In sum, the more we learn about John Kerry's record on the sanctity of life, the uglier and more despicable it appears. It is no wonder that John Kerry has proven unable to utter even a single word of condemnation of abortion or rebuke to the abortionists. He has never fully expressed any personal opposition to abortion because, well, his own words make clear that he has no genuine qualms about abortion, personally, legally, or politically.

Source: "Further Examination of Kerry's Record on Life: It Just Gets Worse" Mirror of Justice. Oct. 29, 2004.

So, in addition to promising research on adult stem cells, there is a way to conduct morally legitimate embryonic stem cell research. But, of course, the Kerry/Edwards ticket has no time for ethical niceties. Rather, consistent with their radical embrace of abortion, Kerry/Edwards now radically embraces a blank check for embryonic stem cell.

What can we say about politicians who recognize no ethical limits, about politicians who will sacrifice unborn children and embryos at will? Two words come to mind: corrupt and idolatrous. The ancient Israelites lived in the midst of pagan peoples accustomed to child sacrifice (see Leviticus 18:21). The Canaanites sacrificed children by burning to the god Molech (see the New Jerusalem Bible's comment on the above verse).

Our own culture has sunk to the level of that ancient barbarism. Kerry and Edwards have a corrupt vision with political power and self-indulgent egoism as the new Molech.

Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, is predicting that Bush will win both the electoral vote and the popular vote on election night. He said the president could prevail even if Kerry were to pull out victories in Pennsylvania and Ohio—an outcome that is a distinct possibility.

"I am confident we're going to win Ohio and Florida," Mehlman said at a Christian Science Monitor lunch yesterday. He said Bush was "in the ball game" in Michigan and Pennsylvania, ahead in Wisconsin and Iowa, and "very close" in New Mexico. "All of these are states that were blue last time that are now within the margin of error today," Mehlman said.

Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush campaign, said this is why the president was holding a bus tour in the more rural, western half of Wisconsin. "It's an area of the state where we feel we have room for improvement," Stanzel said. "Western Wisconsin is home to many conservative Democrats who share the president's values. That includes the sanctity of marriage and right to life. Kerry is 'out of step' here."

While Bush did three campaign stops in Wisconsin, he also flew out to Iowa for another day of stumping in that state and the strategy was the same. In his appearance in Dubuque, Bush planned to try to appeal to conservative Catholic voters who dislike Kerry's pro-choice stance, Stanzel said.

President Bush wrapped up a two-day blitz of Iowa in Dubuque on Tuesday with a sharp indictment of Democrat John Kerry's record on cultural issues..."The final clear choice in this election is on the values that are crucial to keeping our families strong. And here, my opponent and I are miles apart," Bush said at a late-afternoon rally at the Grand River Center.

"I believe marriage is a sacred commitment, a pillar of our civilization....But Senator Kerry was part of an out-of-the-mainstream minority that voted against the Defense of Marriage Act," Bush said, prompting a chorus of boos from 4,500 supporters at the rally. "Republicans and Democrats came together and agreed we should ban the brutal practice of partial-birth abortion....But my opponent was part of an out-of-the-mainstream minority that voted against the ban."

On his second campaign stop in Democrat-heavy Dubuque, Bush was hoping to improve on the support he received in 2000 by focusing on issues critical to some of the city's large Roman Catholic population.

In 2000, Democrat Al Gore beat Bush by about 6,000 votes in Dubuque County, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about 10,000. Bush aides said they hoped to suppress Kerry's support among devout Roman Catholics, who disagree with Kerry's support for abortion rights and his opposition to a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. Bush opposes abortion rights and has called for an amendment banning gay marriage.

Kerry's campaign said Bush's emphasis on cultural issues was an attempt to divide and distract voters. ("Bush Accents Values, Taxes,"The DesMoines Register, October 27, 2004)

• See also, "Mix of Politics, Church Creates Tough Choices," Quad-City Times, October 27, 2004.
• See also, "One-of-a-Kind Sister Supports President Bush's Re-election," The Daily Nonpareil, October 27, 2004

Pennsylvania

Voters who "take[their] Christianity seriously" are "a prime target of President George W. Bush's campaign."

He is counting on religious voters—especially women—to win a state that Democrat John Kerry can't afford to lose. And unlike 2000, when he lost here by four points, Bush operatives have been organizing almost pew by pew....

Bush's "values" push has persuaded some Democrats. "Abortion is above all other issues for me," Sandy Beveridge said at her door. "I don't think I can vote for Kerry."...

As part of his appeal to the state's huge Catholic population, Bush recently was granted an audience with Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, who, like many bishops, had said Catholics had "a duty and responsibility" to back candidates who upheld church teachings on "life" issues. Kerry's response was to say he "respects" his church and its leaders, "but I respectfully disagree."

Bush has volunteers in every one of the state's 1,000 Catholic parishes. This weekend, as part of a huge get-out-the-vote effort that didn't exist in 2000, volunteers will hand out pamphlets at churches that compare the candidates' positions on a variety of issues, from abortion to tax cuts for children in religious schools.

"If you follow the teachings of the Catholic church, you can't vote for Kerry," said Rob Gleason, who runs Bush's Catholic outreach in Pennsylvania. "I was stunned that [Al] Gore got the majority of Catholic votes here. We're doing every thing we can to make sure that doesn't happen again."...

Bush has a prayer here in part because of inroads with Democratic Catholics and evangelicals. If Bush wins this state, and thus the presidency, he literally can thank God—and thousands of volunteers who spread his and Bush's word. It would mean Bush's religious strategy netted more new voters than it repelled. It would mean his gamble paid off. ("Strategy Could Turn Women Off," Newsday, October 27, 2004)

Bush lost Pennsylvania to Gore by 4% in 2000.

• See also, "The President in PA Today," Catholics for President Bush, October 27, 2004.

Supplemental Reading:

• "Religion Playing Key Role in Election, Say Analysts," Associated Press, October 26, 2004.
• "In Final Push, Kerry Tries to Close a Perceived 'God Gap', The Christian Science Monitor, October 26, 2004.

From a moral perspective, the issues of concern are not always of equal importance or urgency. Some are more fundamental and therefore more pressing than others. Pope John Paul II reminds us in the Gospel of Life, "It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop."

In our preparation, each of us should measure candidates and proposed constitutional amendments by how they will safeguard or diminish the life, dignity and rights of the human person. Dignity and rights have no meaning for the person who has been denied life. We should inform the candidates that our values impel us to insist -- because of our Lord's own witness to the sacredness of human life -- that the killing of an unborn child or vulnerable adult is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified.

Source: "Be Faithful Citizens! Vote on November 2".

