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

[Bubba_Switzler]

She didn’t adhere to her oath, she is showing partiality. A federal judge agrees with me, he jailed her for contempt of court when she would not adhere to the oath she took BEFORE GOD. I think it’s safe to say, a federal judge knows the law.

As I said, an honest woman who really meant what she said could always resign when she found she couldn’t do the job she swore to do. Kim Davis’ actions belie her words.

I’m not going back-and-forth with you, especially when you are uncivil. And, I have a lot more interesting things to do than to keep talking about “old news.” I said what I had to say. It’s a pretty safe bet she won’t be elected again.

That you think her dishonest pretty much sums it up for me. I don’t think that is an honest assessment.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You said she didn’t swear an oath at all.

No, you are being dishonest again. I said she did not wear an oath to be a servant of evil. (Or to do “whatever”.)

 

[JimmyG88]

This is the most absurd comment I’ve read on this thread.

The sinfulness of a particular candidate is IRRELEVANT…absolutely so…to her ability to discern whether gay marriage is permissible or not.

However that isn’t her job is it. If she resigned her position and launched a public campaign I would respect that decision. And surely it is important to remember that there are other sins that exist quite apart from homosexuality, such as apostasy, adultery, pre marital sex and vanity

 

[JimmyG88]

How is that relevant? I will gladly accept a Protestant as an ally over secular atheists. Whether she was catholic at one time is irrelevant. On this point she remains correct.

She was elected to office, then the court decided to change her job after she was elected. She is doing what she was elected to do.

Yes Bubba you make it very clear that you are completely correct. I no longer expect the courtesy of a rational discussion based on what others have actually written. The fact that she may have turned her back on our church horrifies me actually

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

However that isn’t her job is it. If she resigned her position and launched a public campaign I would respect that decision. And surely it is important to remember that there are other sins that exist quite apart from homosexuality, such as apostasy, adultery, pre marital sex and vanity

Her job, per the oath she swore, is to prevent malfeasance which means not to allow fraudulent records. She is being presented wit fraudulent marriage documents and being asked to certify them. Per her oath, she has declined to do so.

It might be great for her or others to take a similar stand against remarriage and to get their own lives in order but that does not diminish her heroism in this instance. There is no rule that heros must be saints. Or even that saints must be perfect.

 

[PRmerger]

However that isn’t her job is it.

Of course it’s her job. It’s the job of every moral person to discern whether the events of the day are consonant with truth or not.

And surely it is important to remember that there are other sins that exist quite apart from homosexuality, such as apostasy, adultery, pre marital sex and vanity

Very Catholic, this!

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues not each other

Don’t call each other dishonest

 

[mikekle]

I was not there so I cannot speak firsthand, but from what I have heard on various news outlets, only photos of Kim were taken (by those with Kim, we all know photos of the Pope and Mr. Grassi, and others were taken). No photos of Kim and the pope were taken together. The Vatican simply says the pope did not appear in any photos with Mrs. Davis.

As I said, I wasn’t there, so can’t speak firsthand, but that is what I have heard on news outlets and read and from what I’ve heard from my friends in Rome (I worked for a year at the Vatican as part of my theological training).

She must be the only person who got to shake the Popes hand (whatever the type of meeting it actually was), and didnt get a picture of it?! YEAH RIGHT!

I cant count the number of other people who had that privilege and there are plenty of pictures. LOL

 

[JimmyG88]

Of course it’s her job. It’s the job of every moral person to discern whether the events of the day are consonant with truth or not.

Very Catholic, this!

I’m not sure if this is ironic or not but I do consider it Roman Catholic yes

 

[mikekle]

Despite all the debate about this, it comes down to the fact that God told us we need to stand up for our faith when mans laws CONFLICT with his laws…pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

Im sure satan is loving this though, christians taking sides over this…cannot imagine how bad it will be when the real deception comes!

 

[Thomas_White]

An elected official cannot delegate his or her authority, and it is why a Constitutional Amendment, no less, was required to provide an exception should a U.S. President become incapacitated. It makes no difference whether or not Kim Davis signs the marriage licenses issued to SS couples in that county. It occurs under her legal authority. Her only option should she refuse to carry out her sworn duties is to either resign or return to jail. There is no gray area here.

 

[mikekle]

An elected official cannot delegate his or her authority, and it is why a Constitutional Amendment, no less, was required to provide an exception should a U.S. President become incapacitated. It makes no difference whether or not Kim Davis signs the marriage licenses issued to SS couples in that county. It occurs under her legal authority. Her only option should she refuse to carry out her sworn duties is to either resign or return to jail. There is no gray area here.

