The Sad, Unprincipled Political Shifting of Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Casey's definitely not as principled on this as he used to be but the USCCB and EWTN aren't particularly good sources for which elements of Catholic moral teaching are foundational and which aren't. Here's the most recent magisterial (i.e., in this case, papal) teaching on this topic:

The other harmful ideological error is found in those who find suspect the social engagement of others, seeing it as superficial, worldly, secular, materialist, communist or populist. Or they relativize it, as if there are other more important matters, or the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause that they themselves defend. Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection. We cannot uphold an ideal of holiness that would ignore injustice in a world where some revel, spend with abandon and live only for the latest consumer goods, even as others look on from afar, living their entire lives in abject poverty.

(Paragraph 101 of this document.)

The USCCB is famous (among Catholics) for interpreting teachings like this in a more "abortion-first" way than other bishops' conferences. That's their prerogative, since bishops' conferences do have teaching authority. Especially since the USCCB is Casey's own bishops' conference (obviously), to the extent that he lacks principle on this, that is a problem. This is also reason #2 why I'd never be a Democratic officeholder above the local level myself, reason #1 being my impatience with things like protocol and rules of order. However, it's not really a sound basis for an Evangelical to tell Catholics which of their beliefs are more and less central.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

he has at least retained more of a pro-life position than most national Democrats who once held it.   many more politicians have abandoned it completely.

Fun fact about Northeastern Catholic Democrats: Ted Kennedy was pro-life until he wasn't.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

Most of the sorts of posters who use rhetorical techniques like that are white noise to me, but when I notice it, yes, that bothers me too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The "life" issue is, and ought to be, central for anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Unbelievers feel quite free to tell pro-life Catholic officeholders what their position on immigration ought to be, citing statements from Catholic publications or Papal statements.  Are those folks here on a "sound basis"?  Do you not say so because you agree with those posters?

Most of the sorts of posters who use rhetorical techniques like that are white noise to me, but when I notice it, yes, that bothers me too.

Your reaction, then, is silence to promote a viewpoint you agree with and challenge to a viewpoint that you don't.

That's an observation.

What viewpoint of yours, specifically, do you think I'm disagreeing with here? I count a few different related claims in your posts in this thread, some of which I'm more sympathetic to than others.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fuzzy, an honest question: Why can't a person identify as (personally) pro-life yet support abortion being legal?

It is not hard for me at all to imagine a libertarian style argument along the lines of "I'd never get an abortion and I think it is immoral to get one; but it is not the job of the state to regulate morality".

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

On the contrary, I don't really see how any devout Catholic can regularly vote for politicians who support abortion to positions where they have an influence on abortion policy.

I refused to vote for my current state senator this cycle even though she was running unopposed because one of her top priorities since first getting elected has been abortion policy liberalization and it's an issue on which she's been very influential, but for federal offices I apply a remote material cooperation standard the same way I do for candidates who promote other intrinsic evils.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is sort of a weaksauce moderate-hero position to take on abortion specifically (ironically, given that it's one of the issues it's trotted out for most often). It comes across as a threadbare excuse given the extremely grave nature of abortion if indeed it's the sort of act that pro-lifers believe it is, and even more so given that the state already regulates morality in all sorts of other ways. (Technically, all laws seek to regulate morality since all laws express legislators' opinions about the way the world ought to be; even a law naming a post office after someone expresses the moral judgment that that person ought to be memorialized.) A far better personally-pro-life-but argument is a flatly consequentialist consideration that banning abortion would foster even greater social evils. That is a genre of argument that I think is very robust and on which I go back and forth over time, whereas the "legislating morality" argument is one for which I have nothing but contempt.

But given pro-life premises, it seems hard to argue 800,000 deaths (or whatever sizable fraction of it would not have happened if abortion is made illegal) is less of a social evil than whatever would replace it should abortion be made illegal.

It does, which is why I don't see this argument as dispositive.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If being pro-life were tout court a religious review, pro-life atheists would not exist; as it stands, there very much are pro-life atheists, just not very many of them. A view being more common among religious (or among irreligious!) people can't really be said to present a First Amendment issue if that view informs legislation, otherwise we'd be unable to legislate any controversial issue without recourse to Pew polls.