Kentucky Clerk, Kim Davis

[Peace]

@Peace: I've propped a lot of Nihil's posts, so I just wanted to say that, while I don't agree with your position on this issue, I deeply admire your ability to argue it in a civil and intelligent fashion. 

Aww. Shucks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1hcc1QvM2Q

[Ice_nine]

come on josh that meme is not appropriate. It borders on blasphemy. I don't like when people play around with the name of Christ just to make a political point, I think it's cheap.

[Peace]

DP

come on josh that meme is not appropriate. It borders on blasphemy. I don't like when people play around with the name of Christ just to make a political point, I think it's cheap.

Yeah homie. Taking that just a tad bit too far . . .

Edited September 5, 2015 by Peace

[Guest]

Apologies

[Nihil Obstat]

But that is never going to happen any time in the near future barring something cataclysmic and/or miraculous, you must know this. And part of this I think is because the Church's leaders have given too much deference to the state. I think the modern state is inimical to the church. It's different in a communist nation where the church and the state are more open enemies whereas in a capitalist democracy/corporatitst oligarchy both sides have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they can work together. But one party has to be the top dog. The state sees itself as the top dog and it seems like most bishops (just from my perspective lest I be accuse of "attacking" bishops) seem to give way too much deference to the state and therefore give the impression that its authority is the ultimate arbiter of law and social mores.

So now I think the church lends to much credence to man's law, whereas there were times in the past when popes. priests etc way abused their power. There needs to be some type of balance.

I think we may have to adapt to a model that mirrors the early church. It had authority but it was separate from the world. It is no longer the middle ages where the church can just assert her authority by force or by strongly worded documents. It's just not going to work. Jabbering on about how Catholicism is the superior religion and how error has no rights, well all well and true, is not a solution. The world community at large will just think you're cute and deluded at best and a smug, power-hungry militant at worst.

Both options which will force you into the separation I was talking about earlier so, why not pre-empt that by building a rival society instead of offering incense to the modern states?

Lots of things are never going to happen, but we try anyway.  Society is going to keep on murdering, raping, stealing, engaging in sodomy and fornication, etc.. 
I think the key is that the Church needs to once again recognize that its authority is superior to the state. Our bishops I think do not understand that point, or if they do they choose to ignore it.

So yes, in a sense it is futile simply to repeat the truth. If I am speaking with people who are not Catholics, I tune my rhetoric a bit differently.  But certainly I do not believe that is all there is to it. Everything is a process. In particular I think it is important to undermine the modern state's idea that it is the arbiter of morality, or of ethics. It is proving itself singularly incompetent in that area. If someone truly cares about morality, we can show them where they will and will not find it.

But ultimately, with all its failings, the state still does possess legitimate authority, and that is why I will no longer conclude that we are better in its absence.

Edited September 5, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Basilisa Marie]

I like this thread.  

The thing I find most interesting about this issue is that according to the the Church, there isn't a clear answer what she should do.  All lay people are called to live and preach the gospel in every area of their life, especially in public when we're interacting with nonCatholics (Davis isn't Catholic obviously but the idea still applies). Does that mean we should resign when our job asks us to do something immoral? Maybe, and in the early Church there were certainly some jobs Christians couldn't morally take. Or does it mean you keep your job and try to change the status quo for the better by using the power your job gives you? We have examples of that in history too.  It's up to us to decide. 

I think it would be better for her to resign, but that's what I would do, and it's not inherently immoral for her to do what she's doing, and least from this perspective. 

[Ash Wednesday]

@Josh, you don't agree with this woman. We get the message. I think it's time to lay off and show some restraint about it.  The image in question has been taken down because I think it crosses the line for this forum.

[Benedictus]

But that is never going to happen any time in the near future barring something cataclysmic and/or miraculous, you must know this. And part of this I think is because the Church's leaders have given too much deference to the state. I think the modern state is inimical to the church. It's different in a communist nation where the church and the state are more open enemies whereas in a capitalist democracy/corporatitst oligarchy both sides have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they can work together. But one party has to be the top dog. The state sees itself as the top dog and it seems like most bishops (just from my perspective lest I be accuse of "attacking" bishops) seem to give way too much deference to the state and therefore give the impression that its authority is the ultimate arbiter of law and social mores.

