I thought the piece by Ed Morrissey explained the difference in Catholic theology between the issue of abortion and the determination of 'just wars', but perhaps this is the article where he went into more detail about that.

When the Church offers an opinion on whether or not a war is just, it isn't a moral absolute. There's a recognition of the complexity, and that the war itself can have a purpose of securing a more just situation for the people involved, and thus in some opinions may be justified even if that's not where the Church came down in this case.

Abortion doesn't have the same latitude. Innocent life shouldn't be taken under any justification except self defense (life of the mother.) Again, some people may disagree, but then they shouldn't proclaim themselves to be in good standing with Church teaching.

So no, I would not deny Communion to voters or to those politicians- but I do support the Church's right to tell them that they are misrepresenting what the Church teaches.

Of course people choose some things from life and refuse others.

Of course people choose some things from religion and refuse others.

Of course people choose some things from “our body of laws” and refuse others.

What happens in reality is that some people deny they are doing this and then feel themselves entitled to the high moral ground, often on the basis of understanding what the word “no” means.

The priest told people who supported Obama they were putting their immortal souls in danger if they took communion without repenting their votes for Obama, “lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Read all about it, including quotes from his pastoral letter, courtesy of the Associated Press.

You're also slicing it kind of thin on the issue of war. It's not just some theoretical church that opposes the war in Iraq. It is true that the Catholic Church is not pacifist. But the Church does believe in the Doctrine of the Just War. The Iraq War has been opposed by two successive Popes–John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

And, CStanley, you linked to a statement by the Bishop of Denver, but you never answered my straight questions.

Do you, CStanley, support denying communion to Obama voters?

Do you, CStanley, support denying communion to supporters of the Iraq War?

If there were a church which held as a core teaching that war is never morally acceptable, then I don't think it would be wrong for that church's leaders to tell its members that a vote for McCain would have been against the teachings of that church. I wonder if those who oppose the Iraq War but are prochoice can see the principle involved more clearly when you have agreement with the stance that's being taken?

But I think you're still overstating it to say that people are having their political choices 'condemned'. The way I see it, there's an obligation for priests to tell parishioners if certain political choices are considered immoral by the Church. Then the parishioners decide if they disagree with that, they either have to reconcile it or recognize that they don't believe the same things as the Church teaches.

A lot of it depends on how it's said, and from a few isolated quotes I'm not prepared to say that I think Fr. Newman was above reproach on that.

And I said my example was unrealistic – it is to make a point. Church's certainly should talk to parishioners about about how to run their own lives, but not condemn them for their political choices. Shall we go back to the Heresy of Thought days?

It's also hard to explain exactly what excommunication means, because most non-Catholics (and probably now a majority of Catholics) think of it as a casting out or a punishment but it's not. As I said earlier, we're called to make an examination of conscience before recieving Communion- and that includes things that others might consider trivial like the Mass obligation. Why is it then so odd for priests to express a pastoral duty to remind parishioners of a serious moral issue that they will be involved in when they cast their vote (particularly in a case where there's a sharp distinction between the two candidates- I think many people who voted for Obama seem unaware of how far to the left he is on this issue and the ramifications not only of SCOTUS nominees but also pushing for the FOCA which will overturn all of the work done by right to life groups over the past few decades.)

I don't think your hypothetical applies because I don't feel there's any logical justification for such an extreme anti-gay agenda. Perhaps to make the analogy a bit closer, you'd have to come up with something absurd like saying that an evangelical church tells it's members that they'd be out of step if they support some candidate who wants to codify homosexual marriage and abolish heterosexual marriage- again, just making up a farcical example to show the extremism involved and the instance where perhaps it would be warranted for a church to actually oppose a particular candidate. Add in that some Democrat funded groups are proclaiming to the church members some false doctrine that supports this position, claiming that this position is compatible with their beliefs- and then why shouldn't the church be able to defend itself against those false proclamations?

Do you see where I'm going with this?  I'm sure we'd at best have to agree to disagree and that's fine- I wouldn't expect you to agree with the Church doctrine. But I hope I'm pointing out where I see the lines, what I'm defending, and what I'm not defending.

And of course I strongly disagree with your cult comment. A Church would be pointless if it didn't organize itself around a set of core principles. I think you are grossly overstating this and perhaps misunderstanding that this is an opposition based on principle due to one core issue; it's not the Church giving us premarked ballots that we have to fill out each election cycle.

And besides, there's ample evidence that Catholics are voting however they damn well please anyway, so obviously the bishops and priests who speak out on this aren't being coercive and aren't even very persuasive. Doesn't that show that this isn't some sort of attempt at mind control (no one is being forced to wear scarlet “O” signs, I assure you.)

But where is the line drawn, CS, on the Church's mandating of whom to vote for? Again, try and find any candidate that 100% meets the strictures of any given church 'X'. You cannot. So, does that mean the devout cannot vote?

Here is another hypothetical. Assume you are an Evangelical, and your church has declared you cannot vote for any candidate that supports homosexual marriage, and any candidate that supports abortion, or you will be excommunicated. Candidate A supports homosexual marriage but not abortion, candidate B the exact opposite. How do you vote? Can you vote? I know I have set up a very simplistic strawman, but it makes the point.

But to make it even clearer, if you MUST vote as the Church requires to remain a member in good standing, then you are not in a Church, you are in a cult.