Reports: Pope Francis met Kentucky clerk Kim Davis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Son_of_Niall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
nodito said:
This is absolutely contrary to justice and reason. The effect your approach could have would be to remove people of conscience from just about every imaginable occupation. We would have no doctors, because you would ask that anyone who would refuse to perform or refer for abortions to quit. We’d have no lawyers or pharmacists either. We need people of faith and conscience in the workforce, and you don’t demonstrate integrity by removing yourself from a position when higher ups are demanding that you do something immoral, you show weakness.
Click to expand...
I didn’t tell doctors who were performing abortions to quit. I just told them not to come to me for PR, which is my right. And I lost a lot of money by doing so because I made $250/hr. in PR. All told, in PR, I was making more than $350,000/yr, which I gave up to teach theology to college students.

If Kim Davis had any backbone, she would have simply said, “I find this job now conflicts with my religious convictions” and left. But she didn’t have the integrity to do that. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, too. She wanted to tell OTHERS how to believe when she altered the marriage forms to make certain marriages invalid. I do NOT believe in SSM, but it is the LAW in the US and when Kim Davis accepted her job, she agreed to uphold the LAW. If she can’t do that, she can’t do her job. She doesn’t own the marriage license bureau like I owned my own PR agency.
 
nodito said:
But if some day required by their place of employment or the government, you think it shows more integrity if they all quit their jobs?
Click to expand...
Rather than… what? Be fired? The only reason Kim Davis should resign is because she cannot be fired. Different situation for a doctor.

If you were a doctor in Canada, you wouldn’t have to resign. BUT, if somebody asked you to refer an abortionist, you would have to refuse, and possibly be fired. That’s the way it is. Let’s thank God that we don’t have to face situations like that in America.
 
This really seems to have thrown cold water on the mainstream media’s excitement over “climate change” and immigration.

So NOW do some folks not believe that Pope Francis isn’t a left-wing Marxist? Please?
 
SuperLuigi said:
This really seems to have thrown cold water on the mainstream media’s excitement over “climate change” and immigration.

So NOW do some folks not believe that Pope Francis isn’t a left-wing Marxist? Please?
Click to expand...
I dunno but those Pope Francis Anti-Christ doom-gloomers are still having a field day with the way he held his hands while addressing congress.
ahh… America.
 
SuperLuigi said:
This really seems to have thrown cold water on the mainstream media’s excitement over “climate change” and immigration.

So NOW do some folks not believe that Pope Francis isn’t a left-wing Marxist? Please?
Click to expand...
Surprise! Surprise! He’s Catholic!
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I didn’t tell doctors who were performing abortions to quit. I just told them not to come to me for PR, which is my right. And I lost a lot of money by doing so because I made $250/hr. in PR. All told, in PR, I was making more than $350,000/yr, which I gave up to teach theology to college students.

If Kim Davis had any backbone, she would have simply said, “I find this job now conflicts with my religious convictions” and left. But she didn’t have the integrity to do that. She wanted to have her cake and eat it, too. She wanted to tell OTHERS how to believe when she altered the marriage forms to make certain marriages invalid. I do NOT believe in SSM, but it is the LAW in the US and when Kim Davis accepted her job, she agreed to uphold the LAW. If she can’t do that, she can’t do her job. She doesn’t own the marriage license bureau like I owned my own PR agency.
Click to expand...
Lily, I understood that you were not asking abortionists to quit.

Your argument seems to go like this: If a person’s job requires them to do something immoral, they quit rather than just refuse to do the immoral action, because it is selfish to want to keep your job and practice your faith at the same time when the two seem incompatible ("have their cake and eat it too). Is that correct?

I find that position untenable. There are any number of jobs that are moral and even good in and of themselves that might at times seemingly require an employee to do something immoral. It does not demonstrate selfishness or lack of integrity to do a job well and continue doing a job well while simultaneously refusing to participate in that aspect of it which is evil. We see this with doctors who are required by their institutions or their governments to perform abortions. They should not have to cease being doctors to refuse to perform one aspect of their job. Likewise, I think a person should be able to be a civil servant without having to participate in the affirmation of gay marriage.
 
Good heavens what an uproar. So did those of you (Catholics) who feel Kim Davis should have quit see the transcript from the pope’s flight back to Rome? ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/Vatican.php?id=12705#.VgmIFVkhxTs.facebook
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…
Click to expand...
Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.
Click to expand...
As far as those who still question if it actually happened. Ewtn had it on their news this evening and their Rome correspondent said the Vatican response was typical when a private meeting took place that they felt they did not wish add anything further to. I really do not understand all the hoopla or shock. I was both pleased and amused. The fringe nonsense I endured on Facebook going on by some fundamentalists about Pope Francis starting a New World Order, making the sign of the Illuminati in congress were also the same people who held up Kim Davis as their patron saint. So now they found she met with the anti-christ and really liked him.😃

The heterodox Catholics were bound to find out the pope was actually planning on upholding Church teaching. And this is totally inline with what he does. Meet with those that are persecuted. I think she is a simple woman who got propped up for a cause. She believes in the biblical definition of marriage. She converted after her string of marriages. The faith she follows now doesn’t count the actions of her previous marriages against her becaused after all she wasn’t “saved” at the time. Her parents are Catholic, which means she most likely was baptized Catholic as a baby, which means in the eyes of the Church she is still considered Catholic albeit fallen away. Her denomination might think the pope is the anti-christ but she clearly does not. I haven’t been active on the forum for a number of years, I forgot how these things blow up with so much emotion.
 
nodito said:
Lily, I understood that you were not asking abortionists to quit.

