At TNR

Actually rather interesting:

But is abortion different? Is the contempt for human life that any abortion inherently embodies such a social evil that no politician can be permitted to call himself a Catholic and support the right to choose it? That is indeed a critical question, and conservative Catholics are not wrong to raise it. But there is a distinction between support for the morality of abortion and reluctant support for a woman’s right to choose such a moral wrong. It should be possible, if difficult, for a Catholic politician to affirm the evil of abortion but to defer to the political freedoms inherent in a liberal polity–specifically control over one’s own body–in most cases. Mario Cuomo tried to define such a position, with mixed success. You can differ with him (as I once did). But it seems an extreme measure to punish such a thoughtful statement with effective ex-communication.

In my view, Kerry’s support for partial birth abortion and the absence of any statement I know of in which he speaks of the profound moral cost of abortion certainly puts him on the fringe of legitimate Catholic doctrine. Bill Clinton’s belief that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare” is far more defensible, because it at least concedes the principle that just because something is and should be legal doesn’t make it right. But even then, the hierarchy’s criticism of such a stance need not degenerate into a policy of purging Catholic politicians from their own church. It should be possible–in fact, there is no long-term alternative to reducing abortion–to make the important public case in defense of unborn human life, while avoiding the painful and dangerous business of denying sacraments and getting embroiled in presidential politics.

“Fringe” is not quite the word. A little further out, I’d say.

And please leave Clinton and safe, legal and rare out of it, unless you are going to analyze it on the level of pure politics, which is all the phrase is.

Now this:

Specter is pro-choice and pro-stem-cell-research. Didn’t Santorum effectively urge voters to support someone who favors abortion in some cases against a candidate who opposes it in all circumstances? Shouldn’t the Vatican be refusing to grant the sacraments to Santorum because of his deviation from the official all-or-nothing line? Wasn’t he giving voters Catholic “cover” for voting for an abortion supporter? Once you realize what the full repercussions of the Novak position would be, you begin to realize why sage princes of the Church do not support it.

Teachable moments continue to pile up.

The first teachable moment is already aging – what is the Eucharist, what does it mean, what do we “say” when we approach Jesus in Eucharist?

No one seems to understand this. At all.

The second teachable moment regards the varying aspects of Catholic teaching. The problem with this is that without nuance, any effort immediately gets boiled down to a checklist. “How far can you go?” becomes the theme. It also becomes an essentially pointless exercise when the discussion turns its back on Point 1 up there. Ignore the core of faith – which is the life and commitment of a disciple of Jesus – and all you’ve got to fall back on are tests of institutional loyalty, as conceived in 21st century soundbytes.

The third teachable moment regards this whole Santorum business, which is not going to go away. In my mind, Rick Santorum really needs to speak to this himself, and fairly quickly.

And as I’ve said before, I think the whole thing could be well on its way to being fixed if we could get over the illusion that We Are All Good Catholics Now, and all of that implies.

Are we pharisees or publicans? – that is the question.