Monday, September 7, 2015

Why Kim Davis Is Wrong

Kim Davis
Many Christians who are opposed to the legalization of same sex marriage are looking to Kim Davis - the Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk who refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples - as a cultural hero. She is now in jail for refusing to comply with the law.

County Clerk is a civil servant job, and as such, anyone employed as a County Clerk is required to comply with the law. Kim Davis does not have the right in her capacity as a civil servant to decide which laws to enforce and which laws she can ignore. If Kim Davis is allowed to disobey the law, then anyone who decides a law is unjust - e.g., anti-drug laws - will be free to ignore any law he or she doesn't like. The result will be complete chaos and anarchy in our country.

If Kim Davis feels it is wrong to give marriage licenses to same sex couples, then she needs to resign from a job that requires her to do so. She is not free to ignore a valid - albeit immoral - law. St. Thomas More set the precedent for us, and we need to follow his example.

I believe that abortion is immoral, and therefore, I will never work in an abortion clinic in any capacity. But I do not have the right to work at an abortion clinic and, in my capacity as an employee of that clinic, stop women from having abortions. To do so would be to act in violation of the law and would result in chaos and anarchy. I can pray and protest outside of an abortion clinic, but not in it. This same principal applies to Kim Davis and all other civil servants.

I will be the first to agree that the same sex marriage law is immoral and I do not personally support it in any way. The law legalizing same sex marriage will result in persecution of Christians. I fully expect that eventually all churches will be required to marry same sex couples. Most churches will comply. However, the Catholic Church will never comply and we will suffer the consequences, probably losing our tax exemption status and maybe even be shut down and forced to go underground. We will probably see priests jailed for refusing to comply with the law.

But this is not the case with Kim Davis. She is employed as a civil servant whose job it is to comply with the law. That law requires her to give marriage licenses to same sex couples. She must act in accordance with that law or she must resign her job.

Kim Davis not only refused to give marriage licenses to same sex couples but to straight couples as well. She had become a law unto herself. She was wrong, and anyone who supports her actions is advocating for the destruction of the rule of law. St. Thomas More knew this, and, therefore, when he was required as chancellor to support the immoral divorce and remarriage of Henry VIII, he did not stay and refuse to enforce the law. He resigned his position.

Christians must realize that as followers of Christ, we need to always take the high ground. Our Lord told us in Matthew 5:38-42:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
If we are to really comply with this command from Jesus Christ, we would never participate in protests, either. When we protest, we are creating a confrontational situation and resisting an evil person, which is in direct contradiction to the command from Our Lord.
Msgr. Philip Reilly
One of the greatest living examples of Matthew 5 is Msgr. Philip Reilly. a Catholic priest here in Brooklyn who has given his life to fight abortion. He has spent many thousands and thousands of hours outside of abortion clinics praying for and counseling women. As a result, he has developed cancer which has literally eaten away at his face. He no longer has a nose. He still prays outside of abortion clinics every week. However, he has never once participated in the March for Life or in any other protest. He feels these kinds of events are actually counter-productive to the pro life movement. Matthew 5 tells us that Msgr. Reilly is absolutely right.

I have written this more than once, but our job as Christians is not to get in people's faces and tell them how wrong they are. Our job is to bring people to Christ and His saving graces. We will never do that by acting as the world does. Our Lord never resisted those who opposed him. When he was captured in the garden the night before his crucifixion, he willingly gave himself up to the guards. He told Pontius Pilate that if he was of this world his followers would fight. but since Christ was not of this world, his followers would give no resistance. "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36)

Even though Kim Davis is right to reject immoral laws, she is responding in a very worldly and unChristian way. Kim Davis is acting in an arrogant and self righteous manner which will only bring on more persecution. She is acting as the world does, and not as Jesus Christ would. Her actions will never convince those support the same sex marriage law. Her actions actually give supporters of the law even more reason to condemn Christians.

Let us as Christians follow Jesus Christ, and not the way of the world.


  1. I have been a fan of your blog, but I must respectfully disagree here. We have a right (and a duty) to disobey unjust laws, as Saint Peter said in Acts 5:29 "We must obey God rather than man," and as Saint Augustine coined (and Saint Thomas Aquinas later reiterated), "Lex iniusta non est lex" (An unjust law is no law).

