Balestrieri Response

To All Concerned,

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.

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.

Until then, I had consulted just about everyone except the Vatican in the matter. At the end of my trip, before leaving, I decided to go the the Palazzo del Sant'Ufficio, in the Vatican City State, and request an appointment with the Very Rev. Augustine di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary for the Congregation. This was on 30 August 2004, per Fr. Cole in his letter. Wholly unexpectedly, I "made contact" and was received by the Rev. Diaz Pedro Miguel Funes, 2nd Class "Addetto di Segreteria" as listed on page 1081 of the 2004 Edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the official directory of the Holy See.

As an official member of the Congregation, Fr. Funes explained to me that Fr. di Noia had just come back from the States, and was not available for a meeting. I explained to Fr. Funes that I was a Canon lawyer submitting these dubia strictly seeking a theoretical clarification of the two issues concerned, and confirmation of the conclusions of my research. No names were ever mentioned in the conversation. He and I had a one-half hour long meeting whereby I verbally submitted my dubia to the Congregation. He diligently took them down by handwriting. Fr. Funes then said he would transmit the dubia to Fr. di Noia.

Upon my return to the States, on 9 September 2004, I received a call at approximately 0800 from Fr. Basil Cole, O.P., explaining, I cite, 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. Fr. Cole asked me to clarify what the two dubia were which I submitted to the Congregation as he had received a fax from the Vatican which he said was difficult to read. At the completion of our conversation, he further stated that he would have a response for me completed in three days' time. I sent him an e-mail with the two dubia in Latin as my e-mail records show. I received the Response from Fr. Cole, O.P., as promised. We exchanged correspondence by e-mail on numerous occasions.

On 16 September 2004, I went to Washington D.C. to attend the Public Witness/Public Scandal conference at the National Press Club. A number of experts were gathered there for the stellar assembly of speakers. Being in the City, I then went on 18 September 2004 to visit Fr. Cole to thank him for the response, and receive confirmation of what I had personally understood as the doctrinal interpretation and consequences of the text of the Response. I explained that I was a Canon lawyer who was seeking this response in regards to a canonical case of heresy, and a possible doctoral dissertation based on the issues at hand. 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. At no point in time, moreover, was any request for further information about those circumstances made to me. At the end of a very good meeting, Fr. Cole confirmed the interpretation contained in the Press Release of 18 October 2004. The theologian said explicitly that I was free to publish the document "to the whole world if I wanted to."

A short while after, I called Fr. Cole in Detroit, Michigan where he happened to be for a weekend, seeking a second verification of the scope of the document's use. He explicitly said to me that he was acting "under orders" in writing the document, and as such, he said that he had to defer to the Congregation.

Last Monday, I called Fr. di Noia at his private residence in Rome, in order to achieve absolute clarity in the matter about the scope of permission of use, as I did not want to take the risk of using a response which could easily fall into the public domain against the wishes of the Vatican. Having finally made contact, which I was attempting to do for more than a month, prior to releasing the document, the Undersecretary and I spoke. Fr. di Noia stated explicitly to me that he had read the text, that he thought the response was "excellent and solid." When I explained to him that Fr. Cole deferred to the Congregation regarding how the document could be used, Fr. di Noia stated, "The reply was prepared by Fr. Cole. As such, he is free to publish the text if he so chooses." I called Fr. Cole, upon di Noia's request, and informed him of the tenor of our conversation. Fr. Cole, upon hearing of the Undersecretary's clarification, stated, "Well by all means use it, no restrictions whatsoever."

From that moment onwards, I had no doubts about either the verbal approval given by both the Very Reverend Undersecretary and the Reverend Dominican Father, nor their word.

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.
...
Finally, Fr. di Noia told me verbally by phone that it was an "excellent and solid" response.

The Response was an unofficial response prepared by an eminent theologian, Father B. Cole, OP, after he had been delegated the task of responding to my dubia by the Undersecretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Very Reverend Augustine di Noia, OP. Fr. di Noia chose to respond to my request by referring the matter to Fr. Cole to answer in his stead. 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.

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.

"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."

This certainly seems very different than the report from Catholic News Service...hmmm...What's the deal here, folks? Someone appears to be mistaken as to the facts.

Source here.