[Article] Kerry said to be excommunicated

aidan_walsh

http://cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830

Los Angeles, Oct. 18 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.

The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.

Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's "World Over" program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.

That communication provides a basis, he said, to declare that any Catholic politician who says he is "personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication. It also provided a basis for Balestrieri to broaden his canonical actions and file additional complaints against four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians: Democrat Senators Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Tom Harkin of Iowa; Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine; and former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, a Democrat.

The current action could be significant as it could undercut the entire debate over denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. An excommunicated Catholic may not receive any of the sacraments of the Church, including the Eucharist, marriage, and even Christian burial. The type of excommunication outlined in the new information is called latae sententiae, which means that it occurs automatically and does not require a formal pronouncement by any Church official.

Balestrieri said he went to Rome in late August to discuss his canonical case with experts, including an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Less than 10 days later, he received a letter from Father Basil Cole, a Dominican theologian and consultant to the congregation based in Washington, DC, who said he had been "delegated" by Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation, to give an unofficial response to the question that Balestrieri had submitted.

"I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith," said Balestrieri. "The first: Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy. The second: Whether or not a denial of the Church's teaching condemning every right to abortion also constitutes heresy. Father Cole, an expert theologian who studied the matter carefully, responded in the affirmative on both counts."

Father Cole wrote, "If 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 [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."

Balestrieri said the response was unusual in several respects: that a response was provided to a layman at the request of the undersecretary in only 11 days, that the response was in writing, decisively clarifying the matter, and that it was in far greater detail than a typical official reply. "Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF, such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public," he said.

He also said that the original canonical complaint of heresy against Kerry had received so much response from the public that the tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston has been deluged with thousands of letters from ordinary Catholics who wish to add their names to the complaint. The head of the archdiocesan tribunal reportedly told him that the case had not been rejected and was "now in the hands of the archbishop," that is, Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.

Balestrieri, a self-identified political independent, says that his actions come as a defender of the faith and Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and scandal, not as one focused on an electoral outcome. "Our victory can come as early as today: It would be for Sen. Kerry, who publicly calls himself a Catholic and yet in violation of Canon Law continues to receive Holy Communion, to repent of his grave sin and publicly recant his abortion advocacy."

The complete text of Father Cole's response as well as other details of the pending cases are available on the DeFide.com web site.

I know this was only an unofficial responce from Fr. Cole, and it is a highly irregular time frame and method of going about such a responce, but how likely is this to hit Kerry in the polls? Or more to the point, how hard?

arcadegame2004

I wonder if being excommunicated from what has been shown to be one of the most corrupt organised church's in the world today is a compliment or an insult? I am theoretically a Catholic but I am sick of the scandals in the Catholic Church and I just cannot support their bigoted hostility to gays. On abortion, in spite of my mixed views on abortion, I don't feel that we who are male have the right to patronise the majority of the population who are women by enforcing religious doctrine down their throats, when we ourselves will never know the stress of carrying a foetus inside us for 9 months. The Catholic Church have a black and white attitude to homosexuality, and abortion. But I feel that the world is too complicated for it to be right for national-governments to impose black and white 'solutions' in all cases.

Having reflected on this issue since the last abortion referendum, I feel that Kerry is absolutely right that a 13 year old girl who has been raped by her father should not be lectured by politicians from on high. I do not feel that such a girl, or any raped woman, should be compelled by law to go through taking the baby to term. It is cruel. And while there are those who say that the baby is life and that ending the pregnancy is "murder", I would say that while I oppose allowing total abortion on demand, I do not accept the argument that human "life" begins at the moment of conception. You might as well say that the use of detergent is "murder" of bacteria, if you are going to argue that a tiny seed with no human consciousness at all, and none of the criteria that would cause a doctor to determine that a patient is still alive, constitutes "human life". It reminds me of George Dubya Bush in the debates in the US arguing that frozen embryos are "life" which should not be destroyed. I see frozen embryos as having the potential to become human life. Which is DIFFERENT from human life.

If this alleged excommunication does influence voters, I would hope it would be to the benefit of John Kerry, as voters reject the out of touch autocracy in Rome. While I respect John Paul's role in helping to end Communism in Eastern Europe, I despise his fixation with a particular interpretation of ancient texts, whose authorship is often disputed by historians.

fragile

"personally opposed to abortion, but supports a woman's right to choose," incurs automatic excommunication

So does that mean I am excommunicated?

meh, too late, I stopped caring about the Catholic church long ago...

