(Sigh.)
People may not like what I have to say in this post, but it’s one of those obligation-to-tell-the-truth situations because there are things out there in the Catholic press right now that are (at best) misleading and as someone who is aware of this fact and who works in the setting-the-record-straight business I have something of an obligation to try to clarify matters.
First, the standard disclaimers: As anyone who reads this blog knows, I think that John Kerry’s support of the American abortion holocaust is horrendous. I would like to see him and every other Catholic pro-abort politician slapped with severe ecclesiastical sanctions. What they are doing is a crime against humanity of unimaginable proportions, and I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of ecclesiastical law, including–if necessary–creating stronger ecclesiastical laws with which to prosecute them. (That’s the pope’s job, though, not mine.)
Now, you are probably aware that there is a canonical suit currently filed with the Archbishop of Boston by a young canonist named Marc Balestrieri, who is part of the Gen X crop of orthodox canon lawyers who will play an important role in the future of the Church. But the Gen Xers are still rather green at this point, and I find things in their writings that either don’t quite square with the law or that involve (at best) very dubious interpretations of the law. (This is in contrast to the Greatest Generation generation and the Baby Boom generation of canon lawyers, many of whom actively seek to subvert the law.)
I’m afraid that Mr. Balestrieri’s suit against Kerry is problematic. I read the original complaint (online here), and was unconvinced that he had found a canonical way to nail Kerry for his pro-abort stance. Mind you, I think there are ways to do that, and the Archbishop of Boston or one of several dicasteries in the Roman curia could choose to use Balestrieri’s complaint as the occasion to come down hard on Kerry, I just don’t think that he has put together a set of reasons that demand this response (which might not be forthcoming even if his reasoning was impeccable). In particular, his assertion that Kerry’s “I’m personally opposed but . . . ” stance amounts to heresy appears to be very problematic, for reasons I will explain below.
Yesterday the news broke that there had been a “Vatican response” to his case and that he had received a letter (online here; evil file format [.pdf] warning!) from Fr. Basil Cole at the Dominican House of Studies. Fr. Cole had been asked by Fr. Augustin DiNoia of the CDF to send Balestrieri an unofficial response to a couple of questions he had posed to the CDF.
In his letter (which is written as an informal personal opinion and not as a formal reply), Fr. Cole argues (plausibly) that direct support for abortion (i.e., saying that abortion is a morally permissible thing) is theologically heretical and can (in the conditions described in canon 751) become the canonical crime of heresy, triggering automatic excommunication. All this is fine.
At the very end of the letter, Fr. Cole has a very brief treatment of advocating a civil right (as opposed to a moral right) to abortion, and he states:
[I]f a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code. Provided that the presumption of knowledge of the law and penalty (Can. 15, § 2) and imputability (Can. 1321, § 3) are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated according to Can. 1364, § 1.
Well, Balestrieri published Cole’s letter to his web page and advertised it as a Vatican response (see the graphic above, which is from a screenshot of his web page this morning). The letter then set off a firestorm of “Kerry automatically excommunicated” posts and news stories on the Internet.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to apply to Kerry’s situation. Fr. Cole appears to be speaking of advocating a civil right to abortion in a way that Kerry is not (or would not if called upon to explain himself to a Church tribunal). Kerry has expressed his opposition to abortion and justified his support of a civil right to abortion not saying that he thinks such a civil right is a good thing in and of itself (which is what Fr. Cole seems to be thinking of), but by (wrongly) appealing to the pluralistic nature of our society.
If called upon to explain himself by a Church tribunal, Kerry would be able to plausibly argue in this way:
I do not support abortion. I have repeatedly and publicly said that I accept the Church’s teaching on this point as an article of faith. I have said this in front of the nation in the presidential debates. And at that time I said that because of the nature of our society in America, I cannot impose that article of faith on others. In saying this, I appealed to the same kind of considerations that John Paul II appealed to in Evangelium Vitae 73, in which he said that in circumstances where it is impossible to remove or ameliorate an abortion law, it is permissible for an elected official whose personal opposition to abortion is well known to support a law that contains provisions allowing abortion.
I am such a politician. My personal opposition is well known. In fact, after the debates my pesonal opposition is better known than that of any other Catholic politician. Yet I am telling you that removing the civil right to abortion in America would cause a huge convulsion to our society that would be worse than leaving the civil right in place. I therefore do not support the civil right as a good thing in and of itself but as something that the nature of American society presently requires.
