The following are helpful suggestions on how to tick off the Vatican. These suggestions are of a purely prudential nature and thus independent of the merits of any individual case that one might use in the course of following them.
1. Go to the Vatican.
“I went to the Vatican in search of the truth” (4; numbers in parentheses are to the numbered press releases online
here).
2. Meet with someone at one of the dicasteries.
“Lacking guidance from the Vatican, [I] sought an appointment and was received by an official of the Congregation in its halls in Rome” (2).
3. Ask him some questions.
“I went to Rome in person to submit two critical questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” (2).
4. Receive an unofficial response to your questions from an outside theologian.
“The Response was an unofficial response prepared by an eminent theologian” (3).
Now the ticking off begins.
5. Issue a press release strongly suggesting that the Vatican said something really dramatic about a person not even mentioned in the reply you got. Make sure this is in the headline so that the issue will be framed in these terms by the media.
“SEN. JOHN KERRY ‘EXCOMMUNICATED,’ ACCORDING TO VATICAN RESPONSE” (2)
6. Say that this was a formal response.
“Mr. Balestrieri . . . said the Response was written by the Reverend Fr. Basil Cole, O.P., an expert theologian based in Washington D.C., who was delegated by . . . Fr. Augustine di Noia, O.P., to formally respond” (2).
7. Say that the response isn’t a theologian’s personal opinion but is official, binding, and decisive.
“This means that one is dealing here not with a matter of a theologian’s personal opinion, but with two core non-negotiable Articles of Faith. The Response, therefore, is ‘official’ and binding” (2).
“The extensive detail of the response, decisively clarifying the matter was unexpected. Normally, only a bishop may request such clarification of doctrine from the CDF and receive an official reply” (2).
8. Say that this response wasn’t just given to you but “to the Catholic faithful.”
“The Response is significant in that it represents the first time in modern history since Roe v. Wade in 1973 that such a clear reply is given to the Catholic faithful” (2).
9. Suggest that the Vatican rushed the response out and made it public.
“Such responses usually take a much longer time to be received, and they are rarely made public” (2).
10. Say that the response has encouraged you to up the ante.
“As a result, the Response has encouraged him to expand his complaint to include four more pro-abortion Catholic politicians, both Democrat and Republican” (2).
11. Say that you are trying to rally thousands of your supporters to put pressure on a particular Archbishop, whose tribunal you characterize as “hesitating.”
“Balestrieri is asking all individuals and groups seeking to join his canonical actions, as a result of the Tribunal’s hesitation in handling the cases, for all future denunciations and complaints to
be sent to Archbishop Sean O’Malley directly, in accordance with instructions which he will be sending out over the next few days, as posted on the DeFide.com website and sent to the thousands of supporters by e-mail” (2).
12. If the people who did you a favor by answering your questions object to what you have done thus far, issue a press release with a really snarky title.
“A REPLY TO THE VATICAN” (3)
13. Open the press release with a hyperdramatic flourish in which you imply that the people who helped you have not been speaking the truth.
“This opinion is free to be released to all, because it is the truth. I expect the truth to be spoken and taught high and low in all circumstances, even if the consequences are dire in defense of the
Faith and Sacraments” (3).
14. By contrast, characterize yourself as behaving honestly.
“In conscience, I was honest, and described the purpose of the dubia having been submitted: canonical case of heresy, and possible doctoral dissertation on the exact topic” (3).
15. Give the appearance of saying that you have been trying to recruit unnamed collaborators to influence the outcome of a judicial process.
“During the last week in August of this year, I went to Rome to consult a dozen experts, both inside and outside the Vatican, with the goal of building support both theoretically and practically
for the case filed against Senator John F. Kerry, in as much as he was a baptized Catholic publicly and stridently professing heresy” (3).
16. Say clearly hyperbolic things about the extent of your recruitment efforts.
“Until then, I had consulted just about everyone except the Vatican in the matter” (3).
17. Talk like you’re building a legal case against the people who did you a favor.
“Upon my return to the States, on 9 September 2004, I received a call at approximately 0800 from Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.” (3).
“I sent him an e-mail with the two dubia in Latin as my e-mail records show” (3).
“My phone, e-mail, and travel records all corroborate my rendering of the afore-cited facts. For anyone to claim otherwise is a misstatement of the facts” (3).
18. Throw their words back in their faces.
“[Fr. Cole explained] that he had been ‘delegated’ by the Very Rev. Augustine di Noia, O.P. to respond to my queries. That term had been used, as I noted in my journal” (3).
“Fr. di Noia stated explicitly to me that he had read the text, that he thought the response was ‘excellent and solid’” (3).
19. Drag in a third-party cardinal.
“I had asked the same question of Cardinal McCarrick” (3).
20. Try to pit cardinals against each other by criticizing this cardinal on the basis of something said by another cardinal.
“I was disappointed by his non-application of Canon Law in regards to defending the Eucharist from ‘every and any irreverence,’ as Cardinal Arinze has most urgently called upon all Catholics to do” (3).
