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

[Brendan]

They are considered to be injustices in mainstream modern thought.

That does not necessarily make them to be so. ‘Justice’ is neither defined by popularity, nor by any position in time.

These kinds of things, I would submit, are the main reasons that people in our society object to Christianity.

Why?, because Christians consider Justice to be something other than what is currently popular?

 

[sps49]

I certainly do not support SSM. My concern is where this leads when conscientious objection presumes the right to remain in a position where the person objects to performing the duties of that position. In my thinking, this is about as reasonable as a combat infantryman who declares he is a conscientious objector remaining in that position during combat with his fellow soldiers.

The comparison of a combat infantryman in harms way with that of a desk clerk is a bit extreme. It presupposes a kind of equivalency of hazard that I don’t see in the argument.

 

[Darryl1958]

That does not necessarily make them to be so. ‘Justice’ is neither defined by popularity, nor by any position in time.

In terms of conscientious objection, it is not about the perfect Platonic form that JUSTICE is defined in absolute terms. It is defined by the opinions that people have in this world. We do not live in the perfect world of such forms. We live in this world where there is disagreement about anything and everything.
Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong.
And most certainly when two people assert opposite things as their truths, at least one of them is wrong.

Why?, because Christians consider Justice to be something other than what is currently popular?

Yes. More specifically, because Christians consider justice to be something other than what society currently maintains to be true.

 

[Thomas_White]

The comparison of a combat infantryman in harms way with that of a desk clerk is a bit extreme. It presupposes a kind of equivalency of hazard that I don’t see in the argument.

The example was intentionally extreme to highlight the principle. There would be the less immediate example from during the era of the military draft of a person claiming CO status then being inducted into military service and assigned a combat role. This would potentially become dangerous to himself and his fellow soldiers. Kim Davis refusing to perform her official duties results in a similar problem, although not one nearly as extreme. I don’t see physical danger there either, but that is not the point.

 

[mikekle]

He shook her hand in a reception line at a meet-and-greet. The Vatican did clear that up. He did not have an “audience” with her. The Vatican also cleared that up. The only people the pope had an audience with are family and some former students, one named Mr. Grassi the pope has known since the 1950s, when Mr. Grassi was the pope’s student in literature and psychology classes. The pope is not familiar with Kim Davis’ legal case. The Vatican cleared that up.

The pope loves ALL PEOPLE whether he knows them or not, whether he approves of their actions or not. (But the pope did not comment on Mrs. Davis’ actions and will not.) The Vatican, however, stated that her inclusion in the meet-and-greet reception line is not to be taken as approval of her actions by the pope. The Vatican cleared that up.

No one said they hate Mrs. Davis, some people just think it’s hypocritical of her to not resign. That does not equal hate. No one that I seen, here or anywhere else, has said they hate her.

I met St. Pope JP II in a receiving line. Am I to take it that he approved of all my actions because of that? No, of course not.

Some people believe Christians should stand up and defend their faith when laws of man conflict with Gods law, not just give up and quit.

Lets say Kim Davis did just resign and move to another job, this would not even be a news story then, we must remember all it takes for evil to grow, is for good people to do nothing.

 

[Thomas_White]

Some people believe Christians should stand up and defend their faith when laws of man conflict with Gods law, not just give up and quit.

Lets say Kim Davis did just resign and move to another job, this would not even be a news story then, we must remember all it takes for evil to grow, is for good people to do nothing.

I am old enough to remember the military draft of the late 1960’s. At that time, I knew several young Catholic men who claimed conscientious objection and refused induction into military service on the belief that the war in Vietnam was unjust. The several I knew quite well from school experienced considerable hardship as a result, but what they did not do was submit to induction into the military, refuse to perform their duties and expect accommodations be made for them. They accepted the legal consequences of civil disobedience.

 

[rmartensjr]

Some people believe Christians should stand up and defend their faith when laws of man conflict with Gods law, not just give up and quit.

Lets say Kim Davis did just resign and move to another job, this would not even be a news story then, we must remember all it takes for evil to grow, is for good people to do nothing.