    Just offering my counterpoint here...again, no disrespect meant.

    1. No disrespect taken. I agree, of course that we must obey God rather than man. And it is for that reason that Kim Davis must resign her position. She is taking the law into her hands, and that goes against everything we should believe as Christians.

      I think that the abortion law is immoral, and I pray in front of abortion clinics every week because of it. But it is not lawful for me - in the eyes of God or man - to go into the clinics and physically stop women from aborting their babies. That is not what Christ taught us.

      Kim Davis does not have the right as a county clerk to disobey the law. Her only options are to either act in accordance with the law or resign. That is what Thomas More did, and we need to follow his example.

      To do anything else is to create chaos and anarachy. The judge was absolutely correct when he jailed her.

    2. "We have a rich history of accommodating conscientious objectors in a variety of settings, including government employees. Do we really want to say that an otherwise competent employee must quit or go to jail if there is another alternative?

      We shouldn’t want that. Indeed, one state — North Carolina — has already shown how to accommodate conscience and ensure that all citizens receive the legal documents, including marriage licenses, for which they are eligible.

      The first thing to acknowledge, however, is that Ms. Davis didn’t cause this problem. The Supreme Court did. When the court ruled in June that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, it redefined marriage for the nation, in a way that I and many others do not believe was constitutionally justified. And it redefined Ms. Davis’s job."

    3. You are absolutely right. Kim Davis did not cause the problem. The law passed by the Supreme Court is immoral. And it most definitely redefined Ms. Davis's job. That is the whole problem. This is not the job she signed on to, just as Henry VIII redefined St. Thomas More's job as chancellor. There is only one thing to do to stay obedient to the Divine Law, and that is to resign, just as St. Thomas More did.

      As I wrote, I fully expect priests to be jailed and churches to be shut down who won't perform same sex marriages. We will have no recourse then. We will have to be martyrs.

      That is not the case with Kim Davis. I undertand that she does not want to give up $80,000 a year, a great sum of money in Kentucky. But that is what she should do unless and until the law of the land is changed.

      As Christians, we should not break the law unless we are forced to, e.g., forcing a priest to perform a same sex marriage. If there is a way to walk away, just as Christ said, that is what we need to do. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek.

      We are not of the world, and we should not act like the world. We have to remember that our goal is not to be right, but to bring souls to Christ. The less confrontational we can be, the more successful we will be.

  2. As St. Augustine stated, "an unjust law is not a law." You have shown your positivist colors in this posting, as if the law of men must be followed even if against the natural and Divine Law.

    1. For those who don't know what "positivist" means, here is the definition:

      "Positivism is the philosophy of science that positive facts, information derived from sensory experience, interpreted through rational or logical and mathematical treatments, form the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge; and that there is valid knowledge (certitude or truth) only in this derived knowledge."

      I used the example of St. Thomas More, a very holy pro-life priest and Jesus Christ. I have not read anything written in defense of Kim Davis that uses anything other than people's own "logical" and "sensory" reasoning. Therefore, I would have to say that it is your comment that is "positivist".

      I'm curious. Do you think Thomas More should not have resigned? Was he wrong to do that?

      And just where did I say that this law must be followed? I said it is an immoral law, and I totally agree with Kim Davis for not complying with it. My position is that she needs to resign, not make a celebrity of herself as she has done

    2. I believe Fr SMC was referring to 'legal positivism' - Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that emphasizes the conventional nature of law—that it is socially constructed. As opposed to Natural Law which all here would recognise as paramount. .

  3. One could also say St Thomas shouldn't have made a celebrity of himself either.

    1. Thomas More would have never appeared at a rally with rock music (or any other kind of music) playing. Thomas More never, at any time, took the law into his own hands, as Kim Davis did when she denied marriage licenses not onty to same sex couples but to straight couples as well.

      Thomas More was not a "celebrity" but a martyr. There is a big difference. Spending a few days in jail does not a martyr make.