21. Try to get around the fact that the response you got is unofficial by saying the fact it lacks authority simply doesn’t matter. Portray it as of crushing significance anyway.
“It is the content of the Response that matters, not the absence of the signatures of the Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on the Response” (3).
21. Deny that you ever claimed the response was formal or official.
“I sincerely hope that in publicly denying any ‘official’ or formal emanation of the text from the Vatican, which had never been claimed . . . (3)
22. Threaten with damnation the people who did you a favor.
“I sincerely hope that in publicly denying any ‘official’ or formal emanation of the text from the Vatican, which had never been claimed, that certain individuals not risk their salvation by denying
the material, infallibly official, and sub gravi binding core conclusions of the Response” (3).
23. Close your press release with a breathless dramatic flourish using Latin. The press loves Latin.
“‘Utilius scandalum nasci permittitur, quam veritas relinquatur,’ Pope St. Gregory the Great once said. ‘Better for scandal to be permitted to be born, than for the Truth to be forsaken’” (3).
24. If the accusations don’t dry up, issue another press release in which you accuse of being dishonest the very people who you most need not to alienate because they will be involved in hearing your case if it ever is appealed to Rome and because, even before then, Boston will consult them on how to handle your case. Make sure you accuse them by name.
“A series of unfortunate events has occurred which some have attempted to use to avoid a thorough and honest discussion of the true issue at hand” (4).
“Fortunately, the Very Rev. Fr. Augustine di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has now acknowledged, despite his earlier statements, that he did in fact
prompt the response by the Rev. Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.” (4).
“I stated clearly to Fr. Funes and Fr. Cole that these questions were in regards to a case of heresy as well as my interest in pursuing a doctoral dissertation on the complex issues in the instant
case. It is wholly disingenuous to suggest otherwise” (4).
25. Suggest that your recitation of “exact details” has forced them to reluctantly start coming clean.
“I have reported exact details of how this document came into being, many more now of which Fr. di Noia and Cole now also acknowledge” (4).
26. Once again deny that you characterized the response as official.
“It is clear that neither De Fide nor I never [sic] stated that that the response received was an ‘official’ document of the Vatican” (4).
27. Talk like you’re Fox Mulder giving one of those breathlessly convoluted “search for the truth” recaps of what happened on last week’s X-Files.
“But a response to my queries lodged with the Vatican it certainly was: I went to the Vatican in search of the truth – the Undersecretary’s response was to refer the matter to Fr. Cole. And in
the words of the Undersecretary, the Response was ‘excellent and solid’” (4).
28. Be as overdramatic as possible while throwing people’s words back in their faces.
“I have never ‘hoodwinked’ any official of the Church, unless one considers the obtaining of an Article of Faith as a form of theft” (4).
29. Cite journalists as experts advising you on how to interpret the actions of the Church.
“I had fully reasonable grounds, as journalists have suggested, to believe that my theoretical case had a high degree of support on the part of highly qualified theologians” (4).
30. Accuse the people you need not to alienate of “a misapplication of reason.”
“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” (4).
31. Accuse the people those who will be hearing your case on appeal of “apparent nescience” (i.e., possibly feigned lack of knowledge) and suggest that this unintentionally tricked them into being honest. Be sure to use the word “nescience” in your press release. This is a very common word that journalists love.
“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. . . .” (4).
32. Thank them for having been unintentionally honest with you.
“. . . For this, I am most grateful to both Fr. Cole and Fr. di Noia” (4).
33. Suggest that those who will be hearing your case on appeal are saying “disturbing” things when they point out that the Code of Canon Law contains an exception for people who are ignorant of Church law.
“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” (4).
34. Accuse them of obfuscation.
“This is an unfortunate exercise in obfuscation where the nature of the unofficial Responsum . . .” (4).
35. Really pile on the adjectives.
“. . . delivering the restatement of the official, infallible, and ‘manifest’ Article of Faith condemning abortion and the right to abortion remains the focus . . .” (4).
36. Use all caps to convey the effect of shouting.
“. . . RATHER than the merit of this discussion” (4).
37. Conclude your press release with a rousing “can never be denied” statement using the kind of technical Latin words that really dazzle reporters.
“As such, although ‘formaliter’ the Response is unofficial, ‘materialiter,’ its contents can never be denied” (4).
I’d add:
“38. Do all of this in such a way that American observers could wonder whether or not the Vatican was trying to improperly influence a presidential election. (Give every Nativist Nabob a stick with which to beat the Church with.)”
I know this is fun, but Jimmy, I think you could cut him a little slack. We have enough people who are actually malicious (not just careless or too-excited) to pick on.
scott
Scott,
I think the point is not to pick on anyone or to have fun at anyone’s expense. The point is to be very clear how a well-intentioned effort to do a good thing went awry, in order to help prevent future efforts from going awry and potentially to help Balestrieri get back on track.
Yes, but is John Kerry a heretic or not?