Your argument seems to go like this: If a person’s job requires them to do something immoral, they quit rather than just refuse to do the immoral action, because it is selfish to want to keep your job and practice your faith at the same time when the two seem incompatible ("have their cake and eat it too). Is that correct?

I find that position untenable. There are any number of jobs that are moral and even good in and of themselves that might at times seemingly require an employee to do something immoral. It does not demonstrate selfishness or lack of integrity to do a job well and continue doing a job well while simultaneously refusing to participate in that aspect of it which is evil. We see this with doctors who are required by their institutions or their governments to perform abortions. They should not have to cease being doctors to refuse to perform one aspect of their job. Likewise, I think a person should be able to be a civil servant without having to participate in the affirmation of gay marriage.
Click to expand...
No, not a job in a private industry. I would expect the person to keep that. I’m only referring to elected officials like Kim Davis who swore an oath to uphold the law. I think if elected officials find they cannot do the job they swore to do, they should leave the job. If everyone who swore to uphold the law found a reason to object to something in the law, we would soon have no government and be in a state of anarchy. What good is swearing an oath if someone wants to break it or find ways to get around it? None. It’s not good for anything.

I am not speaking of pharmacists, scientists, doctors, nurses, factory workers, accountants, etc. Doctors take an oath to “do no harm,” etc. but if a person doesn’t like his or her doctor, lawyer, pharmacist, accountant, PR person, nurse, gardener, he or she is free to find another one. They have nothing to do with the running of the government unless employed in a government position, and usually not even then.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
No, not a job in a private industry. I would expect the person to keep that. I’m only referring to elected officials like Kim Davis who swore an oath to uphold the law. I think if elected officials find they cannot do the job they swore to do, they should leave the job. If everyone who swore to uphold the law found a reason to object to something in the law, we would soon have no government and be in a state of anarchy. What good is swearing an oath if someone wants to break it or find ways to get around it? None. It’s not good for anything.

I am not speaking of pharmacists, scientists, doctors, nurses, factory workers, accountants, etc. Doctors take an oath to “do no harm,” etc. but if a person doesn’t like his or her doctor, lawyer, pharmacist, accountant, PR person, nurse, gardener, he or she is free to find another one. They have nothing to do with the running of the government unless employed in a government position, and usually not even then.
Click to expand...
So public-service is reserved for the amoral and immoral? This most certainly is not the view of the Church
 
It’s interesting how the Internet is only now realizing that the pope is a bigot. :banghead:

I’m commenting with sarcasm. Please. No one infer that I think the pope is a bigot.
 
on_the_hill said:
It’s interesting how the Internet is only now realizing that the pope is a bigot. :banghead:

I’m commenting with sarcasm. Please. No one infer that I think the pope is a bigot.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some articles on Vox / Huffington still filled with love for the Holy Father and excusing his visit with Kim Davis as necessary. :rotfl:

They are just really hooked onto the whole climate change thing.
 
estesbob said:
So public-service is reserved for the amoral and immoral? This most certainly is not the view of the Church
Click to expand...
Precisely. I’d just like to re-iterate what I said in Post #34:
steido01 said:
We should also keep in mind that the very American idea that “all religions are equal under the eyes of the law” is not native to other countries, and is certainly not a view supported by our jealous God. Christianity does not conform to this world, no matter how much comfortable ‘freedom’ we may happen to have in a given country in a given era. Christianity is the ultimate counter-culture.

I’d ask those who find fault in Ms. Davis’s actions to consider thinking as American Christians, not somewhat-Christianized Americans.
Click to expand...
It seems some folks have been brainwashed into thinking like Americans, rather than Christians. This is unfortunate.
 
steido01 said:
I don’t understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion. It was on every front page, website, and social media post in the most-followed country in the world. Anything that happens in the U.S. is world news. Certainly, a head of state or religious leader would be following the case. Especially with so much at risk in this country.
Click to expand...
What risk in this country? Issuing marriage license to same-sex couples is not a breach of national security and quite frankly does not endanger marriage as much as divorce. Which Mrs. Davis has had 4 times.
 
Pope Francis seems to be nice enough to do this kind of thing so I believe he did
 
blmathew1955 said:
What risk in this country? Issuing marriage license to same-sex couples is not a breach of national security and quite frankly does not endanger marriage as much as divorce. Which Mrs. Davis has had 4 times.
Click to expand...
So Ms. Davis religious liberty is lessened because she has multiple divorces?
 
estesbob said:
So Ms. Davis religious liberty is lessened because she has multiple divorces?
Click to expand...
Her religious liberty, no. Her duty as an elected official, though, is a different matter. And I think you know that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top