I doubt it will affect Kerry, anybody who takes this kind of nonsense seriously wouldn't have been voting for him to begin with

zt

Do you get a letter from the vatican if you are excommunicated? Surely this would be worth money on ebay.

clearz

You cant excommunicate me I quit.

billy the squid

yeah you get some sort of vatican seal or something. There was an irish bishop (forget his name) excommunicated many moons ago for ordinating two priests. he never got his seal and ended up starting up his own ministry.

luckat

What about priests who rape children? Are they automatically excommunicated too?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

But I feel that the world is too complicated for it to be right for national-governments to impose black and white 'solutions' in all cases.

:eek:

*blink blink*

*rub eyes*

Seriously, whats the story? Are you a troll, or are you just blind to your own hypocrisy?

Imposter

Father Cole wrote, "If 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 [of Canon Law]. Provided that the presumptions of knowledge of the law and penalty and imputability are not rebutted in the external forum, one is automatically excommunicated ...."

/Me sees an easy way of getting out of paying the stupid church tax they have here.

Hobbes

The story sounds like total BS.

First up where is the offical Vatican report? You have "A consultant to the Vatican". No name of the person. Secondly when I check up on Balestrieri, for anyone who can't be bothered to read it, The vatican have not excommunicated Kerry. A bishop was asked his personal opinion on the situation and it is now being spouted as the word of the church, despite the priest saying the reverse. The priest is also getting questioned about it by the vatican.

Also as it points out that priests, not politicians are accused of hearsy.

Here's another story of the same. It points out the question why was the letter sat on until now and suggests that it is a dirty tricks tactic.

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000665.html

But then Bush claims he is the mouthpiece of god, which I am amazed the catholics aren't up in arms about that.

What is scary though, I've been wandering around Catholic sites to find more on this story, and it is amazing how many people are taking it as fact. Although I suspect these hardcore catholics probably wouldn't vote for Kerry anyway.

mycroft

Hobbes wrote:

What is scary though, I've been wandering around Catholic sites to find more on this story,

Hobbes the things you do for us.......

vorbis

was thinking it was a bid odd. I thought there would have to be more involved for an excommunication

aidan_walsh

I never thought there was any real legitimacy to it, but none the less its still something that can hurt Kerry come election day, especially amongst those Catholics who are taking it as fact. Even that people are believing it is enough to do harm, its just a question of how much... I can't imagine that it'll be too substancial, but there may still be a few states where numbers will turn out to be less than expected.

Gurgle

luckat wrote:

What about priests who rape children? Are they automatically excommunicated too?

No they aren't.
AFAIK, you have to break a specific canonical law to get yourself ex-communicated. A bishop can get ex-d for ordaining women priests but if he raped the women instead, he would get councilling.

Memnoch

Gurgle wrote:

No they aren't.
AFAIK, you have to break a specific canonical law to get yourself ex-communicated. A bishop can get ex-d for ordaining women priests but if he raped the women instead, he would get councilling.

isn't religion great?

:eek:

egan007

stone him - NAIL him up i say!

they are really digging deep now.....

uberwolf

luckat wrote:

What about priests who rape children? Are they automatically excommunicated too?

interesting to see the stats on that one actually.
On a scan of the posts the consensus is this be lies. Personally I'd see the timing of a move like this to have political motivations, something the Church shouldn't do.

Sleepy

Anyone know how I could actually get mysefl excommunicated? It'd be a great conversation piece...

I am 100% serious about this actually. If anyone does know can you PM me?

Meh

Sleepy wrote:

Anyone know how I could actually get mysefl excommunicated? It'd be a great conversation piece...

According to Wikipedia, there are several ways to get automagically excommunicated:

• Apostasy
• Heresy
• Schism
• Desecration of the Eucharist
• Physical force against the Pope
• One who actually procures an abortion and all accomplices
• Priest who absolves a partner in adultery
• Priest who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession
• Both parties to the consecration of a bishop without a Papal mandate
• Violating the secrecy of the papal conclave

I'm guessing "heresy" is the easiest option here, no need to go punching the pope or anything.

Gurgle

Meh wrote:

I'm guessing "heresy" is the easiest option here, no need to go punching the pope or anything.

Problem with heresy is you would need someone who gives a fu*k to see and hear you.

Try desecrating the eucharist, probably the most convenient one.

Schism also would be handy enough, see here

Actually, by Apostasy , I should have been ex-communicated by now. Maybe you have to join another religion.

mycroft

-Apostasy

Yup.

