The plot thickens:
The plot thickens:
Originally posted by Surtur
Nope, he definitely gave her his support. I'm not talking about at whatever public forum Davis was at, but if you'd been listening to the speeches he made last week..he 100% gave her his support he just didn't mention her by name.He talked about how people have a "human right" to be doing what she did.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Could you provide the quote and context?
He said government officials have a "human right" to not do their assigned duties if it violates their conscience.
So he's supporting her actions without actually coming right out and saying "I specifically support Kim Davis". Keep in mind this is the same person that, in the same week, said we should reject all forms of discrimination.
That statement wasn't specifically about Kim Davis or even gay marriage. Some dude asked the Pope a broad question about conscientious objection and he answered it broadly.
There is a precedent for conscientious objection. Pharmaceutical workers who have a moral issue with giving someone contraceptions just have someone other than themselves do it. Kim Davis on the other hand prevented those working under her from doing the duty that she took issue with doing.
It's not hard to read between the lines given the Kim Davis story is big right now. He answered it broadly because he is not stupid enough to specifically say "I agree with Kim and those of her ilk". He's like a sleazy politician.
He's undoubtedly aware of the recent issues we are having in regards to people opting out of their duties for religious reasons. I don't mean to suggest he was talking *only* about her. But his statement without a doubt shows he supports someone doing what Kim Davis did. Therefore to say he supports the actions of Kim Davis is an accurate statement.
Also pharmaceutical workers aren't government officials, Kim Davis is.
Originally posted by Surtur
He said government officials have a "human right" to not do their assigned duties if it violates their conscience.So he's supporting her actions without actually coming right out and saying "I specifically support Kim Davis". Keep in mind this is the same person that, in the same week, said we should reject all forms of discrimination.
Note, that is not even the biggest problem with Kim's action. Her problem is she's not only not doing her job, but actively trying to block others as well.
A clerk bowing out is not too much of a problem- as long as it still gets done through their office.
He's expressed no comment on the 'block others' action.
@Q99 👆
@Surtur Or the Pope's opinion on conscientious objection could be the same even if you took away the gay marriage "controversy" (for lack of a better word). It's not like he even went out of his way to address that issue, he was simply answering a question asked to him by a reporter. It shouldn't come as a surprise that a religious leader thinks someone should have the right to object to doing something they see as morally wrong :/ And sleazy politicians don't do the kinds of things Pope Francis has done.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
... sleazy politicians don't do the kinds of things Pope Francis has done.
You'll need proof if you want this accepted, and likely even by people like Surtur, let alone the average person or people like me. Especially if you're suggesting Francis is exempt from such a brand by virtue of charitable or honorable work. There are a lot of people with extensive backgrounds of work done over the years that most would deem good or admirable who are nonetheless considered by many to be sleazy, or politicians, or even sleazy politicians.
Originally posted by Surtur
The Vatican just fired a priest for coming out as gay.
Krzysztof Charamsa, yes.
I don't think the Catholic Church will long hold to any position that is Biblically moral but politically incorrect; I expect them to reverse course relatively shortly, in fact.
Even so, the firing of this man by them is quite understandable, at least for the present.
Originally posted by Surtur
He said government officials have a "human right" to not do their assigned duties if it violates their conscience.So he's supporting her actions without actually coming right out and saying "I specifically support Kim Davis".
I agree that, for the present, it APPEARS that way, Surtur ...
The way they made it sound like it wasn''t cuz he had a lover, but because of the way he announced it.
So you guys remember the popes whole "reject all forms of discrimination" thing? Even if it was because of having a lover that is still discrimination.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I agree that, for the present, it APPEARS that way, Surtur ...
There is really no debating against this actually. Dude straight up said government officials should be able to refuse to do duties if it violates their conscience. Kim Davis is a government employee. Kim Davis refused to perform her duties because of her religion. The pope gave support for people who do this.
Thus the Pope supports Kim Davis and people like her. It's not really a "maybe" but a fact.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/10/03/3708820/vatican-fires-gay-priest/
"With regard to the declarations and interview given by Msgr. Krzystof Charamsa it should be observed that … the decision to make such a pointed statement on the eve of the opening of the Synod appears very serious and irresponsible, since it aims to subject the Synod assembly to undue media pressure,”