When Eileen McNamara Starts to Doubt Your Integrity, You Are in Really Big Trouble

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode CCCXXVII

Well, lookee here.

I did not know that Senator John F. Kerry believes that life begins at conception. Now that I do know, I do not understand 20 years of votes supporting a woman's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's explanation over the weekend implied that his civic duty in a pluralistic society required him to ignore his conscience. ''There is something called freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church," Kerry told an Iowa newspaper. ''I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life begins at conception. But I don't take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."

So, Kerry's conscience is not at odds with church teaching, just with his voting record? By any measure, that is an odd definition of conscience. Forget church teaching for a moment. Conscience is a moral concept, as well as a religious one, after all. If you believe that life begins at conception, doesn't your conscience compel you to vote in concert with that belief? Just as, if your conscience tells you capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder, you would vote against the death penalty? Or if you believe that gay marriage is a fundamental civil right, you would vote against a constitutional amendment to ban it?

I, and I suspect many others who support legal abortion, had mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. His consistent record in favor of abortion rights, family planning, and reproductive freedom was, I thought, a courageous reflection of an independent mind.

Now, I don't know what to think. I cannot respectfully disagree with him as I do with an abortion opponent whose conscience prompts her to work to unseat lawmakers like Kerry. I understand her. She is acting on principle, lobbying to change laws antithetical to her conscience. I don't understand him, voting consistently in opposition to what he now tells us is one of his core beliefs.

This really isn't about religion. Catholics have abortions at about the same rate as other women in the United States, just as they use birth control, have premarital sex, and get divorced. Those choices certainly put them at odds with their church, but most, I think, would say their consciences are clear. As much as it objects to such ''cafeteria Catholics," the hierarchy knows that not every Catholic accepts all of its teachings, that if it required that level of conformity, the pews would be empty. What is Kerry saying about his conscience? That it conforms in church, but dissents during roll calls?

I wanted to ask Kerry more about this, but he was busy yesterday, trumpeting a vice presidential pick that the NARAL Pro-Choice America, the lobbying arm of the abortion rights movement, called ''a dream ticket for a woman's right to choose."

Betsy Cavendish, interim president of NARAL Pro Choice America, was offended that I wanted to discuss Kerry's abortion comments on ''such a great day." Why, she asked, would I spin a ''minor comment" into a ''minicyclone" when abortion rights supporters should be keeping our ''eye on the prize, defeating Public Enemy Number One, George Bush." For all we know, she said, Kerry sees life as a continuum, with conception the acorn and childbirth the oak. Shouldn't she ask him, I wondered. ''Why?" she asked. ''Our job is to get Bush out."

It is that kind of talk that makes me despair that the electoral process can ever be a useful means to debate divisive issues in America. Abortion remains so contentious, in part, because each side is so intent on holding its ground that neither acknowledges how difficult this issue is for many Americans. I, for one, would like to know more about how difficult an issue it is for John F. Kerry and his curious conscience.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

McNamara evinces no knowledge of what caused Kerry's admission: it was announced last week that he has been formally, legally denounced for heresy. Here, a press release, Jul. 1.

An international non-profit association, De Fide (“of the Faith”) announced Thursday that its Director, Marc Balestrieri, J.C.L. has filed a Dual class-action Denunciation and Criminal lawsuit at Canon Law for the crime of Heresy against presidential candidate Senator John F. Kerry. The action, normally under the highest procedural secrecy, was filed before the Ecclesiastical Court of the Archdiocese of Boston headed by Archbishop Sean O’Malley on 14 June 2004.

Five other criminal counts are alleged in the Denunciation and Criminal Complaint: Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy; Formal and Immediate Cooperation in Heresy; Sacrilegious Abjection of the Holy Eucharist; Diabolical Scandal Leading to Murder; and Grave Harm to Public Morals and Contempt for the Faith and Ecclesiastical Authority.

The charges alleged are extremely grave, account taken of the fact that the Code of Canon Law provides for automatic latae sententiae Excommunication in the case of two of the six crimes alleged: Heresy under Can. 1364-1 CIC, and Abjection of the Sacred Species (Holy Communion) under Can. 1367.