Heresy involves denying or doubting specific propositions, and I am with the Church on the evil of abortion. I do not doubt or deny any propositions of a theological nature. What I doubt or deny is that the civil right to abortion could be removed from American law without causing an enormous cataclysm in American society that would be worse than leaving the civil right in place. This is not a matter that has been definitively treated by the Chruch’s ordinary or extraordinary magisterium and therefore is not capable of triggering the Code of Canon Law’s provisions regarding the crime of heresy. Further, since John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae noted that there are situations where elected officials can support legislation that contains abortion provisions because the attempt to overturn this legislation would be ineffective or produce a worse situation, it is clear that I am not committing heresy, however much one may disagree with my stance on this matter.
If he made such a statement I would regard it as a hypocritical, duplicitous, and flatly erroneous position to take. Abortion must end in America, and efforts to end it would not be worse than the 1.5 million deaths it causes every year in this country. So Kerry’s claim would be howlingly wrong, but howlingly wrong does not make it heretical in the sense that the Code of Canon Law defines that concept, which requires (among other things) a matter to have been infallibly settled. The Church has made no such determination regarding the sociological situation in America. It thus would be extraordinarily difficult to show that heresy has been committed by an individual taking the kind of position described above.
Now it turns out, as Ed Peters informs us, that Fr. Cole has issued a clarification indicating that neither he nor Fr. DiNoia knew that they were talking to a guy who was a litigant in a case. They thought that they were helping out a canon law student (Balestrieri is pursuing a doctorate; he already has a standard canon law degree on the basis of which he has practiced) and that the reply Cole gave was in no way an official reply from the Vatican (as is obvious from the text of the letter itself) and was a comment on principle not directed to the case of Sen. Kerry. Indeed, Cole’s letter doesn’t even seem to engage Kerry’s actual position.
Cole says in part:
Neither Fr. DiNoia nor I had any knowledge that he was going to “go after” Kerry or any other Catholic figure for their public stance concerning the evil of abortion. So, in my letter to Marc Balestrieri, I began by mentioning that my letter is a personal and private opinion to him about anyone who would publically and persistently teach that abortion is not morally prohibited. It in no way is authoritative from the Congregation nor was I representing the Congregation.
Further, the CDF has now issued a statement saying Cole’s letter is not an official determination on anything concerning the Kerry case.
Peters comments:
It is a pity that a refined and thoughtful letter by a thinker of Fr. Cole’s credentials was so mischaracterized (as if it were a Vatican determination on a key point in Balestrieri’s case), and that so many people (eager perhaps for something finally to be done about the Kerry scandal) relied on those mischaracterizations (despite the plain wording of Cole’s letter itself!) and circulated them uncritically.
Whatever else happens now (and I fear several repercussions actually), I think a gaff like this appears to be is going to make it even more difficult for Balestrieri to pursue his heresy case against Kerry, a case that was already facing some significant procedural and substantive canonical hurdles.
Balestrieri was very wrong to use the sensational headline “Vatican responds . . .” when his own comments in his press release make it clear that he knows this was an unofficial response, not a formal CDF response. Indeed, the CDF wouldn’t get involved in the Balestrieri action when it is still pending in Boston — the Vatican would wait until O’Malley makes a ruling or takes whatever action, and then Balestrieri or Kerry would have to APPEAL to Rome.
I’m not sure what to make of Fr. DiNoia and Fr. Cole saying they didn’t know about Balestrieri’s heresy action against Kerry. Is Fr. Cole the only faithful Catholic in the U.S. who hasn’t heard about Balestrieri?
Of course, this letter from Fr. Cole is very interesting, and provides ammunition to Balestrieri or anyone else who wishes to file heresy actions against notorious pro-abortion politicians. But I agree that Balestrieri’s actual charge of heresy doesn’t really fit Kerry. I think he’ll have to modify the denunciation’s wording and start over.
I think I agree with you that this case is problematic at best and a serious example of an over-zealous canon lawyer. But I do have a problem with their objection that because they thought he was a mere student and unaware of his litigious motives then the reply is invalid.
Are we to believe that they circulate one “truth” to canon law students and another “truth” to people who are engaged in suing politicians for excommunication? Do we have a set of “Truths in Theory” and a seperate “Truths in Practice”? I think it is perfectly legitimate that he asked the question with a certain degree of anonymity. Had they known who he was they surely would have either 1)stone-walled on giving any opinion at all or 2) nuanced their opinion so greviously that it would have been utterly worthless to even put onto paper.
