"It's Complicated," Says the Obfuscator

When you hear "it's complicated", that means that the speaker wants to make it so. 

Compare:

A Catholic “may not vote” for a candidate who promotes something intrinsically evil, Morlino said. If both candidates promote something intrinsically evil, the Catholic voter must determine which candidate is promoting the lesser evil, he said.

"May not vote" ....."promotes"....."intrinsically evil."  Simple, understandable, clear.

Now we present the smoke-blower's "complicated" crap:

...The moral calculation in such situations is complicated, Schneck said. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated that Catholics may never work to advance an intrinsic evil, he said. Examples include abortion, racism, torture and many others, he said.

But Catholics must use their best judgment about what policies and candidates move the country most quickly toward a desired goal, he said. On abortion, for example, Schneck said he would like to see it outlawed. Yet, when Republicans have controlled both the presidency and Congress, they have not been able to overturn Roe v Wade, he said. So the issue for Schneck becomes a practical one: which candidate’s positions will most quickly reduce the number of abortions?

Item:  "promotion" of abortion is not the same as "allowing" abortion.  Schneck prefers not to understand English very well--making it "complicated".  Obozo clearly promotes abortion.  Romney does not, although he is a squish on the matter.

Item:  Congress and the President cannot "overturn" a decision of SCOTUS.   They might pass legislation which goes against a decision; but as Schneck should know, abortion is a State-level question.  That, too, is "complicated" in Schneck's alleged mind.  Do the Republicans use the 'States' rights' argument to evade the issue?  Yes.  Is that "promotion"?  No. 

Item:  Schneck "complicates" the question by converting it to a matter of proportionalism:  '...most quickly reduce....abortion' is his method of arriving there.  Proportionalism was condemned by John Paul II (and others), including H.E. Morlino.

Question:  Why in Hell is Schneck on the payroll of a Catholic institution?  To blow foofoodust and smoke, or to suck up a paycheck regardless of his distinctly wrong take?