Members: Login | Register | Member List
Previous: Do you believe?Next: They did it! They finally did it!
Back to main
More developments regarding Balestrieri
Marc Balestrieri has another press release with updates concerning the controversy over the “Vatican” response to a question of heresy and abortion.
In it, he says that Fr. DiNoia now acknowledges that he did in fact prompt the response written by Fr. Cole. As Balestrieri says, “I went to the Vatican in search of the truth – the Undersecretary’s response was to refer the matter to Fr. Cole. And in the words of the Undersecretary, the Response was ‘excellent and solid.’”
Also he denies he “hoodwinked” any official of the Church: “I stated clearly to Fr. Funes and Fr. Cole that these questions were in regards to a case of heresy as well as my interest in pursuing a doctoral dissertation on the complex issues in the instant case.” So, accusations he lied about his reasons for asking are untrue.
He concludes by saying that Fr. DiNoia’s claim that knowledge that Balestrieri was pursuing a heresy case against John Kerry specifically would have changed the nature of the response is unfortunate. I do too. Why should the individual involved, or at least his public prominence, change the truth you’re trying to get at. It shouldn’t matter who Kerry is. If the truth of Church doctrine—which itself is only an expression of the will of God—is that any person in Kerry’s position is a heretic and automatically excommunicated, then that should be what is said.
As Balestrieri says, it is unfortunate that the Church’s teaching regarding the evil of promoting abortion and a “right” to abortion is being overshadowed by the indicidentals of the argument over whether the response was official or not. The reality is that we all know what the Church’s teaching is, John Kerry and his ilk spit upon that teaching, and the majority of us fail to act to save them from this evil and the millions of unborn who die because of their abortion advocacy.
-->
COMMENTS
Is the argument being used as a smoke screen to stall until after the election, with the implied understanding that if Kerry becomes President, he will not be subject to excommunication, but if he does not become President, he can be quietly excommunicated after the election and the Church’s teaching upheld? The Vatican’s waffling is hardly going to motivate any Catholic to stand up for what the Church teaches.
The fact that Kerry is involved should not be important. However, the fact that Kerry is involved clearly IS important. Now just what are we to take from that fact? That the laws of the Church do not apply universally? That some have a “get out of guilt free” card? Who among us would not like to have one of those?
Posted by Carrie on 10/20/04 at 03:32 PM I don’t know if we should assume that Fr. DiNoia was referring to the political angle to this Kerry involvment, but perhaps that the case is at the archdiocese and certain steps have to be gone through according to canon law before anything ought to look like some pre-emptive ruling is being given from the Vatican office specifically to this case.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/20/04 at 05:04 PM Bishops: “It is a narrow and weak feeling to please a man here, and to endanger his soul. A true friend is he who speaks out and when a man sins, shows him that he is displeased at the sin. He who sets up no witness against his friends’ sin is a “partaker of his evil deed.” John Henry Newman
Query: Are the US Bishops who are silent on pro-abort Catholic politicians “partaking” in their evil deeds?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/20/04 at 05:32 PM Query: Are the US Bishops who are silent on pro-abort Catholic politicians “partaking” in their evil deeds?
Let’s say “yes.” I am a great Newman admirer.
This, of course, means that if you know someone who, for example…
is in an illicit marriage
uses birth control
sleeps around (or sleeps with someone he or she is not married to)
gossips (oh, yes!)
is puffed up with pride
brags
takes the name of the Lord in vain (this would include phrases like “Oh, God” or “oh Christ” or “Jesus H. Christ,” and not in a prayerful manner, the latter being real hard to imagine)
disrespects, in any way, one’s parents (or any one in one’s authority);
...and doesn’t “show him that he is displeased at the sin” AND “sets up no witnesss against his friends’ (note the plural) sin” then I’d say, sure, he (or she) partakes in “their evil deeds.”
Now, before you (I’m speaking generally) speak up and say “oh, yes, I’ve spoken mightily against these sins and have indeed spoken out when a man sins!” remember the thing about pride and bragging.
I expect absolutely no response to this post. Also, the list o’ sins would’ve been longer but, hey, it’s between innings. 
Ezekiel 3
18 When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. 19 But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself.
20 “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. Since you did not warn him, he will die for his sin. The righteous things he did will not be remembered, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.
I believe the dear John Henry Newman had this passage in mind when he made the quote listed. Very sound and biblical thinking.
