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

[LongingSoul]

The information that you cite is from the CA Department of Employment Development. This agency places people who are unemployed and the information you cite relates to people who have refused work as a result of conscience objection. It states: “This section discusses refusals of work due to a conscientious objection to some aspect of the prospective employment.”

It has nothing to do with elected officials or public employees.

It does apply to the conditions of public employment in essence though.

First Amendment prohibitions (against restricting freedom of religion) apply to state and federal governments only, and do not apply to private employers. Private employers are, however, governed by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they have over 15 employees.

 

[Thomas_White]

Up thread I posted the 2011 New Jersey case of a state hospital being made to accommodate 12 nurses who refused to assist in abortion surgery based on conscientious objection. Here in Australia a few years ago, teachers in public schools were allowed to abstain from distributing secular sex education material that included a complimentary condom. There are other examples I could find also to demonstrate the principle in action.

I understand but believe this situation is fundamentally different. She holds the elective office of County Clerk in the state of Kentucky, and the voters elected her to perform that job. When she refused to issue SSM marriage licenses, she refused to perform the duties of her elective office and did so in violation of law. In the examples you mentioned, this apparently was not the case. Violation of law by an elected public official is the issue here. This concerns the rule of law and it is likely grounds for removal from an elective office.

 

[mikekle]

This is getting so ridiculous, someone really needs to just ask the Pope directly, does he agree or disagree with what Kim Davis and few others have done…YES or NO…its really that simple.

Likewise, the Pope and Vatican both need to address this directly, does the catholic church support the legalization of same sex marriage, again with a YES OR NO answer.

These 2 questions would put all the controversy to bed. It would not be political for the Pope or vatican to make it CLEAR what the Catholic faiths stance on this is.

 

[Thomas_White]

This is getting so ridiculous, someone really needs to just ask the Pope directly, does he agree or disagree with what Kim Davis and few others have done…YES or NO…its really that simple.

I very much doubt Pope Francis would comment on a specific situation that is both a legal matter and a political issue in the U.S.

Likewise, the Pope and Vatican both need to address this directly, does the catholic church support the legalization of same sex marriage, again with a YES OR NO answer.

The Catholic Church does not support the legalization of same sex marriages. How many times does it have to be said? Catholic teaching is very clear about SSM, and the only controversy is political. Is it political for some Catholics? Of course it is.

These 2 questions would put all the controversy to bed. It would not be political for the Pope or vatican to make it CLEAR what the Catholic faiths stance on this is.

Catholic teaching is clear about SSM. The Kim Davis situation is only political, and the Vatican has already explained that Pope Francis’s greeting her was not in support of her views.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would an invitation to greet the Pope at the White House presuppose a personal audience? There is a major difference between the two.

Indeed.

I haven’t posited anything about any “personal audience”, Thomas.

I think you may be conflating 2 different discussions.

 

[PRmerger]

huffingtonpost.com/entry/conservatives-upset-that-gay-catholics-were-invited-to-meet-pope-francis-at-the-white-house_560046a8e4b00310edf7f068

And just imagine, all those many thousands got a “formal meeting” with the Pope

Can you cite where there were thousands who were invited?

It looks to me like it said “a handful”.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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?

It’s part of Catholicism, too. When I was in school, studying theology (Catholic college), we were invited by our priest professors to ask all the questions we wanted and to question all we felt we needed to. Then they would try to work through the problems with us, helping us arrive at how Church doctrine became Church doctrine. It was very helpful.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I understand but believe this situation is fundamentally different. She holds the elective office of County Clerk in the state of Kentucky, and the voters elected her to perform that job. When she refused to issue SSM marriage licenses, she refused to perform the duties of her elective office and did so in violation of law. In the examples you mentioned, this apparently was not the case. Violation of law by an elected public official is the issue here. This concerns the rule of law and it is likely grounds for removal from an elective office.

I agree with you. She is a government employee who swore an oath to uphold the law. The issue is not SSM, as you pointed out, but violation of the law by a public official. She was jailed for that reason, not for her religious beliefs. She should resign. I don’t hold the same views for those in the private sector, but Kim Davis is not in the private sector. She was elected by the voters to carry out the law.

