My comparison was ridiculous, but it was not illogical. Nor was it clouded by bias. In fact, it was an example of the reductio ad absurdum approach frequently used Aquinas.

My underlying point was that the Catholic Church’s position of opposing the individuals that fail to protect the sanctity of life has no logical stopping point.
You distinguish my example on the basis of what is certain and what is possible. However, I don’t believe that is a valid logical distinction.

You are correct that not all people that are exposed to alcohol or tobacco will die from use of those products. But is it not a certainty that some individuals will die because of tobacco and and alcohol? So the same argument could be made that a politician that is pro-choice with respect to tobacco and alcohol is also failing to protect the sanctity of life.

Let’s make the analogy more palatable and track back up a few steps on the slippery logical slope that the Church’s position has put us on. If, as you suggest, that the distinction should be located at the point of certainty versus possibility of loss of life, then the Church’s reaction should be the same to all individuals who could have prevented the certain loss of life. But the reactions to those circumstances are not consistent.

For example, the Church publicly condemn war. Although innocent civilians die, the Church has never instructed bishops to withhold communion to politicians who voted in favor of the war. Similarly, the Church made pleas to nations to get involved with Darfur. Although 400,000 innocent men, women, and children perished, there was never any religious consequences for the individuals who opposed interaction.

Thus, I believe that it is a fair conclusion that the Church’s position, at a minimum, is logically inconsistent. However, that conclusion is not surprising when a position is supported by politics instead of logic. Then again, hasn’t the sanctity of life always been subject to politics?

As to your additional query about Pres. Bush’s visit to Notre Dame, you would do well to read the point-by-point responses submitted by various pro-life organizations both on and off the university’s campus: I don’t have the time to paste any links, but I’m sure you can google them. As for my response, I can only say that abortion is the world’s greatest threat to innocent life. Its enormity cannot be equalled by that of capital punishment. Moreover, the gusto with which Obama has pursued (and plans to pursue) his pro-Abortion policies makes him a much more dangerous person to the sanctity of human life than Bush and his advocacy of the death penalty ever was. (As an added note, I was amongst those who objected to Bush’s visit to the university.)

Just because I couldn’t resist:

Although the title of statute is not part of law, the title may help in resolving statutory ambiguities. Pulsfus Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Town of Leeds, 149 Wis.2d 797, 440 N.W.2d 329, (1989).

Conceptionally, there is a difference between “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice.” And that’s the problem I have with the Catholic Church’s position.

Pro-choice allows an individual, with their own free will, to have an abortion. A pro-choice politician doesn’t force anyone to have an abortion, that politician merely removes criminal liability from that choice. But if we are going say that “defiance of our fundamental moral principles” means failing to take proactive and legislative measures to protect the sanctuity of life, by logical necessity we are left with a very broad interpretation. For example, smoking kills. Are we therefore failing to protect the sanctity of life if we don’t
believe it should be criminalized? What about alcohol? At somepoint, we must be cease to be our brother’s keepers and be judged on our own actions.

And yet where was the outrage from the Catholic community when Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001? He was was a pro-death penalty Governor. He personally could have protected the sanctity of life by picking up the phone and stopping executions, yet Texas led the nation in executions while he was Governor. But the Catholic Church condemn him. Perhaps the sanctity of life is a bit more politically pliable than we would like to believe.