-Heresy

Yup.

-Schism

Yup

-Desecration of the Eucharist

Does saying "Hey he tastes like pork" count?

-Physical force against the Pope

Nope but I'm pretty sure I could take him in a fight.

-One who actually procures an abortion and all accomplices

Do condoms count? Life begins conception and I've stopped my share of those, well the nice people at Durex have.

-Priest who absolves a partner in adultery

Dang.

-Priest who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession

I can't keep a secret.

-Both parties to the consecration of a bishop without a Papal mandate

Well just once but we were all really drunk

-Violating the secrecy of the papal conclave

Dang, but what kind of secret stuff do the papal conclave get up to?

---

It's lists like these that remind me just how ludrcious catholicism is.

The Corinthian

What a non-story. Still meant the teenies here got to tell us how much they hate being told to go to mass by their parents.

OfflerCrocGod

mycroft wrote:

Dang, but what kind of secret stuff do the papal conclave get up to?

Hard. Core. Table Tennis.

arcadegame2004

therecklessone wrote:

:eek:

*blink blink*

*rub eyes*

Seriously, whats the story? Are you a troll, or are you just blind to your own hypocrisy?

How am I being hypocritical? I am saying in that quote that in some situations, a black and white attitude/attempted solution is inappropriate. How is that hypocrisy?

Gurgle

The Corinthian wrote:

What a non-story. Still meant the teenies here got to tell us how much they hate being told to go to mass by their parents.

what are you talking about?

TomF

I think what most people are missing is that you don't get put out of the church, you put yourself out. If you were baptised a Catholic and do one of the things on the list, you put yourself out. It means you have so radically rejected Catholic Christianity that there is no way you could be considered a Catholic. Is that hard to understand? For example, you don't require a theologian in the Vatican or a Bishop to get out a press release saying you have procured an abortion and are therefore no longer a Catholic. You can procure an abortion in secret and no one is the wiser, except perhaps the abortionist, the mother and yourself. There may then be no known consequences for you, or at least you won't know if there are any until a moment or two after your heart stops beating. At that point in time or eternity you will have to hope that you bet your life on the winning side of Pascal's Wager.

therecklessone

TomF wrote:

If you were baptised a Catholic and do one of the things on the list, you put yourself out. It means you have so radically rejected Catholic Christianity that there is no way you could be considered a Catholic. Is that hard to understand? For example, you don't require a theologian in the Vatican or a Bishop to get out a press release saying you have procured an abortion and are therefore no longer a Catholic.

Jeez, what was the name of that book i was reading a while back?...all about forgiveness and repentance...didn't mention anything about one strike and you're out though...

Redleslie2

TomF wrote:

You can procure an abortion in secret and no one is the wiser, except perhaps the abortionist, the mother and yourself.

What about god? You denying the existence of the almighty? Burn the heretic. :mad:

therecklessone

In addition

TomF wrote:

If you were baptised a Catholic and do one of the things on the list, you put yourself out. It means you have so radically rejected Catholic Christianity that there is no way you could be considered a Catholic.

Eh, no. There's always a way back in you know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

While a person excommunicated is not "damned" by the Church, the person is barred from participating in its communal life. The outward sign of this loss of community involves barring the person from participating in liturgy, i.e., receiving the Eucharist or the other Sacraments. Certain other rights and privileges normally resulting from membership in the church are revoked, such as holding ecclesiastical office. Excommunication is intended to be only temporary, a "medicinal" procedure intended to guide the offender toward repentance. In the Catholic Communion excommunication is usually terminated by repentance, confession, and absolution.

Redleslie2 wrote:

What about god? You denying the existence of the almighty? Burn the heretic.

ROFL.

elivsvonchiaing

The whole truth of this is probably impossible to obtain. Thought of looking on the vatican website for news of this - no info on any ex-communicants. I suppose it's like you go to a manufacturer's site and get a list of ex-resellers. Not going to happen imho!

fragile

TomF wrote:

I think what most people are missing is that you don't get put out of the church, you put yourself out...

I would still like an official letter of excommunication fom Rome, just something simple that I could frame and show to every presumtuous person that thinks I am a catholic just because I was raised as one........

sceptre

TomF wrote:

At that point in time or eternity you will have to hope that you bet your life on the winning side of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager possibly contains the same bifurcation or false dilemma problem as the "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists" line that we've heard from people who should know better. Though that's probably a discussion better suited to either the Philosophy board or even the Maths board.

elivsvonchiaing

fragile wrote:

I would still like an official letter of excommunication fom Rome, just something simple that I could frame and show to every presumtuous person that thinks I am a catholic just because I was raised as one........

