Katholikos

"We believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed).
What does "catholic" mean? And what does it mean when we say "Catholic Church?"
the Greek word "katholikos" means "universal." (Thus making the term Roman Catholic not only an oxymoron but also a mix of Latin and Greek). The term was first used after the Christian Church got used to being called Christian.
The reality of it is that Christian was meant to be an insult. The Greeks and Jews used it to call the believers "followers of Christ," pointing out that they didn't worship the Greek gods nor did they follow the normal Jewish customs. After awhile, the believers took pride in this term. When the leadership of the Church (viz Paul and Peter in Acts) allowed Gentiles into their ranks, they earned the distinction of being "universal."
Fast forward a few centuries. The Church gets the distinction of Roman after Great Schism. It becomes a matter of Rome versus Constantinople. Hence we end up with Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
Within the last few centuries, the Catholic Church has distinguished itself in as a conservative way as possible. Trent and Vatican I established the Church in a reactionary light. Then, in the twentieth centuries, figures such as Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day step into the picture. Both of them "leftists."
Then, after the reactions of Trent and Vatican I, Vatican II comes along and establishes many liberal policies for the Church. Pope John Paul II then preaches his doctrine of solidarity, and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Over the course of fifty years, the big figures of the Church become some of the most liberal figures in the world.
Thus, the term "universal" truly becomes applicable. On one hand we have such conservative figures as Cardinal Ratzinger, and on the other hand, we have people like Dorothy Day. In the Catholic Tradition one can be anarchist, republican, democratic, socialist, capitalist, or libertarian.
So here's where it becomes applicable. In the news recently, and in viewpoint articles, Notre Dame has received a lot of flack for allowing President Obama to speak at our commencement. Some proclaim that this is against our Catholic identity. But, truth be told, it seems as though not only is taking a leftist stance within Catholic Tradition, but there are, in fact, great examples for it.

Abortion

I know, it's the dreaded A word. And I'm sure you are expecting a tirade against how evil it is and how it is an affront to all that is good and right in the world.
Sorry to disappoint.
The truth is, there's something faulty in the way that anti-abortion lobbyists lobby. One cannot attack abortion from a strictly Catholic standpoint, and here is why.
A lot of pro-life activists claim that abortion is "the murder of innocents" (not to be confused with innocence). There is one very large doctrinal problem here, and we have St. Augustine to thank for it.
First off, the issue of abortion is not about whether or not we are murdering babies. It gets turned into that by those arguing from a purely pathological standpoint (appealing to one's feelings=pathos). When we use terms like "murder" especially around something as cute as a baby, then it evokes strong emotions. But really, the issue of abortion is about two things: redemption and conception.
Conception is easy enough to understand. The argument is focused on when life begins--whether or not it starts with the unification of egg and sperm or sometime after. This is precisely why abortions are illegal in the third trimester. This is why infanticide is illegal. Proponents of abortion point out that there is something very different about an embryo and a real baby. Anti-abortionists point out that it is still living in a somewhat scientific way (imagine that, using science to back up theology (thanks Vatican I)).
Redemption is the question of letting natural consequences go as they should. This argument isn't heard as often, but once in awhile an pro-lifer will say something like, "Well, I don't support abortion except in cases of incest and rape" (viz official Mormon Church doctrine). This asks the question of whether or not somebody can be forgiven for their sin, or whether they must suffer the natural consequences (viz The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
But aside from these arguments, the question of innocence must come up. Calling unborn babies innocents is an entirely Protestant, even Zwinglian (most especially the Anabaptists) approach. From a Catholic approach, babies are not innocent. Thanks to St. Augustine, and later emphasized through the Council of Trent, the official Catholic Church states that babies are born into the world stained with the sin of Adam (original sin). This is why Catholics baptize their babies before anything can happen, to remove that sin and make the baby finally innocent. Thus we cannot argue that we are "murdering innocents."
Secondly, Thomas Aquinas can step into the picture and show us why and how Euthanasia and the death penalty are far bigger causes to take on than abortion. According to Aquinas' metaphysics, all things are made up of a combination of potential and action. That which does, has more action, and that which might possibly do is more potential. Rocks have more potential, and angels have more action. Human beings sit somewhere between animals (potential) and angels. While this is kind of hoaky, this goes to show that unborn baies are almost completely potential, as they haven't done anything yet. Thus, an elderly person, who has done a lot with his or her life, or a convict should therefore be more defended than a guilty, mostly potential entity.
So, if we're attacking abortion, let's not mince words. Why don't we flat out say that we prefer people to accept the consequences of their actions, or that we think the fetus is ethically alive?