The below may be of interest. Those who want to join in bringing charges of heresy against John Kerry as a class-action may do so by going to the site dedicated to the lawsuit:

http://www.defide.com/

The Washington Times www.washingtontimes.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry cited in Catholic heresy case By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published July 1, 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------- A Catholic lawyer has filed heresy charges against Sen. John Kerry with the Archdiocese of Boston, accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of bringing "most serious scandal to the American public" by receiving Holy Communion as a pro-choice Catholic. The 18-page document was sent to the archdiocese June 14, but released to the public only yesterday by Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles-based canon lawyer and an assistant judge with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles' tribunal, an ecclesiastical court. "Heresy is a public, ecclesiastical crime," said Mr. Balestrieri, 33, whose complaint is posted at www.defide.com. "It affects entire communities. It is one of the greatest sins you can commit." If the Boston Archdiocese, which is refusing comment on the case, decided to press heresy charges, the Massachusetts senator could be excommunicated. "My goal is his repentance, not excommunication," Mr. Balestrieri said. The charges do not seek monetary damages. The Rev. Arthur Espelage, executive coordinator for the Canon Law Society in Alexandria, said a Catholic layman can legitimately bring a case against another layman in a church court. The charges, known in church parlance as a "denunciation," are similar to a criminal complaint in secular law. But "this is really unique," he said. "I have never heard of a case like this being processed before." The charges must be filed in the diocese where Mr. Kerry lives. If the Archdiocese of Boston rejects the case, Mr. Balestrieri can appeal it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in Rome. Father Espelage said church officials, not politicians, are the ones usually accused of heresy. But this suit may change that. "It's as if someone has launched the nuclear missile now," the priest said. "I'd suspect there will be communication between the [Boston] Archdiocese and the Holy See on this." A spokeswoman for Mr. Kerry refused comment because the campaign had not seen the document. Mr. Balestrieri said he filed the heresy charge -- plus an additional complaint charging "harm" to himself as a result of Mr. Kerry's pronouncements on abortion and related issues -- because canon law entitles Catholics to "possession of the faith unharmed." "By spreading heresy, he is endangering not just mine by every Catholic's possession of the faith," he said. "I am inviting all baptized Catholics who feel injured by Kerry to join the suit as third parties" by reading the document on the Web site and then sending a certified letter of agreement to the Boston Archdiocese. "People are saying you can be pro-choice and be a good Christian, that it is not contrary to the faith to support aborted murder," Mr. Balestrieri said. "This is a life-threatening heresy." "Bishops have had 31 years [since the Supreme Court made abortion an individual right] to do something on this matter, but they've done nothing," he said. Charles M. Wilson, director of the St. Joseph Foundation in San Antonio, which has filed numerous complaints in church courts across the country on behalf of Catholic laity, doubts the Boston Archdiocese will respond to the case. The weak point of a "denunciation" suit, he said, is that the bishop need not take action. Usually a bishop will first investigate the case and determine whether the charges have substance, Mr. Wilson said, but Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston is under no obligation to prosecute the accused.

-- Catholic Observer (nospam@notmail.org), July 02, 2004

Answers

Marc Balestrieri’s case is without merit. There are valid reasons why a person who is opposed to abortion might find that attempting to legally enforce a moral position that is extremely controversial and not overwhelmingly accepted by those under the law can be counterproductive (witness the prohibition etc) and/or would not stop people from having abortions. Kerry is not claiming that the Church’s position on abortion is in error or that he himself approves of abortion.

If Kerry is to be charged with heresy then so should any politician who, for instance, voted against a law making the sale of contraceptives illegal in this country, or for that matter voting against a law making divorce illegal. Such things are contrary to Church teachings.

-- Barry Brindle (BBRINDLE@ec.rr.com), July 02, 2004.

This is not a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of morality. We are bound by the Church's moral teaching, but deviation from it is not heresy - just sin.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2004.

The complaint is indeed here, I would suggest people read it and then comment. I am not a canon lawyer, so really can't intellegently comment on it. ... I know, I know, that has not stopped me before ;)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.