    2. I wasn't calling St Thomas More a celebrity. I was merely making the point that some in his day would have (wrongly) judged him as going too far, drawing too much attention to himself unnecessarily and being imprudent. Opinion of mere observers is simply supposition.
      Likewise, no matter what it appears Kim Davis is doing - including "making a celebrity of herself", "appearing at a rally with rock music" (hardly criminal) or acting in what you think is an "arrogant and self-righteous manner", the reality is that God alone knows, and as Christians we should give her the benefit of the doubt by believing that she is acting with a pure intention and out of love for God.

    3. I am not judging the heart of Kim Davis. If anything, I think she is acting from her convictions and it was not her original intent to become a celebrity. A large part of that is due to the fact that presidential candidates are exploiting her situation in order to bring attention to themselves and get votes.

      My position is that Kim Davis did herself and the cause of marriage no good in deliberately flouting the law, as immoral as it is. As Christians, we have been told by Our Lord to resist not evil, that if one takes your coat, give him your cloak as well. If we are put in a position to choose between our job and obeying God, we must give up our job, just as we must give up our very lives before disobeying God.

      The only time Jesus ever got in people's faces, as it were, was with the religious leaders. These men were acting out of pure hubris and love for power, and mercy and compassion are wasted on such people. But for those who are caught up in sin - be it sexual or otherwise - Our Lord always showed mercy and never condemnation. We must do the same. We can never be disobedient to the Divine Law, but we must live at peace with the world as much as we are able to.

      Kim Davis did not follow the commandments of Jesus Christ in her actions. St. Thomas More did. That is the difference.

    4. Firstly, apologies if I have misread, but there an implicit judgment of character here when you say she is acting in an "arrogant and self-righteous manner". It may not be technically a judgement of her heart but it (inadvertently perhaps) besmirches her nonetheless.
      Secondly, I understand your arguments and they are worth considering, but by your arguments you would also condemn the actions of St Maximillian Kolbe anti-Christian by breaking the 'law' forbidding the publication and distribution of religious pamphlets. He blatantly broke the law consistently. You are also condemning the actions of the martyrs of China, Augustine Zhao Rong and his 119 companions, who broke the law by entering forbidden territory to be missionaries. All of these men could have walked away and obeyed the law, and not made waves. They weren't forced to come to that point as a moral crossroads like St Thomas. But nonetheless their 'lawless' actions were actually extremely virtuous in God's eyes. Same as Fr Walter Cisek, sneaking into Russia illegally.... These are all canonised saints (except the latter though time will tell!!)
      Thirdly, the resignation of practicing Christians and Catholics from influential posts is exactly what is intended. It's a repeat of mass Jewish resignation from public posts and then suppression pre WW2. An interesting point to ponder....

    5. My saying that Kim Davis was acting in an arrogant manner is not a judgment of her heart but of her actions. She took the law into her hands and not only denied licenses to same sex couples but to straight couples as well. That is arrogance. She has every right to say she cannot be a part of same sex marriage, but she does not have the right to do it as County Clerk, where she vowed to uphold the law. As I keep saying, like Thomas More, if she finds the law immoral, she must resign.

      You also bring up good examples of those who obeyed God rather than man. However, every one of of your examples involved those in the service of God. Not one was employed by a secular government. They did not act in civil disobedience as much as they obeyed their spiritual calling, which we all must do. If and when the government outlaws the Catholic Church, which I consider a distinct possibility, I will still attend Mass whenever and however it is possible, even if it goes against the law. I will never denounce my religion even if it is outlawed by the government. But I will do it as a private citizen, not as an employee of this immoral government.

      Look at the examples of the apostles. They did not stop when they were told it was against the law to preach the Gospel. They went to jail and were martyred for it. But they did this as servants of God, not as servants of man.

      There absolutely does come a time when we have to stand against man. My main example here - Thomas More - became a martyr because he refused to obey man rather than God. But he did not do it as a civil servant. If we consider a government immoral - as the US government has become - we cannot be a part of it. Kim Davis must resign. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