 

[sps49]

The example was intentionally extreme to highlight the principle. There would be the less immediate example from during the era of the military draft of a person claiming CO status then being inducted into military service and assigned a combat role. This would potentially become dangerous to himself and his fellow soldiers. Kim Davis refusing to perform her official duties results in a similar problem, although not one nearly as extreme. I don’t see physical danger there either, but that is not the point.

What is the point of comparison, if there is no physical danger? How is Kim Davis dangerous except in a narrow ideological way? Or was that the point, that her ideology is view as being as dangerous as a combat environment? You will have to expand on that some.

 

[HCTC]

I am old enough to remember the military draft of the late 1960’s. At that time, I knew several young Catholic men who claimed conscientious objection and refused induction into military service on the belief that the war in Vietnam was unjust. The several I knew quite well from school experienced considerable hardship as a result, but what they did not do was submit to induction into the military, refuse to perform their duties and expect accommodations be made for them. They accepted the legal consequences of civil disobedience.

Exactly! Accepting consequences is what gives the consciencious objector gravitas*. It is easy for anyone to claim that they have a conscientious objection to anything as a means of either gain (attention or income for example) or avoidance (danger or unpleasant work for example). It is in accepting the consequences that their claim gains import.

*Gravitas was one of the Roman virtues along with pietas, dignitas, and virtue. It may be translated variously as weight, seriousness and dignity, also importance, and connotes a certain substance or depth of personality.

 

[HCTC]

Some people believe Christians should stand up and defend their faith when laws of man conflict with Gods law, not just give up and quit.

Lets say Kim Davis did just resign and move to another job, this would not even be a news story then, we must remember all it takes for evil to grow, is for good people to do nothing.

Well, it very difficult and highly unlikely that a single conscientious objector will change anything. Change becomes more likely as more people express conscientious objection AND accept the consequences.

Accepting consequences is what gives the consciencious objector gravitas*. It is easy for anyone to claim that they have a consciencious objection to anything as a means of either gain (attention or income for example) or avoidance (danger or unpleasant work for example). It is in accepting the consequences that their claim gains import.

*Gravitas was one of the Roman virtues along with pietas, dignitas, and virtue. It may be translated variously as weight, seriousness and dignity, also importance, and connotes a certain substance or depth of personality.

 

[kozlosap]

I can’t see the discrimination. If another priest announced that he was going to start living with his girlfriend, he would be fired just as quickly. As for the Davis situation, she is a tool being used and is to ignorant to realize it.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is the development concerning Msg. Charamsa, a Vatican official who has had duties at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as a teacher at the Pontifical Universities. He has publicly announced he is homosexual and has a boyfriend. The Monsignor said in his announcement that the Church is homophobic and its treatment of homosexuals is inhumane. These are apparently his beliefs. He asked for change.

Should the Vatican acknowledge the Monsignor’s conscientious right to his beliefs by permitting him to continue his duties at the Vatican?

The difference between this situation and Kim Davis is that this Priest came into ‘the job’ knowing exactly the position of the Catholic Church and understanding his duties based on that. He was the one who has changed… not the employer.

Ms Davis accepted her job being perfectly okay with all the duties on the duty statement and the rules were changed by the employer. She most probably would never have accepted the job in the first place had she known that one of the duties would be to give marriage licences to same sex couples.

 

[LongingSoul]

I am old enough to remember the military draft of the late 1960’s. At that time, I knew several young Catholic men who claimed conscientious objection and refused induction into military service on the belief that the war in Vietnam was unjust. The several I knew quite well from school experienced considerable hardship as a result, but what they did not do was submit to induction into the military, refuse to perform their duties and expect accommodations be made for them. They accepted the legal consequences of civil disobedience.

The Church weighed in on this type of situation back in the 60’s making recommendations to Catholic agencies and the civil authorities with regards to the treatment of a conscientious objector…

"A Catholic viewing his tradition, the message of the Gospel statements, could validly question and abstain from participation in war or the preparations for war.

The Second Vatican Council, therefore, endorsed laws that would —

make human provision for the care of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided, however, that they accept some other form of service to the human community. (GS, n. 79)

From the previously stated documents and traditions, it is clear that a Catholic (either in-service or out-of-service) can be a conscientious objector “because of religious training and belief.”

