A reader writes:
You didn’t quite state the facts on the Al Kresta program about Kerry’s abortion statements during the presidential debates.
I didn’t claim to be. As I’ve said on this blog, I think Kerry’s real position is that he thinks abortion is a good thing. I think he is dissembling on this point to keep from losing votes. What I did on the Kresta show was to point out how Kerry could spin his recent remarks in a way that would result in a church tribunal finding him not guilty of heresy, which is at the core of the Balestrieri complaint.
By the way, are you a Canon lawyer?
No. I do, however, have significant background in ecclesiastical law, as well as the theological background needed to parse the heresy question. For what it’s worth, I was contacted by a canon lawyer who heard my interview on Kresta and wanted to compliment me. I was also contacted by a theological expert who wanted to compliment me. Both were in agreement that the Balestrieri complaint is seriously flawed and that it will be next to impossible to get a tribunal to issue a finding of heresy on the basis of this complaint.
I was disappointed that you helped Kerry build a case (and he might seek the radio transcript) against any future Church action on his voting actions, motives, and public statements on abortion. You are a smart man but you shouldn’t help Satan’s warriors in their defense.
I appreciate your concerns, though a parallel argument to the one I sketched could be constructed by any competent canonical or theological counsel Sen. Kerry might engage should the matter ever go to trial (which is very unlikely).
My concern is that the case Mr. Balestrieri has made is seriously flawed and incapable of producing the desired result unless a tribunal were to deliberately intervene to supply its deficiencies. As long as there was a chance of that happening, I remained quiet about the problems with the complaint.
Now Mr. Balestrieri has made success a practical impossibility by his handling of Fr. Cole’s letter–a practical impossibility meaning that it would take an amazingly miraculous intervention for the case to achieve the desired result.
This changes matters.
Since the odds are now infinitesimal that the complaint will meet with success, it becomes an imperative to warn Catholic faithful of this fact lest they be bitterly disappointed and disaffected when the action fails.
It was already a longshot–as many had pointed out–but this recent round of events has prompted many to become emotionally invested in the case in a way that can lead to needless suffering, disillusionment, and suspicion if they are not warned.
Mr. Balestrieri has engaged a serious issue in a very public way that now affects thousands of individuals who have joined or formed opinions about his case. It is important that when one does things like this that one does them with one’s eyes open, recognizing the obstacles that exist.
It is also important that one do them right, which has not happened in this case.
Mr. Balestrieri’s conduct in the matter has also made it harder for a canonical solution to be found to the problem any time in the near future. Now the shadow of this complaint will hang over future attempts to find canonical solutions to the ongoing scandal of pro-abort Catholic politicians and will make obtaining such solutions more difficult.
UPDATE: Another point I forgot to add . . . It is a good thing if arguments pro-aborts and their defenders would use before tribunals get explored now. This lets those seeking to prosecute them (a) anticipate such arguments and have rejoinders ready and (b) seek grounds that are not vulnerable to these arguments.