    6. Our spiritual calling will ALWAYS trump our responsibility to our government. Whether we are religious or laity or civil servants is quite irrelevant. Would you really allow St Maximillian Kolbe to publish pamphlets but condemn civil servants for the same action? No, we are all servants of God before man. In all states of life and employment, and I don't think being a civil servant makes you morally bound to obey government unjust laws any more than a lay person. What about German civil servants secretly forging documents to allow Jews to be called Christians to avoid concentration camps? Should they have resigned? ("Oops, sorry, forging goes against my job description, I'll resign and you'll just have to get transported.")!
      As for whether Davis should have resigned instead, I don't entirely disagree with you. It was a legitimate option, but neither do I condemn her actions. I guess the problem is that even if you can exempt yourself from being an employee of a corrupt government, you cannot - as you put it 'have nothing to do with it' because that corruption always influences citizens. In some cases, resigning could actually be a sin of omission because evil was not resisted. Evil flourishes because good men walk away, doing nothing. But taking your logic further, that would also mean every Catholic employer in the U.S. should resign, and dissolve their business (do as not to allow new employers to commit evil which they would thereby be complicit in) and lay off all their staff because of the HHS mandate?
      It's really a fascinating topic though, and I think all Catholics in this age should really try to grasp the issue of moral vs civil law.

    7. Boo, you and I can go around in circles all day long with this. We basically agree, except that I believe, as did St. Thomas More, that if you disagree with a government, you cannot take their paychecks. You seem to have no problem taking money from people or organizations that are immoral.

      Do you believe St Thomas More was a good man who walked away from evil?

    8. I do not condone stealing. As a civil servant I would be bound to do my job and get paid for it. That paycheck pays for morally acceptable actions as well - how do you separate money paid for following good and that for immorality? That's a tricky consideration. But I am also not bound to obey an unjust law, which is nullified. It doesn't exist. It simply has no right over me. In fact, if I did then would be appropriating part of my pay check for doing evil. That would lack be wrong. Of course, I could resign, and that might be the best thing. But I might also be called to stay and fight.
      No I don't believe St Thomas was a good man who walked away from evil. He is a saint and actually one of my favourites saints. In his case and circumstances his actions -all- were good and right. Holy. But I can see that in many other cases, resignation may actually be counterproductive and NOT what God would call people to. You seem to be very regimental about this all hinging on being a government employee. I think it's only a consideration but not the decider.
      Ok, let's stop circling!! Here's a great article that makes the distinctions I refer to... It elucidates your points, my points and a some other considerations to answer the question. God bless!

    9. Interesting quote from your article:

      "Also, from a Christian point of view, to break the law when it is not morally necessary to do so does not seem to comport with Christ’s command to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s,” nor with St. Paul’s directive to Roman Christians to obey and pray for their emperor and pay their taxes."

      Did Kim Davis need to break the law, or would it have been better for her to resign as Thomas More did? Also interesting from your article that none of the examples given of civil disobedience were civil servants. If you can't do a job, you have a moral responsibility to resign, which is what St Thomas More did.

      I am done, Boo. You may have the last word if you would like.

    10. Nope, it's all yours : )

  4. Let me be clear from the start and say that I am not advocating same-sex marriage, but I found it odd that Kim Davis cited the Bible as the reason for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. She is in her 4th marriage (Jesus spoke against divorce) and her twins who were born during her 2nd marriage were fathered by the man who was to become her 3rd husband (and we all know what the Bible says about adultery).

    As I wrote, I am not advocating same-sex marriage, but Kim Davis' actions reek of double standard-ness. I might have some sympathy for her had she been faithful in her marriages. I also think that she was wrong to forbid her subordinates from issuing licenses; that is not her job.

    I think we have to stop speaking of "marriage" and instead speak of "matrimony". The reason I say this is because, like it or not, governments decide on the legal aspects of marriage; this is why age requirements vary, not only from nation to nation, but state to state e.g. amazingly, in Louisiana a pregnant girl of 14 (!!!) can marry so long as she has parental permission and it is authorized by a judge. I know this because I know someone who did this very thing. Also, as we know, in some countries a man is legally able to have more than one wife.

    By speaking of "matrimony" (which is always a sacrament) rather than "marriage" (which is not always a sacrament) the Church can focus on the Christ-centered aspect.

  5. You said:
    >>>Kim Davis did not cause the problem. The law passed by the Supreme Court is immoral.<<<

    boo. hiss.

    The Supreme Court does NOT PASS LAWS.
    It is NOT the legislative branch of the government. You, as well as 99% of the country, fails at simple government functions. This is set forth by the U.S. Constitution. Very basic.

