http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3430.html

      John Kerry's 'Seamless Garment'

      by Matt C. Abbott

      14 May 2004

      John Kerry opposes the death penalty, but supports abortion. President Bush supports the death penalty, but opposes abortion.  Which of the two is more in line with Catholic teaching?

      Back in the 1980's, the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin espoused the 'seamless garment' philosophy, also known as the 'consistent ethic of life.' This philosophy, which basically places the grave evil of abortion on the same level as other societal ills (war, poverty, racism, and even the death penalty), has been controversial from its inception, with many staunch right-to-life advocates asserting that it has done nothing but give pro-abortion "yet 'right' on most or all the other issues" politicians a free pass to call themselves devout Catholics.

      And that, to me, is a fair assessment.

      Enter the current presidential race.  Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a "Catholic," opposes the death penalty, but supports abortion.  President Bush, a Protestant, supports the death penalty, but opposes abortion, albeit with exceptions.  So which of the two is more in line with Catholic teaching?

      President Bush is.and here's why.

      First, let's take a look at the issue of capital punishment.  The teaching of the Catholic Church, taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is as follows:

        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.

        If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

        Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent" (2267).

      We see from the above passage that the death penalty should be opposed in virtually all circumstances.  But it is not condemned categorically; it is not said to be intrinsically evil.

      Now take the issue of abortion.  To once again quote the Catechism:

        From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life (2322).

      From the above passage, we see that induced abortion is intrinsically evil, that is, it can never be deemed morally licit.

      Hence, abortion is a "non-negotiable" issue, and that is why it, and not capital punishment, is included in the essentially anti-'seamless garment' Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, available from Catholic Answers.  Says the very informative guide:

        The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

        The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.

      John Kerry, however, obviously doesn't support this position.  In fact, he's 100% pro-abortion.

      Sure, Kerry opposes the death penalty.  But because he supports the intrinsic evils of abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and homosexual unions, no faithful Catholic should vote for him. Period.

      Now I realize that President Bush is far from perfect.  But he is the better of the two.  The "lesser evil," if you will.  Should a faithful Catholic vote for the "lesser evil?"  Is it always wise to do so?  That's debatable.  Such a vote, though, is in accord with Catholic teaching.

      One more thing: I think the emperor would be better off with no clothes than the see-through 'seamless garment.'

      Matt C. Abbott is the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee and the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 14, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 14, 2004.

Why is abortion the be all, end all of what the Church wants to see in this election?

We need to stop being so idealistic in our politicians. There is no perfect politician in the U.S. We can't vote for Bush because of his views on the death penalty and we can't vote for Kerry because of his views on abortion. But according to Bill we can't vote for the third parties because that would be a vote for Kerry.

So here is a novel idea for Catholics. DON'T VOTE.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

Scott, Actually, we can vote for Bush even though we disagree with his views on the death penalty. You see, Catholics can disagree wheather there is sufficient restraint on murderers with our current prison system to protect society from their killing of the innocent. But a Catholic CANNOT agree or contribute votes to anyone who would support the murder of innocent children.

In the Bush case we are disagreeing on how best to prevent murder. In the Kerry case it is a simple case of if you vote for him you are voting for murder. The choice for a Catholic in the latter case is very clear.

Is abortion the only issue for a Catholic that should cause us to vote for or against a candidate? No, there are actually 5 non- negotiable issues in the United States in 2004 for Catholics: abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research (where a child would now be killed to do such a thing), human cloning, and homosexual "marriage" or "union".

It is my understanding that Kerry has taken the position in favor of every one of these.

The choice is clear, if you are a Catholic there is no way you can vote for Kerry.

For a good voters guide see this link.

For a good voters

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

voters guide link

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

I think a vote for the third party candidate is more likely a vote for Bush. Maybe the third party candidate is the way to go for Catholics, however, on second thought, I think many of Nader's views would match Kerry's.

I find it disturbing (as someone in another thread suggested) that a vote for a political candidate could place a Catholic in the state of mortal sin. Personally I find that contention hard to accept, but it did get me thinking which is always very painful.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), May 15, 2004.

I find it disturbing (as someone in another thread suggested) that a vote for a political candidate could place a Catholic in the state of mortal sin. Personally I find that contention hard to accept, but it did get me thinking which is always very painful.

Think of it this way: if you voted for a Nazi in 1936 would you have been part of the problem or part of the solution? If part of the problem, then you are aiding and contributing to sin. Now, think, what is the difference between the Nazis murdering millions of Jews and those today who advocate the murder of millions of innocent children?

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

I can't argue with your logic Bill. I still personally find the idea that voting for a politicion can put you in the state of mortal sin very disturbing. There are many political issues that are extremely objectional. Scott makes a point that there is no perfect candidate.

I see a disclaimer ... Voting could be hazardous to your immortal soul.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 15, 2004.

I see a disclaimer ... Voting could be hazardous to your immortal soul.

Sure it can. So can parenting if you don't do it correctly...or having sex...or a bunch of other things. Voting with discretion is a right AND a responsibility.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

Scott makes a point that there is no perfect candidate.

We aren't looking for perfection in the US. Just a candidate that doesn't go against the 5 non-negotiables. Unfortunately the Democratic party seems bent on violating all of them.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 15, 2004.

My private viewpoint about voting for the lesser of two ''evils''-- a misnomer, --is this:

We have a definite resposibility as conscientious Americans to vote AGAINST any candidate perceived as destructive to moral values. There are various criteria that show what a destructive potential would be. One is surely his appointment of select judges to our Supreme Court bench; a long-range effect upon our citizens and the law.

If we fail to vote anti-Kerry (even if we have to hold our noses voting for Bush), we serve our country badly; because we enable the rise to power of a person who will likely harm us in the long run. A person who will fight in favor of the immoral and unconstitutional.

Voting for a 3rd party (at least in this election) is wasting a vote that should be employed in FAVOR of values. It will gain our country nothing if we fail to defeat an unworthy candidate.

If our president turns out to be less than Catholic, it can't be helped. The Catholic candidate this time around is an immoral and dishonest one. I have to doubt seriously that our Church's leaders will endorse him, fallen away Catholic that he has proven to be.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2004.

I would argue with Scott in regard to Bush;

'' --no perfect politician in the U.S. We can't vote for Bush because of his views on the death penalty and we can't vote for Kerry because of his views on abortion. But according to Bill we can't vote for the third parties because that would be a vote for Kerry.''

Who said we shouldn't vote for Bush on account of the death penalty? That is a non-starter. Bush was in perfect accord with the laws of Texas when he was governor there.

No Catholic tenet that condemn capital punishment; and in any case, Bush is not a Catholic. No one really knows Bush's ''views'' on the death penalty. He served his state upholding the will of the people.

Whereas, Kerry is pro-abortion and reputedly a faithful Catholic. The ''right'' to abortion is clearly unconstitutional; and is NOT the will of the people. It has been foisted on our society by activist judges, whom we never elected!

Kerry has pandered to the abortion lobby since the start. Bush isn't pandering. He upholds the law and serves the people. There's a night-and- day difference.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2004.