If they want to object, object by pointing out the reason’s why Kerry does not meet the circumstances addressed in the question, but don’t act like the answer was “untrue”.
I don’t consider it too surprising that they wouldn’t know Balistrieri by name. I’d imagine that they knew about the Kerry case but didn’t know or didn’t remember Balistrieri’s name.
Heck, I read his brief when it first came out and analyzed his logic and I didn’t remember his name and had to look it up.
That kind of thing just happens to folks: They may remember something but not remember the names of the people associated with it. Also, these guys are of an older generation and aren’t very plugged in to the Net. For them the Kerry case may have been something they read or heard one press story about, not something they went online and studied in depth.
On the other hand…
I am reminded of this past Sunday’s Gospel Reading from Luke 18:
There was a judge in a certain town who neither feared God nor respected any human being. And a widow in that town used to come to him and say, ‘Render a just decision for me against my adversary.’ For a long time the judge was unwilling, but eventually he thought, ‘While it is true that I neither fear God nor respect ny human being, because this widow keeps bothering me I shall deliver a just decision for her lest she finally come and strike me.'”
Through this case Mr. B has presented incontrovertible evidence that Mr. Kerry’s stance is gravely scandalous and a just decision must be made by the Bishops. Will they be forced to act in some manner?
Balestrieri was on Ave Maria Radio (Kresta) on Friday making these claims. No fact checking?
Jimmy Again
Sometimes Jimmy writes stinkin long posts for those of us short on computer time but these two are worth a browse. The Vatican Response That Isn’t and Journalist Increases Own Chance Of Going To Hell (I love when Bella takes…
Balestrieri has just issued a response to Fr. Cole and Fr. DiNoia’s disclaimers. Basically he is saying that they are lying:
http://www.defide.com/news.html
He’s not saying that (not that I saw). He’s simply saying that he had their permission to publish the letter. That is not in dispute to my knowledge. What is problematic is the fact that he represented the letter as a Vatican response (which was imprudent and misleading) and that he applied it to the case of Sen. Kerry, which they did not know he was going to do and which potentially opens Balistrieri himself to canonical charges.
Jimmy! Defend the truth on the air about this issue, there’s such confusion. Kerry has NOT been excommunicated (yet) as I have already heard mistakingly said, nor does Balestrieri deserve the praise he’s getting (on air (not by Catholic Answers)) for having caused further confusion and scandel by misrepresenting what has been communicated to him. We’re not going to get the severe ecclesiastical sanctions that I agree we need through this kind of politically motivated sensationalism, and the consequence of this seemingly poorly executed canonical suit, althought I trust the issue will be handled prudently in the long run, is a pan-flash of attention which can only hurt the reputation of canon law when it is being evoked in this manner.
am I overreacting?
I don’t know that I’d put it in quite those terms, but having now commented on the issue publicly, I’m willing to talk about it.
Sir – I believe you are wrong in your analysis. You respond to this line from Fr. Cole’s letter:
“[I]f a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code. . . .”
by saying . . .
“Cole appears to be speaking of advocating a civil right to abortion in a way that Kerry is not (or would not if called upon to explain himself to a Church tribunal). . . ”
You then go on to quote a hypothetical Kerry response in which he asserts that his support of the civil ‘right to abortion’ is done for pragmatic, not moral, reasons. Yet Fr. Cole does not speculate as to the REASONS why someone would advocate a civil ‘right’ to abortion, he simply states that the public and obstinate support of that ‘right’ constitutes heresy. Nowhere does Fr. Cole offer the qualification that the support of such a ‘right’, in order to rise to heresy, must be motivated by the accompanying thought that the ‘right’ is good in and of itself. Nowhere.
Support of such a ‘right’ is a heresy, according to Fr. Cole, regardless of the grounds for said support. Supporting it because you deem its denial would cause social upheaval still amounts to SUPPORTING it, and therefore counts as heresy.
Polycarp re “Balestrieri was very wrong to use the sensational headline “Vatican responds . . .”
Did Balestrieri himself write this headline?
