LTTE > Consistent Pro-Life Theology?

References to a “consistent” approach to Catholic theology that would “refuse to serve Communion to all members who support choice” do not tell the truth about Right-to-Life. As it was defined by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin over 25 years ago, a consistent approach to Pro-Life Catholic theology would have to deal with those who support Un-Just Wars, such as the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. The real reason the political tactic of denying Communion is so selectively used is because church pews would be empty of all of those Catholics who voted, not just once, but twice for George Bush and are, according to some, responsible for putting him over the finish-line in 2004, thus insuring the deaths of tens-of-thousands of innocent Iraqis, and creating some 5,000,000 Iraqi orphans. Honest Pro-Life is anti-War and that’s why the Bishops don’t enforce its ethic amongst the general congregation. Doing so would be too unpopular, more proof that our Bishop’s act against Governor Sebelius was, indeed, political.

I was very saddened to see the Archbishop's condemnation of Governor Sebelius. He almost seemed to be saying that you cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat. If Kathleen is to be denied eucharist for supporting abortion, then it is a very small step to also deny me eucharist for supporting Democratic politicians like Sebelius, Kerry, and Obama who support abortion.
The Archbishop wants to make the point that the Church's teaching about abortion is not optional, but he also seems to be making the point that the Church's teaching about abortion is primary. When, for example, has the Church ever denied eucharist to a Republican politician for supporting Bush's tax cuts or supporting heartless budget cuts for aid to the poor and to children?
I am not going to deny that there are conflicts between the Democratic Party and the Church, but in my eyes, there are even more severe conflicts between God's Own Party (GOP) and the church, as I mentioned in a recent LTTE.

"Well, there he goes again. (Name redacted) last Friday with another column bashing liberals. First, he asserts that liberals are always dishonest in their references, using Obama as an example. Nothing in the Sermon on the Mount endorses abortion or homosexuality, he says. That is true, but neither does Jesus go out of his way to condemn them. Yet He does say "blessed are the peacemakers" which seems to be an endorsement of war protestors and those trying to make peace between Democrats and Republicans (unlike some columnists who seem to want to stir up hate). Jesus also speaks against greed: "You cannot serve God and mammon."
(Redacted) also quotes Paul preaching against greed and heartlessness, and that seems to be the log in his conservative eye as he picks at the mote in the liberal eye. Consider the downturn in the economy. Republicans proposed a 'stimulus' package that will send checks to people in May. Under that plan, a couple making $140,000 would get a check, but a person like me, who made $11,000 last year, would not. Nancy Pelosi negotiated to include checks for working people who make over $3,000.
That was still a terrible compromise. Senate Democrats tried to include funding for food stamps, unemployment insurance, and LIHEAP (Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Payments). Senate Republicans, including Brownback and Roberts, fillibustered to prevent even an up or down vote on this. Consider this with regard to Matthew 25: 31 - 46. In that passage Jesus condemns some people to everlasting punishment. Why? Because "I was hungry and you gave me no food". It seems to me that Democrats tried to provide food stamps for the hungry, while Republicans prevented it. Democrats tried to provide money for those struggling to pay for heat, but Republicans prevented it. Democrats tried to provide money for those still unable to find a job, but Republicans, once again, prevented it. Democrats also tried to expand SCHIP along with Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley, but Bush's veto and Republicans in the House prevented that. "I was sick and you did not take care of me."
Would the apostle Paul think that was heartless? Would he think tax cuts aimed at the wealthy was greedy? It is in caring for the poor and taxing the greedy that I think is at least as much a part of both the Democratic Party and the Gospel as the two issues that Beck is obsessed about. The Democratic Platform in 2004 was 43 pages long with only a few paragraphs about homosexuality and abortion. Not my favorite parts of the platform, but far more tolerable than Bush's huge deficits, tax cuts for the wealthy, and privatising Social Security that were in the Republican platform.
Finally, (redacted) mentioned Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, however that is an endorsement that Obama has denounced and rejected. McCain did not do the same thing when John Hagee endorsed him. Hagee is a televangelist who made $1.25 million in 2001, but even worse than his greed is his bigotry towards the Catholic church. Bill Donohue claims that Hagee identifies the Catholic Church as "spawning a theology of hate." Still, John McCain was happy to accept his endorsement.
All in all, that's just another log in the wall."

Kathleen has taken money from abortion providers while the Republicans take money from the rich and powerful to promote policies that directly benefit the rich and powerful.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2005-04-05-waltons-usat_x.htm

"Led by Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show."

"The Walton support for Bush and other fiscal conservatives assumed new urgency last month when Wal-Mart sweetened its dividend — boosting Walton dividend income above $1 billion a year. Bush's dividend tax cut, enacted two years ago and set to expire in 2009, will save the family as much as $51 million this year."

Not only do I not see the Archbishop challenging the rich and powerful (admittedly, I hardly ever read The Leaven) but by attacking leading Democrats, he is providing them aid and comfort.