New York Bishops: "not every issue is of equal moral gravity..."

From a document titled, "Our Cherished Right, Our Solemn Duty," released on October 1st by the Catholic Bishops of New York State:

We Catholics are called to look at politics as we are called to look at everything – through the lens of our faith. While we are free to join any political party that we choose or none at all, we must be cautious when we vote not to be guided solely by party loyalty nor by self interest. Rather, we should be guided in evaluating the important issues facing our state and nation by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of His Church.

Our national and state elected officials have profound influence on countless matters of great importance, such as the right to life, issues of war and peace, the education of children and how we treat the poor and vulnerable. We must look at all of these issues as we form our consciences in preparation for Election Day, November 4.

It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.

The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office. As Faithful Citizenship teaches, “Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.”

These are complex times, so our task is not light. Educating ourselves for the presidential election is somewhat easier than doing so for the congressional or state legislative races, mainly because the candidates’ positions are generally better known. The presidential candidates of both major parties have legislative voting records which often provide valuable insight. In addition, their campaign Web sites, debates and news coverage regularly highlight the differences of the two on the issues.

Read the entire document.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

The unravelling of the seamless garment is in full swing. Deo gratias.

[Margaret]

I'm with you, Ed.

[padraighh]

I have always found the seamless garment argument rather seemless.

[Sawyer]

Actually, educating yourself for any election is pretty easy. The Democrat Party is the party that supports a culture of death, so it is immoral to vote for a candidate who is a member of that party. That leaves the Republican Party and its candidates as the only remaining morally acceptable (but imperfect) option.

[Margaret]

I've also heard people accidentally refer to it as the seamless shroud... :-)

[Mark Brumley]

The metaphor of the seamless garment for a consistent life ethic rightly emphasized the principle of concern for all issues touching on the subject of human life. It also tended to do what Cardinal Bernardin claimed it was not intended to do--equate all issues touching on the subject of human life.

The situation of the innocent, helpless unborn child is radically different from the aggressor in an unjust war. The threat to human life posed by inadequate health care is not the same as the threat to human life posed by gangs in crime-riden neighborhoods of the certain inner cities. The evil of homicide committed against the law of a nation is not the same as state-endorsed and state-protected homicide of abortion and embryonic experimentation. Furthermore, matters involving things wrong in principle and under any conditions are not the same as matters involving things that might or might not be wrong depending on circumstances or states of affairs that are difficult to assess.

I think the metaphor of the seamless garment has more problems than it's worth and I agree it is long past time to give it up. It seems to be the case that many serious thinkers have done so.