This is not a matter of doctrine. It is a matter of morality. We are bound by the Church's moral teaching, but deviation from it is not heresy - just sin.

How does it differ from Henry VIII's self proclaimed annulment?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.

From another group: There are 6 specific charges in the suit - in order, they are: - Heresy (Can. 751, 1364.1 and 2)
- Diabolical Scandal Leading to Heresy (Can. 1399)
- Immediate Formal Cooperation in Heresy (Can. 1399)
- Abjection of the Sacred Species (Can. 1367)
- Diabolical Scandal Leading to Murder (Can. 1399)
- Grave Harm to Public Morals and Contempt for the Faith and - Ecclesiastical Authority (Can. 1369)


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.

Kerry is not questioning the morality of abortion, he is only challenging the constitutionality of banning it. These charges are so blatantly politicaly motivated it's disgusting.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 02, 2004.

Kerry is not questioning the morality of abortion, he is only challenging the constitutionality of banning it. These charges are so blatantly politicaly motivated it's disgusting.

What? He is saying there is nothing wrong with abortion, and he then goes to communion telling every Catholic that he doesn't feel it is a sin. How can that not be questioning the morality of abortion?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), July 03, 2004.

I agree with Bill. If he didn't talk about it so publicly, he would just be guilty of committing a mortal sin.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 03, 2004.

I think His Excellency in Boston will, more likely than not, prosecute this case. If not, this case will be appealed to Rome where I think His Emminence will prosecute this case.

I say these things with a certainty that they will transpire in this very way, unless there is an intervening public contrition by the Defendant.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), July 04, 2004.

"These charges are so blatantly politicaly motivated it's disgusting." Thus spake Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com) on July 02, 2004.

This is the ultimate in hypocrisy. An ultra-liberal anti-Catholic has the nerve to criticize a God-fearing tribunal judge, when the former is so blatantly "politically motivated" that he actually calls himself "Anti-Bush" and thus makes a "disgusting" political commercial out of his every post at this religious forum.

"Kerry is not questioning the morality of abortion, he is only challenging the constitutionality of banning it." Thus too spake Anti- bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com) on July 02, 2004.

As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock together." Here we have an ex-Catholic (Anti-Bush) who is most assuredly a "heretic" trying to defend a pretend-Catholic (Sen. Kerry) who may one day be declared a "heretic" for publicly saying, thousands of times, contrary to the faith, that mothers have a right to choose to have their babies murdered. These are almost surely two hellbound little men, if they fail to repent.

Happy "4th" despite this sadness!!!

-- anti-Anti-bush (Wishing_You@Happy.Independence_Day), July 04, 2004.

It appears I've got me another fan ;)

"An ultra-liberal anti-Catholic..."

Wrong. I wouldn't consider myself "ultra-liberal"...or "ultra-" anything for that matter. I've got some stuff I'm liberal about, and some stuff I'm conservative about. Hell, when it comes to gun control, I'm probably more conservative than you are. Taxes? Conservative. Federal government? Very conservative. Healthcare? I'm a bleeding-heart liberal and damned proud of it. You got a problem?

I'm not "anti-Catholic" either. I'm anti-war, anti-gun control, anti government, anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, and most assuredly anti- Bush, but not anti-Catholic. The term is misleading. I don't hate someone because they're Catholic. I would never presume to judge anyone based on their choice of religion. Am I unhappy with the heirarchy and the leadership of the Catholic Church? Yes, that's why my family left. Nice people though.

"...has the nerve to criticize a God-fearing tribunal judge, when the former is so blatantly "politically motivated" that he actually calls himself "Anti-Bush" and thus makes a "disgusting" political commercial out of his every post at this religious forum."

Yes, I've got political views. How long did it take you to figure that one out? DING DING! Give the man a cigar. But the difference is I'm not the one trying to hijack my religion and use it for my political agenda.

"As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather flock together."

Ha! Me and Seantor Kerry? We would find ourselves disagreeing on more issues than we agreed on (abortion among them). I wouldn't "flock" anywhere with that lying sack of crap.

