to rule, and create rules come from? From God or from men?

You’ve misconstrued everything I’ve said. First, I said IF I saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, I WOULD STILL follow the Church’s rules.

Second, if I were working in a government position and took an oath to uphold the rules of the position and found I could not do it, I would quit and find another job. I am not a person who insists on having her cake and eating it, too. I am not a “diva.”

 

[anthony022071]

Why no one wants to talk about how the Pope Francis-Kim Davis meeting was arranged

washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/02/vatican-downplays-importance-of-pope-franciss-meeting-with-kim-davis/

…In response to the Vatican statements, Mat Staver, a lawyer for Davis and founder of the conservative group Liberty Counsel, offered a bit of detail on how the meeting came together, saying the the invitation to meet with Francis was “first conveyed” on Sept. 14, the day that Davis returned to work.

“Neither Kim Davis nor Liberty Counsel ever said the meeting was an endorsement of her legal case,” Staver said in a statement. “Rather, the meeting was a pastoral meeting to encourage Kim Davis in which Pope Francis thanked her for her courage and told her to ‘Stay strong,’”

Staver said Vatican security picked up Davis and her husband from their hotel and took them to the Vatican embassy for the meeting last Thursday…

…Some individuals who are close to senior U.S. bishops — who as a group have made the religious freedom campaign their top priority — assert that many bishops didn’t know in advance of the Davis-Francis meeting and were upset about it. Others said the bishops were divided on the Davis case, and some may have been aware of the meeting ahead of time.

All week, one bishop after another declined to speak on the record about the meeting. Among them were Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the Washington archbishop; Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput; and Louisville Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Kurtz — the bishop who is based in Kentucky, where the Davis case is unfolding — gave an interview in September that appeared to support her.

“I believe we as a nation are at our best when we can honor religious liberty,” Kurtz told Louisville television station WHAS-11. “I’d love if legitimately there was a way to let a public official to serve in a way that doesn’t compromise their religious beliefs.”…

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I beleive what or where this starts to get confusing is that everyone has an inherent right to have a conscientiouse objectuion. This, from what I am gathering of what his Holiness Pope Francis is saying and from what I understand is Church Teaching, is God’s law.

I just wanted to bring these thoughts/points to the front. I thought it had been shared earlier in the thread that was added to this thread but can not seem to find it so here it is again.
I really do believe these are very valid points to keep in mind;

papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/

My thoughts in this, from the very beginning, was that Pope Francis was not just giving Kim Davis his support but giving his support to all who conscientiously object. Especially after reading his response to Terry Moran about it. After reading the full response I am more convinced now than I was before that if I, like Kim Davies, conscientiously object to marriage being for everyone, I have that right to do so. I also have the right to conscientiously object to marriage being exclusively for one man and one woman. Bothe conscientious objections need to be respected. I believe the first and foremost law that needs to be protected, and according to what I understand about the Church’s teachings and what his Holiness Pope Francis seems to be trying to teach us, is that conscientious objection is a just law and what we should be focusing on is how we go about working our laws to reflect this right we all have with fraternity and love with compassion and mercy. Not trying to manipulate the Pope, Church teachings, and anything else we can think of to try and prove to ourselves and each other who is write and who is wrong in the bitter arguments that keep coming up about almost everything.

If no one has read his full response to Terry Moran here is what I read recently;
catholicnewsagency.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-inflight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome-60499/

If Pope Francis was so exclusively for just Kim Davies stand and not for Conscientious objection then why did he use the example of Chancon Roland.

I could go on but my battery is running out…and. I am afraid I will just start ranting and don’t want to do that. Just wanted to give others or some anyway more food for thought. I apologize if I have already said things that were already said, I did not have much time to catch up on the whole thread.

Just wanted to bring up the point that we all have the inherant right to conscientiously object and from what I understand this is God’s law.

The Vatican made it clear that the pope really didn’t know anything about Kim Davis. I would imagine that’s why he used the example of Chancon Roland. That, and it was a far better example.

I would imagine Kim Davis’ attorney contacted Archbishop Vigano and suggested she attend the meet-and-greet, and Archbishop Vigano agreed. It’s been stated, by the Vatican, very clearly, that the pope did not know who Kim Davis was. She was in a receiving line with “dozens of others.” I was in a receiving line of persons who got to kiss the ring of St. JP II, but I would never say I “met” him. I guess I did for about 15 seconds, but I didn’t know him nor he me. Kim Davis also got to go through a receiving line, but she doesn’t know the pope nor he her.

