But human life, Catholic teaching, and political action all have depths that go well beyond the surface.
The idea of placing abortion within the context of the entire gamut of social-justice issues was most famously advanced back in the 1980's by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago. Cardinal Bernadin referred to it as the "seamless garment" approach. While that name is rarely heard today, the concept lives on--especially around election time, when voters weigh the role that abortion should play in their voting decisions.
From the very beginning, the problem with the seamless-garment approach was that, in practice, it turned the issue on its head. Confronted with the consistent teaching of the Church on abortion, yet desiring to vote for particular candidates who supported abortion, a significant number of American Catholics pointed to the seamless-garment approach to justify casting their votes for politicians who would not only protect "abortion rights" but even expand them and provide taxpayer funding for abortions.In other words, rather than elevating the Church's teaching on other social issues to the severity of her teaching on abortion, voters used the seamless garment as an excuse to quit considering abortion when they entered the voting booth. And, if exit polls are to be believed, Catholic voters did so in November 2008, in casting their votes for Barack Obama.
But less than a week after Barack Obama's inauguration, the chickens are coming home to roost. Because of the dire straits of the American economy today, the federal government has no money to spend on new initiatives on such social issues as healthcare, education, and poverty. That doesn't mean that the federal government will not spend money, but it does mean that the Obama administration will have to look for ways to cut costs in other areas.
On ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos (January 25, 2009), Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) explained that some of that cost-cutting will come at the expense of the unborn. Discussing President Obama's economic stimulus package, Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi, "Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?"
Her answer was enlightening:
Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.In other words, the federal government can help the states "reduce costs" by, in the words of Charles Dickens' Scrooge, reducing the "surplus population." For Pelosi, a Catholic who dissents from the Church's teaching on abortion and contraception, this is not a hard choice. When Stephanopoulos responded to her remark by saying, "So no apologies for that?" Pelosi replied:
No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned.We can debate whether Cardinal Bernardin was right or wrong in formulating the seamless-garment approach, but this much we know: He did not intend for it to be used to justify balancing the federal budget on the backs of the unborn.
Yet today, and for the foreseeable future, that is the practical effect of Catholic votes for Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other pro-abortion politicians. Why would we expect that those, like Pelosi and Obama, who have made their peace with the destruction of unborn human life are going to be more serious about any other social issue?
When we reduce abortion to a nonissue in order to elevate other areas with which Catholics are concerned, the poor and defenseless suffer. And there's nothing Catholic about that.
Dear Scott,
Thank you for a succint and clear answer for those “Catholics” who equate abortion with the “crisis” of global warming as well as with the “horrors” of too few food stamps.
It is beyond the pale to hear “Catholics” say that they are pro-”choice” because of their different “life experiences” (code word: I have had an abortion).
Why is it that when people discuss abortion they always want THEIR way? As President of the American people isn’t Obama’s obligation to represent the will of the majority? Shouldn’t that be the question we ask? If we can’t convince the majority that abortion is wrong, maybe that’s the problem we should address. Is it possible that they know something we don’t? Why are we contemptuous of their point of view? Let’s not be afraid to find out if we are smarter than they are. What if we aren’t? Have we the courage to conceive of the other person being right? If they are right, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are wrong.
Is it possible that they know something we don’t?
Such as? That an unborn baby is not alive? That is really is just a lump of tissue, that somehow miraculously gains life only after birth–and then only if the mother intended to give birth, and the birth didn’t happen accidentally during an abortion? (Remember, Barack Obama voted against the Illinois Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected children who were born alive as the result of an abortion from being left to die.)
If they are right, that doesn’t necessarily mean we are wrong.
Since the Church teaches, and science confirms, that human life begins at conception, if they are right, the Church and science are wrong.
“The will of the majority” cannot change whether an unborn child is alive. “The majority” is wrong quite often, and about many things. The fact that the members of the majority agree with each other does not mean that they are right.
So…. Let me get this straight. If a candidate allows abortion and or contraception you don’t vote for him or her. Ever.