So now I think the church lends to much credence to man's law, whereas there were times in the past when popes. priests etc way abused their power. There needs to be some type of balance.

I think we may have to adapt to a model that mirrors the early church. It had authority but it was separate from the world. It is no longer the middle ages where the church can just assert her authority by force or by strongly worded documents. It's just not going to work. Jabbering on about how Catholicism is the superior religion and how error has no rights, well all well and true, is not a solution. The world community at large will just think you're cute and deluded at best and a smug, power-hungry militant at worst.

Both options which will force you into the separation I was talking about earlier so, why not pre-empt that by building a rival society instead of offering incense to the modern states?

Yes, the church spends too much time trying to win political battles in a society that isn't interested. It's not the best strategy and use of time. The focus should be on the church building up its own community and numbers. You don't see Muslims applying heat in politics in areas where it's a waste of time. They focus on building up communities and converting new people. The eye of the church is often off the ball and there does seem to be a degree of delusional thinking among some about the influence the church has, and will have in the future, if current trends keep going. Is this side tracking because there's too much anxiety about the disarray of internal church problems, decline and a feeling of loss of power/control/relevance in the world? There needs to be a wake up call and realignment. Let some battles go and refocus the mission.

In terms of capitalism, the state and the church  - the Catholic church, like all NGO's, only has as much power and meaning as people want to give it. In legal terms, it's not really that different to Walmart. The church grows or wanes pretty much on the basis of market forces. It needs to not have a toxic brand! The state, if anything, has made the life of the church easier by allowing tax exemptions and reliefs. It has also allowed some exemptions on the grounds of contract and employment. However, I doubt all of this will continue if the public battles continue as they are. I'd say the tax reliefs will be the first to go and the fiscal conservatives may even help vote for it!

I suspect one of the main reasons the state gave sensitive consideration to the churches was simply to use it as a tool for political advantage (be it for votes, to push policy or to ensure the status quo of the government was maintained).The church, of course, did the same in return and it has come to rely on that advantage. I don't think either should have done this (especially as the founding fathers were mostly unitarians, rationalists and deists despite many fundamentalists claiming otherwise).

But the political scene is ruthless and fickle and now that relationship is strained. It is becoming harder for political candidates to be associated with church groups without being tainted or drawn into doctrinal drama. It will be harder to win the middle ground votes if they keep standing too far to the extremes or with groups that the public dislikes. They may well need to stand away from the church to win elections and I suspect, minus a few Republicans, they will slowly side shift as time progresses to appeal to new groups of people. In the last ten years I'd say a fair few Republicans have already made those steps, even if baby ones, where it has been expedient for them to do so.

[Socrates]

It's a bit troubling, though sadly unsurprising, that among certain factions of phatmass there seems to be  a lot more condemnation and outrage over the actions of this clerk than there is at our leviathon radical-secularist state and the abomination of federal judicial activism that brought about this ugly and absurd situation of a woman sent to federal prison for acting according to sanity.

[CatherineM]

Anyone want to start a pool on how long before priests end up in the cell next to her for refusing to marry a same sex couple with a valid marriage license?

[blazeingstar]

Anyone want to start a pool on how long before priests end up in the cell next to her for refusing to marry a same sex couple with a valid marriage license?

Which is why Christians in the US need to get out of the marriage business all together like they have in most countries.

[AccountDeleted]

Which is why Christians in the US need to get out of the marriage business all together like they have in most countries.

Out of the marriage business? Can you explain this. I don't really understand what you're saying. 

[Nihil Obstat]

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/bad-ideas-know-no-borders/

Bad ideas know no borders

May 5, 2015

I do not know Irish marriage law but my impression is that it operates rather as does marriage law in the United States, specifically, that clergy who officiate at religious weddings can certify those rites for civil effects. Some Irish prelates, however, faced with the possibility that Ireland might recognize “same-sex marriage”, are apparently threatening to refuse to certify any religious weddings for the state, such that Catholic spouses who wish the civil benefits of marriage (and they are many!) would have to go through a second, state-sponsored ceremony to secure those benefits.

