Marc Balestrieri’s canonical complaint against Kerry on charges of heresy is highly problematic. His reasoning contained enough of a sketch of a case that, if a tribunal wanted, it could have used the complaint as the occasion of coming down hard on Kerry, and by extension other pro-abort Catholic politicians, but in order to do so it would have to supply the deficiencies in Balestrieri’s complaint.
After the events of the last few days, that will never happen, barring an amazingly miraculous intervention. Nobody in Rome is going to want to do Balestrieri’s work for him if they are under the impression that he tried to hoodwink them.
It therefore remains to the future to find a canonical remedy to the ongoing scandal of pro-abort Catholic politicians. There are a number of potential ways that a canonical remedy could emerge (including the pope deciding to create new law on the matter), but here is a promising avenue that is already on the books:
Canon 1369
A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canonists such as Ed Peters have pointed out for years the opportunity this canon provides for providing a canonical remedy to the harm being caused to society by the scandalous actions of pro-abort Catholic politicians. Using this canon one can cite speeches and other communications of pro-abort politicians, point to the fact that John Paul II (in Evangelium Vitae) has clearly acknowledged the scandal that such communications cause (scandal in the technical sense of leading other into sin), noting that public support for abortion legislation has a gravely crossive effect on good morals on a matter of fundamental human rights, and then slap such politicians (or those who refuse to mend their ways) with canonical sanctions.
In fact, since the canon mentions the infliction of a just penalty, it means that the punishment is on a sliding scale that can be calibrated to the severity of the damage an individual politician has done to good morals (as calculated based on factors such as the politicians degree of support for evil legislation, how publicly he has done it, how prominent an individual he is, and how defiant he is regarding correcting his ways).
Since this canon provides a generous ability to canonically nail such politicians for the evil they are inflicting on society, the finding of a canonical remedy turns principally on the will of tribunals to apply this law to them.
Balestrieri tried to use a personal canonical complaint that was clearly provided for under the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It is not provided in the current (1983) Code of Canon Law (see “A canonical case against Kerry”; scroll down), but a tribunal could conceivably decide to accept such a complaint anyway. His case thus could have been used as the occasion for Church authorities to act.
But the real key here is Church authorities deciding to apply this law to pro-aborts. Thus far they have not. But this year’s interventions by a number of prominent bishops on the question of abortion may be a sign that Church authorities are appreciating the lack of results produced by the previous strategy of private dialogue with politicians and that they may be considering new strategies for dealing with the scandal the politicians are causing.
Canonical sanctions would certainly make a dramatic statement about the incompatibility of the pro-abort position with the Catholic faith.
It would let the voice of Christ be heard clearly.
When was the last time the Church excommunicated anybody? And I’m not talking about those “automatic” excommunications. I’m talking about a bishop officially and publicly excommunicating somebody.
Jimmy:
You didn’t quite state the facts on the Al Kresta program about Kerry’s abortion statements during the presidential debates.
By the way, are you a Canon lawyer? 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.
Pax Tecum,
David in Sacramento
[A 2,432-word set of quotations from presidential debate snipped for violation of Rule #3. This is simply too much material to expect readers to scroll through in a comments box. I invite David to submit a link to the same material. I tried to find such a link via Google to put here but couldn’t.–JA]
Ballestrieri’s response to the recent disclaimers.
http://www.defide.com/news.html
Ballestrieri’s response to the recent disclaimers.