The response to Pope Francis's US visit has been mixed in light of recent legal issues. Image: giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com |
Among the pope’s less-popular commentary were his insights
about the legality of conscientious objection. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk
who was recently jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, did
so on the grounds that her faith would not permit her to issue them. The pope
said that government officials have a “human right” to refuse to perform a duty
if it would violate their conscience.
In a brief for the Supreme Court, Ken
Mehlman and amici write that people who use religious liberty laws to keep
from performing duties “violate the core promises of the United States
Constitution” and that no one should suffer loss of rights based on anyone’s
religious objections.
But if government officials can object to some of their
duties on the grounds of religious objection, should the same argument not
apply to members of the clergy? If a priest or even the pope objected to a
tenet of the Vatican, would they be able to refuse a duty and still keep their
place in the clergy, as Kim Davis has kept her place in the government?
Luckily, most of the pope’s trip was not so fraught. Francis
stopped to kiss
and bless a young boy with cerebral palsy, spoke with prison inmates, spoke
to Congress, and met with five victims who had been subject to sexual abuse by
the clergy. “But when a priest abuses, it is very
serious because the vocation of the priest is to make that boy, that girl grow
toward the love of God, toward maturity, and toward good. But instead of that,
it squashed it," he said.
Francis said that his trip to the United States filled him with hope and warmth, tweeting, “May the love of Christ always guide the American people! #GodBlessAmerica.”
Francis said that his trip to the United States filled him with hope and warmth, tweeting, “May the love of Christ always guide the American people! #GodBlessAmerica.”
Post a Comment