Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry's excommunication.

Here's a recent www.traditio.com commentary that relates...

Isn't New Vatican politics fun? Now there is some story going around in one of the Novus Ordo news sources that U.S. Presidential candidate "Kerry Is Said to Be Excommunicated," not because he entered into a non-Catholic marriage before a justice of the peace, but because of some fuzzy logic on abortion by a Vatican "consultant." Notice the careful wording of the title: "is said," not "is." As Bill Clinton so pointedly put it: "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." Remember that deliciously confusing statement from Vatican II, that the church of Christ "subsists in," not "is," the Catholic Church? Doctrine Capo Ratzinger gave us that one. Thanks, Ratz.

This situation bears all the earmarks of New Vatican gamesmanship. Ratzinger cowers in silence while some "consultant" is permitted to comment on a case in progress, "unofficially." Hmmm, maybe next time Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should issue her opinion "unofficially" before the court as a whole rules. Whatever one might think about Kerry (and personally we don't think a lot about him), he certainly has a right to justice.

This engineered "leak" from the New Vatican is obviously intended by some "conservative" official there to influence the U.S. elections without actually going through the process of a church trial and issuing a public verdict. The last time the New Vatican pulled this ploy, it was on a traditional archbishop by the name of Marcel Lefebvre. So, be careful, folks. Those of you out there who are so eager to deny Kerry the Novus Ordo kommunion kookie may get your ox gored next time. As St. Thomas More said at his trial, "I would give even the Devil the benefit of law."

This case will never come to ecclesiastical trial, just as Archbishop Lefebvre was denied an ecclesiastical trial. Why? Newchurch doesn't want publicity on these things. If Kerry were ever found guilty, 120 "Catholic" congressmen would have to be caught in the same net, including Senators Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Susan Collins of Maine. And what about those hundreds of "Catholic" state legislators and "Catholic" judges who fall into the same category? And JPII and Ratzinger could be excommunicated too because of their complicity.

Isn't it interesting that at the same time as the New Vatican "conservative" has waded into the U.S. elections, the "consultant" has sidetracked the ecclesiastical trial filed by relying on that misunderstood ploy of latae sententiae, or so-called "automatic" excommunication. Again, that was the same ploy the New Vatican pulled on Abp. Lefebvre. Contrary to erroneous "common knowledge," Lefebvre was never excommunicated. It was merely claimed that he excommunicated himself. There is quite a difference. That is why the Lefebvre "excommunication" has evaporated in all but ink. The problem with this method is that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can claim this or that one is "automatically excommunicated" because he doesn't agree with someone's else's politics.

The proper, the clear, the just way is to handle these cases, as in fact the Kerry case was originally entered and as in fact the Church's own law prescribes, through ferendae sententiae, that is, an ecclesiastical trial. But then Kerry and Kennedy and the rest could defend themselves. They could publicly produce Newchurch Cardinal McCarrick, who specifically told Kerry that his position was in accordance with Catholic teaching, along with about almost 300 other U.S. Newchurch bishops.

Kerry-Kennedy could attack Newchurch Cardinal Ratzinger, who can't seem to utter one clear statement on the issue to cardinals, bishops, presbyters, and laymen. Kerry-Kennedy could attack most of all JPII, who for all his empty rhetoric about a "culture of death" has never addressed the specific issue except in so general terms that no one knows how to apply the principle to specific cases. Don't forget St. Joan of Arc. Venal ecclesiastical officials burned her at the stake. At least she got a (show) trial, and the records of that trial came back to haunt the Church. No, there won't be any trial.

But those of us who know the New Vatican well know that this is its modus operandi: gamesmanship. It will never give Kerry or Kennedy a public trial. It will never put teeth into its deliberately vague words. It will handle abortion just the same way it handled the true Mass: by stealth, by innuendo, by "unofficial" statements, by playing games, not by standing up for Christ and His Church (the Roman Catholic Church, that is) with clear words and, even more, clear actions.

When JPII has the guts to stand before the world and condemn such politicians, then we will listen. When Ratzinger has the guts to stand before the world and condemn such politicians, then we will listen. Until then, these Newchurch officials are as "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal," signifying nothing.

Soon Rome will have NO CHOICE. Like during the time of St. Augustine, the barbarians are at the gate.

Yep, yep, yep and yep.

But, the Church in the US is not going to risk its tax exempt status. Nor should it, IMO.

.....and what would God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost say about your opinion????

I'M not fascinated with burning at the stake at all —but I've seen the suggestion posted many times by so-called christians, whether they be Catholic or Protestant.

It's hypocrisy and self-righteousness that I find "un-Christ-like."

I weep for us all, especially those who are self-righteous and full of hypocrisy.

The majority of Catholics (accoring to all polls, even the ones that only count "white" Catholics) are voting for Kerry. Sorry, but it's true.

No, they don't say that most Catholics are voting for Kerry.

The majority of the polls say that Catholics are voting for Bush over Kerry, slightly.

I weep for ... those who are self-righteous and full of hypocrisy.
Glad to hear you took my advice. Have a nice day : )

You've seen suggestions around here? Really? I must have missed them because to only suggestions I've seen is from your posting history. Could you please refer me to some examples from other people?

I do wonder if you would agree that...

1. Kerry's political positions on abortion, stem cell research and other sanctity of life issues are evil and he needs to be defeated in his bid for the presidency so they are not made national policy.

2. Those positions qualify Kerry for excommunication and that for the proper formation of his his conscience and others, that excommunication should be public.