    No, Kim Davis was not wrong. Though she is not Catholic, she is still in her own way standing up for the Social Kingship of Christ, which all men and all nations are called to do! It is sad to see a Catholic denounce someone for this.

    For folks on here trying to smear Ms. Davis with rhetoric of 4x divorcee, kids conceived out of wedlock, trying to be a celebrity etc., it serves your case miserably.
    1. We do not know, nor do we need to know, the timeline of her marriages, conceptions, and of her becoming a Christian.
    2. To read her heart is not our calling. Celebrity or no, that is not a judgement we have any business making. That's a cheap shot.

    To state that she must resign is unfair. She did not sign up for this; the "powers" that be pulled a bait and switch on her.


    1. Unknown, Yes, you are right that the Supreme Court does not technically "pass laws." However, any ruling they make does become the law of the land. That is why we have abortion, which I consider grossly immoral, to say the least. And according to our Constitution, their ruling on same sex marriage is now the law of the land. That is the way our government works.

      I have never once brought up Kim Davis's personal life as I consider that entirely irrelevant to the point I am making. In fact, I admire her very much in that she seemingly has turned away from the immoral life she once led. And I certainly support her stand on same sex marriage. I don't think I can make it any clearer that I consider the law immoral.

      Certainly God's law must always be obeyed if it conflicts with man's law, as is becoming increasingly more common in our world. But we cannot do that as paid servants of the government. If the government gives us our paycheck, we are obligated to obey that government. That is why St. Thomas More resigned. He gave up his very comfortable position and lifestyle in order to obey God rather than man. In the end, he gave up his life.

      But he did not do this as a servant of man but of God.

      Kim Davis - in order to stay true to her religious beliefs - must resign.

    2. You said:
      >>>Yes, you are right that the Supreme Court does not technically "pass laws." However, any ruling they make does become the law of the land.<<<

      NO. That is NOT how it works. You're assigning legislative powers to the judicial branch. The Supreme Court can interpret law, make recommendations. It CANNOT RULE INTO LAW.
      The Supreme Court said that abortion and gay marriage [sic] are already guaranteed in the Constitution. THEY DID NOT PASS LAWS ON EITHER ONE.
      Please, learn basic U.S. History and functionality of U.S. government. Also, learn the Constitution; you will see they got it dead wrong, pun intended, regarding abortion and gay marriage.

      We MUST live our lives in accordance with the Kingship of Christ, both as nations and individuals. God is surely pleased with Kim Davis, at least regarding this matter. (We pray for her conversion to Holy Mother Church, as there is NO salvation outside of Her.)

      "It is for Jesus Christ as King, in virtue of the work of Redemption which He must accomplish, to conquer His Kingdom and defend His faithful subjects against the enemies who strive to overthrow His reign here below. Christ's Spiritual Kingship is militant and the struggle against moral evil must go on as long as men remain here below exposed to suffering and death, to corruption and sin. Only in eternity shall the triumph be complete, by the victory of the good and the defeat of the wicked." -REV. DENIS FAHEY, C.S.SP., B.A., D.Pa., D.D.
      Professor of Philosophy and Church History, Senior Scholasticate, Blackrock College,
      Dublin 1931

      She should NOT have to resign. She didn't cause this mess. Evil sodomites and their supporters did.

  6. It's so simple, even a caveman gets it.
    Unless they're that case, to Supreme Court can do whatever they wish!

    1. Are you suggesting that Christians should act like those who oppose God's law?

    2. Are YOU saying that Christians should act like those that oppose God's Law?!

      I mean, after all, you yourself said Kim Davis is "WRONG".
      (Which of course, she isn't. Hell, she might be more Catholic than most Catholics!)

    3. St. Thomas' resignation cannot be used as an exemplar in the case of Kim Davis, because he petitioned Henry VIII to be relieved of his duties not because of a disputed policy, but due to ill heath. Henry granted his wishes. If you want to argue that that was simply a ploy, fine, but at no point did he say in the resignation that it was for any other reason than health. Therefore, your argument is a complete non-starter.

      Mrs. Davis is an elected official sworn to uphold the law. She was doing just that when jailed, so why should she resign? There's no logical reason that Christians should do what you propose they do, because the practical consequences of that line of action is to allow your nation to succumb to evil, which is precisely what we behold all around us.