Pride and bragging, you seem to have the pride and bragging. I take it you have already discussed the sins of all you know, that is why you have the leasure of watching the innings.
As the Bible states, to whom much is given, much is required. Comparing regular individuals is not the same as what is required of Bishops and Senators. So yes, the Bishops should point out to a Senator his wrongs, just as we normal folks should deal with those we are supposed to deal with, the folks we have as friends and contacts. It is the same standard but has a different weight on the scale.
I have been fortunate enough to have a grave fault of mine pointed out before and I try to remind those around me of God and what it means to be a Christian. I always thought this showed meekness for truly it takes a contrite heart to point out another’s faults. You open yourself up to great inspection if you are rampant in sinning and then point out to another sinner their sins.
Hope your innings go well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/20/04 at 06:56 PM Kelly, you confuse pride with honesty. If your friends know you are honest, you may make observations about their behavior and also your own, in the spirit of honesty. There is nothing wrong with that unless you are absolutely mean about it and there’s no need for that.
Besides, are we making excuses for those who don’t want to recognize dissent and heresy (according to Frs Cole and DiNoia) for what it is?
It is important to note, BTW, that neither Fr. Cole nor Fr. DiNoia has explicitly denied that heresy is what is involved here.
What’s unfortunate here is that Fr. DiNoia gives cover to people who would want to denounce Balestrieri for having “hoodwinked” the CDF.
Perhaps Kerry is “too big to excommunicate”.
Uh, Patrick, no one is “too big to excommunicate” latae sententiae.
Rodney:
Pride and bragging, you seem to have the pride and bragging.
Guilty as charged! Or wait…maybe not pride. But certainly bragging. It’s after midnight. In Boston. After all. 
I take it you have already discussed the sins of all you know, that is why you have the leasure of watching the innings.
Huh? Can somebody translate this? Never mind. No, Rodney, I have NOT discussed the sins of all I know. That’s my bleepin’ point, darlin’!
</i>Hope your innings go well. </i>
Thank you. They did. Thanks very much.
Michigan:
Kelly, you confuse pride with honesty.
Do I? How did I do that? My list was just a few, garden variety sins. I didn’t expect ANYBODY to answer the post. If anybody’s confused, it ain’t me. Although this might be pride on my part. Interesting.
If your friends know you are honest, you may make observations about their behavior and also your own, in the spirit of honesty.
I totally agree. Again. And your point would be?
Interesting, the way people posted. (Nobody spoke about gossip, for example.)
And now I must leave you. I have a few BRAGGING notes to write to some friends in New York…along, you might as well know, with some good wishes, condolences, and the like. Friends tend to do stuff like that.
Kelly,
I get a bit leery of putting voting to keep abortion legal and gossiping in the same category.
Do we all sin? yes. But there is a hierarchy even to sin. Obstinately refusing to accept the Church’s doctrine and in fact acting in direct opposition to it and the occasion of gossip or bragging as a failure in the pursuit of holiness are quite different.
No, I think the Bishops need to be leaders here and be the ones to show us that it is not only RIGHT it is EXPECTED that we bring our brothers and sisters into correction when so outside the boundaries of the Faith. This means they need to act to bring Kerry, and my own pro-abort “Catholic” Govenor back into the Truth, so to impress upon us the importance of doing this with, say, a co-worker or family member who is cooperating in obstinate sin (birth control, unmarried sex, etc).
When they fail to do it, why should we do it? Yet we need to do it whether they do or not.
Kelly, I get your drift! Pretty simple to my mind (uh oh!) Unless one has been ready to speak the same witness to goodness habitually himself/herself, one will not understand the difficulty of always doing so and will only point the finger at the “other guy” no matter what position as his “duty” to do so. Prayer would be better.
What’s unfortunate here is that Fr. DiNoia gives cover to people ...
That may be an unfortunate side effect from acting in obedience - and yet, it also may have been a forced side effect from the way this other-than-straight-forward approach was carried out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/21/04 at 10:31 AM I know that I’m setting myself up for harassment, but I believe that I recall this crazy idea that a simple carpenter preached call “love” and also “forgiveness.” Excommunication (and much of the discussion on this list) does nothing to further love. Forgiveness, in its truest form, can only come from God. Those who do not favor excommunication, for anyone for that matter-famous or not, realize that such an act further alienates “the sinner” and makes it even more difficult to bring them into the full light of Christ.