"Here we have an ex-Catholic (Anti-Bush) who is most assuredly a "heretic""

And a damn proud one at that.

"trying to defend a pretend-Catholic (Sen. Kerry)"

Who are you to decide who is a real Catholic and who is not? Since when do you have that authority? Since never, so shut up. Judge not, lest ye be judged...

"These are almost surely two hellbound little men, if they fail to repent."

We'll see. Unlike you, I don't presume to have had a peek at St. Peter's guest list. I figure if you live your life as a decent person, it'll all work out ok in the end. That's my take.

A very happy 4th of July to you as well.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 04, 2004.

"It appears I've got me another fan". Thus spake Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com) on July 04, 2004.

I seriously doubt that you have a single true "fan" on planet Earth, though you no doubt have many "fans" among the bad angels.

"Wrong. I wouldn't consider myself "ultra-liberal"...or "ultra-" anything for that matter. I've got some stuff I'm liberal about". Thus spake Anti-bush.

It doesn't matter what you "consider" yourself. Cold, hard facts are what matter. Certain elements of that "some stuff" that you're "liberal about" qualify you as an "ultra-liberal," whether you like it or not. An example is your "ultra-liberal" pro-sodomy (e.g., pro-gay-marriage) position. And if you accept even a single abortion as OK, that too makes you "ultra-liberal," because it is pro-murder. You cannot fool anyone by pointing out certain issues on which you are moderate or conservative. All those are washed away by your being pro-sodomy (or at least tolerant of sodomy), one of sickest, most ultra-liberal things a human being can be.

"I'm ... not anti-Catholic. The term is misleading." Thus spake Anti-bush.

No, the "term" is not "misleading." You, Son of Screwtape, are the one who is "misleading" others. The term "anti-Catholic" doesn't simply mean "against the Catholic people." You come here and try to undermine people's faith. Trying to get people to join you in a condition of heresy, you argue day after day, week after week, month after month, against Catholic Church teachings at a Catholic forum. Those are grave "anti-Catholic" actions on your part. If I were running this board, your hind end would be run out of here. I'm told that you were in fact kicked out, and you should have stayed kicked out, because you are totally useless (and even counter-productive) to everyone here.

"Yes, I've got political views." Thus spake Anti-bush.

Thank you for admitting, in a roundabout way, your gross hypocrisy for criticizing the canon lawyer who is trying to protect his fellow Catholics against exposure to the heretical statements and sacrilegious behavior of a prominent person who calls himself a "Catholic."

"And a damn proud one at that." Thus spake Anti-bush, admitting that he is a "heretic."

What a telling choice of words -- apparently straight out of your subsconscious. You recognize yourself as both "damned" and "prideful." Your pride in being an ex-Catholic heretic proves that you need to be kicked off this board until you repent and return to the Church.

"Who are you to decide who is a real Catholic and who is not? Since when do you have that authority? Since never, so shut up. Judge not, lest ye be judged..."

Ah! Yet another ultra-liberal who doesn't know the meaning of Jesus's words ("Judge not ..."). He was not saying that we may not judge, as evil, the sinful acts of another. We may, and we must! Not only that, but you yourself "judge" people all the time. Simply being "anti-Bush" expresses your "judgments" against the president's actions. Jesus was however saying that we mere mortals cannot determine with certainty whether or not others will be damned when they die. Therefore, I can and will "judge" and condemn your (and Sen. Kerry's) evil actions as sinful, though I will leave to God to determine, after you die, where you will go.

It doesn't take "authority" for me to observe and state the fact that Sen. Kerry is a "pretend Catholic" -- and is not acting as a real Catholic must. Only a "pretend Catholic" votes pro-abortion, as Sen. Kerry does 100% of the time (even pro-partial-birth-abortion). Only a "pretend Catholic" goes to non-Catholic services and eats the pretend "communion" that is served there, contrary to Catholic law. Only a "pretend Catholic" votes against the "Defense of Marriage Act." Etc., etc., etc..

"Unlike you, I don't presume to have had a peek at St. Peter's guest list. Thus spake Anti-bush.

