OK, Progressive Hypocrites: NOW Do You Agree That The Pope Is Meddling Where He Has No Business Meddling?

Pope Francis2

Pope Francis just threw the weight of the Vatican behind Kim Davis, Mike Huckabee, and other proponents of theocracy….which makes sense, I guess, since he leads one:

Reuters:

Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience...On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said.

UPDATE: The full quote:

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscience objection… but, yes, I can say the 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 is a human right…It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.”

That sly fox did phrase this ambiguously enough that he has plausible deniability: maybe he’s been coached by the Clintons. “Oh, no,” he can say, “I said ‘conscientious objection,’ as in civil disobedience. I didn’t say they had a right to defy the law and still keep their jobs!” Or maybe he was mistranslated, and really said, “My hovercraft is full of eels.”

Let’s all give thank to the Pope for ensuring that more Constitutional dummies will insist that they can defy the laws and discriminate against gay citizens because the Bible tells them so and the Pope said they have a “right.”

Sorry Frankie, but you don’t know what the hell you are talking about, and you need to butt out of U.S. social and policy issues.

There is no human right to treat a human being differently from any other human being because of his or sexual orientation as a representative of the government, no right to defy the law without consequences, and no right for a government employee to refuse to do her job because she, like the Pope, in her infinite non-comprehension of the Constitution, doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, gratitude is due to the Popester* for proving my point about the absurdity of his amateur observations about law, government and policy being treated like divine revelations by the news media and Democrats trying to pick up some polling points on global warming.

Did you notice that he didn’t have the guts to talk to Congress about abortion. That would have upset his claque on the Democratic side. He also waited until he was safely  back home before lining up with the Kim Davis crowd.

Canny.

Cowardly.

*Disrespectful, you say? Absolutely. Guilty as charged! I don’t respect foreign despots who presume to interfere with my country’s politics, laws and culture. I resent them. Neither should any other American citizen. And John Boehner regarded allowing the head of his religion to lobby the Congress his greatest achievement!

 

36 thoughts on “OK, Progressive Hypocrites: NOW Do You Agree That The Pope Is Meddling Where He Has No Business Meddling?

  1. I think his statement was morally right, but ethically completely wrong. It’s all well and good to say everyone should be allowed to follow their consciences in all that they do, and one would expect no less from the supreme conscience person. Morality, however, is just an ideal. Ethics needs to be practical and workable, and the principle that everyone should be free to defy every law on the grounds of conscience would produce chaos.

    Yes, I also noticed he didn’t dare say a word about abortion to Congress, while he was very clear of his views on the death penalty (it has to stop). Presumably he knows that upsetting conservatives and law enforcement by saying the ultimate penalty is barbaric comes at less of a cost than touching women’s pet issue. He pleases the left, he gets hailed as a great apostle for peace and justice. He pleases the right, he gets accused of being medieval.

    I wonder if he behaves as he does because he enjoys the “rock star” treatment. If so, he needs to change his ways. The papacy, like the presidency, is not one man’s personal path to adulation.

      • Well, it takes a twisted mind to be a Communist and take your paycheck claiming to represent God. You can quibble all you want, but Liberation Theology is rooted in Marxism and Marxism is inherently atheistic.

            • Whatever the historical deathyer-than-thou truth is, these days Islam is definitely vying most audaciously and successfully for the title of most deathy.

              • Atheists have done more damage than religion through the ages? Please! Do your homework on just the Catholic church, or even back to pre-Christian eras. More destruction has been accomplished in the name of God (or religion) than any other cause. And way before Islam became political…

      • Not to mention pushing his own humility as though he is a modern day Francis of Assissi and Gandhi all rolled into onevwhile saying little about the Church’s own recent failures. I’m also not too impressed with his identifying with Abraham Lincoln, who had to fight a war, and MLK, who took real risks and ultimately gave his life for equality of the races. Dorothy Day, a radical who was pretty darn close to an anarchist, and Thomas Merton, a nonacheiver, are poor examples.

  2. I’m tired of this topic, but it won’t go away and still makes me angry. The entire US (the media the worst) allowing the leader of one religious denomination to effectively shut down entire cities and other important news, then allow him to pontificate (an apt verb, with, one might add, a negative connotation in most dictionaries) through ill-conceived and ill-informed lectures? What are we thinking?

    Francis should stick within the parameters as the leader of his faith, not lecture governments or individuals in societies he does not understand. The Roman Church has “dabbled” in science and politics — with poor (to say the least) result, from its ignorant but awful persecution of Galileo to Pius and his presumed “non-relationship” with the Hitler and the Third Reich and much in between.

