Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[Guest]

[Nihil Obstat]

 

A civil divorce is not necessarily immoral. Stop swallowing all this anti-Christian propaganda.

 

A civil divorce is not necessarily immoral. Stop swallowing all this anti-Christian propaganda.

[Peace]

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.

Is it not theft? She is paid to issue licenses in accordance with the law.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Is it not theft? She is paid to issue licenses in accordance with the law.

Of course not. One cannot be negligent or somehow dishonest by refusing to do evil. She is paid to issue marriage licences, yes. A licence for a gay marriage is a moral impossibility and in fact evil, and a truly just society would never allow it. As I said, an unjust law cannot bind.

 

Is it not theft? She is paid to issue licenses in accordance with the law.

Of course not. One cannot be negligent or somehow dishonest by refusing to do evil. She is paid to issue marriage licences, yes. A licence for a gay marriage is a moral impossibility and in fact evil, and a truly just society would never allow it. As I said, an unjust law cannot bind.

[Peace]

Not so sure about that pal. It seems to me that she has tacitly agreed to do evil by her continued acceptance of the paycheck and by continuing to hold the office.

When you receive a paycheck or you hold an office - there is a tacit agreement that you will do, at least to the best of your ability, the requirements of the job.

The job requires her to issue licenses that give gay couples the same legal benefits that straight couples have.  She refuses to do that which she has tacitly agreed to do by continuing to receive a paycheck and hold the office.

I think you would agree that if she refused marriages to straight couples it would be theft. I am not sure why the fact that what she has tacitly agreed to is immoral should change the result.

If I agree to direct a pornographic film for $1000, receive the $1000, and then decide not to direct the film because I find it morally wrong, but decide to keep the money anyway - it is theft, is it not? The fact that what I agreed to was immoral does not give me license to commit fraud. I do not see how her situation is much different.

The only difference with her seems to be that the requirements of her job changed after her initial employment. But it is clear that her job now requires her to issue the licenses as of the date that the SC decision came out, and that is what her paycheck is contingent upon. Her refusal to do so, continuing to receive payment, with the knowledge that the requirements of the job have changed and now require something immoral, seems to me a form of theft.

[Nihil Obstat]

The job requires her to issue licences in accordance with the law. Any law allowing homosexual unions is unjust and carries no weight whatsoever. To comply would be evil. Her using her small authority to do what is right can be nothing but praiseworthy. To resign in protest, as I said, would also be fine. It would be evil to issue those licences, and it would be evil also to take money for doing so. But the fact is that morally no employer could ask or expect an employee to commit evil as a stipulation of employment.

[Benedictus]

It's a civil matter so her religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, I think it's a tough situation as she had the job before the rules changed. But if you're paid to do a job and you refuse to do it for personal reasons then you should resign, as some other people have done with dignity in other districts.

She can't cherry pick what she wants to do as a government employee or regarding the law. Can we each decide to ignore laws because they don't sit well with us?  The support she has doesn't seem to be on principle, simply the fact she echo's an opinion others (including factions) want to make use of politically. It's all a bit fickle because If she had refused to perform other tasks on religious grounds she may well have had calls for her to be removed by the same people who support her. If she had decided to refuse to issue gun licenses or If she had refused to give a license to divorcees? What if it would have been a Muslim refusing to serve someone because of their religious beliefs? Maybe the view would have gone all different. She has the right to have her beliefs but not to restrict staff and public access to their rights because of them. She needs to move on and look after herself as this isn't going to push back anything. This is dragging heels stuff.

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

Judging by the negative reaction many across this nation have had against Ms. Davis it would not be surprising to see many of those same persons justify and comply with a law to report faithful Christians for arrest. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

It's a civil matter so her religious beliefs are irrelevant. However, I think it's a tough situation as she had the job before the rules changed. But if you're paid to do a job and you refuse to do it for personal reasons then you should resign, as some other people have done with dignity in other districts.