I’ll have to side with Cornelius on this point. I think that even if Kerry sincerely believed the position that you’ve outlined, it would not be objectively accurate. There are only two proper circumstances of which I am aware that justify a society sitting idle in the face of immoral action: those that are related to the fundamental dignity of human beings, and those regulations that are not essential to ordered society when the practical difficulties of enforcement are excessive. The former case provides for the civil right of freedom of religion (despite there being no “right to be wrong”) in cases where public order is not at stake. Obviously, unlike the civil right of freedom of religion, the right to kill the unborn cannot be grounded in human dignity, so that justification is out of the picture.
Turning then to the latter justification, I think it doesn’t suffice either. Despite the liberal misuse of John Courtney Murray’s theory on this matter, he (following Aquinas) never said that the difficulty of enforcement could justify a failure to protect rights that are essential to an ordered society. In other words, even if preventing murder is a practical nightmare, the society still has an obligation to keep murder illegal and to make at least some reasonable effort to prevent it. That is a bare minimum requirement for a moral society. Therefore, I would consider the proposition that practical necessity could justify protecting the “right to choose” to be a heretical proposition in and of itself, contrary to Catholic dogma that calls the right to life an essential right to ordered society.
Jimmy, you are wrong about Kerry’s position. That’s because he so successfully triangulates every issue it’s easy for him to fool people about what (if anything) he actually stands for. Here is what he said on the floor of the Senate, August 2, 1994, in the wake of Paul Hill’s murder of an abortionist: “The wrong response to the Pensacola shootings is to segregate abortions even further from those seeking the procedure. The right thing to do is to treat abortions as exactly what they are — a medical procedure that any doctor is free to provide and any pregnant woman free to obtain. Consequently, abortions should not have to be performed in tightly guarded clinics on the edge of town; they should be performed and obtained in the same locations as any other medical procedure. How can we as political leaders teach tolerance to the public when we still treat women who seek abortions as poorly as less civilized societies treated lepers? Mr. President, if this Constitutionally protected right is to be preserved, and if women are to be treated decently and with respect, abortions need to be moved out of the fringes of medicine and into the mainstream of medical practice. And by the same token, if our children are to be safe from the danger of fanaticism, tolerance needs to spread out of the mainstream churches, mosques, and synagogues, and into the religious fringes.” That is a completely accurate quotation: I just now cut and pasted it from the Congressional Record (thomas.loc.gov) for the 103rd Congress.
Cornelius,
I am not incorrect about this. Cole spoke of supporting a civil right to abortion sans phrase and was not considering the kind of backwards “support” that would be authorized under Evangelium 73 (i.e., a politician voting for/supporting legislation allowing abortion because it will prevent a worse situation from arising, e.g., a situation in which *both* abortion *and* euthanasia are legal).
Either Cole was speaking of support for a civil right to abortion in a qualified sense (the most logical sense being supporting it because one thinks that it is a good thing) or in an unqualified sense (which would exclude voting for any laws with abortion provisions, contra Evangelium 73).
If the former then what he said is correct as he goes *with* the pope and established principles of moral theology.
If the latter then what he said is incorrect as he goes *against* the pope and established principles of moral theology.
In my opinion, it’s the former.
Cornelius, the “Vatican Responds” language is right there on Balestrieri’s website. If he didn’t write it himself, he certainly has a responsibility to correct it on his website — after all, he has now admitted that it was “never in doubt” that the letter was not an official response.
Jimmy, you’re right, he’s not actually saying Cole and DiNoia are lying — but his account does contradict Cole’s and DiNoia’s statements that Cole was not “delegated,” and that Balestrieri was not in contact with the CDF. Their versions of events might be reconcilable, but on the face of it seem to be in conflict.
Another thing about Cole and DiNoia not having figured out who Balestrieri was and which heresy case he was interested in: According to Balestrieri, he was in contact with Cole and DiNoia several times, and he said the dubia about support for abortion had to do with a heresy case. To my knowledge, the only heresy case pending in this country (if not the entire planet?) is Kerry’s. I’m just surprised men as intelligent as Cole and DiNoia couldn’t put 2 and 2 together, even if they didn’t recognise Balestrieri’s name.
This is Getting Shadier and Shadier, and the anti-Kerry forces are looking more and more foolish
It turns out Balestrieri, the L.A. canon lawyer, may be playing fast and loose with the facts of the letter from Fr. Basil Cole, OP. Ed Peters has the relevant info over at his blog. In addition, Jimmy Akin has…
It is odd that they didn’t put things together, and there are minor discrepancies (e.g., did Cole use a particular word in a phone conversation, does calling DiNoia at his home constitute official contact with the CDF) in the accounts (which always happens when three witnesses describe the same thing).