Rather, you pick the anti-abortionist, even if that person also believes in the death penalty and thinks that the poor should be left to their own devices because “God helps those who help themselves?” Pity we can’t have Bush come back for a third term.
Kyle
Kyle, there are two problems with your response. First, in a two-person race for any political office, none of us are required, by law or by Church teaching, to vote for one of the two. We can abstain; we can write in a candidate; and, if there actually is a third-party candidate running (as there always is for President of the United States), we can vote for him, if his positions are more in conformity with those of the Catholic Church.
Second, the Church does teach that certain things are nonnegotiable. Abortion is one. The death penalty, despite practical opposition among some bishops (and even Pope John Paul II), is not. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on this issue: The death penalty is a morally licit form of punishment.
I did not vote for George W. Bush in either 2000 or 2004, nor did I vote for John McCain in 2008 (and I’ve explained on several occasions on this website why I did not). But neither did I vote for Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama.
The willingness of pro-lifers to cast votes for Republicans just because they say they are pro-life, even if they never act on it, has led to the situation we’re in today, where Roe v. Wade is unlikely ever to be overturned. The answer to that, though, is not to vote for other candidates who support abortion and contraception, and who make all of us materially culpable by using our tax dollars to kill unborn children.
Finally, Kyle, on this question:
the poor should be left to their own devices because “God helps those who help themselves?”
Go back and read Nancy Pelosi’s comments. Or find the video on ABC’s website. Pelosi is suggesting that the best way to help the poor is to reduce the number of them–not through social-welfare programs, or through job creation, but through the use of federal tax dollars to contracept and abort them out of existence.
That’s some social conscience.
Scott, I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned (and apparently the Church, which does condemn the death penalty and makes appeals against it) life is life. Unborn or born, and to worry more about potential life than those already here strikes me as twisted, somehow.
As for abortion, it’s a tragedy, and I wish it didn’t happen, but it does no matter what I think or what the local legislation says. I therefore think it should be legal, because the option is to drive it underground and back to the coat hanger. People have forgotten that aspect of the pre Roe vs Wade days, but dr. Fielding hasn’t, and discusses them here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=abortion%20roe%20wade&st=cse
Some people accept the idea of returning to that, but I do not.
Kyle
Thanks for your honesty, Kyle. Too often, Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians pretend that they’re doing it in spite of the politicians’ stand on abortion, when, in reality, they have–like you–made their peace with the practice.
Of course, it’s easier to make your peace with abortion when you wrongly characterize an unborn child as “potential life.” Life begins at conception, and not simply because the Church teaches that that is so. Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of biology knows that cells could not divide and differentiate if they were not alive.
As for the death penalty, you’re simply wrong. Yes, as I pointed out above, bishops, on up to and including Pope John Paul II, have made practical appeals against its application, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear (para. 2267): “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
The paragraph goes on to explain that authorities will limit themselves to lesser means if they will be sufficient, but the Church has not changed her teaching on the death penalty. It is morally licit. That does not mean that the Church regards the death penalty as desirable, any more than she regards war as desirable, but just as there is such a thing as a just war, there is also such a thing as a just application of the death penalty.
Scott, I hadn’t planned to answer, but you admit the death penalty, quoting Catechism:
“Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
This is grasping at straws, at least within the context of the US penal system, as the people who are on Death Row, locked in little cells, represent little if any threat to anyone, and the obvious Churchly thing to do would be to keep them there rather than walk them to the Chair. The same holds true in most other places in the modern world; if a person is locked up he or she is not a threat to the general population, and if he or she is a threat to the prison population one can put him or her into isolation. No need for death.
As for abortion, we will agree to disagree.
Kyle
Kyle, it’s not grasping at straws; it’s making appropriate distinctions. There are actions, such as war and the death penalty, that are morally licit under certain circumstances, even if those circumstances are quite restrictive (and, as John Paul argued regarding both the death penalty and war, becoming more restrictive in modern societies.)
Practical objections to something that is morally licit do not make it illicit.
There are other actions, such as abortion, that are never morally licit. In terms of moral theology, such actions are known as “intrinsic evils.”