Heretic, you need to try reading what people write, instead of what you "want" them to have written (so that you can attack it). I intentionally was careful to insert two disclaimers that you conveniently ignored, so dishonest (or lazy) you are. I used the words "almost surely" and "if they fail to repent." What you and Sen. Kerry are doing is (objectively speaking) committing mortal sins, the penalty of which is hell if you are also subjectively guilty (which God knows). One or both of you "birds of a feather," however, may indeed repent. In no way, therefore, does what I stated imply that I claim knowledge of "St. Peter's guest list."

"I figure if you live your life as a decent person, it'll all work out ok in the end. That's my take." Thus spake Anti-bush.

You "figure" wrongly. Children of God do not go by their own "take," but by what God has revealed to them through his "instrument," the Catholic Church. When you were still in the true Church, you were taught the truth -- namely that "living your life as a decent person" means believing all that the Catholic Church teaches, including the following of the Ten Commandments and the disciplines imposed by the Church. Since, because of your pride and rebelliousness, you choose not to believe all that the Church teaches, and since you choose to break some of the Commandments (and to approve of some of the mortal sins of others), "it'll" NOT "all work out ok in the end" for you -- unless you repent before it is too late.

Happy 5th of July.

-- anti-Anti-bush (Wishing_You@Happy.Independence_Day), July 05, 2004.

"All those are washed away by your being pro-sodomy (or at least tolerant of sodomy), one of sickest, most ultra-liberal things a human being can be."

I'm not "pro-sodomy". I'm pro-staying-the-hell-out-of-other-people's- buisiness. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my concern, and it's not your concern either. If you truly beleive that it is a sin, then they will get their payment in the afterlife. If you honestly beleive in the absolute truth of your religion, you don't need to force it on others.

"Jesus was however saying that we mere mortals cannot determine with certainty whether or not others will be damned when they die. Therefore, I can and will "judge" and condemn your (and Sen. Kerry's) evil actions as sinful, though I will leave to God to determine, after you die, where you will go."

Ahem.

"These are almost surely two hellbound little men,"

A bit of a contradiction, no?

"It doesn't take "authority" for me to observe and state the fact that Sen. Kerry is a "pretend Catholic" -- and is not acting as a real Catholic must. Only a "pretend Catholic" votes pro-abortion, as Sen. Kerry does 100% of the time (even pro-partial-birth-abortion). Only a "pretend Catholic" goes to non-Catholic services and eats the pretend "communion" that is served there, contrary to Catholic law. Only a "pretend Catholic" votes against the "Defense of Marriage Act." Etc., etc., etc..."

OR he recognizes that the federal government has ZERO constitutional authrotity to ban ANY of the things you just mentioned. I'm assuming you have at least a working knowledge of the constitution, so I'll save you the lecture on the tenth ammendment. But then, you Republicans aren't big fans of the constitution anyway. Just gets in the way. All these pesky "civil libertarians" saying how the PATRIOT Act is "unconcstitutional", just because authorizes secret arrests, and indefinite detentions without a trial or access to a lawyer. We can't let the constitution get in the way of defending freedom, can we?

"One or both of you "birds of a feather," however, may indeed repent."

Bite me. I've got as many sins as the next guy (after all, we're all only human), but my politics are not among them. My sins are between me and God.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

This thread is on heresy charges on Kerry. It is not a political thread. Please keep the discussion on cannon law and whether or not Sen. Kerry violated any of them.

thanks

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 05, 2004.

I'm pro-staying-the-hell-out-of-other-people's- buisiness. What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom is none of my concern, and it's not your concern either. If you truly beleive that it is a sin, then they will get their payment in the afterlife. If you honestly beleive in the absolute truth of your religion, you don't need to force it on others.

This would actually make a good thread in itself. In Corinthians, isn't the point exactly what AntiBush is saying, that we should lead by example, and our flock will grow thereby? OTOH, the other aspect of this is that Catholics, or whole groups of Catholics who are practicing only parts of their faith should either return to practicing it correctly, or quit calling themselves Catholic, as their actions will lead others to sin, and think that this is acceptable behavior. If Kerry wishes to call himself a Catholic, as a *leader* he should be anti-abortion, etc., right down the line.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 05, 2004.