Many fail to acknowledge that John Kerry does not personally support abortion - and he makes that clear. I understand the frustration in his refusal to do anything politically about abortion, but it is a step in the right direction to be willing to state his personal beliefs.
We - all of us - need to turn to prayer and ask God to help us and our society find a way to make the changes that are necessary. John Kerry nor George Bush will hold the trump card to end abortion. It is far too big an issue. Fighting amongst ourselves and alienating those in a position to move us in the right direction is detrimental to the end of abortion, which I hope is what all that are responding here want in the end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/22/04 at 08:08 AM Two things, Laura:
1. Excommunication, like disciplining your child, is about love. A child who is not disciplined by his parents so that he knows what is right and wrong, is not being shown love. Likewise, excommunication is not “hate”, but is an attempt to inform a wayward soul that they have placed their immortal soul in danger of damnation. Excommunication is a corrective.
Is it love or lack of forgiveness that impels a parent to ground a teenager who sneaks out of the house at night? Is it love or hate that impels a parent to slap the hand of a child about to touch a hot stove?
2. Setting aside the inanity that somehow being personally opposed to abortion but facilitating its continuation is not evil, the fact is that John Kerry is not personally opposed to abortion. It’s a lie he’s concocted for this election. If he’s elected, he’ll flip flop on that just like he did on everything else.
Read this article: http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=50&art_id=22627 and then this one with his actual comments from a National Abortion Rights Action League Dinner last year: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/kerr012103spt.html
These are not the words of someone “personally opposed” to abortion.
Posted by Laura
I hope you don’t find this harassing. (sincerely)
Unlike Dom, I do believe John Kerry when he says that he personally does not believe in abortion. Or more accurately stated, he believes that life begins at conception. But this is actually a negative (in my view anyway).
Why? Because as soon as you believe that life begins at any time prior to cutting the umbilical cord, then abortion is an issue of justice not religion. If Kerry was running for president back prior to the 60’s and said ” I personally believe that all Americans have the same rights regardless of race or creed. But I will not impose my views on anyone else” He would have been a hypocrite. If abortion is an issue of justice, then Kerry’s proclamation makes him an unjust man.
I would have more respect for him if he actually said he didn’t have an opinion on when life begins. Or if he just flat out said “Life begins at birth”. Then he would be consistent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/22/04 at 03:06 PM Excommunication (and much of the discussion on this list) does nothing to further love.
Dear Laura,
Aside from your parenthetical comment, which I agree with, I’m not sure I can agree with this statement.
Excommunication can indeed further love. I don’t want to see anyone excommunicated. But I’d rather see someone—particularly myself!—excommunicated and therefore given a chance to regain communion with Christ, rather than end up in Hell.
Forgiveness, in its truest form, can only come from God.
Agreed. This statement does not in any way, of course, negate the power of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, nor the power of absolution granted to those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Ultimate judgment can also only come from God. The aim here, as I see it, is to lead me and other sinners away from final damnation and into everlasting life with God.
Those who do not favor excommunication, for anyone for that matter-famous or not, realize that such an act further alienates “the sinner” and makes it even more difficult to bring them into the full light of Christ.
In some cases, yes, but in some cases, no!
Again, I’m not in favor of excommunication. And I doubt anybody is! Who among us wishes to see a fellow Christian cut off from the Body of Christ?
I think what you’re saying is that the act of excommunication will make the person “stubborn” and therefore present even more difficulties in his reconcilation with the Body of Christ.
If that’s the case, then with whom does the onus lie?
Henry VIII, for example, did not (evidently) take his public excommunication seriously.
Why? Because he did not accept the authority of the Pope. He, by all human accounts, considered himself the head of the Church in his realm.
If what you’re saying about John Kerry is true—and I sincerely pray it is—then isn’t it logical to believe that when he realizes that his very existence as a member of the Body of Christ is at stake, that he will reconsider his own actions and take steps to reunite himself with the Church?
And then there’s another point to consider: the “fame” of John Kerry is indeed an issue. It is no coincidence that many, probably most, public excommications have been pronounced on “famous” Catholics. Why? Because “famous” people have the power to confuse and scandalize others. Why are so many Catholics for John Kerry for president? We are talking about the Church here.
I neither like nor dislike John Kerry.
I do not want to see him excommunicated.
But I’d prefer that to discovering, at the end of these times, that because he wasn’t, he was denied (or denied himself) everlasting life with God.
I hope this is helpful.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