She can't cherry pick what she wants to do as a government employee or regarding the law. Can we each decide to ignore laws because they don't sit well with us?  The support she has doesn't seem to be on principle, simply the fact she echo's an opinion others (including factions) want to make use of politically. It's all a bit fickle because If she had refused to perform other tasks on religious grounds she may well have had calls for her to be removed by the same people who support her. If she had decided to refuse to issue gun licenses or If she had refused to give a license to divorcees? What if it would have been a Muslim refusing to serve someone because of their religious beliefs? Maybe the view would have gone all different. She has the right to have her beliefs but not to restrict staff and public access to their rights because of them. She needs to move on and look after herself as this isn't going to push back anything. This is dragging heels stuff.

 

 

Your examples only go so far because all of them involve false and inferior religions. Catholicism, being the one true faith, also possesses authority both moral and temporal above and beyond other false religions. That is why talking about conscience rights is a red herring. It is not really a matter of conscience so much as a matter of objective truth. Error has no rights, so basing a conscience decision on the false beliefs of a false religion is likewise evil, culpability notwithstanding.

[Peace]

The job requires her to issue licences in accordance with the law. Any law allowing homosexual unions is unjust and carries no weight whatsoever. To comply would be evil. Her using her small authority to do what is right can be nothing but praiseworthy. To resign in protest, as I said, would also be fine. It would be evil to issue those licences, and it would be evil also to take money for doing so. But the fact is that morally no employer could ask or expect an employee to commit evil as a stipulation of employment.

Just to clarify. I am not saying that she is a horrible person or anything like that because of what she did. I think that the morally correct choice for someone in her situation is to resign.

The law might be unjust - but her oath (I am guessing that she has an oath as she is an elected official) was to uphold the laws. Her oath was not to uphold only the laws that are moral or that are consistent with her religious beliefs.

Morally no just employer can ask or expect an employee to commit evil - agreed. It would be evil for her to issue the licenses or to take money for doing so - agreed. But I do not think these things justify her in refusing to do the job that she is being paid to do. It seems to me that she is committing an evil so that good may result - and the Catholic church does not allow that.

[Nihil Obstat]

Double.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Just to clarify. I am not saying that she is a horrible person or anything like that because of what she did. I think that the morally correct choice for someone in her situation is to resign.

The law might be unjust - but her oath (I am guessing that she has an oath as she is an elected official) was to uphold the laws. Her oath was not to uphold only the laws that are moral or that are consistent with her religious beliefs.

Morally no just employer can ask or expect an employee to commit evil - agreed. It would be evil for her to issue the licenses or to take money for doing so - agreed. But I do not think these things justify her in refusing to do the job that she is being paid to do. It seems to me that she is committing an evil so that good may result - and the Catholic church does not allow that.

She only refused to do the evil parts of her job, did she not? If she refused only the evil and continued to do that which is good, then there is nothing more anyone might justly ask.

[Credo in Deum]

Judging by the negative reaction many across this nation have had against Ms. Davis it would not be surprising to see many of those same persons justify and comply with a law to report faithful Christians for arrest. 

Luke 12:53 and some day soon John 6:2

[Peace]

 

She only refused to do the evil parts of her job, did she not? If she refused only the evil and continued to do that which is good, then there is nothing more anyone might justly ask.

I am not so sure about that. Let's say that someone offers a contract to direct a pornographic movie (the evil) and to take food to a homeless shelter (the good), all for the sum of $100.

I do think think there is any morally acceptable way of receiving the $100 dollars.

1) If I accept the deal, direct the movie and take food to a homeless shelter I have committed sin, for obvious reasons.

2) If I accept the deal, receive the $100, take the food to the homeless shelter, but refuse to direct the movie I have committed fraud.  The fact that I agreed to something immoral and reneged does not change the fact that I have committed fraud.

I think the only real option here is to refuse the $100 dollars.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

I am not so sure about that. Let's say that someone offers a contract to direct a pornographic movie (the evil) and to take food to a homeless shelter (the good), all for the sum of $100.

I do think think there is any morally acceptable way of receiving the $100 dollars.

1) If I accept the deal, direct the movie and take food to a homeless shelter I have committed sin, for obvious reasons.

2) If I accept the deal, receive the $100, take the food to the homeless shelter, but refuse to direct the movie I have committed fraud.  The fact that I agreed to something immoral and reneged does not change the fact that I have committed fraud.

I think the only real option here is to refuse the $100 dollars.

What if you accept the hundred dollars for the express purpose of feeding the homeless, and on your way home from the soup kitchen you get a call from your employer telling you to direct a pornographic film?