The alleged Heresy is the “Right-to-Murder” doctrine directly contained in the “pro-choice” position supporting abortion rights. The Catholic Church considers all direct abortions as simply another form of murder. It is the professional opinion of DE FIDE, based especially on Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Evangelium Vitae of 1995, that the doctrine on the grave immorality of directly procured abortion is a heresy in every canonical and theological sense of the term.

The suit comes less than two weeks after the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops formally warned Catholic politicians who support abortion rights to refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The Bishops’ statement, however, stopped short of ordering Catholic bishops and priests to deny Communion, leaving the decision to withhold the Sacrament a matter of personal choice for each Bishop and his diocese.

The case is unprecedented in the history of the American Roman Catholic Church in three ways:

First, it is a lawsuit for Heresy, a public Ecclesiastical crime under Cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, never have the five other crimes alleged in the Complaint, especially Sacrilegious Abjection of the Sacred Species carrying the penalty of Excommunication reserved to the Holy Father, ever been adjudicated before.

Second, it is a Class-Action Criminal lawsuit. Never has a complaint been filed specifically alleging an aggrieved class, either acting in principal position, or as third-party joinders. The notoriety of Defendant’s actions easily support such a class. Canons 128, 1596, and 1729 of the Code permit an unlimited number of third-party aggrieved joinders to attach themselves to the complaint.

Third, it is a Dual-Denunciation for Heresy and Criminal Complaint for Heresy, not just a denunciation, which has never been done before, to the knowledge of experts, anywhere in the world, in living memory, in a vertical movement proceeding from the laity. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is usually the entity which investigates and tries suspected heretics. As stated by the Rev. Arthur Espelage of the Canon Law Society of America, this case is “truly unique…a nuclear missile.” Cfr. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040630-111108-2541r.htm

Mr. Balestrieri decided to publicize the suit after having waited to see the statements and results of the Bishops assembled in conference in Englewood, Colorado. A graduate of the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome, the oldest of Jesuit universities founded in 1551, he is fluent in five languages. He has practiced Canon Law both part-time and full-time for ten years. He currently is serving as a Defender of the Bond, Associate Judge, and Advocate for his home Tribunal.

Although some practitioners of Canon Law have stated that the Archbishop in the instant case has no obligation to prosecute the Defendant as a result of a mere denunciation being filed, after reviewing the Complaint, the same practitioners agree with DE FIDE that as this Denunciation has been filed simultaneously with a Bill of Complaint for the Repairing of Harm, the Archdiocese of Boston, or the Vatican, does have an obligation in justice and at Canon Law to decide the case. The Judge, once having received the libellus litis with a “semblance of the truth” of the facts alleged in the case, must proceed either by 1) judicial trial, or 2) extra-judicial decree.

The Plaintiff decided to risk his career and reputation for the sake of doing what he thought was an obligation and duty in conscience to defend the Faith and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from attack and sacrilege, no matter what the cost. This decision was directly based upon three considerations:

First, the binding teaching of the Instruction of the Vatican on the Holy Eucharist, Redemptionis Sacramentum, promulgated this year: Article 183. Let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be defended from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out, etc.

Second, the grave lack of disciplinary measures mandated by Canon Law not being enforced by various Bishops vis-à-vis openly defiant Catholic politicians, in the instant case, Defendant John F. Kerry.

Third, in the most grave matters of a Life-Threatening Heresy promoting the “Right-to-Choose” Abortive Murder, and continuous Sacrilegious and Contemptuous reception of Holy Communion, the faithful are compelled to take action if their Pastors won’t.

The denunciation argues that, no matter what Kerry might say he believes, his actions espouse heresy, and that is all that is required. McNamara unwittingly provides more evidence of Kerry's guilt, if any be needed, by her own words today:

I, and I suspect many others who support legal abortion, had mistakenly assumed that, on this very personal issue, Kerry's conscience was at odds with the teaching of his church. His consistent record in favor of abortion rights, family planning, and reproductive freedom was, I thought, a courageous reflection of an independent mind.

Bravo to Marc Balestrieri! As I blogged a while back:

I am sure of this: if the bishops and priests would do their jobs — would do what they were ordained and appointed to do, would do what they're paid to do — instead of being (at worst) subversive traitors or (at best) spineless cowards, nobody would think there's any need to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profanation. Because there would be no need to do so.

If those who should act, will not act, then others who perhaps should not act, will act. Maybe because they must act....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 07/07/04 09:30:29 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.