“THE IMPLICATION OF THE STATEMENT IS THAT THE CHURCH HAS ABROGATED CANON LAW’S PROVISION OF THE PENALTY OF INTERDICT (AND POSSIBLY ALL CANONICAL PENALTIES.”

His statement neither said nor implied that so your claim is “objectionable”.

I object.

“Such an action is now frowned upon by the Church, which has reversed actions taken against pro-abortion politicians in the denial of communion.”

THE IMPLICATION OF THE STATEMENT IS THAT THE CHURCH HAS ABROGATED CANON LAW’S PROVISION OF THE PENALTY OF INTERDICT (AND POSSIBLY ALL CANONICAL PENALTIES.

THE REASON ONE SELDOM HEARS OF THE IMPOSITION OF PERSONAL INTERDICT (AS OPPOSED TO LOCAL INTERDICT) IS THAT PERSONAL INTERDICT IS USUALLY REALLY PERSONAL IN THE SENSE THAT NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT THE INDERDICT EXCEPT THE PERSON INTERDICTED AND HIS/HER PASTOR.

CANONICAL PENALTIES ARE USUALLY IMPOSED BY THE LOCAL BISHOP. IT IS EXTREMELY RARE THAT A CANONICAL PENALTY IMPOSED BY A LOCAL BISHOP IS REMOVED/REVERSED BY THE HOLY SEE (ROME).

THE ONLY KNOWN CASE OF A PRO-ABORTION BEING DENIED HOLY COMMUNION AND HAVING THE CASE REVERSED IS IN THE CASE OF PRIEST WHO DENIED THE HOLY COMMUNION AND WAS REBUKED BY HIS BISHOP.

“YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE CHURCH AS ABANDONED INTERDICT AS A CANONICAL PENALTY IS TOTALLY FALSE.”

***********

Who said that it was “abandoned.” I read it was rarely used.

Its not. Protesters routinely “follow” the subjects of their protest to out of state venues. PUBLIC venues. There’s nothing at all unusual about that.

You were wrong about Kendrick showing up at the Bishops residence therefore your argument pretty much has collapsed. You’re just grasping at straws now with this “out of state” protest complaint.

People do it all the time. In fact both the RNC and the DNC actually BUS protesters in from around the country to heckle and badger opposition candidates. Its just not unusual. And your case pretty much collapsed when you discovered you were wrong about Kendrick confronting the Bishop at his residence. Kendrick sent mostly “email” and also showed up at some “PUBLIC” venues.

Not unusual behavior for a protester in any book.

“waynebro:

In this excerpt from the Norfolk Examiner, it appears our precocious Mr.Kendrick did not invade the Bishop’s residence but did confront him at an out of state conference:

“Kendrick has protested outside churches, inundated the diocese with mail and e-mail, participated in a public confrontation with Malone and even showed up at an out-of-state meeting the bishop attended, [Diocese Spokesperson] Bernard said. She called it a campaign of harassment that ultimately could undermine Malone’s ministry.”

He has made his point and now seems hell-bent on forcing action by the Bishop which he has no right to do. That is crossing the line between protest and harassment, and apparently at least one judge agreed. I suspect the Judge felt, as I do, that this guy is capable of anything.”

Sorry but I don’t see it. He showed up at an out of state meeting? So what? Where in your excerpt does it say he did anything even remotely threatening? It says he “showed up”.

Cindy Sheehan “showed” up at lots of “out of state meetings” with Bush and Cheney. She even showed up at his home. In fact, she camped in front of his home. For months.

Should Cindy Sheehan also be labeled dangerous? Should she be blocked from what she does? Sheehan protests public figures. The Bishop is a public figure. That Kendrick effectively took a “road trip” to “show up” at a meeting where the Bishop was attending is hardly an indication that he intended any harm. In fact the fact that he didn’t harm anyone indicates he did not.

I have a real problem with language like “this guy is capable of anything”.

It’s bad language and it’s bad law.

We’re ALL “capable of anything”.

But this isn’t the movie “Minority Report” and we don’t try people on what they “might” do. We try them on what they do. And so far you’re still batting zero producing any evidence to suggest this guy is anything more than a run of the mill protester. And protesters are a key ingredient to a free democracy.

from page 3

‘…But Kendrick, while obeying the police warning to stay away from Malone physically, has already sent the bishop yet another letter.

” Am I to understand this to be part of a canon law process in which I am a defendant?” he wrote on Tuesday. “If so, why was I not informed of any rights I might have according to the pertinent laws of the Church?”… ‘

—————–

As I mentioned previously, Kendrick has already violated the
‘no contact’ order – just by sending the recent letter…

Being a ME resident and a member of both the medical and legal and communities, I am more than a smidge familiar with this issue.