You have nothing to apologize for. Your opinion is important. I think the pope supports conscientious objection as a human right, but he really didn’t know Kim Davis. He was not supporting her particular case. I’m sure he loves her since he is a loving man who loves all people.

 

[TCEL]

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.”

Hi,
I’m afraid I don’t follow. I must have read incorrectly-I thought the quote above was posted by a different person?

 

[josh987654321]

Sounds like Davis and her lawyer weren’t being truthful.

cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/index.html

I don’t believe so.

I would say something similar if I were in the Vatican’s shoes.

All of the legal arguments aside, I believe the fact of the matter is Kim Davis simply didn’t want her name on a same sex marriage certificate without having to lose her job (an elected position ironically) or go to jail and therefore I believe is totally just.

I may not agree entirely with the way she has gone about it, which is why I wouldn’t say I endorse everything that she endorses and mostly because I don’t know everything she endorses.

All I know is that her cause is a totally just one which I believe Pope Francis completely agreed to when he said that conscientious objection is a human right and why he visited her personally.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I don’t believe so.

I would say something similar if I were in the Vatican’s shoes.

All of the legal arguments aside, I believe the fact of the matter is Kim Davis simply didn’t want her name on a same sex marriage certificate without having to lose her job (an elected position ironically) or go to jail and therefore I believe is totally just.

I may not agree entirely with the way she has gone about it, which is why I wouldn’t say I endorse everything that she endorses and mostly because I don’t know everything she endorses.

All I know is that her cause is a totally just one which I believe Pope Francis completely agreed to when he said that conscientious objection is a human right and why he visited her personally.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I agree with Emperor Napoleon since the Vatican’s official statement said the pope did not know who Kim Davis is and did not meet with her personally or privately. That’s why Terry Moran didn’t mention her name on the plane. They do confirm that she was in a receiving line at a meet-and-greet, though, and shook the pope’s hand. However, it was Archbishop Vigano who arranged Kim Davis’ invitation to the meet-and-greet, not the pope.

We have a choice here to choose who is lying and who is telling the truth. Who is the truth teller: Kim Davis and her attorney or the Vatican? I go with the Vatican as the truth teller.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it did kind of come out like that. I’m sorry, thanks for pointing it out. I didn’t mean it to come out that way, but it’s sort of confusing the way I wrote it. I do know children aren’t the sole focus of a marriage to the Church, only that a couple be open to children (and that’s not the sole focus, either).

If I were a homosexual woman (I’m not), I would follow the Church’s rules and never marry (civilly or in any church) even if I saw nothing at all wrong with homosexual marriage.

Similarly, in full disclosure, if I were to divorce my husband (which I have no intention of doing), I would follow the Church’s rules and never re-marry (civilly or in any church) even if I see nothing at all wrong with divorce and re-marriage.

I, personally think that there are some times when a person makes a mistake, marries an a*****, and ought to get a second chance.

However, I am in no position to edit the Word of God and make it more palatable. Jesus was quite clear about divorce and re-marriage.

I have to conform my views to Christ’s. Not create a new version of Christ that conforms to my own views.

#notmywordsbutHis

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Similarly, in full disclosure, if I were to divorce my husband (which I have no intention of doing), I would follow the Church’s rules and never re-marry (civilly or in any church) even if I see nothing at all wrong with divorce and re-marriage.

I, personally think that there are some times when a person makes a mistake, marries an a*****, and ought to get a second chance.

However, I am in no position to edit the Word of God and make it more palatable. Jesus was quite clear about divorce and re-marriage.

I have to conform my views to Christ’s. Not create a new version of Christ that conforms to my own views.

#notmywordsbutHis

Since we’re such imperfect beings and make mistakes, I sometimes think we should get a second chance, too, but I’m like you. I feel I’m in no position to edit the Word of God (to use your words, they are good ones!) so I would never divorce and remarry. However, I have yet to marry once and so far, feel no inclination to do so. I’ve been talking to someone about joining a cloister, but I only recently spent six plus years and a lot of money getting my Master’s in Theology, and I don’t want to join a teaching order, but a contemplative one. I sometimes wish God’s will were easier to discern.