MP3 download, Music CD, Online music

Download the sheet music for your current favorites and explore our ... Download sheet music for Grammy®-winning and related titles, composers, and artists...

Scott wrote:
Okay... Can somebody please explain this to me like I'm a two year old?
I can not comprehend how the fact that Mr. B. did not fully divulge his activity to everyone he talked to at the vatican is relevent. He simply asked for an opinion on a set of facts and asked what the ruling in such a case would be. He received an answer. Now the question should only be, "does Kerry's activity fit the profile which he inquired about"?

In a sense that's almost true, but unfortunately Mr. B didn't present his facts that way. From what I understand, he made two basic mistakes:
He didn't say "Here is an opinion I got about a set of facts and what the ruling would be, now let's see if Kerry fits the profile." He presented his facts as if it were agreed and confirmed on all sides that Kerry DOES fit the profile, and that the judgment was made specifically with reference to Kerry.
He didn't say "Here is an opinion I got." He said "Vatican response."
Not quite the way I would explain it to a two-year-old, but I hope it's clear enough.

I must say also that I love Mr. Balestrieri's puckish remark that ignorance of the particulars of the case he was inquiring about had the "unintentional effect of [producing] a cogent and intellectually honest response." As in:
"Hey! No fair! You tricked us into being cogent and intellectually honest! Usually we give responses so muddled and equivocating that anybody can pull something out of it that supports their position. What a dirty trick! Shame on you, Mr. Balestrieri!"

I must agree with Chris-2-4 - Marc Balestrieri responds to this red herring most appropriately, I think:
"A misapplication of reason underlies Fr. di Noia’s raising of the question as to whether fully disclosing my involvement in a heresy case against Senator Kerry would have changed the core conclusions of the Response. Fr. di Noia’s apparent nescience of my pending suit against Senator Kerry in fact produced the unintentional effect of a cogent and intellectually honest response to be granted, qualifying in exact and unequivocal terms the terrible gravity of the profession of the right-to-choose heresy. The Very Reverend Undersecretary’s suggestions that the core conclusions of the Response and proclamation of the True Faith are conditioned by the social qualities of certain individuals in certain historical circumstances subject to Divine and Canon Law is disturbing, particularly given the most grave matters affecting the salvation and lives of millions."
Of course, we all know that the "social qualities of certain individuals in certain historical circumstances" has a heck-of-a-lot to do with the response - most regretably so. Another way this might be put (speaking purely abstractly and not attributing this response to anyone in particular) is:
"We lack the moral courage to really teach the Faith in particular circumstances as we ought to because we fear offending powerful political or national interests. So, had we KNOWN that Mr. X was the subject of said inquiry we would have given a much different response, and probably let Mr. X off the hook entirely."

Okay... Can somebody please explain this to me like I'm a two year old?
I can not comprehend how the fact that Mr. B. did not fully divulge his activity to everyone he talked to at the vatican is relevent. He simply asked for an opinion on a set of facts and asked what the ruling in such a case would be. He received an answer. Now the question should only be, "does Kerry's activity fit the profile which he inquired about"? It seems to me to be a complete canard that they did not know who they were giving their opinion to. As I've asked in previous posts, how is the truth changed depending on who you were giving the answer to.
Example: If I think I see my neighbor shoot his wife for no reason and I go to a judge and ask, "if I see someone shoot someone else for no reason is that murder" why would the judge need to know about my situation to answer the question? He doesn't. He says, "Yes, it's murder". Then we look at the situation closer and determine if my neighbor actually did shoot his wife for no reason, we don't argue about, how the judge thought I was just asking out of curiosity and he didn't know that I thought I saw my neighbor shoot his wife.
It's complete misdirection.