Toward a Consistent Ethic of Life

Catholic Reflections on the “Seamless Garment”

Polls indicate – and my own Facebook feed confirms – that our nation’s political polarization has reached a peak. The gap between the political Left and Right has widened, according to the Pew Research Center, as Republicans become more consistently conservative and Democrats become more consistently liberal. The 2016 Presidential Election has demonstrated that there are divisions in both major political parties, but the divide between Left and Right still seems more insurmountable than ever.

Those same political divisions are reflected in the Catholic Church in America. Pundits often speak about the “Catholic vote,” but Catholic voters remain pretty evenly split election after election. As the dust slowly begins to settle after the 2016 election, I’d like to encourage others to strive over the next few years not be more consistently Democratic or Republican, but to be more consistently Catholic, i.e., committed to sound moral reasoning, rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church.

Above all, this means being consistently pro-life. The idea of a “consistent ethic of life” is not at all new, but was popularized by the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (1928-1996), a prelate who had considerable influence on the Church in America in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s. The basic principle is that every human life is sacred and should be defended. All issues that touch upon the dignity of the human person – such as abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare, care of the terminally ill, racism, and poverty – are connected like the “seamless garment” that Jesus himself wore (see John 19:23-24).

The “consistent ethic of life” has certainly had its critics – I’ve often scoffed at its misuse myself over the years. In this article, though, I’d like to examine both the weaknesses and strengths of Cardinal Bernardin’s consistent life ethic, in order to draw some conclusions that may help Catholics work together for the common good after our recent election.

Weakness #1 – The consistent life ethic implies that all issues have the same weight and urgency.

Bernardin’s consistent ethic of life has often been criticized because it implies that all life issues have the same weight in Catholic teaching, but they clearly do not. Some acts like abortion and euthanasia are “intrinsic evils” that are never permissible, while war and even capital punishment may be permitted if, but only if, the safety of society truly demands it (see CCC 2267, 2271, 2277, 2309).

Cardinal Bernardin acknowledged these basic distinctions in his own day, but his critics still worried that lumping all these issues together might distract from the uniqueness of abortion: With one million innocent lives ended each year by abortion, it’s an issue with greater weight and urgency than other life issues. One of Bernardin’s contemporaries expressed his critique this way:

It is inappropriate even to put abortion on the same list with many of the problems included in the “consistent ethic of life.” There are many obvious analogies that make this point clear. It would be absurd, for example, to say that the South before 1865 was unjust because of slavery and because the roads were not maintained in poorer regions.

In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger singled out abortion and euthanasia particularly clearly in a letter to US Bishops as prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father [i.e., the pope,] on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Weakness #2 – The consistent life ethic can be used to justify liberal “cafeteria Catholicism.”

Catholics on the political and theological Left have generally been the most vocal champions of the “consistent ethic of life.” The trouble is that some who have argued for it aren’t very consistent at all: Some seem to think that if they fight against racism or poverty, they can support abortion “rights,” using Bernardin's seamless garment as a cover. Cardinal Bernardin himself clearly denounced this in the late 80’s:

I know that some people on the left, if I may use that term, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important any more, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anyone’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That is a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.

Picking and choosing which Catholic doctrines to accept has often been called “cafeteria Catholicism.” Those who trust in the truth of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as handed on and interpreted by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, however, must embrace all that the Church teaches, not just the doctrines that they like. Sadly, some Catholics do altogether reject the moral principle that every human person has a right to life from conception to natural death.

The most controversial part of Cardinal Bernardin's own legacy is his own approval of “limited and occasional dissent” from the teachings of the Church. Though he spoke in favor traditional Catholic moral teaching himself, he defended the right of theologians and others to reject Church teaching on moral issues – such as the use of artificial birth control and abortion – thus undermining his own call for consistency.

John Paul II forcefully disagreed with this approach when addressing American bishops during an Apostolic Journey to the United States in 1987:

It has also been noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teachings. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a “good Catholic” and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.

A truly consistent ethic of life, then, should be rooted in a consistent acceptance of Catholic moral teaching, beginning with the right to life itself. Without the inner coherence of the entire “Gospel of life,” the seamless garment unravels.

Strength # 1 – The consistent life ethic encourages Catholics to think outside political boxes.

