Denunciation of US Senator John F Kerry for Heresy.

Defide.com ^ | Defide.com

[skellmeyer]

I was under the impression that in filing a case in the tribunal, that the archbishop will appoint the judges, but may not necessarily be one of them. Thus, Archbishop O'Malley could appoint some judges, they could make their ruling, yea or nay, and he could wash his hands of the outcome.

Theoretically possible, but in actuality quite unlikely.

The only way the court can rule that Kerry is NOT a heretic is by finding that Kerry's bishop failed to inform Kerry of the consequences of his heresy. Now, according to canon 386 "the diocesan bishop is bound to explain to the faithful the truths of the Faith which are to be believed and applied to moral issues, frequently preaching in person..."

You see, this tribunal is not just judging Kerry. It is also judging O'Malley. And everybody who knows canon law knows it.

Keep in mind that the judges on the tribunal are all priests of the diocese, that is, they all have to work under the good Archbishop as long as they both shall live.

So, if the tribunal finds that Kerry is NOT a heretic, they are essentially calling O'Malley incompetent, malfeasant and a total loser for failing to abide by his duties under canon 386.

The alternative is to find Kerry a heretic (thereby indicating that their own boss and archbishop DID do his job, but Kerry refused to recant).

If you were on the tribunal, which do you think you would choose? I'm not saying they won't go with whatever the evidence presents, I'm just saying they have a vested self-interest in identifying evidence that proves their boss is not malfeasant.

O'Malley CANNOT wash his hands of the tribunal's decision because that decision reflects on how well he did his job, and every consecrated man in the world knows it. Does O'Malley want to be made to look a fool in front of the entire Church? Given a choice between falling on his sword just for some Irish pol who wants to win an election versus maintaining his life-long reputation in front of the eyes of everyone he works with in the Church, which way do you think he will want this to go? And believe me, the judges on the tribunal (hand-picked by O'Malley) know this as well.

Rome has already indicated where she will go if the decision gets appealed to her, so Kerry can appeal, but the only way he'll get sympathy is by claiming the archbishop never told him.

No, Kerry is toast on a stick.

[sitetest]

Dear skellmeyer,

As the opinion of the theologian tapped by the CDF is, as yet, unofficial, the tribunal could simply ignore it, and declare that it is not, per se, heretical to be a pro-abort Catholic politician. Sinful, yes, heretical, no.

Then, it would get kicked up to Rome, I suppose, on appeal. Then Rome would have to tackle the question directly.

I'm not saying a tribunal would do this, only that they could.

I guess it also depends on what matter Archbishop O'Malley gives to the tribunal. I imagine that in calling the tribunal, Archbishop O'Malley gets to decide the question(s) they must answer.

He may say that the question of objective heresy is open, and to be decided (I think that's doubtful.).

Or he may say, the question of heresy is closed - it is heretical - but the question of whether Mr. Kerry is guilty of it is open (this is more the case you present - in which case, I lean toward your view, it's a slam dunk.).

He could also say, "It is clear that Mr. Kerry is a self-excommunicated obstinate heretic, but the case as presented by Mr. Balestrieri asks for damages to undo the harm done by Mr. Kerry's heresy."

Or, he may just be very vague and say, "Here's the complaint, guys, you deal with it."

I think that's the most likely. And then the tribunal could, if it wished, decide that to personally oppose abortion, but accept that in a pluralistic society, the law may be legitimately otherwise, is not heresy, though perhaps sinful.

Again, I'm not saying they would do that, just that they could.


sitetest

[skellmeyer]

I agree - these scenarios are all possible.

However, given the politics of the situation, O'Malley would be a fool not to control the process as much as he could - after all, this is a tribunal on him as much as it is on Kerry. Thus, I strongly believe it will play out as I outlined above: a slam dunk. He could try to distance himself, or finesse the complaint, but he's just ASKING for trouble that way. Marc has already shown he's willing to appeal this thing all the way to Rome, and O'Malley knows it. Rome has already advertised her position by choosing a theologian who she knew would write what he did. The nuances here are as important as the words.

Although theoretically there are a lot of possibilities, too many moves have already been made on the board. Kerry is, in reality, one step away from checkmate, and he's got no counter.

[sitetest]

Dear skellmeyer,

Yeah, the more I look at it, the more it seems that this is the likely course of events:

1. Condemn Mr. Kerry and, ultimately, all the pro-abort Catholic politicians as excommunicated heretics.

2. Make it clear, but quietly, before the election (CDF asking the theologian to offer the opinion in record time).

3. Don't make a big, loud to-do about it before the election.

4. Shortly after the election, come down like a ton of bricks, do the deed, get it all over with, and take any consequences that occur. But by doing the loud part after the election, the bishops and Rome avoid being accused of playing politics.

5. Let it all settle out by the next big elections - '06, with the Catholic position clear and well-known long before primary season.

I think that the side that wanted to continue to keep things fuzzy has lost, and the compromise was to avoid the big blowout before Nov 2.

Just my two cents.


sitetest