Practical objections to the effects of avoiding intrinsic evils can never make such evils licit. Or, to put it in more common terms, the ends can never justify the means.
I’m afraid that, in our back and forth, Kyle, the broader point of the post has been lost. The interesting thing about Nancy Pelosi’s remarks is that they seem to contradict the reason her Catholic supporters vote for her. They say that they support her because she believes in social justice, but when push comes to shove, she’s looking for ways to reduce the cost of social-welfare programs–and, in her mind, the best way to do so is to cull the herd by promoting contraception and abortion.
If a right-wing politician made a similar statement, those who support Pelosi today would call it eugenics–and they would be right. But when Pelosi calls for it, it’s not eugenics, but social justice.
Scott,
Regarding candidates “who make all of us materially culpable by using our tax dollars to kill unborn children,” or more to the point, each of us being “materially culpable.” What is my culpability? (Is ‘culpability’ a word with a technical meaning for the Church in this context? Does it mean anything other than blameworthiness?)
Here’s the example: I don’t have an abortion. I don’t perform abortions. I don’t give out advice about abortions. I do pay my taxes, some portion of which funds some portion of some abortions. A woman (someone I have never had any contact with) has one of these tax-funded abortions. What is the… moral mechanism (?) by which culpability reaches me? How can I be blameworthy for other people’s decisions?
Is my culpability different if abortion is legal but never paid for by taxes? Is my culpability an inevitable outcome of my living in this time and place? Am I culpable for every private decision to which I am not a direct party if the decision is enabled by tax funding?
And, wow, Pelosi’s remarks in that interview really are Dickensian.
SM, excellent question. “Culpability” does have a technical meaning; it is our moral responsibility for an act, though that responsibility can be greater or lesser depending upon our awareness of the evil being done and the extent to which we consent to an act.
So, in the specific circumstances that you outline in your second paragraph, your personal culpability is minimal to nonexistent–provided, of course, that you also did not vote for a candidate who promised to support the use of taxpayer funds for abortions (or, at a minimum, if you did vote for such a candidate, you voted for him/her in spite of that campaign vow).
Still, to the extent that we give our willing consent to a system of governance that permits such actions, and don’t attempt to change the laws that contravene morality, we do bear some culpability.
That’s why I mentioned it in this context. Too many Catholics have, in fact, consented–through their votes, through their contributions to candidates, through outright defiance of Church teaching on abortion. When the candidates they support pass laws or sign executive orders authorizing the use of tax money for abortions, then their culpability is greater than that of a different taxpayer, who tried his best to ensure that such laws or orders would not be implemented.
Finally, on this:
Am I culpable for every private decision to which I am not a direct party if the decision is enabled by tax funding?
The answer is a heavily qualified “yes.” Again, our culpability for actions that we oppose may be so minimal as to be nonexistent, but since most of us can, in fact, do more than we do to try to end policies that contravene morality, our lack of action could be a form of consent.
For that reason, I actually think that there is something to be said for something like the “seamless garment” approach, but only if those who apply it elevate other elements of Catholic moral and social teaching (just-war theory, for instance) to the level of abortion, rather than using it as an excuse to vote for politicians who support abortion. Otherwise, we’re subordinating the “seamless garment” to political preferences, rather than using it to call our political leaders to a higher standard.
Scott,
Thanks for this clarification, “When the candidates they support pass laws or sign executive orders authorizing the use of tax money for abortions, then their culpability is greater than that of a different taxpayer, who tried his best to ensure that such laws or orders would not be implemented.” My original draft of my previous post had some additional questions trying to get at exactly this point, but I wasn’t sure that it was one actually implicit in what you were saying.
How does culpability relate to sin (in general? in this case?)? And is this culpability/sin relationship covered in the Catechism or some other documents so I’m not taking up any more of your time or thread space?
I nm tired, and pray for those relativists, about the seamless garment mentality. This is only a comment by a Cardinal. Abortion is part of the ‘Deposit of Faith.’
