Of course there is. Not with people like this:

"They want to use abortion as the trump, but they have to have a seamless argument for life then," [Lena] Woltering said. "For instance, there were countless unborn babies killed in Iraq during the war. But they don't speak out as forcefully on that."

(Woltering is part of Call to Action, a liberal Catholic group trying to change Church doctrine.)

No, there's no room for compromise, or even discussion, with people who compare unborn children with men who chop off other mens' hands for fun.

But there's plenty of room for compromise. Every abortion debate lists a series of cases. Even for the life of the mother? What about rape and incest? Parental notification? If there's no "room for compromise," then even bringing up these cases is pointless. When advocates bring these up to show the other side as extreme, it by definition implies there are less extreme positions.

Now, here's Mike Miles on the issue. Remember, by the way, that Miles isn't even Catholic.

Miles, the El Paso County educator who faces Salazar in the Democratic primary, said he thinks Sheridan crossed the line by suggesting voters refrain from Communion in some cases.

He said he thinks most voters would rather keep religion and politics separate, just as the United States wouldn't favor a new government run by Muslim clerics in Iraq. "We sometimes have to put aside our own belief system if it runs counter to the public good," he said.

Does anyone else see a difference between a mullahcracy in a Muslim country, and the Church advocating its values in a pluralistic society? And how, pray tell, can one be in public life and have a belief system that's contrary to the public good? Maybe I could have one that would be contrary to the public consensus. But why would I believe in something that I knew to be contrary to the public good?