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.” We therefore recommend:

That each diocese initiate or cooperate in providing draft information and counseling;

That Catholic Organizations which could qualify as alternative service agencies consider applying for that status, and support and provide meaningful employment for the Conscientious objector.
We are not only concerned about the status of the conscientious objector, but also concerned about that of the Selective Conscientious Objector. His status is complicated by the fact that his claim for exemption is not upheld by law. The American bishops spoke at some length in their pastoral letter of November, 1968, Human Life in Our Day, of the Selective Conscientious Objector, recommending —

a modification of the Selective Service Act making it possible, although, not easy, for so-called selective conscientious objectors to refuse—without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship—to serve in wars which they consider unjust or in branches of service (e.g., the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing.

In reaffirming this recommendation, we are reminded of the number of individuals who have suffered imprisonment or have left the country because they felt compelled to follow their conscience rather than the law. In a continuing pastoral concern for their welfare, we urge civil officials, as part of a revision of the law as regards to the Selective Conscientious Objector, to consider granting amnesty to those who have suffered imprisonment and give those who have left the country an opportunity to demonstrate that they are sincere objectors.

In conclusion, we encourage clergy and laymen alike, especially parents, to be sympathetic and understanding to those who in good conscience are compelled to object to military service, even if one were not in total agreement with the objector. The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council wrote —

**We cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties, provided that this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself. (GS, n. 78)

We should look upon conscientious objection not as a scandal, but rather as a healthy sign. War will still not be replaced by more humane institutions for regulating conflict until citizens insist on principles of non-violence. John F. Kennedy once said, “War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige as the warrior does today.”**

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/statement-on-the-catholic-conscientious-objector-division-of-world-justice-and-peace-1969-10-15.cfm

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

Right now Atheism and Islam are fighting for the soul of the United States of America. The Atheists won now. Atheism is the official religion of the US Government.

Give 50 years of Muslims having multiple kids, atheists having none, and Christians having one maybe two, your comment will not be true.

 

[PRmerger]

Right now Atheism and Islam are fighting for the soul of the United States of America. The Atheists won now. Atheism is the official religion of the US Government.

Give 50 years of Muslims having multiple kids, atheists having none, and Christians having one maybe two, your comment will not be true.

This is an insightful and true observation. Both in your first paragraph as well as the second.

 

[Thomas_White]

What is the point of comparison, if there is no physical danger? How is Kim Davis dangerous except in a narrow ideological way? Or was that the point, that her ideology is view as being as dangerous as a combat environment? You will have to expand on that some.

These are two quite different examples of conscientious objection and neither “dangerous” nor physical “danger” is what they share in common–or not as those words are commonly defined and understood. Whether or not Kim Davis still refuses to perform her job duties as an elected official is a question for a federal judge. Whether she has a right as a conscientious objector to refuse to perform her job duties is a separate question. I believe she has a right to claim conscientious objector status but not to remain in an elective office if she refuses to perform the duties of that office. The issue is the rule of law and not that of her right to conscientiously object. If the President of the United States refused to uphold the rule of law and, as a matter of conscience, defied the Supreme Court, he would surely face impeachment. This is the difficulty–consequences are unavoidable in both examples. The example of Kim Davis would not meet the definition of ‘danger’, so call it what one will. It is a problem as it is in all the examples.

The instance of a soldier refusing to perform his or her sworn duties is a problem if not the same circumstances. If an infantryman would claim conscientious objector status but would nevertheless be permitted to remain in that position while refusing to perform his duties in combat would be utterly irresponsible. It is an extreme example but true to the principle.

 

[HCTC]

Right now Atheism and Islam are fighting for the soul of the United States of America. The Atheists won now. Atheism is the official religion of the US Government.

Give 50 years of Muslims having multiple kids, atheists having none, and Christians having one maybe two, your comment will not be true.

