Catholics have an obligation to be pro-life. However, that term, in a Catholic context is a lot more complex than a stance on secular law.
The Church has published a Doctrinal Note on our obligations and some warnings about the overuse or abuse of the concept of “limiting the harm”, essentially compromising between evils. The full document can be found here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
Although I have never voted pro-choice, doing was was more defensible until recently. For example, Catholics frequently vote for politicians who are, in the Catholic sense, still pro abortion, since they support exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
This seemed like an example of the concept of limiting harm as explained by John Paul II in Evangelum Vitae. However, Pope Benedict has been much firmer in his assertion that secular voting is far closer to the actual sinful act than most Catholic Theologian’s would have proposed (for example, most theologians felt Bishop Burke was incorrect in his interpretation of the Catechism, but the Pope, our ultimate moral authority, has concurred).
So, the Church’s position is that we must stop fudging on “moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”. Given the list, which includes not just “abortion”, but things like “religious freedom”, “protection of minors”, “development of an economy that is in the service of the human person” (in the sense of LUMEN GUADIUM) and “Peace” (citing the CCC limitations on war as non negotiable), this is no easy task. As mutiple US Bishops have noted, we really have no major pro-life political party in this country.
What makes it harder still are things like this:
“At the same time, the Church teaches that authentic freedom does not exist without the truth. «Truth and freedom either go together hand in hand or together they perish in misery». In a society in which truth is neither mentioned nor sought, every form of authentic exercise of freedom will be weakened, opening the way to libertine and individualistic distortions and undermining the protection of the good of the human person and of the entire society.”
If you read the footnotes it is hard to escape the conclussion that even if you can find a candidate whose stated positions are compatible with the nine or ten non-negotiable Catholic moral principles citing by the Church for voting, they are disqualified if they simply use deception in their politics.
I think that the priest was probably misunderstood. I think he most likely was explaining that you have to balance our teachings and vote them as consistantly and coherently as you can. In this, the church seems to agree:
“The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine.”
If you read the CCC and believe that, say, Iraq truly meets the criteria laid out, something that both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have stated they do not believe is true, fine (you are still challenging apostolic authority, but it, in of itself, does not render you unfit for communion). But if you agree with the Popes and vote to support war anyway, the Church is saying don’t point to abortion as a justification. Both unjust war and widespread abortion are attrocities on a massive scale, and non negotiable to Catholics.
Using one to justify the other is a rejection of the underlying belief system that supports both. It is, as the Church says, “incoherent”. It also, according to then Cardinal Ratzinger, renders you unfit for the Eucharist.