As you note, Balestrieri has not made accusations of lying, which is a very good thing for him. He’s already done enormous injury to himself and his cause by what he did with Cole’s letter, and making accusations of lying would only further damage him.
ELC: Please note what I wrote concerning the argument Kerry might make to a tribunal. I said that it would be a hypocritical and duplicitous thing for him to do.
The reason is that I do not believe it to be his true position. In his heart of hearts, I think that he believes abortion to be a *good* thing and he is only saying otherwise to keep from losing votes.
Nevertheless, you can’t convict somebody based on what is in their heart of hearts. You have to go by their words, and the Church tends to give people a lot of leeway in explaining what they meant.
Given the Church’s reluctance to formally impose discipline on malefactors these days, if someone tells a tribunal “I know this statement carries a different impression, but here is what I *meant* . . . ” or “My thought has evolved in this area and is now congruent with Church teaching” then they will tend to let the person off without the “trauma” of public discipline.
Thus I don’t doubt at all that quotes can be dug up from years past in which Kerry was more forthcoming about his true opinion of abortion, but a tribunal is very, very, very unlikely to convict him on the basis of such statements. They are much, much, much more likely to give weight to current dissemulations that result in them not having to convict him of heresy.
Jimmy: you said “I… was unconvinced that he had found a canonical way to nail Kerry for his pro-abort stance. Mind you, I think there are ways to do that”
Just wondering– what are they, in your opinion?
I’m new to this blog, so you might just have to point me to an earlier post.
Okay, so the Bishops punt on the charge of Heresy”
But assuming John Kerry is elected and makes good on his pledge to repeal the Mexico City Policy via executive order, what then? Since it is a unilateral move via executive order and he would not have the shield of voting for or against an “imperfect law” as he does on his previous votes, will the bishops be forced to act on that?
OK. But I still think this statement of yours is inaccurate: “Kerry has expressed his opposition to abortion and justified his support of a civil right to abortion not saying that he thinks such a civil right is a good thing in and of itself (which is what Fr. Cole seems to be thinking of), but by (wrongly) appealing to the pluralistic nature of our society.” There’s contrary evidence to your “not say…” clause. True, Kerry usually (deceptively) couches his viewpoint as you indicate. But not always.
Well— I caught the idea that the case has to go to the tribunal before any ‘official’ acknowledgement is made. Mr.Balestrieri isn’t hiding that! The lingo he uses is that of a Lawyer, making a case. The letter from Fr. Cole was by direction of the CDF (Vatican)and is merely “unofficial”. That doesn’t mean it’s not valid. I am signing on as a “Co joiner”.
Yes, there are opinions to consider but the fact remains that the text of Fr. Cole’s letter is valid. These requirements are already Catholic Doctrine and weather or not the case is heard today or ten years from now – the consequences are retroactive (automatic). You can liken it to a disease – if you contracted a disease but didn’t get tested to know that you contracted it, does that mean you don’t have the disease? If you are pregnant and your test shows a ‘False Negative”, does that mean you’re not pregnant? This subject is in line with the content of a Catholic Phamphlet on Voting that have been distributed by many Parishes.There are also letters from the archbishop on the Atlanta Georgia Archdiocese Website that apply the same message [omitting the automatic excommunication]. What is being covered up by not promoting the action of this lawyer is the fact that it is a “GRAVE SIN” to support a Pro Abortion candidate or to even have love for the Civil Right of Abortion. Catholics may justify anything that suites them but they aren’t accountable to me. Finally – if Kerry gets elected – say hello to Partial Birth Abortion and the celebration that it is back again, stronger than ever! (He already said he would do this!!!)
The EWTN Catholic Answers(The Vatican Response That Isn’t) is less authoritive than the letter of Fr. Cole and Testimony of Mr. Balestrieri. Personally, I believe that the CDF knew exactly what they were doing when they directed Fr. Cole to write the narrative. Even though the case is already being worked on – the Catholic Church never does anything in a hurry. It took 40 years time to complete the Council of Trent and 4 years time to complete Vatican II. Vatican II was rushed – look at all of the vagueness’ now.