This can be yours for just €99.99. Just register at www.vatican.ie...

...Oh no! Can't seem to register this domain :-(

Seriously though, I doubt if these are easy to come by. You would probably need to become a real priest and preach wicca/voodoo/candomblé for 2-3 years to merit this.

Fake letters is another possibility - can't sort you out but can tell you where to travel to :-) Very good fakes imho!

The Corinthian

Gurgle wrote:

what are you talking about?

Let’s recap on this thread. A dubious (and apparently fabricated) news story is posted, painting the Roman Catholic Church in a - surprise, surprise - reactionary and authoritarian light. Cue a barrage of anti-religious rants by all the under 25's (and if you are older, you really need to get on with your life) about how they hate said Church and have turned to atheism / paganism / veganism as part of their rejection of it. Yawn.

All this until TomF was kind enough to post one of his usual gems as a better target for our ire.

Calibos

TBH I reckon he's an agnostic/atheist anyway, so on a personal level he probably couldn't give a toss if he was excommunicated. However in these modern times where things seem to be going backwards and people are believing more and more cr*p and where anti rationalism is in vogue we find ourselves in the position that no one has a hope of attaining a high elected office if their atheism is public knowledge.

He has to put on the act of a practicing catholic so as not to miss out on the votes of the 25% of americans who are catholic never mind the votes of the other denominations. Its amazing that the likes of Wasington, Jefferson, Adams and even lincoln where atheist/agnostic/deists etc and this was common knowledge at the time whereas in the 21st Century it seems a prospective president has to be seen to believe in a series of myths born in the sands of a backward little country on the eastern shores of the med thousands of years ago.

elivsvonchiaing

What disturbs me most is the elections. The US ones - I'm not convinced there's democracy in the US. You have Bush - Kerry.
The US needs an overal majority and a statewide majority for democracy to be real!

Victor

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Well nobody expects the ..... SPANISH INQUISITION!*



http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t11.html

For those that don't get it "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" = "Inquisition"

Sleepy

The Corinthian wrote:

Let’s recap on this thread. A dubious (and apparently fabricated) news story is posted, painting the Roman Catholic Church in a - surprise, surprise - reactionary and authoritarian light. Cue a barrage of anti-religious rants by all the under 25's (and if you are older, you really need to get on with your life) about how they hate said Church and have turned to atheism / paganism / veganism as part of their rejection of it. Yawn.

All this until TomF was kind enough to post one of his usual gems as a better target for our ire.

Actually Corinthian, I'd genuinely like some sort of certificate or whatever officially excommunicating me from the Catholic Church.

Could come in handy if I ever visit Belfast

Manach

That's assuming that those people in Belfast you refer to would pick on you for being either a Protestant Athesist or a Catholic Athesist.

Sleepy

Uhm, I'd better become a scientologist then, eh Manach?

Redleslie2

Manach wrote:

That's assuming that those people in Belfast you refer to would pick on you for being either a Protestant Athesist or a Catholic Athesist.

In the late seventies, punks used to get beaten up by both sides for rejecting the tradition of sectarianism. One unfortunate fellow used to get more hidings than anybody. His name: Mr.Puke. He's now a bishop apparently.

MadsL

Believe it or not my wife was excommunicated. She married a Jew.
At her mother's funeral the priest had the gall to comment that he hadn't seen her in church recently, "that's because I was excommunicated for marrying a Jew" she archly replied, to which the priest jovially chortled "Oh, we did away with that years ago!"
"Then you'll have to forgive me, as the Pope's letter informing me of the fact clearly was lost in the mail" was her icy response.

TomF

Was the wife sent a letter by the Pope saying she had been excommunicated, or did she know Canon Law well-enough to know that she had excommunicated herself? Is/was a Catholic marrying a Jew considered grounds for excommunication when the marriage happened? Was it an excommunication that could be reversed by the local Bishop, or was it reserved to the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)? Is the wife still married to a Jew or has she moved on to a new husband, or perhaps through a series of husbands since then?

Inquiring minds want to know.

elivsvonchiaing

TomF wrote:

Was the wife sent a letter by the Pope saying she had been excommunicated, or did she know Canon Law well-enough to know that she had excommunicated herself? Is/was a Catholic marrying a Jew considered grounds for excommunication when the marriage happened? Was it an excommunication that could be reversed by the local Bishop, or was it reserved to the Bishop of Rome (the Pope)? Is the wife still married to a Jew or has she moved on to a new husband, or perhaps through a series of husbands since then?