"Bite me." Thus spake Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com) on July 05, 2004.

What self-respecting Catholic chat board would allow such a miserable cur as Anti-Bush to participate? This varlet was unworthy of being here even before now. But he cannot be permitted to remain, after having made this obscene, pro-sodomy comment -- "Bite me." This man is the dregs of society. He has no place here.

"This thread is on heresy charges on Kerry. It is not a political thread. Please keep the discussion on canon law and whether or not Sen. Kerry violated any of them." Thus spake Bill Nelson on

I will respect one of your wishes, Bill, by avoiding politics. But I cannot "keep the discussion on canon law," because I have no degree in it, and it would take a doctorate in it (plus much practical experience) to determine whether or not Sen. Kerry has violated it. A canon lawyer believes so and puts the question to the archbishop of Boston and his tribunal. From there it may go to the most experienced canon lawyers in the world, in the Vatican.

I doubt that anyone visiting this board is qualified to engage in "discussion on canon law and whether or not Sen. Kerry violated any of them." I think that it would be a waste of time for unqualified people to speculate on this. Not only would we be unsure of what we are saying (and very possibly wrong), but whatever we may say will have no effect at all on the real proceedings. And so, I determined that I should use my precious, limited time more wisely -- for example, by pointing out what serious spiritual danger a fallen-away Catholic like Anti-Bush is in. But since you don't want us to do that, Bill, I will bow out.

Happy 6th of July.

-- anti-Anti-bush (Wishing_You@Happy.Independence_Day), July 06, 2004.

Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate this morning. They do have at least one thing in common: Edwards Voted Against the Ban On Partial-Birth Abortions as well.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

good reading:

But Let Them Kill 'It' Anyway

John Kerry may have "stepped in it" on the Fourth of July when he said more than he needed to say on the subject of abortion.

Kerry is the first prominent pro-abortion politician I can remember admitting that life begins at conception. In fact, I don't remember any pro-abortion person making that admission -- to himself, much less to the public.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

I notice that Kerry (whom the Left considers to be smart...intelligent even) claims that his "belief" that life starts at conception is a CATHOLIC belief which he can't in conscience enforce on jews, atheists, etc.... but...we're not talking real presence in the Eucharist here! We're talking BIOLOGY 101!

Life begins at conception! It's NOT a Catholic thing to believe that! It's not even something to believe...it's something to know.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge - you believe you'll wake up tomorrow. You know you're alive today. But still, by acknowledging his "belief" in the real life in the womb Kerry has made the first step towards conversion. We ought to pray for him (just not vote for him!)

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 06, 2004.

If Kerry squares his voting record with what he said over the weekend then he in essence is arguing the equivalent legal right for a parent to go to a play ground, assert that their 3 yr old was creating too much inconvenience and should be allowed to pull a knife out of the bag and stab the child - all with the protection of the law.

see the article WHY THE RUSH TO GET HIS RUNNING MATE NAMED?: at: http://kmclive.com/

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Planned Parenthood is thrilled: "With the selection of John Edwards as his running mate, Sen. Kerry has again shown his complete commitment to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care," PPAF president Gloria Feldt said. "In stark contrast to the current administration, a Kerry- Edwards administration will stand up for the fundamental rights of women both in the United States and around the world and will ensure that women's health [aka abortion] is a centerpiece of its agenda."

Sen. Edwards has a 100 percent pro-choice, pro-family planning, pro-woman voting record in the U.S. Senate. He marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade by stating, "The right to choose is not just about a woman's privacy. It is also about a woman's equality and her personal dignity -- her inalienable right to stand as a proud and independent equal in our society. The right to choose is an essential ingredient in the full equality of women."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

This country is polarized completely on lines of humanity and moral courage. Only the party of the RIGHT respects life; the left hides behind an unholy pretext of ''rights'',

''a woman's equality and her personal dignity -- her inalienable right to stand as a proud and independent equal in our society.'' HA! That's blatant BS. First, because no ''right'' has been given women to commit infanticide. No woman can ever say she's PROUD; or that anyone gave her a right to be proud or independent. How does destroying the grandson of your mother & father-- an unborn heir in the line of all your ancestors-- how does that give a woman ''personal dignity''--? ? ? It's hiding the evil behind a cloak of good intentions. Offering ''rights''-- and ''dignity''.