Thanks to blogger Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

Norma McCorvey, the former plaintiff in the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision, has endorsed President Bush in his re-election bid.

"This year I am going to vote to re-elect President Bush, because he is committed to the cause of life and wants our nation to make room to welcome and protect every unborn child," McCorvey said.

"Unless we do that, we can never have a world of social justice," the former Jane Roe added. "I urge all my pro-life friends to likewise vote for the President."

McCorvey became a Christian in 1995 and renounced her part in the Roe v. Wade decision. She now heads up Roe No More, an organization dedicated to overturning the landmark case. Father Frank Pavone [of Priests for Life] is the priest who facilitated McCorvey's conversion to Catholicism in 1998.

For some, it just takes a picture.

Robert, a former advocate of the "pro-choice" position, explains how a third-trimester ultrasound of his baby daughter Stephanie turned him into a pro-lifer.

"Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." So I guess then John Kerry is admitting that he is aborting Jesus and chopping Jesus up to get at his stem-cells.

I guess he can't see the forest because of all the abortion clinics in the way. Chris Burgwald also posts on that statement with:

This is who, Senator: the 43 million people we have allowed to be killed since abortion was legalized in 1973. That's 4000 people a day, today, Senator. Where are you for those vulnerable?

"Personally opposed" and yet speaks of a women's right to choose. I would hate to see the rhetoric if he was "personally for". Elaine of My Domestic Church says "I won't mention that I think Kerry is an H******" Well for the record I don't think John Kerry is a heretic. A heretic actually believes in the falsehoods they profess. If the core constituents of the Democratic party were pro-life is there any doubt that John Kerry would also then be pro-life?

We already knew Kerry had a plan for everything -- ending the war, not getting in the war in the first place, getting allies to join us in the war, saving Social Security, lowering taxes, vastly increasing spending, cutting the deficit in half.

You know. Miracles.

But who knew that Kerry and Edwards could cause the crippled to rise up and walk?

I don't think that has ever been promised in a political campaign before.

I was amused when Kerry said, during the second debate, "I believe in science."

That was a pretty clear contrast with George W. Bush, who believes in God.

When Kerry really believes something is wrong, he does not hesitate to call for laws to ban it. What he's really saying is that it's illegitimate to ban something you believe is wrong if -- and only if -- your belief in its wrongness comes from your religion.

So in his worldview, only religious people are forbidden to impose their beliefs about right and wrong on others. As long as you have no religion behind you, you can force your beliefs about right and wrong on anybody you want.

John Kerry says he's against "disenfranchising" people.

He really means, "except for people who believe their view of morality comes from God." Those people can just sit down and shut up, while the unbelievers make all the laws that rule their lives.

Dumb Science, Kerry's Religion. World Watch Oct. 17, 2004.

After the Mass, pro-life volunteers handed out their pro-life voting guides as people exited the door. The setting was a very large middle class, suburban parish in a strongly Democratic and pro-union part of Michigan.

Of course, this experience is anecdotal. But it matches what we have seen on the internet, in newspaper advertisements, in the form of a highly publicized canon law complaint boldly filed against Kerry, in the questions directed by ordinary citizens toward the candidates in the town hall presidential debate, in the outspoken bishops and archbishops who have denied Communion to Kerry, and in the articulate and aggressive election year posture of Archbishop Chaput in Denver. What all these actions have in common is that the ambiguity and pusillanimity of the past are wearing thin with many pro-life Catholics. We are in a cultural war, and faithful Catholics are ready to rumble.

People, young and old, are bolder and less inhibited in expressing support for life and for marriage. This boldness did not come from the U.S. Bishops Conference or from a diocesan workshop or roundtable discussion.

And this boldness certainly did not come from the liberal precincts of heterodox Catholic ivory towers and their in-house academic theologians and canon lawyers. In my opinion, this new boldness among faithful Catholics comes from the Holy Spirit. Finally, we have a good example of the authentic workings of the sense of the truly faithful, from the bottom up.

Very much a "work in progress."

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus looks at the Kerry communion scandal and provides an excellent recap of the Bishop's Conference in Denver in June 2004, including Fr. Neuhaus' thoughts on Ratzinger's letter to Cardinal McCarrick and the latter's failure to disclose the complete contents and intent of the letter to the bishops:

. . . The Ratzinger letter and how McCarrick used it is the subject of lively discussion. No bishop wanted to say that McCarrick "misrepresented" Ratzinger’s message but, as one put it, "The charitable thing to say is that he did not tell us the whole truth." It appears, although it is not certain, that the letter was sent only to McCarrick and the papal nuncio, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, who was, of course, present at the meeting. At least a few bishops, however, were apprised of the full text and were less than pleased with McCarrick’s presentation of what Ratzinger had to say. When the full text was later made public, first in an Italian newspaper, McCarrick suggested to the press that there were other communications with Ratzinger that put the letter in context, justifying the interpretation he had offered the bishops. Back at the June meeting, the bishops had, despite McCarrick’s resistance, made up their minds. There needed to be a clear and firm statement that unmistakably underscored the utterly distinctive status of abortion and euthanasia in Catholic teaching, and that approved, but did not mandate, specific pastoral approaches, including the denial of Communion to the obdurate.

Reasons to hope.

Mrs. Welborn shares some thoughts of her own:

Posters who remind us that even one abortion is terrible, and that while one goal of the pro-life movement is to reduce numbers of abortions, certainly (and remember- those aren't "numbers" - they're people. "reduce numbers" = "saving lives"), another goal is to reshape the culture and law - are correct.

But this is an important issue, especially now, because I've seen Stassen's information and perspective already, in just a matter of days, pulled out and used in defense of support for a "pro-choice" candidate. A "pro-choice" candidate, who, I might add, has no interest or intention in reducing anything related to abortion, if one is to go on his record.

It's also a useful conversation to have, generally - the questions are important, even as we constantly remind ourselves that our job doesn't end with talking about it - it's only begun, and it really begins in earnest, when we've managed to actually meet pregnant women and girls where they are and offer them the help and support they need.

One can only guess what will happen to federal funding for CPC's under a militantly pro-choice, Planned-Parenthood and NARAL courting Kerry administration.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?

Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational.

Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. . . . As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.

This election is certainly not the election of 1960, with Catholics supporting the "Catholic" candidate overwhelmingly or with the hierarchy, beginning with Cardinal Cushing of Boston, walking hand in hand with the Kennedy family. Those days are over. Today, Bush probably leads among white Catholics and is probably tied among all Catholics.

Bishops and archbishops have spoken out against the scandal of Kerry's faux and heterodox Catholicism. The lesson is clear: heterodox Catholics like Kerry will not go unchallenged in their use of the Catholic label for political gain. In fact, these phony Catholic candidates will be vehemently challenged and exposed by both laity and bishops.

