Oct. 17, 2008 Faithful Citizenship Pt. 3

Oct 20, 2008 5:00 PM

(This is the third and last in a series of columns on "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.")

The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the first to enunciate the so-called "seamless garment doctrine" as descriptive of the centrality of the dignity of the

human person to all moral issues. The phrase also suggests the inherent interconnectedness of all the life issues and is sometimes rendered as a "consistent ethic of life."

Unfortunately Cardinal Bernardin’s helpful aphorism was quickly distorted by some in order to situate all moral issues on a level field. The cardinal himself was clear that "seamless" does not mean "equal in moral gravity." Nevertheless for years the "seamless garment doctrine" was invoked over and over again to convince Catholics that abortion, euthanasia, the economy, affordable housing, the death penalty, etc., were not only important moral issues, but also morally equivalent.

This distortion of the "seamless garment doctrine" has misled any number of good Catholics. The moral tradition of the Catholic Church has never recognized the equivalence of all moral issues. The recent publication of the American bishops, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," makes the point that the right to life of the human person from the moment of conception is of absolute importance and is foundational for all other moral issues:

"The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework for principled Catholic engagement in political life and, rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues. It anchors the Catholic commitment to defend human life, from conception until natural death, in the fundamental moral obligation to respect the dignity of every person as a child of God . . . This culture of life begins with the preeminent obligation to protect innocent life from direct attack and extends to defending life whenever it is threatened or diminished" (emphasis added) (No. 40).

Even more clear as to the fundamental and irreplaceable nature of the need to protect innocent human life is the bishops’ statement of 10 years ago, "Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics."

The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the "rightness of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ — the living house of God — then these latter issues 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" (emphasis in original) (No. 23).

Our Catholic moral teaching calls us to appreciate the fact that there are two basic categories of moral actions — those that are absolutely forbidden in any and all situations (intrinsically evil) and those that allow for prudent application of moral teaching. Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research and the promotion of same-sex "marriage" are clear examples of intrinsically evil acts. These can never be supported, nor can they be dismissed when it comes to our voting.

There are, of course, many other significant issues in which the dignity of the human person is at stake. An obvious example here is the war in which we are currently involved. However, the difference between this issue and abortion is the possibility that some wars can be just. The principles that justify a war must be carefully applied, and when this is done we find that intelligent people of good will can and do differ as to the morality of the war. Any application of Catholic moral teaching to the question of abortion that concludes that abortion is anything other than intrinsically evil gives evidence of a faulty application of those teachings.

Another way of differentiating those life issues that are always evil from those that allow for prudent judgment is precisely the foundational character of the first group. In other words, it makes absolutely no sense to seek the good of the human person (his right to food, affordable housing, just wages, etc.) if his basic right to be born is not protected.

Four years ago, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in a memo to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, wrote: "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 favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons" (emphasis added).

Whatever could be proportionate to the destruction of 45 million (and still counting) children since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 still eludes me.

May Our Lady of the Holy Rosary, whom we honor in the month of October, intercede for us and guide us as we fulfill our very critical obligation to be good citizens and responsible voters.