Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[Peace]

It's an interesting question. What is the proper thing to do when the requirements of your work conflict with the requirements of your faith? One might argue that if you are paid to do a job, refuse to do what you are being paid to do, and yet continue to collect the income, then it is a form of theft.

I would think that the proper thing to do is to resign.  It reminds me of that big debate Scalia had over the death penalty years ago. There, he concluded that if the Church forbade the death penalty except in limited circumstances, he would have to resign. But then he took a cop-out and decided that he could keep his job "because the Catechism is wrong on that point" or some BS. . .

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours

[Ice_nine]

It did feel a bit like a thinly veiled shot at my earlier post. Apologies if I took it the wrong way.

no worries. I was just venting, and I was running on three hours of sleep. My bad.

 

This woman is brave. I respect bravery. But sometimes people are brave and stupid. This may be one of those times.

Anyhow I'm not that brave and would have just resigned.

[Guest]

Edited September 4, 2015 by Guest

[Gabriela]

Really, Josh, you're just being uncharitable now. Let it go.

[Guest]

Not trying to be uncharitable. A Catholic posted it on Facebook and I pretty much agree with it. I get it many won't though.

[hotpink]

I respect this lady. I don't agree with her choice. But she has the nerve to go to prison for her political views. For her religious views. And she is not part of some movement either. She's not one of those prolife protesters or police brutality protesters who go out and do a mass demonstration and get arrested together.

She's out there one her own. That's rare courage. 

You all wish you had her guts. 

Not really.  Because, even though Josh's post was a bit crass, it's true.  She didn't want to give up her 80k a year job, which given the area poverty and wages would be like a 200k job in Seattle.  That's a whole lot of money.  Money which could be used to donate to legal funds, to change legislation or to put yourself in a position to really advance change.

There's a difference between rare courage and foolishness.  To me it seems like a somewhat pitiful move from someone who was out of ideas.

 

I liked Fr Longenecker's post on this. Here's just a snippet: "A resignation is not a compromise and it is not condoning something the religious person cannot condone. Neither is a resignation an escape. It is a clear public statement which requires considerable sacrifice. It is “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”"

Which I think is more accurate.  Mostly because what happened in the end.  We could easily see this soultion come about.  And now the woman is a jailed "marter".

Not only that, but she also denied ALL people marriage licenses, including those who legitimately sought to be married.  For some this could of lead to disastrous situations.  Unable to seek a marriage license else-ware due to time or financial constraints they may have had to delay their marriage.  I asked a priest what would happen if he didn't have a wedding lisence.  Apparently priests in America need this so he couldn't marry a couple, even if this couple did "Everything" right according to the church like no sex before marriage, separate houses, etc and had alot riding on getting married on that date.  This person would of messed it up. 

He said while we should fight to protect religious liberties, we should not do it at the cost of others unless they can give their full consent of will.  A couple that's a week away from their marriage and already took time off and could loose their job for taking more time off is not in a position to give that consent most often.  They could, but it will hurt their future alot more than the cleark's and she should of considered the damage she could do to legitimate couples, too, when not doing her job and handed it over to someone who would not harm all.

[Gabriela]

According to the reasoning on here, we ought to all just quit jobs that require us to do unchristian things, rather than stand up in those jobs to force employers to recognize religious rights of conscience.

Now, in some cases, a job is fundamentally unchristian, and so we ought to avoid it. But in this case, the job is not fundamentally unchristian, and the change is quite recent, so this woman's actions seem called for.

Assuming that she didn't leave her job because of the pay rather than because she had a principled statement to make is also uncharitable. How do you know her private reasons?

[Guest]

[Nihil Obstat]

Thomas More, that guy who went to prison and was beheaded rather than accept and consent to an evil situation forced on him by civil authority?

[Guest]

He resigned.

[KnightofChrist]

If memory serves the Prophet Daniel did not resign even after being thrown in a pit of fire and into a lions den.

[Ice_nine]

According to the reasoning on here, we ought to all just quit jobs that require us to do unchristian things, rather than stand up in those jobs to force employers to recognize religious rights of conscience.

Yes.

 

[KnightofChrist]

Also there is a difference between Saint Thomas More and Ms. Davis, More was appointed, Davis was duly elected. King Henry did not want More in his postion if he wasn't going to bow to the King's immorality. It is unclear whether or not the majority of voters want Davis removed.

And I know people wont like me saying this but this just shows how full of it and wicked our Federal Government is, when it comes to this women they will lock her up, when it comes to Planned Parenthood cutting into the face of a baby boy to get to his brain and then selling it there are no arrests.

[Guest]

I agree the Federal Government is wicked. This whole world is. It's actually scary.

[Nihil Obstat]

The issuance of marriage licences, real ones, is good and just because it is the means by which civil authorities recognize and respect those true marriages presided over by the Church. The fact that this person was instructed to do something evil does not mean she should cease to do that which is good. Like I said, offering her resignation in protest would have been entirely acceptable. But what she did is every bit as acceptable. She did what was right presumably to the best of her abilities. Using that small authority she had in resistance against the evil of homosexual unions is praiseworthy, courts be damned.

The issuance of marriage licences, real ones, is good and just because it is the means by which civil authorities recognize and respect those true marriages presided over by the Church. The fact that this person was instructed to do something evil does not mean she should cease to do that which is good. Like I said, offering her resignation in protest would have been entirely acceptable. But what she did is every bit as acceptable. She did what was right presumably to the best of her abilities. Using that small authority she had in resistance against the evil of homosexual unions is praiseworthy, courts be damned.