The horror of the crime is simply too plain. Men like these have no claim to office or importance in this nation, except for the demands of atrocious women and murderous clinics. Who else truly NEEDS a man like John F. Kerry, and his ambulance- chasing Veep candidate? Not even a narrow-minded lurker like anti-bush can endorse Kerry without feeling the urge to vomit.

You'd expect anti-bush to commit to the Democrat club. But he isn't quite that depraved. YET. ///

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2004.

Thanks, Eugene...I think...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 06, 2004.

Hey Eugene, God Bless you. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was reading St. Jerome. (I love that witty sarcastic fellow).

John Kerry has thummed his nose at every Catholic in this country by his choice of V.P. Could he get a more pro-death candidate that J. Edwards? Don't think so.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 06, 2004.

Oh, I can think of plenty of people more "pro-death" than Edwards. Henry Kissinger, Oliver North, Janet Reno, Joseph Stalin...

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 07, 2004.

Oh, I can think of plenty of people more "pro-death" than Edwards. Henry Kissinger, Oliver North, Janet Reno, Joseph Stalin...

You forgot Mao and Hitler, but we're going off topic again.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.

I don't know Anti-Bush, there are about 1,000,000 abortions a year now, right? 6 million Jews died in the holocaust, which is surpassed by abortions since 1997 alone. It won't be too many years before abortion eclipses every genocide attempt by any dictator, (considering this has been going on since 1973, perhaps it already has) and the worst part is, people do this willingly. If Stalin worries you, I'm suprised the loss of innocent life in abortion doesn't.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 08, 2004.

I would like a source for the number of abortions you claim.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 08, 2004.

Abortions are on the decline, but there are still over a million a year in the U.S. There are two main sources for abortion stats in the U.S. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Grutzmacher Institute (AGI) which is part of Planned Parenthood. From the National Right to Life website: "The CDC develop its annual report on the basis of data it receives from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus the District of Columbia and New York City.) AGI gets its numbers from direct surveys of abortion providers." View the stats

here

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), July 09, 2004.

Thx, Brian.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 09, 2004.

Thanks. Your sources seem to be in order. Good work.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.

I like Anti-bush, he seems to be fair

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 09, 2004.

They interviewed Mr. Balestrieri last night on Hannity and Colmes. As expected, Me. Colmes brought up the incorrect analogy to capital punishment, which Mr. Balestrieri discussed.

One thing I do agree with, however, is that if you are going to take Senator Kerry to task then you should take all Catholic public officials who hold the same views to task as well.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), July 10, 2004.

Why is the capital punishment anaology incorrect? Countless studies have shown that the flaws in our legal system are great and many, and that many people on death row are in fact innocent (or guilty of a lesser crime). How is executing an innocent man any different than murdering an innocent child? For that matter, how is allowing a thousand Americans to die in iraq for a made-up pretext any different? How is letting big buisiness pump millions of tons of cancer-causing chemicals into our air and water (undoubtedly causing thousand of early death as well as birth defects) any different?

The blood is on the hands of plenty of politicians in both parties. It's all a matter of degree. Why are we seliectively punishing politicians?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.

The child has not committed a crime. That's the difference.

Executing an innocent man based on what? Most people act and decide on "best evidence". I don't know what you can do about someone who for example tampers with evidence. Nor do I know about what you can do about some lawyers who know their client is guilty, but are in it for the money and fame, and if they can get them off, even better. But does that mean we should assume that all evidence is no good, or that every lawyer representing a defendant is a bad apple? Of course not.