Chaput lays it on the line: pro-life Catholics will not be muzzled in the world's greatest democracy. We came to these shores for freedom, and that freedom certainly includes the freedom to proclaim the truth that infants, whether unborn, partially born, or fully born, should not be butchered. As Chaput points out, it's a matter of human rights in addition to being a religious truth. But no one, not even the secularist editors of the New York Times should be surprised at this argument. After all, the very concept of human rights was born of the Judeo-Christian religious belief in the dignity of every human person.

Religion is the source of the Western development of human rights. To muzzle religious believers in political debate is to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg. The liberals will realize this fact only when it is too late. Catholics and many others realize it today.

My colleague Earl E. Appleby has drawn attention to Bishop Paul S. Loverde's correction of Kerry's claim that the Church's opposition to abortion is an "article of faith" that cannot be legislated. In so doing, Bishop Loverde joins a growing list of bishops who -- like the biblical prophets of old -- are speaking truth to political power and condemning the slaughter of innocents.

This past Tuesday, another impressive list of academics, legislators -- even a retired U.S. Army major general -- joined together to sign an An Open Letter From Fellow Catholics To John Kerry On Faith & Reason, addressing the moral incohrence of the Senator's "pro-choice" allegiance:

Innocent human life must always be protected. Senator John Kerry, you have said that "life begins at conception," but you have persistently supported abortion and oppose all sensible restrictions on the practice.

You have voted six times against banning the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. You voted to spend taxpayers' dollars to fund abortion at least 25 times.

You opposed Laci and Conner's Law, which protects pregnant women and their unborn babies from violent crimes.

In the most recent debate Senator Kerry, you said, "everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith" and that "everything is a gift from the Almighty." But apparently, when it comes to the issue of the right to life, you follow neither your own faith nor your own reason.

Senator Kerry, your stand contradicts both your faith and reason.

What is troubling to me is that the complete irrationality of John Kerry's support of abortion should be obvious to anybody with a little bit of common sense. You don't need a philosophy degree to realize that there's something more than a little wrong with a politician who recognizes that human life begins at conception but defends with every breath the "right" to murder that life. Who claims to be "personally opposed" to abortion but proudly claims militant defenders of abortion as allies. Who claims to have a "respect" for the Catholic faith but denigrates Christian opposition to abortion as a "rigid ideology". Who claims to "fight for equality and justice" but is all too willing to exclude the weakest among us.

In "Kerry and Abortion: A Look at Stark Reality Without Distractions" -- a response to Professor Cathleen Kaveny's diatribe against "Rambo Catholics" (and worth reading in full) -- Greg Sisk conveys what is on the mind of many a Catholic:

The plain fact is that John Kerry is not a "pro-choice" politician. Much worse, John Kerry is the candidate of the abortion industry itself.

It is for these reasons, principled reasons far beyond those flowing from ordinary partisan politics, that I and so many others genuinely tremble at the prospect of a President Kerry. It is difficult even to contemplate the appalling spectacle of a professing Catholic who knowingly and freely and energetically gives financial and legal aid and moral comfort to those who daily add to our national holocaust. Watching the most powerful man in the country throwing his arms in a warm embrace around those who kill unborn children, while banishing from government and judicial office those who would promote life, would be heart-rendingly painful. That this same man then could claim communion with the Church of Life is astounding. Such unavoidably would be an act of fundamental dishonesty and contempt for the Church's witness to life. The scandal that would be caused to the faithful and the injury to the Church's credibility and voice on issues of life might reverberate for years.

In words expressed by many other bishops as well, although not targeted at Kerry in particular, Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark has explained that "Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on the right to life of all unborn" have thereby chosen to separate themselves from the Church and "in a significant way from the Catholic community." He asked that such people should "honestly admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church," and that any attempt by such a person to "express 'communion' with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest." To emphasize the fuller meaning and the powerful meaning of communion is not bullying; it is a matter of simple integrity.

I feel it necessary to correct what I consider to be a misstatement by this particular candidate on what an article of faith is, and what the duties of the faithful are. In fact, there are others as well, including legislators, judges, and ordinary citizens, who espouse a similarly erroneous approach.

A short time ago, when asked about his position on abortion, this candidate said:

I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith.

The error is simply this: the wrongness of direct abortion is decidedly not just "an article of faith." Rather, it is rooted in the natural law. Citing legislators who say "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I cannot impose my religious beliefs on others," my predecessor, Bishop John Keating, spoke clearly in words which I echo today:

The fallacy in this reasoning is simply that the morality of abortion is not a religious belief, any more than the morality of slavery, apartheid, rape, larceny, murder or arson is a religious belief. These are norms of the natural law of mankind and can be legislated even in a completely religionless society (A Pastoral Letter on Morality and Conscience, 1994).

In this light, it is obvious why we bishops stated the following in Catholics in Political Life:

Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work towards correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and sinning against the common good.

As Pope John Paul II has said in Evangelium Vitae:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may 'lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way' (1 Tim. 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being (71).

To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either preborn or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is far more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue that cuts across denominational lines. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural moral law and the divine law. Because of this, no other issue is objectively more important. Therefore, both as citizens and as Catholics, we can never give up our efforts to eliminate the killing of innocent, defenseless human beings. [emphases and hypertext links added]

But, in their customarily cautious manner, some Vatican officials are now emphasizing that this unofficial communication is not definitive. Canon lawyer Peter Vere gives an insightful analysis of the situation by noting that the Vatican works with a "two steps forward, one step backward" mentality. That mentality may be necessary and may even be prudent and responsible. To some of us on the ground here in the United States, that mentality may be a bit frustrating and lacking in needed urgency. Either way, as Peter Vere notes, Marc Balestrieri of DeFide.com has moved the ball down the field. He has brought long and scandalously ignored matters to a head. For that, we owe him our continued thanks and support.

Therefore, I am happy to reiterate and extend my earlier pledge to help Mr. Balestrieri. Any author royalties from purchases made, in the remaining months of 2004, of the Catholic Analysis book, Unpopular Catholic Truths will go to support the work of Mr. Balestrieri as described in DeFide.com.

Whether by words or by treasure, I urge readers of this site to encourage the efforts of this singularly courageous canon lawyer from Los Angeles. He decided to take a stand instead of remaining a spectator. We apparently have many canon lawyers willing to remain spectators. I'll put my money on the one who decided to be different.

Will the silence of most U.S. Catholic bishops help elect a Presidential candidate who promotes procured abortion and supports same-sex marriage?

The Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, proclaimed recently to all Americans that he is a "faithful Catholic" in good standing, yet promised that if elected:

I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to "choice;" I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."[1]

A person is to be punished with a just penalty who gravely harms public morals.

I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.

Lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.[4]

Do all Catholic politicians understand their obligations in conscience? Apparently not, which means that their pastors have to take the time to speak with them personally. A pastoral conversation about the formation of conscience is not an interference in the political process. It is an exercise in pastoral charity, motivated by a desire for a politician’s salvation. The politician will someday be asked by the Lord: "What did you do to the least of my brothers and sisters?” And the pastor will be asked by the same Lord: “What did you do to warn them? How did you help them form their conscience?" Like Lazarus, the poor man ignored by the rich man until it was too late for the rich man to be saved (Luke 16: 19-31), those killed in their mother’s womb will be at the gates of paradise but unable to come to the assistance of those condemned to hell because they killed unborn children or supported their being killed. . . .

"Catholic participation in political life, revisited" Catholic New World Oct. 10, 2004.

• Tom of Disputations posts his email correspondence with Archbishop Chaput on the difference between abortion and war as moral evils.
  
• And, with a citation from Senator Kerry's speech at NARAL celebration honoring the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Tom of Disputations also shreds the KerryCatholic notion that Kerry is "personally opposed to abortion rights but is upholding the law of the land."
  
• Mark Brumley, president of Ignatius Press, on why "Some Political Issues Should Be More Important Than Others for Catholics".
  
• Faith is Always Private, Except When It Isn't, In Which Case Refer to JFK", Carl Olson fisks Kerry's third debate 'Cuomo Defense.' IgnatiusInsight, Oct. 14, 2004.
  
• Fr. Rob Johansen criticizes Ohio Dominican University for "Giving The Platform To Your Enemies" by hosting anti-Catholic columnist Ellen Goodman as the premier event of it's 2004-2005 "Presidential Lecture Series".
  
• Domenico Bettinelli critiques a new website called the "Catholic Voting Project" and why he disagrees with their tactic -- like that of the USCCB's presidential questionairre -- of "making all issues equal."
  
• Thomas Galvin (The Galvin Opinion) notices the discrepancy between Christopher Reeve's admission that "embryonic stem cells are . . . not able to do much about chronic injuries" and John Edward's promise to a Newton High School audience that: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
  
• Just Bein' Frank takes a look at Kerry "on abortion, litmus tests, and religious tests" and notes that Kerry's religious intolerance toward those who oppose Roe vs. Wade would "[effectively exclude] all serious Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims from the bench."
  
• Christine at Laudem Gloriae responds to Notre Dame professor M. Cathleen Kaveny's Wall Street Journal op-ed diatribe against "rambo Catholics" who she accuses of "trying to bully their fellow American Catholics into voting for George Bush."
  
• The Mighty Barrister critiques Rev. Lawrence Hummer's sermon at a specially arranged Mass which Senator Kerry recently attended, and notes Kerry's fondness from quoting from a Protestant version of the Bible.
  
• And as this election focuses Catholics' attention on the "life issues", Fidelis posts a recent editorial by Father John Fongemie FSSP, chaplain to Canberra's Latin Mass community, addressing "two interrelated matters I have put on the backburner for too long: organ donation and so-called "brain death" -- a controversy "not only ignored by the anti-life media, it is hardly prominent among pro-lifers themselves, even though the secular definition of what constitutes death . . . should be a frontline issue for all upholders of the Fifth Commandment.").
  
  

According to an announcement by the event's organizers, Artists for Kerry will hold a rally at the O'Shaughnessy Auditorium at the College of St. Catherine on Thursday, October 21.

St. Catherine's is run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, and is the largest Catholic college for women in the U.S. The event is meant "to inspire and mobilize Minnesotans to Get Out the Vote on November 2 and elect John Kerry President," according to the announcement.

According to the college's website, an appearance by Kerry has not been confirmed, although he is scheduled to be in Minneapolis at the time of the event.

Leo LaLonde, president of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, expressed concern over the college's acceptance of the arrangement.

"It is sad irony that the college named for St. Catherine of Alexandria who was beheaded for refusing to renounce her faith, welcomes a man who has renounced his faith by voting repeatedly to continue the practice of abortion; an act that the Catholic Church holds to be a grave moral evil," said LaLonde. "Equally ironic, St. Catherine is the patron saint of lawyers."

. . . To bolster his case, the Democratic presidential nominee pointed to a recent letter received by the U.S. bishops from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's arbiter of matters of faith and doctrine, who said it is not necessarily sinful for Catholics to consider all aspects of a public official's record, and not just his or her stance on abortion, before casting their votes.

[Kerry] cited a Democratic Senate survey that tallied votes on all the social justice, environmental, anti-abortion and foreign policy issues listed as concerns by America's Catholic bishops. Kerry said he had the best record in the Senate when it came to Catholic issues.

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. . . . There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

And people wonder why Catholics like Marc Balestrieri are outraged.

Thanks to Amy Welborn for the update.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Kerry's positions on issues like abortion and stem cell research are having a negative effect among Catholic voters.

A front page story from [the October 12] New York Times addressed the growing number of Catholic bishops who are making the case that support for pro-abortion candidates is sinful because the fundamental nature of protecting life in Church teaching....

The Times story cites a Pew Research poll from this month that reports 42 percent of white Catholics favoring George Bush, 29 percent supporting Kerry and 27 percent as undecided.

A Zogby poll conducted in September revealed that Bush enjoyed significantly greater support among Catholics than he did among the general population in the battleground states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.

President Bush lost the Catholic vote four years ago to Al Gore 49-47 percent. Sources close to the Bush campaign are predicting a significantly higher count for Bush come November.

In an interview with the Catholic News Service, Zogby senior political writer Fritz Wenzel attributed the growing support of Catholics for Bush partly to the controversy that erupted this summer over whether or not Kerry ought to receive Communion.

The media attention given to the issue advanced the pro-life cause. "Denying Communion is a whole different issue than abortion, but it made people aware of (the candidates') positions," Wenzel said. "It's like a potato chip that's the conveyor for the salt."

Many liberal Catholics are not regular Mass attenders, The conservative Catholics, they attend Mass, they take their institutions and leaders very seriously, and they're simply easier to mobilize.

John F. Kerry is evolving from a reserved Catholic reluctant to discuss faith in the public square into a Democratic preacher of sorts who speaks freely and sometimes forcefully about religion on the hustings.

Friends say that Kerry also has gained a deeper appreciation of how voters in many of the battleground states—from Hispanic Catholics in New Mexico to evangelical Christians in rural Ohio—seek candidates of faith, or at least desire reassurance that their president shares most of their values.