Inquiring minds want to know.

In absence of answer and intrigue - I would have thought the following - Judaism is not in "communion" with the catholic faith and therefore the marriage would not be considered valid by both sides. Excommuninication may still happen on the chassidic Jewish front but not on the catholic front. Excommunication might have happened when Tómas de Torquemada ran the show. I think both religions have taken what is good from the past and passed it into the future... This is just an opinion...

elivsvonchiaing

MadsL wrote:

Believe it or not my wife was excommunicated. She married a Jew.
At her mother's funeral the priest had the gall to comment that he hadn't seen her in church recently, "that's because I was excommunicated for marrying a Jew" she archly replied, to which the priest jovially chortled "Oh, we did away with that years ago!"
"Then you'll have to forgive me, as the Pope's letter informing me of the fact clearly was lost in the mail" was her icy response.

This has to be in the 1960s!!! - or am I totally uninformed??

MadsL

Couple of answers;

1. Yes, it was the sixties (child bride!)
2. She knew she was excommunicated and yes it is reserved to the Bishop of Rome (see below)
3. Yep, she remarried since (to me you berk!!!! - I said my wife)

both religions have taken what is good from the past and passed it into the future...

hmmm...riiiight. Clerical child abuse and massacre of Palestinians....:rolleyes:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

(a) Excommunications Specially Reserved to the Pope

These are twelve in number and are imposed upon the following persons:

(1) "All apostates from the Christian Faith, heretics of every name and sect, and those who give them credence, who receive or countenance them, and generally all those who take up their defence." Strictly speaking, an apostate is one who goes over to a non Christian religion, e.g. Islam; to such apostates are assimilated those who publicly renounce all religion; this apostasy is not to be presumed; it is evident that both kinds of apostates exclude themselves from the Church. A heretic is one who rejects a Catholic dogma. The first to be considered is the heretic who becomes such of his own volition; who, being in the Catholic Church, obstinately repudiates a truth of faith. Excommunication is incurred by him, if, with full knowledge, he exteriorly formulates an heretical proposition; and if he seeks to propagate his error he is dogmatizans and should be denounced. Next comes the heretic who belongs to an heretical association; for such a person his heretical membership alone is sufficient to bring him under sentence of excommunication. In his case the penalty is incurred by adhesion to the heresy, notably by wilful and active participation in sacris (i.e. in public worship) with heretics; hence the excommunication of those who contract a mixed marriage before an heretical minister as such (Holy Office, 28 Aug., 1888). Finally, the penalty extends to those who believe in heretics (credentes) and join their ranks; to those who receive them, i.e. who give them shelter in their homes, so as to protect them from the pursuit of authority; and to those who countenance or defend them as heretics and in view of the heresy, provided it be a positive and efficacious assistance.

TomF

Well, to quote the New Advent site from which the above quote is lifted about excommunication, "Actual work on the Encyclopedia was begun in January, 1905. It was completed in April, 1914." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm

Although that edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia was magnificent, I would be happier to read what the Church under Her current shepherd, John Paul II, is saying about the matter of grounds for excommunication and reconciliation. Maybe I can find some answers, and if this thread isn't squelched by a zealous monitor, I will post them.

I think I realised you were the husband of the lady in question, but what I couldn't understand from the original posting is whether you were the excommunication-precipitating Jewish husband, or one of his successors in the exchanging of life-long vows with her.

MadsL

She was married in 1972, well before JP2.

elivsvonchiaing

MadsL wrote:

She was married in 1972, well before JP2.

I did not need to put on my hertic's hat to ask this (it's now welded to my head!) Why do you give a flying **** all these years later?

TomF

Well, not meaning to drag this out too much, I know the new Code of Canon Law is dated 1983. I think (maybe) even the old Code (1917) said no one who hadn't completed her or his 16th year would incur the penalty of excommunication for marrying as your wife did in 1972. It appears there are all kinds of "ifs", "howevers", and other language that allow much "pastoral" latitude in Canon Law cases. In spite of what some people want to believe, there aren't many priests or bishops who want to use Canon Law as a weapon.

bonkey

Moving to Humanities. This no longer has anything to do with politics, but I wouldn't want TomF to accuse me of squelching anything zealously.

jc