Catholic Exchange

Priest Defending Pro-abort Votes Faces Pro-Lifer in Debate

Written by

World Youth Day 2008 Sydney

in

American Life League vice president, Jim Sedlak, dispelled confusion Monday in a radio debate with Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, the priest whose statements regarding Catholics’ duty to vote pro-life have caused confusion and controversy among the Catholic faithful.

In a July 30 article entitled “US Bishops: Vote Your Conscience,” the Times of Trenton quoted Fr. Ronald J. Cioffi, director of the Diocese of Trenton’s Office of Social Concerns as saying, “You may vote for a person who is pro-choice if you feel you have a moral reason to support the candidate for his stand on other issues.”

This tacit support for voting for a pro-abortion candidate provoked outrage from concerned Catholics. The Catholic Church has consistently regarded abortion as an unmatched intrinsic evil to be always and everywhere opposed.

Ave Maria Radio called Sedlak Aug. 11, requesting that he counter Fr. Cioffi in a live debate on their radio station. Click here to hear the debate.

Sedlak affirmed the hierarchical nature of Catholic social teaching – the framework by which Catholics make voting decisions consistent with their Faith. He pointed out that the Pope allowed for such voting only if there was a “proportionate reason.”

He went on state that American Life League believes it would be rare any reason would be proportionate to the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life and the consequent automatic excommunication of those involved in abortion.

“Any candidate, who supports the intentional killing of innocent human beings in the womb, disqualifies himself or herself from political office,” Sedlak said. “The single issue of abortion will disqualify a candidate. As an organization that fights for the personhood of the preborn child, we need to stand up by insisting that our candidates are 100 percent pro-life. Any candidate who does not agree does not deserve our vote.”

Comments

3 responses to “Priest Defending Pro-abort Votes Faces Pro-Lifer in Debate”

  1. jackster Avatar
    jackster

    Any candidate that considers it a good thing to deny citizens over whom he would govern their most fundamental Right to Life, has no business in politics whatsoever.

    A candidate that cannot perceive that killing members of the population that you want to govern is a flawed strategy is obviously mentally incompetent and therfore unworthy of any public office.

    You don’t need religion to see that.

  2. Grace Harman Avatar
    Grace Harman

    There are many “Catholic” politicians. Why have so many of them not changed their political goals and beliefs away from Killing the people to Helping the people to live? Instead, they seem to have let their politics poison their religious faith. It’s time for a change allright- AWAY from the “culture of death” and TO protecting all innocent life: from conception to natural death. Those who support killing of innocents are indeed unfit to hold any office.

  3. Warren Jewell Avatar
    Warren Jewell

    Frankly, as an old person, to support and vote for any who would conceive of killing as a policy to be followed, I also risk that the self-important, self-seeking Washington crowd will find it convenient to keep Social Security solvent by adding killing certain ‘useless eaters’ among us – and eventually any and maybe even all – old persons.

    I cannot see how any man who in any way can condone abortion (et al) can be ordained, or even would want to be ordained himself, considering his ultimate earthly boss, God’s Vicar out of Rome’s diocese, would find his condoning nearly cause for excommunication!

    And, Jackster, no, we need not ‘religion’ for such commonsense of the culture of life. We do only the proper subordination to the Declaration of Independence – a ‘birth certificate’ for a worldly domain unique to us in this land. But, such document has its Credo behind it, and the Credo of the culture of life, religious or not, is the key.

Leave a Reply

More posts