• The denunciation and complaint is pending before Archbishop O'Malley of Boston, according to the head of the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Boston. The case was delayed due to the Tribunal being massively overwhelmed by the thousands upon thousands of individual denunciations and complaints. The Tribunal has sent the case upwards to O'Malley.
  
• In late August, Mr. Balestrieri went to Rome to discuss the "unprecedented nature and scope" of the case with 10 experts. He "decided in conscience" to consult with the Vatican. He submitted two questions in Latin to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
  
  
  1. Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any and every direct abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy.
     
  2. Whether or not the Church's teaching condemning any and every right to abortion is a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith, and if the denial and doubt of the same constitutes heresy.
     
  
  According to Marc, "Less than ten days later, the Rev. Basil Cole, O.P., an expert theologian was delegated by the Very Rev. Augustine di Noia, O.P., Undersecretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, to fulfill the task of responding to the question. He studied the matter carefully, and has responded "Affirmative" on both counts."
  

  The four-page response is posted in full .pdf format at www.defide.com/. It is an excellent letter, and must be read in its entirety to get a real sense of the complexity of the issues involved and the sound and meticulous judgement of the church as to what constitutes heresy. I would also advise all readers to do so because, if the treatment of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum was any indication, there is an even greater capacity here for misleading and altogether botched reporting by the mainstream press -- best to familiarize yourself with the actual document(s) in question.
  

  The Congregation affirms that the teaching against abortion as a grave sin is "of divine and Catholic faith." Although this teaching has not been solemnly defined by the Roman Pontiff (as in, for example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception), it was held by "ordinary and universal magisterium" of the Church since the beginning of Christianity, constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and her Pastors and Doctors. For 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has not wavered in its moral condemnation of abortion.
  

  As a teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, "all Catholics are bound to believe in it with the firm and irrevocable assent of faith, admitting of no exceptions whatsoever. In public or in private, they can never deny this doctrine." Consequently, to claim that the Church's teaching on abortion is not definitive, that it does not warrant obedience and can in fact be dissented from, "would be erroneous and theologically heretical."
  

  The Congregation concludes:

  . . . Consequently, if a Catholic publicly and obstinately supports the civil right to abortion, knowing that the Church teaches officially against that legislation, he or she commits that heresy envisioned by Can. 751 of the Code.

  
  
• In light of this clarification by Rev. Basil Cole, O.P., Mr. Balestrieri is in the process of "filing an amended Denunciation and Complaint against Senator Kerry, as well as four new Denunciations and Complaints against Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts; Sen. Tom Harkin (D) [of Iowa]; Mr. Mario Cuomo (D), former Governor of New York; and Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine."
  

CatholicKerryWatch encourages its readers to lend your support -- spiritual as well as financial -- to Marc Balestrieri and De Fide. Peter Vere reported back in July 2004 that Mr. Balestrieri had lost his job as a canon lawyer with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Here is someone who literally put his job on the line in order to combat the scandal perpetuated by pro-abortion "Catholic" politicans.

Please stay tuned to defide.com for regular updates on this important case.

Repeats of the show will be shown at the following times: Sunday 17 October: 2 PM PST/ 5 PM EST; Monday 18 Oct: 4 AM PST/ 7 AM EST and 5 PM PST/ 8 PM EST.

Related coverage by our fellow bloggers:

• Vivificat.Org
  
• Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.
  
• Catholic Light
  
• De Fide.com & The Canonical Action Against Sen. John Kerry - Chronological summary from The Catholic Legate.
  

Related coverage by the press:

• "Lawyer buoyed on Kerry 'heresy'", by Joanne Dunne. Washington Times Oct. 18, 2004.
  
• "Letter Supports Anti-Kerry Bid Over Abortion", by Pam Belluck. New York Times Oct. 19, 2004.
  

UPDATES

• 10-18-04 - De Fide has posted the formal press release to their website: Senator Kerry "Excommunicated" According to Vatican Response: Kennedy, Harkin, Cuomo, Collins Denounced for Heresy Monday, 18 October 2004.
  
• 10-18-04 - Canon Law professor Dr. Edward Peters responded with a critique of the release on his blog, and takes the cautious position that:

  "Obviously, and despite some pretty dramatic press descriptions to the contrary, Cole's excellent letter is not and plainly does not purport to be an official statement by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, let alone is it an authentic interpretation (1983 CIC 16 § 1) of the canons in question (incl. 1983 CIC 750, 1321, 1331, 1364, and 1398) or an endorsement of the canonical case prompting the letter. Cole's letter is several steps removed from any kind of official Vatican decision in this case."

  
  
• Dr. Peters has also posted a note by Fr. Basil Cole stating that the letter was a personal and private opinion, and "in no way is authoritative from the Congregation nor was I representing the Congregation. It's only weight is that of a priest and a theologian who appeals to sacred sources. I was helping out Fr. DiNoia who asked me to do this for him."
  
• Excommunication Tactic Used Against John Kerry Washington Dispatch, Oct. 19, 2004.:

  Mr. Balestrieri was contacted regarding this article and quickly responded in length stating, "the response is unofficial in that I, as a layman, am not entitled to receive an 'official' response, because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not give out official responses to laymen like myself, only Bishops." Balestrieri went on to write, ". . . the theologian [Fr. Cole] writes that this truth is 'manifest.' Now, no theologian worth his salt ever throws such a thorny term around lightly. It was for that reason I received a response in the affirmative so quickly: The content of the teaching is not just official, but infallible. Any Bishop will tell you that."

  
  
• 10-19-04 - Blogger Kevin Miller ("Heart, Mind and Strength") offers his own analysis of Fr. Coles' letter, expressing reservations about the charge of heresy.
  
• 10-19-04 - According to Catholic News, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith claims that Balestrieri misrepresented his contact with the Vatican office:

  "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. (Marc) Balestrieri," said Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation.

  
  
• 10-19-04: Domenico Bettinelli asked Marc Balestrieri to respond to the disavowals of Fr. Cole's and Fr. DiNoia and posts his reply in full to his blog.
  
• 10-20-04 "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - Marc Balestrieri, JCL describes the distancing by DiNoia and Coles as "A series of unfortunate events . . . which some have attempted to use to avoid a thorough and honest discussion of the true issue at hand: The continuing attack against the Faith and Sacraments by those who publicly support the proposition advocating either Abortive Murder or the Right to Murder. . . .")
  
• 10-20-04 "Tunc et Nunc", response by Jimmy Akin. Dr. Edward N. Peters has further reactions on his blog.
  