I think the “SIGH’ in the article, The Vatican Response That Isn’t, is phony. The author, for the most part, articulates a defense for those who have a love of [the civil right] abortion. Why would anyone do that and do it with such disposition to think that it was righteous? Mr. Balestrieri is a Cannon Lawyer and has brought charges against an Abortion loving politician who has vowed to bring back Partial Birth Abortion and the author of this article is promoting a defense for him? That’s an OUTRAGE! Shame on you! We’re not talking about ‘civil rights’ here – were talking about the Word of God and the protection of His Church. Show a little respect.
John Cicio wrote:
If you had an ounce of charity or intellectual honesty, you would know how off the mark your pathetic charge is. To answer your question, I commend to you the wisdom of St. Thomas More:
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
— A Man for All Seasons
“The reason is that I do not believe it to be his true position. In his heart of hearts, I think that he believes abortion to be a *good* thing and he is only saying otherwise to keep from losing votes.
Nevertheless, you can’t convict somebody based on what is in their heart of hearts. You have to go by their words, and the Church tends to give people a lot of leeway in explaining what they meant.”
But wouldn’t his hypothetical words still amount to heresy? Speaking objectively, the amount of civil disorder that would be created is not a proportionate reason for materially cooperating with the murder of millions. Even if he subjectively believes that the justification is adequate, his statements would still be objective heresy because they contradict clear moral teaching. Suppose I sincerely believe that it is morally permissible to kill my neighbor for stealing my bike. Wouldn’t my statement that stealing a bike is an adequate justification for a Catholic to commit murder still be objective heresy?
Okay – I concede my point in implying the author is a phony. That is my emotion so, I apologize for that. Still, I fail to understand the necessity of providing a detailed defense for the politician. Especially since the author’s disclaimer seems to acknowledge some shenanigans.
By the same token – the Lawyer has done nothing controversial. The implication he makes is normal – He’s alleging a crime. The politicians voting record is no secret and you needn’t be a Theologian to smell something fishy about his statements.
Perhaps I let my emotions rule my action but at least I make an attempt to raise my voice against the sacrifice of innocent blood. I support Mr. Balestrieri in his cause and am satisfied if the only result is to get information out to the voting ‘Catholics’ that they should know that supporting a politician who promotes abortion [above capital punishment] is Grave Sin.
I pray for the conversion of all sinners – especially my own self. God bless.
John Cicio
The reason is that I do not believe it to be his true position. In his heart of hearts, I think that he believes abortion to be a *good* thing and he is only saying otherwise to keep from losing votes.
Thus I don’t doubt at all that quotes can be dug up from years past in which Kerry was more forthcoming about his true opinion of abortion…
It’s not hard to find such examples. In fact, you just have to go to John Kerry’s website to view this speech he gave to a crowd of Planned Parenthood supporters (warning RealPlayer and hi-speed internet connection required):
http://tinyurl.com/45ysc
It’s pretty clear, as Jimmy said, that he believes abortion to be a *good* thing.
Just watch it.
Jimmy – you’ve never answered Jonathan Prejean’s two excellent posts, particularly his thought that rights fundamental to the social order, such as the right to life, may not be abrogated under the guise of pragmatism, i.e., that it would cause too much social disorder to enforce respect for the right to life, and therefore a Catholic may (must?) support the ‘right to choose.’ This is a telling point, and your silence leads me to believe it is unanswerable.
Cornelius:
Great name, BTW.
There are some practicalities here to be considered before arriving at such a conclusion.
I have been busier than you can imagine of late. I have limited time for blogging, and what I have had in the last day was consumed by constructing the (lengthy and important) posts above.
The practicalities of this situation should be born in mind before concluding–especially in a period of less than 24 hours–that I have displayed “silence” warranting the extraordinary conclusion that a particular line of argument is “unanswerable.”
“This is a telling point, and your silence leads me to believe it is unanswerable.”
While I appreciate the compliment, I think you’ve read me all wrong. I can spot several points in my own argument at which someone would be well within their rights to remain unconvinced (whether the moral standard I outlined for government inaction is dogmatic, whether disputing the application of a principle in extreme circumstances is heretical, whether my conception of “essential rights” is even a correct statement of Catholic moral teaching, etc., etc.). That’s why I ask questions and try to stay humble about the possibility of error rather than declaring victory before the discussion even takes place. Very rarely can any complicated issue be fully explored with a simple argument.