So you believe God would instruct us to stand up for his laws ONLY if our actions do not conflict with a national constitution?

 

[simple_soul]

Despite all the debate about this, it comes down to the fact that God told us we need to stand up for our faith when mans laws CONFLICT with his laws…pretty cut and dry in my opinion.

I don’t know about others but what I’m trying to work my way through is that, on one hand, I have this understanding that it is God’s law that we do not force His Laws on others and yet we are still supposed to live our lives according to His Laws while at the same time giving others the freedom to grow and mature in and choose to live His laws with out forcing anyone to live by His laws. It’s kind of like a “take it or leave it” mentality and I will still love them and respect them if they choose to leave it.

So my question about this whole thing with Kim Davis is are her actions and the subsiquent politicizing of them by others, an attempt to force others to live according to God’s laws?

 

[Thomas_White]

So you believe God would instruct us to stand up for his laws ONLY if our actions do not conflict with a national constitution?

Not at all. The point is there might be, as there is in this case, legal consequences that cannot be avoided.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

An elected official cannot delegate his or her authority, and it is why a Constitutional Amendment, no less, was required to provide an exception should a U.S. President become incapacitated. It makes no difference whether or not Kim Davis signs the marriage licenses issued to SS couples in that county. It occurs under her legal authority. Her only option should she refuse to carry out her sworn duties is to either resign or return to jail. There is no gray area here.

You are simply repeating yourself without dealing with the contrary arguments.

See e.g. My coup analogy.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t know about others but what I’m trying to work my way through is that, on one hand, I have this understanding that it is God’s law that we do not force His Laws on others and yet we are still supposed to live our lives according to His Laws while at the same time giving others the freedom to grow and mature in and choose to live His laws with out forcing anyone to live by His laws. It’s kind of like a “take it or leave it” mentality and I will still love them and respect them if they choose to leave it.

So my question about this whole thing with Kim Davis is are her actions and the subsiquent politicizing of them by others, an attempt to force others to live according to God’s laws?

This is a very fair question. It can be asked more generally of “ssm”. I’ve heard some claim that she is “forcing her religion” on others by refusing to issue “ssm” licenses.

But note that she is accused of doing this not by action but by inaction (first of her office and then of her signature).

When did refusal to cooperate become an act of force?

 

[simple_soul]

This is a very fair question. It can be asked more generally of “ssm”. I’ve heard some claim that she is “forcing her religion” on others by refusing to issue “ssm” licenses.

But note that she is accused of doing this not by action but by inaction (first of her office and then of her signature).

When did refusal to cooperate become an act of force?

Wow. You don’t work with children much do you.
When my children decide to not do thier chores they are not acting either and they still are choosing a coarse of action to try and get out of doing them by subornly refusing to do them.

Her choice of action is to choose to not sign or issue marriage license for SSM. This is an action she took no mater how you try to twist it around.

As for putting my question back onto the SSM crowd. I can’t hold them to what my faith dictates to me so why would I?

 

[JimmyG88]

This is a very fair question. It can be asked more generally of “ssm”. I’ve heard some claim that she is “forcing her religion” on others by refusing to issue “ssm” licenses.

But note that she is accused of doing this not by action but by inaction (first of her office and then of her signature).

When did refusal to cooperate become an act of force?

The only thing she is refusing to do is personally issue licences. The licences that are issued are issued under her authority. If she wished to stop the issuing licences under her authority she has to resign. But she seemingly likes the government salary

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t know about others but what I’m trying to work my way through is that, on one hand, I have this understanding that it is God’s law that we do not force His Laws on others and yet we are still supposed to live our lives according to His Laws while at the same time giving others the freedom to grow and mature in and choose to live His laws with out forcing anyone to live by His laws. It’s kind of like a “take it or leave it” mentality and I will still love them and respect them if they choose to leave it.

So my question about this whole thing with Kim Davis is are her actions and the subsiquent politicizing of them by others, an attempt to force others to live according to God’s laws?

Since when would it be the right thing to do to permit ourselves to BE FORCED to live under laws which are not only opposed to God’s laws but which are determinably opposed to natural law.

Children are being taught in schools to ignore their own biology and replace that with what is best described as a tenuous ideology. How is that sane? Or moral? Or defensible?

Don’t kid yourself, this compliance is being FORCED upon us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The only thing she is refusing to do is personally issue licences. The licences that are issued are issued under her authority. If she wished to stop the issuing licences under her authority she has to resign. But she seemingly likes the government salary

That would be you reading your presumptions into her motives. You do understand the word “prejudice” comes from the idea of “pre-judging,” yes? That is, where we judge a person by what we suppose are their motives rather than what truly are.

Check your warrant.