As to the corporate pollution and its effects, some of it is from when people didn't know any better, and whether they should have known better back then, who knows? The cigarette and alcohol companies did know better back then, we even know from Biblical times that too much alcohol is bad for you (although I can't remember any references to smoking offhand). I would like to see alcohol companies forced to pay any and all damages in drunk-driving accidents, for example. But I'm not holding my breath.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), July 10, 2004.

off topic again guys. The question is has 'Kerry committed Heresy?'

create another thread for other topics

-bill (the one who is at fault more than not)

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 10, 2004.

The minute you mentioned big tobacco, you made my case for me. There must be a special place in hell for those people. Tell me, have any Bishops come out against politicians who are in big tobacco's pockets?

Yes, many people on death row have committed a crime and deserve it. But almost as many haven't. Every year, thousands of people in this country are railroaded because they are accused of a crime and are too poor to afford a halfway competant attorney. Many end up in jail for years at a time. Some spend the rest of their lives in jail. Some are killed. Many times, prosecutors will convince them that it will be easier on them if they don't go for a jury trial and simply plead guilty. You take a poor person with a sub-standard education, and tell him that it's in his best interests to plead guilty and decline a jury, what is he going to do? He's probably going to plead guilty. The United States is one of five countries in the world that still executes minors, the mentaly ill, and the mentaly retarded. The U.N. has ruled that executing someone who cannot understand the nature of their crime is a human rights abuse. But since when have we cared about that?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 11, 2004.

Here he is again on the soap-box. the only people executed today are those who get death sentences arrived at by juries of their peers, and don't manage to obtain stays or commuted sentences as time goes by. If this is too harsh for you, change the law.

We aren't able to ''change'' abortion laws, because the leftist party would never allow it to come to a vote. We know why, it's no secret. Democrats pander to the abortion lobby, just as Kerry, a so-called Catholic, Daschele, Kennedy, et al-- Catholics in name only--pander. This is how they perpetuate themselves in political power. The Republican party for all its faults has an anti-abortion, pro-life plank in its platform, and always will. Any comparison between abortion and capital punishment is ridiculous. Up till Roe Vs. Wade, abortion was punishable by law-- homicide. Capital punishment, on the other hand was the law of the land going back to ancient times in almost all countries. When carried out lawfully, it is not homicide; it is upheld by law.

Those who dispute this law have ways of abolishing it. Pro-Life has no power as of today, to abolish the plainly criminal abortion laws. We'll vote for Republicans as long as this is the choice given us. It's better than falling in line behind godless men like Kerry and Kennedy, Barney Frank, Dascle, Nancy Pelosi, Biden, Boxer, and all the other opponents of the unborn.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 11, 2004.

Murder is murder. Killing babies--that's murder. Killing people who a) can't comprehend the nature of their crime or b) are innocent (which happens a lot more than middle-class America likes to think) is also murder. If allowing abortion to be legalized is being an accessory to murder, so is allowing big tobacco to kill a third of it's users. So is letting people buy automatic weapons at K-Mart, where they end up in the hands of kids. So is bombing schools and hospitals in third world countries. So is letting big corporations pump ton after ton of life-threatening chemicals into our air and water. All of these things are murder. If you recognize one, recognize them all.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

Anti-Bush,
You are absolutely correct. Murder is murder. And intentually mass murdering millions of innocent children is nothing like selling a gun to someone who accedentally allows their child access to that gun. But your a smart man, you know that. Time to quit assisting those who want to continue the mass murder of innocent babies.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

I mentioned plenty of things that add up to murder. The blood is on our hands, it's all a matter of degree. Murder is murder, whether it's a thousand people who get cancer because a company knowingly pumped benzene into their water supply (and the government let them off the hook), ten thousand a year from unmarked chemicals in cigarettes (that the government doesn't require a label for), or a million a year from abortion. If a pro-abortion voter is a murderer, so is someone who voted for the Congressmen that let Koch Industries off the hook after they intentionaly released 91 metric tons of benzene into the air and water.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

Heresy charges against Kerry at Boston Tribunal

Wow, sounds like something straight out of the 14th century. Too bad for Kerry this didn't make the headlines, it would easily give him another point or two in the polls. But I have an even better idea: a public stoning at Fenway Park, hosted by the RNC, sponsored by Halliburton, with broadcast rights going to Clear Channel and the Sinclair Group. Or is that already in the planning stages?