• Not In Good Conscience (National Review Online, Oct. 12, 2004) -- Prof. Robert P. George of Princeton University and Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame respond to the recent endorsement of Senator Kerry by Mark W. Roche, dean of the College of Arts and Letters at the University of Notre Dame (New York Times Oct. 11, 2004). Roche tried to make the case why Catholics could vote for Kerry in good conscience.
  

• Mark Brumley ponders what Senator Kerry means by his description of Catholic morality on abortion as an "article of faith" (NRO, Oct. 14, 2004):

  What article of faith was Kerry talking about? That abortion kills an innocent human being? That's not a peculiarly Catholic belief or "article of faith." Plenty of people who aren't Catholics think abortion entails taking an innocent human life. President Bush does, and he's a Methodist, not a Catholic. So too many Lutherans, Baptists, Nazarenes, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians agree with faithful Catholics and President Bush. Then there are non-Christians, including many Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, for whom abortion is the killing an innocent human being. Indeed, some people with no religion at all or who deny God's existence take the same position.

  How, then, can opposition to abortion rights be "an article of faith"? Or if it is, why should that preclude opposing abortion on other grounds held in common with people who don't necessarily share one's faith?

  
  
• Rich Lowrey lays into Kerry's "respect" for Catholic critics (Kerry’s 'Catholic' Calculations" NRO, Oct. 15, 2004):

  . . . Indeed, if Kerry had a proper Catholic upbringing, he wasn't taught -- as he puts it -- to "respect" the view that life is sacred; he was taught to accept it as truth. It's not as though Catholics are instructed to respect fundamental tenets of the church as if they are the exotic beliefs of Zen Buddhism due a polite and inoffensive tolerance.

  
  

New drinking game: Every time Kerry mentions that he was an altar boy, we all do a shot. Or better yet, throw one at the TV.

And then we eat some pretzels because, you see what Kerry has done in this answer is twist himself into a good imitation of one. He can't impose his faith on anyone, but then...his faith affects everything he does. It's why he fights for equality and justice, and for the poor, the environment. His faith.

So if an impoverished fetus lived in timberland threatened by forestry companies...he'd be moved to try to save it? By his faith?

Got it. What a...oh, I can't say that, can I, now?

Kerry has professed--as a matter of his personal faith--a belief in the humanity of the unborn and his personal opposition to abortion, yet he has REFUSED TO UNDERTAKE ANY DEEDS TO PROTECT THE UNBORN.

Senator, faith without works IS dead. Your faith on this point INCLUDED.

It is not enough to say to the unborn "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body" (Jas. 2:16).

One of the things that is "needful to the body" for the unborn is the legal protection NOT TO HAVE THEIR BODIES RIPPED APART BY AN ABORTIONIST.

Senator, YOUR faith, without YOUR deeds on this point, is DEAD.

What a shame, then, that it is left to a Texas Methodist (Sen. Kerry's opponent in the debate) to repeatedly quote John Paul II's phrase in saying that he supports "a culture of life."

John Kerry' faith. A life-long Catholic, John Kerry attends Mass regularly. He is a former altar boy who describes himself as a "believing and practicing Catholic." More importantly, his strong personal faith informs his values and has guided him in a life of service. In speaking about his faith, he has often quoted the apostle James: "be doers of the word, and not merely earers . . . " Earlier this year, John Kerry elaborated, "The Scriptures say: 'It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds.' We look at what is happening in America today and we say: Where are the deeds?“

The Sanctity of Life. John Kerry believes strongly in the sanctity of human life. He is personally opposed to abortion, and will work for a nation where abortion is safe, legal and as rare as possible. John Kerry and John Edwards will work together across our differences to provide the support to women and families needed to make abortion rare; including strong support for child and maternal health, adoption, and teen pregnancy prevention. Support for programs like these helped reduce abortions to their lowest level in 25 years under President Clinton. Belief in the sanctity of human life means committing ourselves to care more fully for the health and well being of women, children and their families -- investments in health care, childcare, and education are imperative.

Marriage. John Kerry firmly believes that marriage exists only between a man and a woman. He does not agree that there needs to be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to defend marriage. John Kerry will work to uphold the civil rights of all Americans, including gays and lesbians. As many have observed, Republicans have tried to twist John Kerry's position on this issue. In an interview, Sen. Richard Durbin said that Republicans are simply trying to "change the subject" of the election away from the war in Iraq and the economy.

Faith-Based Initiatives. John Kerry strongly supports churches and faith-based groups that partner with government to provide important and needed services to their communities. As President, John Kerry will invite churches and faith-based institutions to continue to play the role they have always played -- as leaders, teachers, and guides in our communities. A Kerry-Edwards administration will value the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land by offering financial support for faith-based organizations, in a way that supports our Constitution and upholds civil rights.

Raymond L. Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and US ambassador to the Vatican, injected himself into the presidential race yesterday with a pointed letter to John F. Kerry, his home-state senator and fellow Democrat.

Flynn, in an ad spreading across nearly an entire page of The New York Times, chided Kerry for insisting that, if elected president, he would appoint only people who support abortion rights to be justices on the Supreme Court.

"Removing political correctness from that statement, Senator Kerry, you have announced that you will only support people to the federal judiciary who support killing unborn children," Flynn wrote in an open letter funded by an organization of lay Catholics he heads, Liberty, Life and Family Inc. of Washington. The group, which bills itself as a nonpartisan entity, says its primary concern is preserving the civil rights of unborn children.

"This letter is not on behalf of or in opposition to your candidacy, but I am asking you to announce today that you will not impose any abortion litmus test on candidates for the federal judiciary -- especially those who are faithful Catholics," Flynn wrote to Kerry, listing Harvard Law School Professor Mary Ann Glendon as the type of potential jurist who would be excluded under Kerry's standard.

According to the Globe, Flynn and Kerry had been "partisan allies," assisting each other in their political races for mayor and senator. Flynn and his family were even guests at the Democratic National Convention. But since his service as ambassador to the Vatican from 1993-1997, "Flynn has not held public office and instead spent time as a radio host and media commentator, almost exclusively focusing on his faith-based opposition to abortion and commitment to helping the poor."

Raymond Flynn has worked with Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life and recently assisted Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston in a campaign "to encourage Catholics to become more informed and actively involved in the civic life of their community and Church." He spoke at a gathering of Democrats for Life in January, 2003, saying "I'm pro-life; I'm pro-family; and I'm pro-poor. . . . That was the Democratic Party that I grew up in." He is not the first Democrat to question his party's total abandonment of the unborn.

It's good to see Kerry's fellow Democrats -- even if only a few -- express their concern over the questionable morality of their Senator. Let's hope it continues.

. . . He goes to Mass but windsurfs theologically: He has "always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself."

