Matthew clearly did condemn the man . Matthew referred to the murder as a "horrible choice" and stated that the man's reasoning was not "morally legitimate".

I don't know.  "Horrible choice" and "not morally legitimate" are pretty soft and understated.  You could say the same things about someone who shoplifted some Jєωelry from a store.  I would call this a demonic crime.

It is also against the Fifth Commandment. That is all we need.

"Bad choice" is a typical modern euphemism used to diminish the responsibility of the perpetrator and separate the subject from the act.  When public figures are caught committing adultery, for instance, they'll often issue a public apology in terms of regretting their poor choice ... instead of lamenting their SIN and the harm they caused their spouse ... as if we're speaking about a poor selection of breakfast cereal from among the various brands.

While some people may use "bad choice" that way, I see no reason to read it into a comment by a knowledgeable Catholic.  I saw Matthew's use of the expression "horrible choice" as an allusion to free will, with the implication that the man was morally responsible for what he chose to do.  It did not diminish the seriousness of the sin.

Every single person on this forum recognizes that this father committed a horrendously evil action.  Even the morally deficient products of secular society could understand this.  There is not any debate or controversy on the matter.  Personally, I see no point in a thread filled with exclamations of horror and denunciations of sin when everybody already grasps this.  It seems more useful to discuss the more subtle aspects of the story.  There is more involved here than one man's evil act.  It is also a symptom of the evils of society.

I'm not reading anything into it.  I simply disagreed with his choice of language.

He didn't even say "bad choice".  He said "horrible choice".  You replaced his choice of words with something softer while complaining that it was too soft. 

I said that "bad choice" was commonly used today.  He strengthened it slightly, but the essence of it being simply a choice, vs. a sin, and distancing the subject from the act is the same.

Bottom line:  it was too weak and plays into the commonly-used modern euphemisms that understate the gravity of sin.

Several other posters on this thread came away with the same impression, that he was understating the gravity of the crime ... primarily with his use of language.  So it wasn't just me.

Part of the definition of sin is that it is an act of the will, i.e. a choice.  There is nothing about referring to something as a choice that implies it is not a sin. In this case it was very obvious that he was discussing a sin .

Some of us thought there was no need to state the obvious while others wanted it spelled out in strong language. I suppose we are all entitled to our opinions.