In this excerpt from the Norfolk Examiner, it appears our precocious Mr.Kendrick did not invade the Bishop’s residence but did confront him at an out of state conference:

“Kendrick has protested outside churches, inundated the diocese with mail and e-mail, participated in a public confrontation with Malone and even showed up at an out-of-state meeting the bishop attended, [Diocese Spokesperson] Bernard said. She called it a campaign of harassment that ultimately could undermine Malone’s ministry.”

He has made his point and now seems hell-bent on forcing action by the Bishop which he has no right to do. That is crossing the line between protest and harassment, and apparently at least one judge agreed. I suspect the Judge felt, as I do, that this guy is capable of anything.

“The restraining order bars him from coming onto Malone’s residence as well as the church. I assume this was due to the risk that he might or had done so in the past”

I realize you assumed this but a restraining order usually includes all areas a person is likely to be confronted at, not necessarily places where a person “has” been confronted at.

No where in the article nor in anything I can find does it state Kendrick approached Malone at his residence. In fact, it seems to state the opposite quite clearly when it states “He has confronted Malone in public settings”. Not private settings. Public settings is what the article indicates so unless you can produce other evidence that Kendrick went to Malone’s home, then the information we have so far just doesn’t support your assumption.

“However the real straw man here is your claim that Kendrick harassed the Bishop at his home. I see no evidence of that from the article.”

**********************

The restraining order bars him from coming onto Malone’s residence as well as the church. I assume this was due to the risk that he might or had done so in the past.

Too bad neither he nor Marie Tupper ever mastered speaking in tongues, projectile vomiting, or making their heads turn 360 degrees.

Then they may have gotten Bishop Malone’s private audience to speak about the other victims of Father Lee.

Kind of like OJ complaining about poor book sales.

By the way, ss an attorney what do you think of the applicability of RICO and the church management conspiring to conceal these abuses? The Catholic Church is after all incorporated.

“Waynebro:

It’s a straw man to take on the RCC for sexual abuse or its participation in the cover-up–no sane person will defend or deny that debacle. The complaint is in the method employed by the protester. Kendrick was more than rude by harassing the Bishop and confronting him publicly at Church and at his home”

Well I agree you shouldn’t have to defend the RCC for the overall sexual abuse issue in making your position.

However the real straw man here is your claim that Kendrick harassed the Bishop at his home. I see no evidence of that from the article.

The article indicates Kendrick mostly “emailed” the Bishop. It did state that Kendrick confronted the Bishop “in public settings”, but it says nothing about Kendrick confronting the Bishop at his residence. That appears to merely be one of the restrictions of the criminal trespass order.

It’s a straw man to take on the RCC for sexual abuse or its participation in the cover-up–no sane person will defend or deny that debacle. The complaint is in the method employed by the protester. Kendrick was more than rude by harassing the Bishop and confronting him publicly at Church and at his home. One Judge found Kendrick’s activities so obnoxious as to issue a cease and desist order against him. Those are uncalled for actions against a person not responsible for the problem complained of, and should not be encouraged or tolerated. He may have a point to make but correctness of position is not license to behave boorishly. There are lots of ways to protest without being rude and thus undermining your credibility.

Bishop Malone a public figure and should expect a degree of confrontation regarding the heinous crimes his church. From what I’ve read Kendrick hasn’t been out of control, and this interdict spawned from an “email” that Kendrick sent to Malone in which he said he hoped to attend midnight mass and would “pray for the tolerance to remain seated in spite of your hypocrisy.”

I don’t see any over the top behavior by Kendrick nor do I contemplate rudness as being factored in. To say a protester is being rude is like saying a boxer is hitting hard.

Protesters always seem rude to the ones they are protesting. Its just no a benchmark I’d use to measure this in anyway.

The Catholic church has been sexually molesting children for a thousand years and only recently has anyone called them on it. Their response has been to try and cover it up more, shuffling abusive priests around to avoid prosecution and generally acting like a corrupt organization involved in a massive conspiracy. And now it seems like they just want it to “go away”. It’s like “ok, we’ve been caught, can’t we just move on now and stop talking about it?”.

That Kendrick may be percieved as rude takes a backseat to the level of rudeness of a priest groping a 9 year old altar boy and then having his superiors work to conceal it.

I do not believe that an advocate has the right to be rude to get his point across regardless of the merit of his position. There are other more persuasive means to accomplish his goals. I suspect that Prof. Turley might agree that among the most dangerous weapons that any advocate possesses are his humanity, his dignity, and the respect for the other side’s argument that he demonstrates as he makes his points. (BTW I use the masculine form only for ease in writing as women tend to be better at this than men.)

People tend to tune out zealots regardless of the correctness of their possessions–me included.

The Catholic church has no high holy ground to stand on here and like a convicted sex offender their collective lives are and should be open to scrutiny until at which time we feel the church has been rehabilitated from this vile and heinous practice of abusing children and then using the power of the church to conceal it.