Can a pro-choice (or pro-death penalty) politician ever be honored by a Catholic university?

I am no expert on the death penalty in general, much less on the death penalty procedures in Texas, but not everyone agrees that the existence and statutory role of the pardons board minimizes George W. Bush's culpability for his own role in the Texas death penalty regime.  In an essay, "Death in Texas," Sr. Helen Prejean writes:

To distance himself from his legal and moral responsibility for executions, Bush often cited a Texas statute that says a governor may do nothing more than grant a thirty-day reprieve to an inmate unless the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has recommended a broader grant of clemency. But any time he wanted to, Bush could have commuted a sentence or stopped an execution. By the end of his governorship Bush had appointed all eighteen members of the board of pardons. He could easily have ordered a thirty-day reprieve and gotten word to the board that he had doubts about the fairness of a case and wanted an investigation and hearings. But the Texas pardons board has been a farce. In my home state the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Paroles meets and holds hearings. True, they routinely deny clemency, but they at least give the appearance of being a real, working board. The full Texas pardons board never meets to consider a death sentence. A few of them talk to one another on the phone. Sometimes. No one knows whether the clemency appeals are even read. As governor, Bush did nothing to reform the board's procedures.

Now does that mean I think that President Bush should have been denied an invitation to speak at commencement?  Not necessarily.  I wonder whether there should be a similar approach to a Catholic university honoring a public official as there is for a Catholic citizen voting for a public official.  As a Catholic, my vote for a pro-choice candidate is morally permissible, as I understand it, if I can reasonably conclude that there are proportionate reasons that justify the vote despite the candidate's pro-choice position.  Shouldn't a Catholic university be permitted to honor a public official if there are proportionate reasons that justify the honor despite the official's pro-choice (or pro-death penalty) position?  In fact, isn't that how folks justify honoring President Bush despite his record on the death penalty?  As Rick asserted, Bush's "signature issues" in 2001 were education reform and the faith-based initiative.

In this regard, is the Bishops' statement too sweeping?  "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."  On its face, there does not seem to be much space for proportionate reasons.

There's a big difference between my decision in the voting booth and a university's decision on commencement, of course.  The university's decision carries the risk of causing scandal and confusion as to the Church's moral teaching.  But while that might change the particulars of the inquiry, it need not change the overall nature of the inquiry.  Given the areas in which President Bush's policies and Church teaching were consistent, I do not think that a reasonable observer was likely to conclude that his role at the 2001 commencement signalled a softening of the Church's teaching on the death penalty.  And given the areas in which President Obama's policies are consistent with Church teaching, is it likely that his commencement role will confuse people on the Church's abortion teaching?  Honoring President Obama is not like honoring Frances Kissling.  There are good reasons to honor him.  I readily admit that reasonable folks can disagree about whether there are proportionate reasons sufficient to overcome President Obama's policies on abortion, but disagreeing about proportionate reasons is different than disagreeing about whether a pro-choice (or pro-death penalty) public official can ever be honored by a Catholic university.  The conversation, I think, would be more nuanced and less prone to the (unjustified) caricature that Catholics care about abortion and not much else.