In short, I agree with you.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m sorry, but I feel that if your boss asks you do do something that you feel is wrong, you either do it or quit. It is one of the few situations that I feel there is no grey, only black and white.

I’m sorry if that is not politically correct in these forums. But it is the way I was brought up. I am responsible for my behavior and I needed to suffer the consequences if I thought I was right. If that meant I went to jail, fine. If I had to quit, fine.

I was also told that I should not ever expect the rest of the world or my boss or even my mother to agree with me. Of course, my mother would at least give me points for suffering the results of my decision, even if she thought I was wrong.

I was also brought up to do my job or quit and find another I could do, and I was brought up my nuns, in a Carmelite cloister in France. My aunt was the Mother Superior (which is how it was possible for me to live there). I lived in the cloister from age five to eighteen, but of course I went to school, etc.

 

[LongingSoul]

I understand but believe this situation is fundamentally different. She holds the elective office of County Clerk in the state of Kentucky, and the voters elected her to perform that job. When she refused to issue SSM marriage licenses, she refused to perform the duties of her elective office and did so in violation of law. In the examples you mentioned, this apparently was not the case. Violation of law by an elected public official is the issue here. This concerns the rule of law and it is likely grounds for removal from an elective office.

I can’t really see how a public servant, either hired, appointed or elected would be precluded from the right to conscientiously object. I can understand where in smaller institutions that couldn’t reassign an employer to accommodate their objection might have legitimate reasons to sack a person… but in public service it should be a default right to guard freedom to exercise conscience. As I understand it, they found a way to accommodate Ms Davis objection without having to sack her. If you undertake a job in public service under certain conditions that you are comfortable with and down the track those conditions change requiring you to do a task you would never have signed on for if had been known prior, there has to be a room for your conscience in forming of the culture around you.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with you. She is a government employee who swore an oath to uphold the law. The issue is not SSM, as you pointed out, but violation of the law by a public official. She was jailed for that reason, not for her religious beliefs. She should resign. I don’t hold the same views for those in the private sector, but Kim Davis is not in the private sector. She was elected by the voters to carry out the law.

In short, I agree with you.

But the Catechism defines conditions whereby authority and the law qualify as ‘legitimate authority’ and ‘legitimate laws’.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24

You seem to be suggesting that no law can be questioned and objected to in the course of public service… that the only solution is to leave the mainstream and retreat to a vacuum of religious belief within ones small satellite leaving the state to go with whatever the beliefs of the leaders feel.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If one government employee is allowed to object and keep his or her job, they all should be allowed, and that would cause havoc.

The president (no Obama jokes, please) should be allowed to object. The VP, too. Members of Congress. The Supreme Court. Members of the military. Let’s say the US knew about the 9/11 attacks before the second tower was hit, and a US military pilot was ordered to shoot the plane down. He said, “No, I conscientiously object to killing innocent people,” and the plane is filled with innocent people, of course. Only the terrorists are bent on destruction. Would the pilot be “celebrated” as a “hero” when the plane hit the second Tower? I don’t think so.

The conscientious objection of government employees leads to anarchy.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

You seem to be suggesting that no law can be questioned and objected to in the course of public service… that the only solution is to leave the mainstream and retreat to a vacuum of religious belief within ones small satellite leaving the state to go with whatever the beliefs of the leaders feel.

We’ve been through this many times before on another thread.

I’m not suggesting public officials have no recourse other than to give up their jobs, I’m stating it as plainly as I can.

The private sector is a different story altogether.

 

[LongingSoul]

If one government employee is allowed to object and keep his or her job, they all should be allowed, and that would cause havoc.

The president (no Obama jokes, please) should be allowed to object. The VP, too. Members of Congress. The Supreme Court. Members of the military. Let’s say the US knew about the 9/11 attacks before the second tower was hit, and a US military pilot was ordered to shoot the plane down. He said, “No, I conscientiously object to killing innocent people,” and the plane is filled with innocent people, of course. Only the terrorists are bent on destruction. Would the pilot be “celebrated” as a “hero” when the plane hit the second Tower? I don’t think so.

The conscientious objection of government employees leads to anarchy.

There is a process to determine what constitutes a legitimate belief that defines the whole life of the conscientious objector. Pope Francis doesn’t share you view on the cost of conscientious objection.

“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 is a human right.”