OK. So there is a lot of criticism to go around. I hope that someone would talk instead about how we are going to keep the unfettered abortionist politicians from plying their trade and confusing the faithful about how serious an evil this is in the process. People have to wonder – if it is really serious wouldn’t moral authorities have stepped in with the exercise of their office? We are the sheep. Where are our shepherds?
Jimmy,
Great post, assuming of course the most important thing is not to “tick off” the Vatican.
But is that really the most important thing? Is not truth the most important?
Perhaps, in this case, the truth of what has happened with this case is also what most pleases the Vatican, but, perhaps it isn’t. However, your standard of what is acceptable behavior by Balestrieri should be how his actions accord with the truth, and not whether or not his actions “tick off” the Vatican.
So, as Steve asked: Is Kerry a heretic?
Yes he is.
He should have just asked me, and I would have settled it for him!
Dear Robert Oct 23 10:08 AM,
I read your post and cannot restrict my impulsivity to say, “I like you”.
Robert,
My concern precisely is the truth. I want as many people to know the truth as possible about pro-abort politicians.
That means that I want to see employed the most effective way to establish the truth about them. If someone takes on the issue and badly mishandles it in a way likely to make it harder to have the truth publicly established, I am disheartened. If thousands of people are getting their emotions wrapped up in such a badly mishandled case, I feel the need to warn them.
Truth is the most important thing. People need to know the truth, even when it is the uncomfortable truth that a particular case is less rather than more likely to establish the truth about pro-abort politicians.
On the question of whether Sen. Kerry is a heretic, I’m quite open to the possibility that some of his views constitute formal or material heresy. Before accusing him of it in public (which I don’t at all rule out), I would seek to satisfy myself that I had absolute, clinching, provable-in-an-ecclesiastical-court-of-law proof of that (which is to say, better evidence than has been presented thus far).
I find it a little ironic and very silly to be talking about truth in this case (and concerning this post, of all things), where a certain individual has been all but forthcoming with the truth.
Any way you cut it though the Vatican once again shrinks from the truth and puts it’s candle under the bushel, shining city on the hill? When will the Church stand up and proclaim the truth rather than hide its head in the sand?
How to make the Vatican mad? Ask them to do their job, thats how.
You mean the Vatican’s job is to provide a doctrinally binding answer to every question anyone asks them? Cool!
P.S. What’s Cardinal Ratzinger’s fax number?
P.P.S. How do you say “Could Spider-Man beat the Flash?” in Latin?
As Lance Armstrong said, “It’s not about the bike”.
Maybe it’s not all about the “case” either. Balestrieri’s refusal to do business as usual deserves respect.
One wonders why Balestrieri asked the Vatican a question in the first place: he seems to know everything already. Ah…..the splendor of certitude.
Come on Jimmy!
We can all agree that the press release was a strategic blunder. But you’re having “fun” at a good person’s expense. That’s going too far.
Is the canonical suit a worthwhile effort? Is this a courageous move? Well maybe we should actually see what we can do to help Marc instead of publically ridiculing him. There are plenty of people against us that we can make fun of.
“I find it a little ironic and very silly to be talking about truth in this case (and concerning this post, of all things), where a certain individual has been all but forthcoming with the truth.”
It would be interesting to know how you know this. Are you a John Kerry plant, or just another naive, too-recent-for-your-own-good convert?
Or perhaps you have been hanging around with another ex-attorney Grand Inquisitor, who posits himself as the sole arbiter of Catholic orthodoxy a little too long?
Hello James,
So, how would you have handled it?
P.
As an Angeleno who deeply admires the way my Cardinal (Roger Mahony) openly defies Rome on doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical matters, I would like to know what it takes for a rich Bishop to tick off Rome; I do understand that it is easy for a poor layman who asks questions to do so.
After all, my Cardinal said during the election that he would give Senator Kerry (and the rainbow sashers, but that’s a different issue)communion, and so broke solidarity with those bsihops who said the opposite. As Signore Baslestrieri is also a subject of His Eminence, I suppose he wrongly figured that we of the City of Angels, regardless of who we are, are immune to ticking off the Vatican — or at least, that if we do, it doesn’t really matter.
It is all SO confusing!
Charles
Ayatollah Mahoney can’t possibly tick-off the post vat 2 fellow travellers who run the Catholic church or Mullah Brown in Orange County, Calif for that matter, spiritual descendants of Grand master annibale bugnini & 33rd degree folks like Bea,Lustiger,Villot. The whole bloody place is run by neo-prod revisionists.If at all the present vatican mindset will canonize the Polosi’s Kennedy’s and Kerry’s. Get it right nothing embarrasses or ticks of the vatican establishment. After forty years in the wilderness under the pontificates of the Roncalli’s Montini’s & Karol aka JP2 as Catholics we MUST bow down, kiss the koran recieve the mark of shiva and attend voodoo masses and send our kids to the fun clown masses. Shalom
Did our Blessed Lord lie when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Johannim:
Thank you for your lucid, unbiased, and charitable suggestions.