I have been stewing over the John Kerry-isn't-a-good-Catholic-because-he-is-pro-choice flap and now I think I'll serve up the result.

I was raised in this church and took it very seriously at one point in my life, so I've thought about this charge a lot. It is specious and here's why.

Being pro-choice simply acknowledges that in a multi-faith society abortion decisions are best left to the individual facing them. Some, whose faith tells them it is a sin will choose not to have one. Those whose faith tells them it is not a sin are free to have one.

In the legal realm, that is the secular convention, fetus' have never been conferred rights (that is why the right-wing is trying hard to do so now by passing state and federal murder laws when a fetus dies as the result of a crime to the mother. This is unprecedented in common law. You had to be born to have rights under the law. When parents lost a fetus due to the criminal act against the mother, English law provide only civil recourse to the parents. They could sue for damages since they lost a field hand or house keeper. The implication was that the parents had rights, while the unborn had non.)

The Supreme Court recognized this in 1973 with the Roe decision. The states could not impose religious morality upon those who did not hold those religious views. It was a decision that only a individual could make. Not a state. I think they were right on the money.

Curiously, the religious right, who think abortion is wrong think they have a right to impose this belief upon those who do not hold it. Kerry's position is that while he, in the exercise of his faith, believes it is wrong and therefore presumably would not be party to an abortion, he as a good American realizes that not others do not share his faith and must be allowed to follow theirs without interference, in accordance with freedom to practice religion as spelled out in the 1st amendment, the law of the land.

So as a Catholic, he is anti-abortion in personal life. As a Public servant, he upholds the Constitution, as he swore to. What's the problem? There is none. As a Catholic, you are not required by catechism to use your position in secular government to impose Catholic doctrine on the people. And as an American legislator, you are sworn not to. So as long as he doesn't have an abortion, how can he possibly sin in that regard? Simple. He can't. Further, you can be a good Catholic and vote pro-choice all you want and never sin. Allowing that you do not have the right to impose your beliefs is not a sin.

For some strange reason some believers think Jesus requires you to impose belief in him through secular law. He doesn't. In fact, he is quite clear that all a follower can do is spread the good news. It is up to the hearer to accept it or not. He is very specific in this. People must come to him voluntarily. Plus, it is a very Old Testament notion that someone elses sin is visited upon you so you must get your neighbors to repent. It was the scribes and Pharisees not Jesus who went around condemning people for violations of the letter of Mosaic law. Jesus not only did not condemn, he saved them from the condemners and then broke bread with the sinners. How can one can one self a Christian when one acts more like the Pharisees that had him killed than Jesus himself? Makes no sense.