 

[Lily_Bernans]

There is a process to determine what constitutes a legitimate belief that defines the whole life of the conscientious objector. Pope Francis doesn’t share you view on the cost of conscientious objection.

“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 is a human right.”

I have to disagree. I think Pope Francis does share my belief. I, too, believe conscientious objection is a human right and that a government employee has the right to conscientiously object. However, I think part of that objection is for the government employee to leave the job he or she feels he or she can no longer do. I believe Pope Francis feels the same way.

I’ve read the complete transcript of what he said at the press conference on the plane, and he never said a government employee should be allowed to object to his or her job and KEEP his or her job. You are twisting the pope’s words to suit your agenda.

We’ve been through this maybe five or six times now. You know my views. Sure, a government employee has a right to object, but that objection precludes him or her, in most cases, from keeping his or her job. I think Pope Francis puts more stock in oaths sworn to before God than you are giving him credit for.

No one knows what the pope feels about Kim Davis personally because he stated he was not familiar with her case. He doesn’t know her. He doesn’t know her case. Please do not ascribe feelings to the pope he has not expressed and that he has explicitly said he is not aware of.

The pope believes in conscientious objection. So do I. However, I believe if a government employee objects to his or her job, he or she needs to leave that job. We know Pope Francis believes in conscientious objection for all. Does he believe a government employee who can no longer do his or her job should stay or leave? We don’t know.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have to disagree. I think Pope Francis does share my belief. I, too, believe conscientious objection is a human right and that a government employee has the right to conscientiously object. However, I think part of that objection is for the government employee to leave the job he or she feels he or she can no longer do. I believe Pope Francis feels the same way.

I’ve read the complete transcript of what he said at the press conference on the plane, and he never said a government employee should be allowed to object to his or her job and KEEP his or her job. You are twisting the pope’s words to suit your agenda.

We’ve been through this maybe five or six times now. You know my views. Sure, a government employee has a right to object, but that objection precludes him or her, in most cases, from keeping his or her job. I think Pope Francis puts more stock in oaths sworn to before God than you are giving him credit for.

Your views are very worrying as an Associate Professor of Theology.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is enough that the Pope acknowledges the existence of Kim Davis through meeting with her.

 

[sarah_j]

This is getting so ridiculous, someone really needs to just ask the Pope directly, does he agree or disagree with what Kim Davis and few others have done…YES or NO…its really that simple.

Likewise, the Pope and Vatican both need to address this directly, does the catholic church support the legalization of same sex marriage, again with a YES OR NO answer.

These 2 questions would put all the controversy to bed. It would not be political for the Pope or vatican to make it CLEAR what the Catholic faiths stance on this is.

Yes, I really wish the Vatican would clearly state the Church’s position on
same sex marriage, and on Kim Davis.

From what I’ve seen today, the supporters of same sex marriage are
thrilled with the statement released by the Vatican which they say made a
liar out of Kim Davis. I’ve read many twisted comments similar to the following :

" Thank you, thank you. There is no way this loving pope would show support for that miserable hater.
I hope he told her she is going to hell! "

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Your views are very worrying as an Associate Professor of Theology.

Well, you can stop worrying because many of the PhD theology professors whose classes I was in (and many of them are Catholic priests) share my beliefs. My place of employment is not at all worried about me, so you don’t need to worry, either. Besides, we don’t teach “Kim Davis” in class. We are focused on Christ and the development of Christology in my classes.

My own pastor shares my belief. Kim Davis has the right to object. Kim Davis has the right not to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. However, since Kim Davis can no longer execute the duties of the job she was elected to do and swore to do, she should quit. This is a man who has been a priest for nearly forty years.

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes, I really wish the Vatican would clearly state the Church’s position on
same sex marriage, and on Kim Davis.

From what I’ve seen today, the supporters of same sex marriage are
thrilled with the statement released by the Vatican which they say made a
liar out of Kim Davis. I’ve read many twisted comments similar to the following :

" Thank you, thank you. There is no way this loving pope would show support for that miserable hater.
I hope he told her she is going to hell! "

If the pope saw fit to hold an audience with Kim Davis, then that is clear enough.
When it comes to people going to jail over their religious convictions, the pope is seen in their presence and not in the presence of their jailers.