Listen to your bishops.

A few thoughts on how liberal Catholics and their politicians could consider themselves pro-life while voting pro-choice...
.
"At their fall 1989 meeting, the bishops of the United States passed a resolution condemning abortion," writes Archbishjop Weakland in his memoirs.  Remember Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 when abortion on demand became legal.  In 1981 Fr. Paul Marx, considered to be something of a fanatic by some bishops, began the pro-life movement..  Yet the bishops didn't get it together until 1989, despite the fact that the CDF issued a document On procured abortion in 1974.  Why was the resolution so long in coming?
.
The Bernardin "seamless garment approach", Weakland, and the USCCB.
.
The civil, kinder, gentler approach to the life issue became the official approach, thanks largely to Cardinal Bernardin and those in communion with him.  Cardinal Bernardin "had linked the questions of abortion and nuclear war. “ No other major institution presently holds these two positions in the way that Catholic bishops have joined them.” Bernardin stated at Fordham in 1983, speaking of the U.S. Bishop's pastoral, “The Challenge of Peace,” indicating he would use the letter “as a starting point for shaping a consistent ethic of life in our culture.”
.
Well intentioned of course, yet abortion in effect became one of many peace and justice life issues, with the supposition not every Catholic can be working on every life issue at the same time.
.
The Catholic moral tradition, he pointed out, “has something valuable to say in the face of the multiple threats to the sacredness of life today, and I am convinced that the church is in a position to make a significant defense of life in a comprehensive and consistent manner.”  
.
“I am convinced,” he continued, “that the pro-life position of the church must be developed in terms of a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life.” As the new chairman of the bishops’ pro-life committee, he committed himself to “shaping a position of linkage among the life issues.”
.
The cardinal posed two questions about these life issues: “In an age when we can do almost anything, how do we decide what we ought to do?” and “In a time when we can do anything technologically, how do we decide morally what we never should do?”
.
“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.”
.
On sensitive issues like abortion, the cardinal said, “we should maintain and clearly articulate our religious convictions, but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another’s case; we should test everyone’s logic, but not question his or her motives.” - Richard P. McBrien, Cardinal Bernardin's seamless garment, NCR
.
The Kennedy's had their Jesuit consultants (Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick, Charles Curran), the rest of the country had a few prominent bishops who viewed pro-life advocates as narrow minded, single issue fanatics and Christian fundamentalists.
.
As Weakland wrote in his memoirs:
.
I also tried to answer those in the pro-life movement who felt priests were not supportive of their groups and their aims, would not publicly associate with them in their cause, and did not preach often enough about the evils of abortion.  I pointed out some of the characteristics of their groups and their approaches about which priests felt uncomfortable - lack of compassion, narrowness of vision, ugly and demeaning rhetoric, questionable tactics, and lack of interest in other life issues..." - Weakland, Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church, Chapter 14, Managing Conflicting Models of Church, page 332
.
In other words, pro-life advocates were more or less dismissed as radicals (and still are by politicians such as Pelosi and Biden).  Thank God today we have courageous bishops such as Archbishop Chaput who point out that, "Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong." - Archbishop Chaput  It is not just one of many life issues.
.
What I'm trying to suggest here is that many liberal Catholics and their politicians may have been acting in relative good faith - they were just listening to their bishops after all... or following their example in rejecting Rome.