-- Chris Roberts (R2D2@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

-informative bump for those interested.

THE COMPLAINT

CANONICAL ACTION UPDATE

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 21, 2004.

Thanks Daniel! I missed this one.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 27, 2004.

“This thread is on heresy charges on Kerry. It is not a political thread.” (Bill) Hmm. And for months this site was positively buzzing with people sounding off about their concern for the state of Kerry’s soul. There was much handwringing and worrying that he’s a heretic and going to hell, and that he should be denied communion. But for 5 weeks since Nov 2 – nothing. No-one seems to care any more about the senator’s soul. Could it be that their RELIGIOUS concerns were actually POLITICAL concerns? Surely Not!

Btw Bill, King Henry VIII was not a heretic either. An adulterer, a bigamist, a usurper of the Pope’s and bishops’ rightful authority and disobedient to the Pope’s lawful orders when he proclaimed (without effect) annulment of his own marriage. But he remained a Catholic. As Paul said, deviation from moral teaching is not heresy, just plain ordinary SIN.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

Steve,

No sense on kicking the dog when he's down.

He lost and it doesn't make a darn now what he says because George Bush slamned him. Obviously Americans seen that he is an excomunicated Catholic and didn't feel right voting for this two faced baby killer.

-- (David@excite.com), December 08, 2004.

Interesting attitude Dave. We needn’t worry any more about someone losing his soul, cutting himself off from the Faith, or profaning the Eucharist, because now he’s lost an election – apparently something far more important in your view.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Steve, the point of Kerry being a heretic isn't that he committed sin, but that in justifying his political position "personally opposed but" he is saying things "as a Catholic" which are not sound Catholic doctrine, thus is spreading heresy.

Most people who sin of course don't foment heresy but those who sin and then try to justify it with crazy theories can't help but to fall into heresy.

If he believes that women have a right to an abortion (really a right to a dead baby) then he is espousing a heresy as the Church has repeatedly taught that human rights do not come from the state, or a court, and hence no matter what SCOTUS proclaims is in the penumbra of the emmanations of the 14th amendment, a Catholic won't find a right to privately kill some inconvenient person.

If he is truly opposed to Abortion, then why has he voted in favor of it for 20 years? Separation of Church and State never meant that politicans are forced to legislate against their beliefs!

Maybe he's sincerely mistaken (probably most heretics are sincerely mistaken...) but that's no excuse for heresy. Arius was wrong too - and a heretic.

By claiming a woman has a right to kill a completely defenseless, innocent person, he is overturning 2000 years of Catholic moral teaching - just war and capital punishment as well - whether he knows it or not. Because if a woman really did have such a mostrous right to kill a completely defenseless and innocent child simply because she felt bad or felt threatened by unknown future evils then the whole idea of pre-emptive strikes is taken from the exceptional rare case and made THE principle.

Yes, he probably doesn't realise this. Possibly few people do. Doesn't matter. It's heresy.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.

Yes, Joe, we all understand that you think Kerry is a heretic and why you think so. The point I was making is that you and all the others who were vehemently outspoken about Kerry’s supposed heresy, profanation of the Eucharist and future damnation, have expressed no concern at all about these matters in the last 6 weeks, just because he lost an election, which you obviously see as a far more important matter than these. Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that you were not REALLY concerned about the fate of his soul and his profanation of the Eucharist, but were merely throwing mud because you didn't like his political policies, and once there was no danger of him being able to implement them, you ceased your claimed concern about the spiritual issues.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Steve,

Kerry's case is still pending -my concern is still present.

I am still concerned for the innocents this man contributes to murdering. I am concerned for Justice -the state of Kerry's soul is really based upon his choices -Kerry has had a nation offer him fraternal correction(more guidance than most individuals get) -he continues errant. Kerry does not need sympathy -he needs a fraternal slap If excommunicated is exacted by Canonical penalty will that wake him up -who knows? His salvation in the end is a matter between him and God...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 08, 2004.