Why do many Catholics reject the basic principle of the right to life? One obvious motivating factor today is bipartisan politics. Each of the two major parties is actually a collection of separate interest groups, loosely stitched together for political convenience. As a result, Catholic Democrats feel compelled to embrace one packaged set of inconsistent political principles, and Catholic Republicans feel compelled to embrace another, each for the sake of political advantage: For example, those on the Left generally support stricter gun control, ‘for the safety of our children,’ but often have no problem championing the violence of abortion against children in the womb. Those on the Right are more likely to oppose euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, because every life is sacred, but often see no problem with cheering on the carpet bombing of foreign cities ‘until the sand glows,’ showing little regard for any innocent lives who may be lost there. A consistent ethic of life encourages all of us to break out of these incoherent political boxes to defend the dignity of every human person.

Because no political party is perfect, partisan politics does require prioritizing certain issues over others. Since at least the late 90’s, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has rightly encouraged Catholics to prioritize the right to life itself over other political issues. The 1998 USCCB statement Living the Gospel of Life used the analogy a well-constructed house, distancing itself from Bernardin’s image of the seamless garment:

If we understand the human person as the “temple of the Holy Spirit” – the living house of God – then these latter issues [like racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care] fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights (Living the Gospel of Life 22, original emphasis).

The same 1998 document, which is more relevant in 2016 than ever, warns that we should consistently strive to build a “culture of life,” being careful to make our political decisions based on principle, not just our own party’s politics:

Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue – or lack thereof – is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest (33, original emphasis).

Strength #2 – The consistent life ethic can help prevent conservative “cafeteria Catholicism.”

This brings me to a final point: Despite the concerns that I’ve noted, it seems time for conservative Catholics to more fully embrace the consistent life ethic as their own. I offer this advice as someone who is conservative and has been very suspicious of the misuse of Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment analogy over the years.

With the Left versus Right, “us” versus “them” mentality at an all-time-high, it’s more tempting than ever to dig in our heels and defend everything that “our” politicians and pundits say and do. After the recent election season, I'm increasingly concerned that Catholics who accept the Church's teachings on abortion and euthanasia think that they are free to ignore, downplay, or reject Catholic moral principles on issues like immigration, racism, war, and the environment. If deliberate, this too is a kind of “cafeteria Catholicism,” which can be prevented by a truly consistent ethic of life.

It’s often correctly pointed out that issues like those just mentioned fall within the realm of “prudential judgment,” so there is room for some disagreement among faithful Catholics. This doesn’t mean, however, that the teachings of Scripture and Tradition in such areas can simply be ignored. Prudence is the virtue by which we apply sound moral principles to concrete decisions, deciding what is good and how to achieve that good (CCC 1806). The Catholic faith specifies a number of clear moral principles about issues like immigration, poverty, capital punishment, racism, and war; faithful Catholics may sometimes disagree about how those principles apply in particular political circumstances, but we should still be able to agree on the principles themselves.

Consider this example: There is sometimes room to disagree about whether a particular action or policy is racist, but we should be able to emphatically agree that racial discrimination is “incompatible with God’s design” (CCC 1935). In our current political climate, we should also be able to agree that it is “rash judgment” (CCC 2477) to accuse someone of racism, or any other moral fault, without sufficient reason. The virtue of prudence is needed to correctly apply these principles in particular situations.

Respect for the right to life is at the foundation of a “culture of life,” but this alone is not enough to create such a culture. A vision for a culture of life that only includes an end to abortion and euthanasia is like a set of blueprints that doesn’t detail anything more than a foundation. I’ll refer once again to the USCCB document Living the Gospel of Life:

Adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues “seeking to protect human life and promote human dignity from the inception of life to its final moment.” Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas (22).

Some conclusions about a Consistent Ethic of Life

In our politically divided times, I’d argue that having a consistent ethic of life is more essential today than ever. Christians can build a culture of life only if we strive to see every person as someone with a God-given dignity that must be defended in every circumstance. As Pope St. John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae, our Christian love for others “must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good” (87).

With the GOP in control of the White House and Congress, we may thankfully see some political victories for unborn lives over the next few years. But will conservative Catholics be willing to take a stand if our newly elected officials’ policies compromise the dignity of other lives – undocumented immigrants certainly come to mind – even if it means standing near people on the other side of the political aisle on a particular issue? Let’s define ourselves not by our political parties, but by our defense of every human person, as the Gospel demands.

For those like me who have spent most of our adult lives focusing almost exclusively on opposing abortion in politics, the prospect of advocating for all may seem impossible, particularly in today’s polarized culture. I’ll close, then, with these encouraging words of Joseph Cardinal Bernardin:

A consistent ethic does not say everyone in the Church must do all things, but it does say that as individuals and groups pursue one issue, whether it is opposing abortion or capital punishment, the way we oppose one threat should be related to support for a systemic vision of life…. No one is called to do everything, but each of us can do something. And we can strive not to stand against each other when the protection and the promotion of life are at stake.