“This is the most prickly point,” said the Rev. Ronald J. Cioffi, director of the Office of Social Concerns for the Diocese of Trenton. “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.” From a story in The Times of Trenton, NJ.

The seamless garment continues to wreak havoc. The Diocese of Trenton officially supports the idea of voting for baby killing enablers. I guarantee they would never issue a statement that says you could vote for a white supremacist candidate as long as he was solid on other issues.

At least the Diocese of Trenton is being honest about its endorsement of this muddled line of thinking. Many bishops in the U.S. accommodate this destructive philosophy by their lack of outrage over baby killing. They rail against climate change and go on and on about their supposed concern for the poor. But when it comes to abortion or its root cause, contraception, they are no where to be found. Thank goodness for the laity who have been willing to confront this grave evil even as they are abandoned by their leaders.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger, in 2004, had this to say about voting for pro-abort politicians:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

So, what is a proportionate reason to justify favoring the taking of an innocent, defenseless, human life?

Bishop Rene Gracida of Corpus Christi explains it thus:

“There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: Candidate A, who is completely for abortion-on-demand, Candidate B, who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion, and Candidate C, a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable. The Catholic voter cannot vote for Candidate A because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation which would remove restrictions on abortion-on-demand. The Catholic can vote for Candidate C but that will probably only help ensure the election of Candidate A. Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for Candidate B, since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of Candidate A and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if Candidate B is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.”

There is nothing in the bishop’s or the Church’s teaching that would indicate that proportionate reasons have anything to do with the seamless garment concept. The guideline is to vote for the candidate whose election would result in fewer babies being killed. That’s it, plain and simple. Disregard the seamless garment nonsense.

And finally, our baby killing enablers would do well to reflect on this passage by Pope Pius XI from Casti Connubi:

“And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.”