If that is the idea, then it’s just as bad an idea in Ireland as it is over here. I’ve made this argument many times, but will summarize again.

The State has a right to know who is married and married couples have the right to the civil benefits accorded married couples. It is a good for the State and a good for the faithful if immediate and direct civil recognition can be accorded couples married in religious ceremonies. No one can seriously argue otherwise.

What some fear—and I understand their fear, however wrong it is—is that, in the wake of a civil redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples, religious ministers will suddenly be required to certify same-sex couples as married (says who?) and therefore (as if there were a logical imperative here, which there is not) we should preemptively cease certifying religiously married couples as married. How on earth does one arrive at that conclusion? Certifying as married, couples thatare married, is a good! The fact that others might certify as married, couples that are not married is a bad, but their bad action does not make our good action into a bad.

Consider, for some decades past the State’s faulty understanding of marriage has resulted in the State certifying as married all sorts of couples whom we would hold as not married, namely, divorced and remarried couples. Those “marriages” are canonically null for prior bond (ligamen, c. 1085), but we don’t forbid Catholic clergy from certifying as married the couples over whom we officiate, just because the State will certify as married some couples (over whom we do not officiate) as married, do we? So why the ill-considered threat to cease certifying our couples married religiously as married, just because the State also treats as married some couples whom we know are not married?

Ah! comes the retort, the State might require us to officiate at same-sex-weddings! Oh, really? Has the State ever required us to officiate at the weddings of divorced persons? No. And if the State did suddenly require Catholic ministers to officiate at the weddings of simply divorced persons, or of same-sex couples, we would refuse. Flatly. Both scenarios are non-negotiable lines beyond which Catholics may not go. And if the State, in retaliation for such a Faith-demanded refusal, revoked their recognition of our religious weddings, that decision is on their heads, not ours.

In the meantime, we can and should cooperate with the State in regard to marriage for so long as what the State requires is not contrary to divine or canon law (c. 22). And certifying religiously married Catholics as married in the eyes of civil law is not remotely contrary to divine or canon law.

[blazeingstar]

Out of the marriage business? Can you explain this. I don't really understand what you're saying. 

I went to edit, but my post got deleted.  Grrr.

In most countries there is civil marriage and then people can have whatever religious ceremony they want.  Personally, it was seemingly awkward to need a Priest to sign a marriage certificate to confirm what he'd done when according to the Church's view he really hadn't.  

One of the things that the priest in our marriage prep made very clear, and also in our other marriage prep, was that as Catholics he was not the administer of the sacrament but we were.  And (well in the marriage prep) that the completion of that administration didn't happen until the two became one.  So the farce that the Catholic church has continued to perpetuate the myth that by signing marriage certificates is that they actually are even fully administering the sacrament, when they actually in no part are.

There's a certain contingent of Catholics who are petitioning the Vatican to have them stop this.  In many countries one must civilly get married.  They can do whatever after.

 

[AccountDeleted]

I went to edit, but my post got deleted.  Grrr.

In most countries there is civil marriage and then people can have whatever religious ceremony they want.  Personally, it was seemingly awkward to need a Priest to sign a marriage certificate to confirm what he'd done when according to the Church's view he really hadn't.  

One of the things that the priest in our marriage prep made very clear, and also in our other marriage prep, was that as Catholics he was not the administer of the sacrament but we were.  And (well in the marriage prep) that the completion of that administration didn't happen until the two became one.  So the farce that the Catholic church has continued to perpetuate the myth that by signing marriage certificates is that they actually are even fully administering the sacrament, when they actually in no part are.

There's a certain contingent of Catholics who are petitioning the Vatican to have them stop this.  In many countries one must civilly get married.  They can do whatever after.

 

Thank you Blaze. I didn't know that.