L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I believe the official word from the Vatican.
Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement, Vatican says
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
May the Holy Spirit guide you. Praying for a clearer message from Him!
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you and God bless.
S
seagal
Guest
Why on earth would the Vatican want to keep the meeting a secret? If the pope approved of Ms. Davis’ stand he wouldn’t be shy about saying so. It just doesn’t ring true.
Lawyer vs. Vatican?
I know which I believe.
Lawyer vs. Vatican?
I know which I believe.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
This lady tried to milk the Pope for PR!!! I’m not Catholic and even I’m 
. How tasteless.
Of course, there probably isn’t much the 4x divorced adulterer who decided to try to cash in with a Wallace-esque public hissy fit wouldn’t do.
. How tasteless.Of course, there probably isn’t much the 4x divorced adulterer who decided to try to cash in with a Wallace-esque public hissy fit wouldn’t do.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
The U.S. Constitution establishes the separation of church and state. If laws are disobeyed, even as a matter of conscience, the rule of law, upon which a democracy is based, is imperiled. History shows that the breakdown of the rule of law in the first step toward a totalitarian single-party state and a dictatorship. Consequently, even civil disobedience, particularly by a representative of the state, cannot be ignored.
The difficulty, however, is that there is a contradiction with respect to freedom of religion and other provisions of the Constitution, in this case with equal protection under the law. The U.S. is a Republic, an indirect representational democracy of fifty separate states, each with its own Constitution and laws. A problem arises when the Judiciary and the U.S. Supreme Count, a separate branch of the federal government, interprets the U.S. Constitution in a way that establishes law that ought properly be the role of Congress and the legislatures of the separate states. In instances, special interests groups have sought through the Judiciary and gained rights that legislatures have not established because a majority of the electorate does not agree.
This has occurred with both abortion and same sex marriage, both instances where significant numbers of the population remain in disagreement with what was advanced through the judiciary by special interest groups who were unable to prevail though representational democracy and legislation. It ought to be no surprise there is opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage when it was already present in a significant percentage of the electorate.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I’m not surprised someone did not want to issue marriage licenses, and I don’t dispute her right to refuse to do so. However, I am troubled by the way she went about things and how it was all handled.
Because of what you wrote in your first paragraph, I believe if Mrs. Davis could not do the job she swore to do, she should have quit. People in the private sector have more freedom, but Mrs. Davis is government employee.
Are we going to have presidents, members of Congress, the military, etc. conscientiously object to do their sworn duty? I don’t think Pope Francis meant to extend the right that far. I believe Mrs. Davis has a right to say, “This job conflicts with my beliefs, I cannot do it any longer,” and quit, but not try to have her cake and eat it, too. That’s just playing the “selfish diva” card.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The point is that IF you saw nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, you would be be ‘breaking the rules’ whether you got ‘married’ or not. As Catholics we must assent to ALL that the Church teaches, not just through our external actions, but through what we believe internally. The option of " I’ll hold beliefs contrary to what the Church teaches, so long as I don’t publicly act on these beliefs" is not an option. We are not permitted to obstinately doubt Church teaching.
And if a person works for an employer who then asks them to do something contrary to God"s law then surely it is better to make a stand and publicly say, “I will not do that” than quietly resign and walk away without fuss?
As for making an oath, who do we make an oath to? We have but one master and any therefore any oath to any employer or government that would result in us doing anything contrary to God’s law becomes null and void.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I believe what this poster wrote:
- Originally Posted by Thomas White View Post
The U.S. Constitution establishes the separation of church and state. If laws are disobeyed, even as a matter of conscience, the rule of law, upon which a democracy is based, is imperiled. History shows that the breakdown of the rule of law in the first step toward a totalitarian single-party state and a dictatorship. Consequently, even civil disobedience, particularly by a representative of the state, cannot be ignored.*
Pope Francis has no problem loving homosexuals. It was a homosexual friend of his he embraced and had a private audience with, not Mrs. Davis, although I know he loves her as well. He just doesn’t know her. He loves everyone. If you read the transcript of his news conference on the plane, he believes even some atheists can attain heaven. Case closed as far as I’m concerned. If you want to debate, you need to find someone else. Back-and-forth is not for me. Sorry.