 Does Kerry speak about sin? Can't find that anywhere in his published speeches, but he did tell American Windsurfer: "So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another." He does have ardent praise for the Dalai Lama, who "is certainly telling us there is life from enlightenment -- here and hereafter, but I think, whether or not we're going to be (enlightened) is the great test that all of us are struggling with."

Is this Catholicism? Doesn't sound like it, but these mixed messages are apparently common at Sen. Kerry's home church, the very liberal Paulist Center in Boston. Jonathan Last of The Weekly Standard attended a Center service and observed a reciting of an edited version of the Nicene Creed, with the section on believing in only "one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," dropped out.

No wonder, then, that Mr. Olasky notes:

Once the theological ball is dropped, other balls -- marriage, sanctity of life and so on -- also hit the floor. The noise of all those balls dropping is mixed with the sound of most Catholics fleeing the Kerry campaign -- and also backing Bush because of a common social vision.

• See also: "Catholicism Lite? - John Kerry's Religion", by Joseph Sobran. September 28, 2004.
  

When the "separation of church and state" begins to mean separating religious faith from public life, we begin to separate government from morality and citizens from their consciences, and that leads to politics without character, which is now a national disease.

For Catholics, all of our actions and all of our choices should be rooted in our Catholic identity and in our relationship with God. That means our choices at work; at play; within our families; and also the choices we make in living out our citizenship.

LONG: Senator Kerry, thousands of people have already been cured or treated by the use of adult stem cells or umbilical cord stem cells. However, no one has been cured by using embryonic stem cells.

Wouldn't it be wide to use stem cells obtained without the destruction of an embryo?

KERRY: You know, Elizabeth, I really respect your -- the feeling that's in your question. I understand it. I know the morality that's prompting that question, and I respect it enormously.

Kerry proceeded to name a few celebrities who support his backing of embryonic stem cell research (Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves, etc.), and then stated his position:

I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research.

We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen.

And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing, you know, some kind of a, you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury, anything, that's the nature of the human spirit. I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.

Furthermore, according to Robert P. George, Kerry lied about embryonic stem cell research:

. . . Every reporter covering the election should . . . be demanding of Kerry an answer to the following question: Who are the scientists who told you that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's, diabetes, spinal-cord injuries, or any other disease using embryonic stem cells? If they won't ask him, the Bush campaign should defy him to name the names. He won't be able to do it. No scientists -- even those most pro-Kerry and aggressively in favor of the federal funding of embryo-destructive research -- ever told Kerry any such thing.

What Kerry has done here is told the big lie about embryonic stem cells. The claim that "we have the option" of curing Parkinson's disease, diabetes, etc. with embryonic stem cells is outrageous. No one knows when -- or even whether or not -- human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in treating any major disease or injury. There are profound -- perhaps insuperable -- problems with the therapeutic use of these cells. So, despite the fact that there is no federal ban on embryonic-stem-cell research, and that such research can be funded with state money and is being publicly funded in various places abroad, no embryonic-stem-cell-based therapy is even in clinical trials.

For months now, the Kerry campaign and its surrogates, such as Ron Reagan Jr., have cruelly led suffering people to believe that cures for their diseases are just around the corner. All we have to do is replace Bush with Kerry, open the federal funding spigot, and presto! The blind see and the lame walk! The Kerry campaign's hyping of embryo-destructive research for political gain is the cruelest and most shameful episode in the story of the 2004 election.

For the sake of new readers who may be joining us, here's a recap of why Kerry's wrong on embroyonic stem cells:

• "The Stem-Cell Cover Up", August 18, 2004. A look at the stem-cell cover up and the numerous and phenomenal advances in adult stem-cell research and application, courtesy of Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World.
  
• Out of Touch, Michael Fumento rebuts Kerry's support of embryonic stem cells. Citizen Magazine August 2004.
  
• Stem-Cell Defection, by Ramesh Ponnuru. National Review August 16, 2004. "The meeting with [Indiana Congressman] Mark Souder did not go exactly as planned. They didn't persuade Souder to support the funding [for embroyonic stem-cell research]. Instead, he persuaded them to oppose it."
  
• The Wrong Tree: Embryonic stem cells are not all that, by Wesley J. Smith. (NRO May 13, 2004).
  
• John Kerry's Medicine Show - satirical humor from The Curt Jester.
  

Update: Supplementary links, courtesy of Insight Scoop:

• Stem Cell Research: Fact Sheets, Letters to Congress and Articles from the USCCB.
  
• Testimony of Richard M. Doerflinger on behalf of the USCCB, on Ethical and Policy Concerns regarding ESCR. Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, September 29, 2004.
  

This is a follow-up to my CKW colleague Jeff Miller's earlier report.

From the pages of Times Against Humanity...

The latest addition to Time Against Humanity's links is The Meandering Mind of a Seminarian. When you read and see Rev. Mr. Dana Christensen's two-part report on the Catholic pro-life witness of St. Louis seminarians at a recent Death Party rally for CINO Senator John Kerry and the latter's predictably anti-Catholic response, you'll know why. In fact, you may wish to start at the beginning—although it would be hard to go wrong anywhere on this blog, as far as we can see.

Here are a few highlights that don't begin to do justice to Mr. Christensen's must-read, first-hand account:

Last evening a group of [about 25] seminarians dressed in clerical attire... and laity gathered to offer a pro-life witness at the Kerry/Edwards Debate Watch Party and Rally held at the America's Center downtown St. Louis.

...A young lady claiming to be a staff member of the Kerry/Edwards campaign approached. She asked to see the signs, so we showed them to her. As soon as she realized that the signs said things such as "You CAN'T be Catholic and pro-choice. She said that we would be unable to enter with the signs. I produced a document from the ACLU that said otherwise. At this point we began to be accosted by various Kerry supporters. They were right up in my face, screaming and yelling. With their arms flailing they informed me that I was not welcome there....We remained calm and prayerful.

...I told her that we would leave our signs outside. She said no. I told her that we would say nothing, and that we were not there to cause a disruption or harm to the Senator, and that if we did cause a disruption they could remove us. She said no. I asked her what evidence they had that we were going to cause a disruption, at which time she fell silent because there was no evidence. Up until this time the only disruptions were those cause by the Kerry supporters themselves, all we did was stand silently in prayer. I pressed her on this issue, but she could not give an adequate answer. They had no grounds for expelling us other than the fact that we were wearing roman collars. They knew our very presence would challenge Senator Kerry's position on Life issues and the wanted to avoid that, even if it meant squelching our freedom of speech and freedom of expression. So much for the Democratic Party being a party of understanding and diversity.

Last night, John Kerry stood before America and suggested that one could be Catholic and supportive of abortion "rights." There is a name for what he did; it's called giving scandal to the Church.

