O'Malley uses "scandal" to describe Catholics voting for pro-choice politicians, while Lori suggests jumping through hoops

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

O'Malley urged the Democratic Party to be more open to abortion opponents. "My plea with Democratic leaders is always that they make space for prolife politicians, and I have many prolife Democrats come to me and say that they're not making space for them. I think that that is a very serious problem, particularly in a state like Massachusetts, where it is so heavily Democrat." - Boston Globe

Someone is reaping the good fruits of the Fall Meeting. CWNews summarizes here.

Meanwhile Bishop William Lori prevaricates over the proposed hypothetical of whether one can legitimately vote for a pro-abortion politician because of "grave proportional reasons":

After the briefing concluded, Lori responded to a reporter’s question about another situation, in which one candidate may hold an anti-abortion position but oppose other concerns of the church, while that candidate's opponent may be pro-choice but sympathetic to the church in other ways.

“That’s such a hypothetical question, it would be very hard to answer as asked,” Lori said. “I think what we are saying is that if a voter is confronted with a dilemma of a pro-life candidate who is in some other way flawed or unfit for office, or likely to discredit the pro-life position, one might be in a dilemma, a difficult situation.”

“A situation could arise that the pro-life candidate would be in some other way unsuitable,” Lori said. “It could be that the way in which he would advance the pro-life cause might do more harm than good. It might be that his opposition to other human goods is so rabid that a conscientious voter might be put in a dilemma. In that case, you have to weigh that over against the other candidate.”

“The main point of the statement,” Lori said, “is that you can’t easily reach that decision. You can’t reach it because you prefer one party over another, you can’t reach it because in addition to everything else the candidate is going to make you feel better. It can't be because of economic advantage.

“You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion,” Lori said. “I think that the more who go through those hoops, the better off we’re going to be.”

... huh? "Hoops"?! Let's all go through hoops?!

First of all, this isn't "such a hypothetical question." People regularly defend voting for a pro-abortion politician because they believe that candidate so-and-so proportionally is better on the "other life issues" (such as, say, immigration and health care).

However, the twin statements in this new USCCB document (PDF) which claim that abortion is "not just one issue among many" and "must always be opposed" strike me as formulations that do not admit of proportionalist evaluations: if you put "abortion" on one side of the scales and "health care" on the other - the scale's going to definitively fall one way. You can't have it both ways.

Or, to contextualize the dilemma, how can we have one Bishop saying that voting for pro-choice politicians "borders on scandal" while another Bishop can go around claiming that "You really have to go through some hoops to come to that conclusion" (whatever he actually meant)?

Either it's clear, or it isn't. So, which is it?

Update: CNA posts its coverage here. Diogenes finds O'Malley's addition of the qualifier "borders on" to be needless, and then presents ample facts to support his claim. His conclusion:

"If you're looking for something that "borders on" a state of scandal, I'd say: New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island."

Oh my, that's just brilliant.