All other issues , if placed on a scale next to abortion, would not move the scale one bit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2272, indicates you excumunicte yourself if you participate in an abortion. Also, before we get the “I do not accept the Church’s teaching whiners’,there are nine ways to commit a sin also in the CCC. If all the Church teachers would have Fortitude we would not now have this confusion and schism. God bless you.
Thank you for your discussion on “Speaker Malthus” (as Wall Street Journal called her, in a surprising defense for life when they criticized this contraceptives/abortion provision as a “loopy” idea for economics) aka Nancy Pelosi. And thanks a lot for your clear and steadfast defense of our faith and doctrine.
From a Filipino mom in Thailand
The problem with the Catholic faith–as with most faiths–is that it is about rejecting and not accepting. Guru Nanak said that religions do not bring people together, they drive people apart. Forget religion, he said, and find God in everyman. I think I will do that.
Excellent, incisive analysis.
In response to Terry Lehane, it has been my experience that Catholics(not) who are pro-choice refuse to explain their stance in the matter. I have all but begged and been rebuffed in anger. So, while I never believed the knew something we do not, I am left not understanding but baffled and saddened. No matter how hard I try, I can’t get there from here.
Yipes, still going after abortion all these years–presenting the negative. All the time,talent,treasure expended on one issue. I suspect the Lord will ask about our stubbornest. Why not try a positive approach. Offer to the pregant couple medical and emotional assistance before, during and after the birth.Some competition for Planned parenthood?
As for the Seamless Garment I would suggest you read it completely; as you are missing or purposely distorting its written words. Maybe you have been too Scanlan-ized!!
Dear Peggy,
Again, I suspect the most likely reason you will not get a suitable answer from pro-”choice” “Catholics” is that they have a)paid for an abortion or b) talked a loved one into having an abortion or c) have had abortions.
Terry Paul, you might want to read my posts “HLI’s ‘Pro-Life Dos and Don’ts’” and “Will Roe v. Wade Ever Be Overturned?” I’m all in favor of a positive approach, as those posts show. But pursuing a positive approach does not mean that we should stay silent in the face of evil actions.
I’m not “missing or purposely distorting” the words of the “Seamless Garment.” Go back and read the post: I have, in fact, argued that there is substantial truth to it. But the post is about the way others have put it into practice. In so doing, they minimize the importance of abortion–as you seem to do in your own remark.
Something I think many people don’t realize is that when society doesn’t condemn behavior, that behavior usaully increases. Too many people in todays secular world seem to not be able to draw a distinction between right/wrong and legal/illegal.
SM, I overlooked your followup–sorry about that. When you say, “How does culpability relate to sin,” I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. A culpa is a fault (think mea culpa); so culpability is moral responsibility for something wrong–i.e., sinful. (I may not have made that clear in my original response, since “moral responsibility” could, I suppose, imply virtue as well as vice.)
As for further reading, the question of culpability lies at the heart of casuistry. St. Alphonsus de Ligouri’s writings on moral theology are the place to start.
Obviously you don’t understand what the seamless garment was about…..it’s not just about abortion. It is about reverence for life at all stages. That’s why this ’seamless garment comes’ up all the time…anytime politicians (and the rest of us) have to deal with issues that deal with the quality of life. Trying to make it just about abortion perverts the original message.
Jo, if you had bothered to read the article before making your comment, you’d know that I never said that the seamless garment is “just about abortion”—quite the opposite. I explained that the point of the seamless-garment approach, at least initially, was to place abortion within the context of other social-justice issues and to elevate those issues to the same status that abortion has had in Catholic political action.
But the problem, as I explained, is that that is not the way things played out. A proper Catholic application of the seamless-garment approach would be to refuse to vote for candidates who did not support Catholic moral and social teaching. Thus, if a candidate was pro-life but also supported an unjust war, one wouldn’t vote for him. But if his opponent opposed an unjust war but supported abortion, one wouldn’t vote for him, either.
Instead, the seamless-garment approach was almost immediately used as an excuse to allow Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates, on the grounds that those candidates were better than their opponents on other issues. But that doesn’t elevate other issues to the level of abortion; it simply lowers abortion, even makes it a non-issue. And that, from the standpoint of Catholic moral teaching, is not acceptable.