So, there's been some dispute about the council of American bishops statement about Catholic senators who support abortion.

First, no matter what the title of the report says, the bishops are not claiming that these senators are not Catholic. A Catholic is simply someone who has been baptised (and if the appropriate age) confirmed into the Catholic faith. Even if one cannot receive the sacraments because he is excommunicated or guilty of a mortal sin, he is still Catholic.

Will has suggested a parallel between Democratic Catholics who support abortion and Republican Catholics who support the war. This parallel doesn't really work. The opposition of the Catholic church to abortion is based on fifty years of teaching and a papal encyclical issued (albeit against the wishes of the council) by Paul VI. The opposition of the Church to the war is based on a speech of John Paul II. Though encyclicals aren't technically infallible, they do bind every Catholic to obey them (the Scriptural authority is Luke 10:16 if you care about such things). The only way that encyclicals differ from bulls is that they could be rescinded by a future pope. JPII's statement on the war, on the other hand, does not seem to carry the same authority. I don't believe JPII was speaking as a teacher when he gave that speech, therefore Catholics are probably not bound to obey it. If the pope is not speaking as a teacher on matters of faith or morals, he has no legal authority over Catholics, only moral authority. A better parallel would probably be the death penalty, also condemned by an encyclical and supported by Republicans. Still, the tradition there is less strong.

A little note on infallibility, one of the least understood doctrines of the Catholic Church. This doctrine is relatively new, dating to Vatican I in 1870. Prior to that date, some popes claimed not to be infallible, though we now consider the decisions of the ecumenical councils and some papal bulls (when the pope spoke ex cathedra, ie Boniface's Unam Sanctum) as infallible. The only document ever claimed to be infallible under VCI's definition of infallibility was that of Mary's bodily assumption into heaven in 1950. When a pope writes an encyclical (as in Humanae Vitae, which condemned abortion) he is acting in his role as a teacher, but he is not speaking for the Church. There are gray areas in this doctrine, of course. Ecumenical councils are infallible, but Vatican II was not (probably) because it was a pastoral council and did not really deal with issues of faith. So theoretically the Church could go back to having Masses said in Latin with the priest facing the altar rather than the congregation etc. Generally, a Catholic is supposed to use his or her judgment about whether a specific statement is infallible.

As an anti-war, pro-abortion (what an ugly phrase. I'm not pro-abortion--like woo, go abortion. I believe in the right of a woman to choose) Catholic, I don't really like any of this, but this is the doctrine as I understand it.