Why one cannot be privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice:

I came across this following quote from Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City: When you talk about protecting innocent human life, this is something that we need to do as human beings. And the fact that the Church has a voice on this issue and a position on this issue, doesn’t mean it’s an imposing of our beliefs or values, anymore than the effort to break down segregation by the Church was an effort to impose some kind of religious doctrine on the culture or society, but it was us standing up for a fundamental human right.

Nancy Pelosi, D., Speaker of the United States House of Representitives.

The origin of this quote depends on to distinctions involving doctrine and morals, and also the seperation of Church and state.

Seperation of Church and State: This principle that the civil laws of a land should not impose the religious beliefs of any group of people on the whole of civil society. This principle is enshrined in both the United States Constitution and in the the Social Doctrine of the Church (see Centisimus Annus). A Catholic politician cannot by either the principles of our constitution, nor by the principles of our own religion pass laws that require the assent of civil society to such doctrinal beliefs such as revelation through scripture and tradition, the infallibility of the Pope on matters of faith and morals, etc.

Based on this distinction many a Catholic politicans, like the above pictured Nancy Pelosi, attempt to be "privately pro-life, but publicly pro-choice," since in their view imposing the moral teachings of the Church is also imposing the doctrinal principles of the Church on civil law violates the seperation of Church and state.

Doctrine and Morals: The teaching on pro-life though is not exclusively a doctrinal issue, but also (and more importantly) a moral issue. As such for a politican to be a proponent of civil laws that correspond to Catholic moral principles is not a violation of the seperation of Church and state.

The basis of this can be found very recently in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) of John Paul II, of blessed memory. It is the same principle that is found in Church teachings down through the ages, from Scriptures through the Fathers to the present day. While the moral teachings of the Church correspond to the teaching of the Lord in the Gospel, and is founded on that Gospel, they are also written in the human heart. This is the principle of natural law. So the moral teachings of the Church are binding on all, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. This is not an imposition of the Church beyond its borders, but a reflection that these moral teachings can be discerned by all who seek the truth with an honest and open heart.

This may seem like a very nice Pollyannish sentiment, but the pro-life movement provides a clear example that this is true. While Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is right to indicate that the pro-life movement started as primarily a Catholic movement, it has expanded greatly in the three decades since Roe vs. Wade. It now includes Christians of all stripes, Jews, Muslims, and others including agnostics and atheists. The March for Life in Washington, D.C. each spring has become perhaps the largest annual ecumenical and inter-religious gathering. The reason for this great diversity within the the pro-life movement is that the principle that the moral teachings of the Church are available to all men of good-will in an honest search for the truth, is true. It is more than a nice sentiment of the Church.

For this reason all politicians are responsible for supporting the common moral heritage. This is especial true of Catholic politicians since they benefit from the teaching office of the Church.

As a final thought I leave you with a comment from Francis Cardinal George of Chicago: The unborn child, who is alive and is a member of the human family, cannot defend himself or herself. Good law defends the defenseless. Our present laws permit unborn children to be privately killed. Laws that place unborn children outside the protection of law destroy both the children killed and the common good, which is the controlling principle of Catholic social teaching. One cannot favor the legal status quo on abortion and also be working for the common good.