    Just out of curiosity, what other Church leader has ever addressed (read “lectured”) the US Congress? The address by Netanyahu — leader of a nation that is an ally of the US — was controversial enough to some. But the Pope? He’s not MY Pope. What percentage of Americans are Roman Catholic? For that matter, what percentage of Americans are Jewish, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.? Should we not then allow leaders of these various denominations also to get national tours, address Congress, advise them on everything from world politics to global warming? Makes sense — or at least fair — to me. The difference is that these other denominations do not have a single “executive” who presumably has a direct line to God. Even if you believe that — and considering the heterogeneity of the US, probably few — what makes Francis so special? Why the Grand Tour? What influence — however modestly he tries to put it — does he expect to have? What exactly is he up to? Or is he really just that naive?

    And regarding following your “conscience” over law. Go ahead and follow your conscience, if you will, and refuse to do the job you’re paid for, but then you must resign your position if doing so breaks the law (or even your employer’s Code of Conduct… smile). Period. I know that laws do not change prejudice and bias — but they do make acting on those prejudices and biases illegal. The theory being that, over time, some attitudes and biases will slowly recede from the culture. We’ll see. But in the meantime, if your “faith” or “conscience” does not allow you to do your job, then quit your job. Of course, following this course would mean either (1) mass resignations from governments, business, and non-profits; or (2) most people don’t have “faith” or “conscience” anyway and so would happily do their jobs without “conscience” or “faith” having any impact whatsoever. Right now, I vote for the latter, unfortunately. See, just as one of thousands of examples, the Volkswagen employees who knowingly committed crime to assist VW sales in the US.

    • I just see this Pope as being as cynical and utilitarian as the political classes he is using, even as they seek to use him. It’s as if he is playing cards, and is thinking to himself: “If I play my cards right, the atheists will see that I am one of them (or that they are all like ME); the poor will see that I am one of them; and sufficient numbers of the special interests who control the powers of the political classes will see that I am one of them, to the tune of gathering enough sympathizers with me that the masses of lapsed and tepid Catholics will be re-energized, such that new converts will join with me in droves big enough for my word to trump the word of the various national political classes.” Francis is no different from any other authoritarian who is pursuing world domination.

  3. I agree that the Pope’s comment was ambiguous but I did not read it as a specific endorsement of Kim Davis and the anti-gay marriage crowd. In fact, I would suggest that the opposite would apply, as well: If a county clerk disagrees with Davis’ denial of marriage licenses and, in good conscience, issues them anyway, in defiance of what Davis has declared for her office, then that employee would benefit from the Pope’s comments, no? Davis would have to honor the employee’s conscience objection to Davis’ position for that county. Take that, Kim! Oh, and Mike, sit down and shut up.

    jvb

    PS: I have a thought on conscientious objection roaming around in the shambles of my brain but it refuses to translate into a coherent comment, so I will refrain from typing until I wrap my mind around it.

    jvb

  4. The Pope once again put his foot in his mouth. Kim Davis has been a big deal here, but of not necessarily concern elsewhere in the world. Her idiotic claim of “conscientious objection” may not at all be what the Pope was addressing at all. Even though prompted by a question of “marriage licenses”, he appeared to try to make a broader statement, perhaps not realizing the significance of the example. (Very, very conceded, he has an obligation to have some idea of the current state of a nation’s affairs if he deems it worth addressing that nation.)

    There are numerous issues that the Pope could have had in mind that he would at least be a relevant commentator on. For instance, Catholic hospitals and universities conscientiously objecting to facilitating birth control coverage in any manner for students or employees.

    Unlike Davis, who retains the right to resign in the face of a task she finds immoral, the law is conscripting the universities to cooperate in a task they had never been before compelled to complete in 300+ plus years of Catholic education within what is now the continental United States. Conscientious objection usually only applies to exemptions from mandatory tasks. There is no mandate to serve as a government official, nor a mandate to seek election as one.

    Once again, though, a very sloppy statement that the ignorant or greedy on both sides will exploit to the fullest. Even if the statement itself was directed towards more serious issues of compulsion against consciousness, the risk of confusion (panning out) makes such a statement without understanding the context unethical.

    • Well, as for facilitating birth control and abortions, we probably shouldn’t be in this situation at all. I mean, who thinks it is a good idea to pass a law that requires the Catholic Church to pay for specific women’s abortions? The Supreme Court is still having to see a chiropractor after they justified that as a tax to make it legal to require you to purchase a product, but not a tax because it wasn’t passed as a tax. Hey, what if we pass a law that says everyone eligible to own a firearm must purchase one? Why not? It won’t be a fine, we just will penalize your taxes if you don’t.

      • I stand utterly corrected. This Pope has shown such a tendency towards incompetent obliviousness, that I thought it most plausible that he misunderstood the “gotcha” politics of the United States. This is subtly different than “hope”. Now, he has thrown everyone who defends him under the bus.

        If he wanted to say that Kim Davis was correct, he should have just said so. Instead, he made everyone look like a fool.

  5. Now it is coming out that he not only secretly met with Kim Davis and told her to keep up the fight, but that he specifically advocated for the sparing of a condemned woman who arranged to have her husband killed. The Pope sure knows how to pick the winners, doesn’t he?

Leave a Reply to Elizabeth I Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.