      Your position in essence says elected officials desiring to uphold God's law must do no such thing, but rather wave their white flags of resignation, thereby yielding the battlefield to the minions of the devil. How gravely offended must the Almighty be at the prospect of public servants who are in a position to effect positive change in society by standing up for Divine Law, but who do nothing in the face of evil, who, as it were, bury their talents in the sterile ground of resignation. Kudos to Kim Davis for taking a courageous stand with knowledge that by doing so she could face the wrath of a godless judge.

    4. Yes, it is true that More alleged ill health in his resignation, but everyone knows that was not the reason. St. Thomas More was giving an out to Henry VIII in an attempt not to publicly condemn the king's actions and instead put the blame for his resignation entirely on himself. That was actually a great act of courage on the part of St. Thomas More and an act of loyalty to the king.

      Your position - that Kim Davis should follow the dictates of her beliefs - would leave our government and our country in complete chaos. What if everyone followed what they believed? What if some authorities believe in pedophilia, and refuse to prosecute offenders? What about those who believe in animal and/or human sacrifice, and allow such activities in their jurisdiction? What about Muslims who believe in Sharia law - should they be allowed to enforce that if they are government employees?

      Of course, I completely agree that allowing same sex marriage is immoral. But that is now the law of our land. Those who are in government and refuse to cooperate with that law have no other option than resigning. That is exactly why Thomas More resigned. He could not be a part of government that acted against his beliefs.

      People like you really scare me. Taking your arguments to your logical conclusions: "the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God."

  7. "Certainly God's law must always be obeyed if it conflicts with man's law, as is becoming increasingly more common in our world. But we cannot do that as paid servants of the government. If the government gives us our paycheck, we are obligated to obey that government."
    Well, yes & no. Elected officials are not the servants of the government, but of the people. If there was enough of an uproar over Kim Davis' behavior as clerk, there is a mechanism for removing her from office: impeachment. She's under no moral constraint to resign & more power to her for not yielding to that temptation.

    The idea that a public servant has an obligation to resign under such circumstances should be odious to all Catholics, for it was the heresiarch Luther, who taught that rulers were not bound to rule as Christians, that indeed they shouldn't do so, but rather keep their religious convictions separate from the wielding of their secular power, and it is the widespread acceptance of such insanity that has had a measure of influence in the fall of Western Civilization.

    Even JFK, who undoubtedly did so under duress, declared during his campaign for President that he would not rule as a Catholic, that the laws he sought to uphold were those in the Constitution. In the next decade, politicians who were ostensibly Catholics, such as his brother Ted, would vote to defend legal abortion, because while they were--to quote the pro-abortion mantra--"personally opposed to abortion", they could not let their beliefs get in the way of the law.

    While this is different from the question of whether Kim Davis should resign, the root error is the same: That nations are under no obligation to fashion their laws with the acknowledgement that Christ is King. This was condemned by Pope Pius XI in "Quas Primas", when he writes: "Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society."

    1. Why do you think Christ said, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's"? Why did Christ say, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, then would my servants fight."

      The governments of this world and the Kingdom of God are two separate entities. Yes, absolutely, all men are under the laws of God, and when they don't obey those law, they must pay the consequences. And when those governments try to force us to disobey the Divine Law, we must refuse and take any consequences from those actions.

      One of those consequences is not being able to serve in governments that go against Divine Law. It is not our role as followers of Christ to participate in open rebellion against man's governments. That is why Christ said, "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight." Christ's way is never to openly fight with people. It is always passive and peaceful resistance.

      I can only once again point to the great saint, Thomas More, who exemplified the teachings of Christ in every way. He followed the commands of Our Lord exactly. It still resulted in his martyrdom, but he was one of the greatest witnesses for Christ in the history of Christianity.

      Kim Davis is acting as the world acts, not as Christ taught us.

  8. If she is wrong, why did Pope Francis visit and support her, and then endorse her right to conscientious objection?

    1. Ah, Elliott, thank you for that one. I will do a post on it.

  9. When you get a chance, Catholic in Brooklyn, check out the following link:


Related Posts  0