P
PRmerger
Guest
As far as I can see, no Catholic here has been proposing that it’s ok to obstinately doubt Catholic teaching.
Yep. On this we are agreed.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
I agree.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
? What has that got to do with Kim Davis and the issue of her refusal to administer gay ‘marriage’? Yes the pope can love individual homosexuals, indeed we are called to love everybody. But loving someone doesn’t mean endorsing their lifestyle or accepting that they should be able to get ‘married’.
H
HCTC
Guest
In my humble opinion, the information in the article linked above that is most relevant to this thread is the following:
On Friday, Lombardi met with Francis and issued a fuller statement to “contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.” Francis has made clear he dislikes being used for political ends, and Lombardi’s statement appeared intended to make clear that the encounter should in no way be exploited.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Would a homosexual person who saw nothing wrong with gay ‘marriage’ would be keeping to the rules of the Church by not getting married? This implies that a person may adopt an internal belief that opposes Church teaching, so long as this belief is not lived out through their actions.
We are called, not just to externally follow the rules, but to internally accept and believe in all that God teaches us.
meltzerboy
New member
Are you not called to make every effort to “internally accept and believe in all that G-d teaches”? That effort may entail a struggle, however. IOW, rather than (blind) compliance, there is the use of one’s free will directed toward G-d’s will. I see a distinction between an effort toward compliance and non-questioning compliance. Or is this difference only to be found in Judaism?
U
ucfengr
Guest
Pope Francis just drives me crazy. I really like his caring and compassion, but things like just leave me cold. The Pope met with Kim Davis, and he should own it, not back track on it. Everybody knows why he met with her, it’s because of her stand against same sex marriage. There’s no other reason for him to meet with her. She’s not even a Catholic, is she? If you rebuked her, then say so, if you supported her, then say that, but stop acting like some politician unwilling to take a stand.
meltzerboy
New member
I am not contradicting you. See post #134.
T
Thomas_White
Guest
It is your perception that ‘everyone’ knows why Pope Francis ‘met’ with David. I don’t know it and the Vatican disputes it. Pope Francis obviously wished to avoid any perception that he was engaging in partisan politics when he addressed Congress, but this was critized too.
What is political? Taking a stand, not taking a stand or both?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If what Staver says here were true, then why did Kim Davis say on ABC this last Wednesday in talking about her meeting with the Pope, "Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything,”
Doesn’t that sound like she’s saying that the Pope agrees with her legal case and that the meeting was an endorsement of all that she’s been doing?
H
HCTC
Guest
Pope Francis is so clearly not concerned with politics. However, on the surface, it appears to me that someone has attempted to insert politics into his visit to the U.S.
First there was the statement issued, as I recall while the Pope was in transit, that the Vatican was concerned about the guest list of about 15,000 people welcoming His Holiness outside the White House because it included LBGT and activist religious people. The someone identified as a “Vatican” official who issued this concern is still unidentified even though Fr. Rosica of the Vatican Press Office has asked that person to come forward. The Vatican subsequently issued a statement that it is never involved with the guest list of State visits. Then there was the Pope’s encounter of Ms. Davis arranged by the nuncio’s office about which information was first released (in a very prejudicial way) by Davis’ attorney - also disavowed as described by the Vatican.
Even though these two very politically charged events sit as bookends of Pope Francis’ visit, they are minuscule by comparison to the grace of the Holy Father’s presence. I think that too much time and too many words are being given to them. In the great scheme of things, these two occurrences are insignificant except to the most politically motivated people. And now I feel that I have given too much attention to them, but carry on if that is your inclination.
- Status