To begin, thank-you everyone for

To begin, thank-you everyone for your prayers this past weekend. They are much appreciated.

Well I've basically monopolized Pacheco's phone line this weekend as phone calls and emails (both incomming and outgoing) in the canon law world are abuzz about Marc Balestrieri's canonical action against John Kerry. Behind the scenes, the situation has taken on a little more clear definition -- some good, some bad and some ugly.

First the bad news. While I have not been able to confirm this independently, I have heard from a trusted third-party source that Marc has now reportedly lost his job. Please keep this in mind. Marc expressed deep gratitude to the people at St. Blog's and FreeRepublic for their spiritual, moral and financial support and asked me thank everyone from him. He was especially taken back by Oswald Sobrino's donation of book royalties to the cause. Additionally, a lot of the leading boomer canonists are not too pleased about this canonical action, and they're gonna fight hard to oppose it.

On the positive front, a number of other leading gen-x canonists are weighing in on Marc's side and/or have enthusiastically committed to defending this action. They have contacted both Marc and myself, and it looks like our battle plan is coming together. Two of the canonists weighing in (Anselmo and another I will call Constantine for the time being) are procedural experts, which is good news for me since my prowess when it comes to procedural law is only average among canonists. So for the time being, the decision was made to keep me out of the procedural action until Anselmo and Constantine figure out a way to weigh in, at which point I will simply piggy-back off of their effort.

Basically, this means I will be helping Marc with the media and fundraising end of things until we come to the substance (or what canonists call "the merit") of the case. At this point, I look forward to arguing that pro-abort Catholic pols should be given the opportunity to repent, and failing to do so, excommunicated for heresy. On this note, it is important to remember that the heresy is not that they frequent Holy Communion, as has been misunderstood by some acting in good faith on our side. This is a separate problem. The heresy in question is that the topic of abortion is one of private morality, and that one can legitimately be privately opposed to abortion while defending and promoting a public "right" to dismember and butcher a child in the womb.

With my canon law books in boxes, and given the calibre of canonists on the other side, I feel much more at ease arguing the heretical nature of the pro-choice position rather than engage in procedural battles over whether laypeople can bring such an action before a tribunal. Canonists on the other side are arguing that the competency to initiate such an action falls exclusively to the Promoter of Justice. Concerning this procedural controversy, Dr. Ed Peters (a canonist whom I highly respect and probably the only boomer canonist that has taken a public stand generally favorable to Marc thus far) has now weighed in with some pretty solid commentary in my opinion. Given my own strengths and weaknesses as a canonist, I'm gonna leave this debate to Marc, Peters, Anselmo and Constantine.

Additionally, Marc put in a solid performance before the media -- both Catholic and secular -- despite having eaten very little over the past week and getting even less sleep. His one slip-up, which fortunately does not concern the merit of his action, was forgetting to mention the defide.com website on Fox News. I'm pointing this out publicly, Marc, so you won't forget next time. Anytime you have millions of viewers watching, you need to promote your website.

Now for the ugly. I spoke with a number of respected boomer canonists opposed to this action over the weekend.  Their opposition is stiff. They have been caught off-guard by this action. However, they have also been caught off-guard by the growing number of leading gen-x canonists that support the action. Although we should keep in mind that there are boomers and gen-x canonists on both sides.

In the last fifteen years, the fighting between boomer and gen-x'ers in a number of the sacred sciences has become fierce. In many cases, it's personal. Fortunately, canonists have avoided this because, to their credit, boomer canonists have for the most part not taken these debates personally and have held any ideological debates between the two generations to the realm of ideology. Part of it, I think, is that the fight between boomer canonists and World War II era canonists after the Second Vatican Council was particularly fierce, and most boomer canonists who recall the battles fought during this time do not wish a repeat.

Of course, I'm simplifying the situation somewhat. But in a nutshell, certain unwritten rules have evolved through which canonists, when divided, argue their differences in both private and public forums. What my boomer friends have basically told me is that as long as our side sticks to the unwritten rules, their side will do so as well, and thus regardless of how the debate is ultimately resolved, everyone can walk out with their reputation untarnished. That being said, our side should keep in mind that the issue is very emotional for them as well. They recall a time when Rome investigated every little minor suspicion of theological or canonical imperfection. Additionally, they remember when Catholics were persecuted and basically locked out of the political process. So they are also willing to stick to the rules of "the game", but they're gonna hit hard as well as bring out all their star players. They also anticipate we will do the same. But as long as everyone sticks to the unwritten rules, we all may come out bloodied, but the issue will be resolved with our reputations as canonists still intact.