It is, in a way, fitting that he made his scandalous stand in St. Louis, home to one of the few bishops with the courage to stand up to pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians.

His act of defiance, though, was not merely to Archbishop Burke; it was to all the bishops, the Holy Father, and Holy Mother Church. And in so doing, he gave great scandal to the Church by communicating to the American public on national television, that one can be both Catholic, and pro-abortion.

It is long past time for the bishops, as a body, to respond to this in a forceful manner, by denouncing Kerry's hideous implication. Will it cause some outrage in political circles? Perhaps. But, they have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the public image of the Church. [Editor's Note: And, may we add, what is more important, the integrity of the Catholic faith.]

This farcical game has gone on for far too long, and certain bishops have been enabling it. The bishops who know better need to take the bull by the horns, and speak out loudly, and soon. [Emphasis added.]

Senator Kerry gave a long and convoluted answer, which I wanted to unpack:

Kerry: First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

Kerry: But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.

Kerry: But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.

Kerry: But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment. Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.

Kerry: That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning. . . .

Kerry: . . . You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies. You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.

It's no wonder that President Bush responded to Kerry's remark: "I'm still trying to decipher that."

Here is President Bush's response to Ms. Degenhart:

President Bush: My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

Was that so difficult?

As you may know, the senator will be having a similar event here at America's Center after his Friday night, October 8 debate. A number of Kenrick-Glennon seminarians felt that it would not be right to let this go by without representatives from our seminary offering a similar witness to the sanctity of life and the incongruity of the position which Senator Kerry represents. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke was informed of the seminarians' idea on the evening of October 6, and gave his blessing on the undertaking.

Seminarians will be meeting at the Old Cathedral at 5:30 p.m. and walking as a group to America's Center.

Even if you cannot join us, please pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance for this event, and for the conversion of hearts in our nation, including our leaders.

If you want to join the seminarians of Kenrick-Glennon in this prayerful witness, you must bring your own ticket to get into America’s Center. Tickets are free and can be accessed by going to www.JohnKerry.com (go to the "get local" link and scroll to "Missouri") or by calling the Democratic Party offices at 314/645-1449. Please bring your own signs (without sticks) if you will be attending.

Via The Meandering Mind of a Seminarian

I hope you know how I feel about Terri Schiavo, but this quote from Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) is particularly satisfying to me:

As for CURE, lest there be any confusion in a matter in which clarity is critical, we simply reaffirm that starving a man to death was murder long before Moses received the Ten Commandments and it will remain so until the last human dies.

I'm so sad sometimes these days. Terri's situation is clear to me, but I can at least wrap some part of my brain around the arguments that many make in defense of her husband, I really can.

But with an election on the horizon, abortion is not ever far from my active consciousness, and I can honestly say that I am dumbfounded that supposedly rational people actually think that killing a fetus is okay. I don't get it. Surely no one is persisting in an argument that this is not a life, so it simply comes down to this; the value of an adult female is greater than the value of a fetus. Is that it? I know there are some pro-choice readers out there. Help me understand.

I despise capital punishment, and current events in Texas make it obvious that it should be stopped. And if I actually believed John Kerry was opposed to capital punishment that might tickle my vote meter.

I hate that lives are still being lost in Iraq (although I am nearly positive that already and even more so over the long run, the balance will be far outweighed by lives saved), and if I actually believed John Kerry had a clue as to how to make things better, that might register on my voting consciousness a bit as well.

But all of that pales in comparison to the fact that we've slaughtered 45 million Americans in the last three decades for no reason other than that we want absolute freedom of sexual whateverness.

How could anyone possibly even consider putting someone in office who will do everything in his power to continue that slaughter? Help me understand. [Emphasis added.]

Haskell and Kerry both have a knack for compartmentalization. In 1993, Cincinnati Medicine asked Haskell, "Does it bother you that a second trimester fetus so closely resembles a baby?" Haskell replied, "I really don't think about it. . . . Many of our patients have ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion because of her ethical feelings. . . . I'm not to tell them what's right or wrong."

Kerry explained in 1972: "On abortion, I myself, by belief and upbringing, am opposed to abortion, but as a legislator, as one who is called on to pass a law, I would find it very difficult to legislate on something God himself has not seen fit to make clear to all the people on this earth."

From the pages of Life Matters! . . .

The following appeal is crossposted here courtesy of one of Mark Shea's many readers.

Regardless of your assessment of the relative merits of this defense or its philosophical premises, we urge any of our readers who can assist Terri's defenders in this matter to respond as indicated below. and to spread news of this appeal to appropriate friends and allies.

As for CURE, lest there be any confusion in a matter in which clarity is critical, we simply reaffirm that starving a man to death was murder long before Moses received the Ten Commandments and it will remain so until the last human dies.

Whatever Terri was, the essential point is that she is. Terris is a living human being, a member of the human family, and for that reason alone, her life should be defended without compromise from all who would murder her under the guise of unjust law, which is no law at all.

Yesterday, Doug and I talked with Debi Vinnedge of the Children of God for Life in Clearwater, FL. Last Thursday she was present during the latest hearing to reconsider the court's decision in the Terri Schiavo case.

The argument being presented was essentially this: Terri was a devout Catholic. The Holy Father's March 20th statement spoke clearly that withdrawing her feeding and nutrition was gravely wrong—sinful. As a faithful Catholic therefore, Terri would not be saying "it would be okay to remove my tube" which is just the opposite of what her husband has been presenting to the Court as "her wishes." Any court ruling that permitted removal of her feeding would violate Terri's Constitutionally protected right to practice her religion.

Debi told us that the Judge said from the bench that the attorneys had a week to get him any further case law on the point and that he would rule within 2 weeks whether he would hold a full blown evidentiary hearing to determine whether to vacate the previous orders entered in the case which have favored her husband's position that the tube should be withdrawn.

In order to be prepared for such a hearing, they are seeking evidence that actual Catholics have changed their advance directives or otherwise acted in response to the Holy Father's March 20th statement. Most obvious would be affidavits from individuals who have in fact changed the text of their directives or who have executed directives specifically following the mandate in his statement.

Doug has had two clients who just recently executed will and health care directive packages which quite specifically included directives that feeding and nutrition not be withdrawn unless their bodies could no longer assimilate it.

If you know of such people, can you put Doug in touch with them so he can work to get their evidence passed on to the attorneys who are now litigating on Terri's behalf.

Please respond either to Doug or myself as soon as you can. You can email us at lifetree@lifetree.org. Doug will be contacting the attorneys in Florida within the next couple of days and would like to lay out for them what can be provided from interested people...