My goodness, what an emotionally charged post! If you are truly living in fear that the U.S. government could become a Muslim theocracy, you would be absolutely insisting that Kim Davis do her job or resign.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here’s something interesting:

An openly gay former student of Pope Francis who visited the pope during his recent trip to Washington has said he was surprised Francis also met the Kentucky county clerk who gained attention for refusing to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses.

The pope’s meeting with Washington resident Yayo Grassi, his boyfriend and a few others came to light on Friday as the Vatican was distancing itself from claims the pope’s meeting with the clerk, Kim Davis, was an endorsement of her stance on same-sex marriage.

Grassi, 67, met Francis more than 50 years ago when the future pope taught at his all-boys school in Argentina. They reconnected in 2008 and since becoming pope, Francis has met Grassi and his boyfriend of 17 years twice, once in Rome and most recently in Washington, Grassi said.

Grassi, who came to the US in 1978 and runs a catering business, spoke at his home on Saturday.

Asked what he thought of the pope’s meeting with Davis, he said: “I thought, ‘This is really strange. This is not like him.’”

Grassi said he told friends they should not rush to judgment and that he didn’t think they had all the facts. The Vatican spokesman, the Reverend Federico Lombardi, declined to say who invited Davis or what the pope knew of her case but such encounters are arranged by the Vatican ambassador and his staff, not the pope’s delegation or the US bishops’ conference.

Grassi said that after the Davis story came out and he was contacted by the media, he thought: “Perhaps this is the time to defend him. I owe him that as a friend, not because he is a friend but because I know part of the truth.”

**Grassi said “encouraging somebody who is so divisive” like Davis would be out of character for Francis.

“Here is this guy that is so much into integrating everybody, communicating with everybody,” Grassi said, adding he was “500% sure” the pope did not initiate the meeting with Davis.**

theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/04/pope-francis-gay-former-student-shocked-kim-davis-meeting

 

[LongingSoul]

The instance of a soldier refusing to perform his or her sworn duties is a problem if not the same circumstances. If an infantryman would claim conscientious objector status but would nevertheless be permitted to remain in that position while refusing to perform his duties in combat would be utterly irresponsible. It is an extreme example but true to the principle.

But the ideal situation to accommodate that would be to find a job for that soldier still within the service but not needing to perform that particular duty. That is something the Church urged as per the USSCB letter I’ve posted above.

If Ms Davis can still perform all her other duties but someone else do the particular duty of signing ssm licences, there’d be no skin off anyones nose. The reality is that the next official to come into the job will be aware of the need to grant ssm licences before accepting the position.

 

[Thomas_White]

But the ideal situation to accommodate that would be to find a job for that soldier still within the service but not needing to perform that particular duty. That is something the Church urged as per the USSCB letter I’ve posted above.

If Ms Davis can still perform all her other duties but someone else do the particular duty of signing ssm licences, there’d be no skin off anyones nose. The reality is that the next official to come into the job will be aware of the need to grant ssm licences before accepting the position.

But the ideal situation to accommodate that would be to find a job for that soldier still within the service but not needing to perform that particular duty. That is something the Church urged as per the USSCB letter I’ve posted above.

If Ms Davis can still perform all her other duties but someone else do the particular duty of signing ssm licences, there’d be no skin off anyones nose. The reality is that the next official to come into the job will be aware of the need to grant ssm licences before accepting the position.

It seems to be what has occurred, and the issue with Kim Davis is perhaps already settled. As for the example of the soldier, it was sometimes possible to move him to another job and sometimes not. There was both the situation of a soldier who one bright day would decide to take a stand and declare he want longer wanted any part of the army and the war in Vietnam, and the situation of the individual who refused induction altogether. In both those instances there were consequences.

This is not abstract for me. As it happens, I served in the U.S. Army during the war and worked for a time in administrative separations. These things were complex, sometimes involving AWOL, desertion, court martial and a bad conduct discharge. Soldiers would experience the sudden illumination they were conscientious objectors only at the very moment they learned they were headed to Vietnam as an infantryman. Excuse me if I seem skeptical, but I saw enough of these soldiers eventually rounded up by the M.P.'s and taken to the stockade to await court martial and discharge. At that point, they would show up in my office in the company of M.P.'s, and I interviewed them all.