A Seamless Garment - The Dignity of the Human Person from Womb to Tomb

The term "seamless garment" was first used by Cardinal Joseph L. Bernadin in a speech at Fordham University in December of 1983. Cardinal Bernadin's challenge for a "seamless garment" of life-related issues (pro-life issues) was a call for a strategy of consistency, a "linkage," which shows the "inter relatedness" of having a pro-life position which would link opposition to abortion with opponents of the nuclear arms race, the death penalty and other threats to life. At the heart of such a linkage is the fundamental belief that all life is sacred, from conception until natural death. The sanctity of each individual life comes from our basic belief that every person is created in the image and likeness of God. Any movement, any policy which threatens individual human life- from abortion through nuclear war to euthanasia - is a violation of this fundamental sacredness. Cardinal Bernadin stated in a follow up talk in March of 1984 at St. Louis University that, "The Catholic moral vision has the scope, the strength and the subtlety to address this wide range of issues in an effective fashion." Cardinal Bernadin was trying to symbolize the single attitude one should have toward life. The meaning of the term, "seamless garment," if not its present application, is familiar to everyone acquainted with the Gospel of St. John. In the context of Cardinal Bernadin's words it is meant to convey the idea that one should have a consistent ethic life. Respect for life should include all human life. Thus, one should not draw a line, or put a seam in the garment, by making an exception where respect for human life is at stake.

The practical question is whether a consistent ethic of life will allow a person to favor one pro-life issue without favoring all of them. Or perhaps more pointedly, whether it will allow him or her to favor one of them and at the same time oppose the others? Is this putting a seam in a garment that should be seamless?

The "seamless garment," or consistent ethic, approach certainly has some reasonably clear applications. It is inconsistent, for instance, for an antiwar group to be against the killing that takes place in warfare and pro-abortion at the same time. The same is true of those who are opposed to capital punishment but pro-abortion. But what about people who are opposed to abortion? Does a consistent ethic life demand that they be opposed to war and to capital punishment? Superficially, this would seem to follow from what has already been conceded about consistency in the other direction. At the least, one must ask why a consistent ethic should not work both ways. If one may not be selective in one direction, how can one justify selectivity in the other direction.

Before responding, I think all would have to agree that life as such is a basic value, and that therefore, the loss of any life is something that must be regretted. A consistent respect for life will not tolerate any kind of line-drawing or "seam" on this level. One must never rejoice over the loss of life as such. A consistent ethic would even call for the wish or desire that taking human life would never be acceptable.

It is entirely possible that if you have continued to read at this point that you have found something to agree or disagree with in this article. A consistent ethic of life is a difficult subject to discuss in today's world and yet it must be prayed about, studied and discussed. Our children will have to make much more difficult decisions about life threatening and life sustaining issues than we ever dreamed about having to think about in our lifetime. The Gospel message will not become any easier to live out! Working to defend, protect, and nourish the sanctity of human life in all ages and stages is a difficult task. But we are called to trust that our agony will bear fruit, that God will use our suffering love and service in behalf of the gift of life.

"Very often Christian vision will incline the faithful to favor a particular solution to a problem in some given situation. Yet others with no less sincerity may judge differently, and legitimately so, about the same problem. Now if people, even contrary to the wishes of the sponsors, too easily associate one or the other of these solutions with the Gospel message, it should be kept in mind that in such cases no one is permitted to identify the authority of the church with his own opinion. Let them, then, try to enlighten each other by sincere dialogue in a spirit of mutual charity and with genuine solicitude for the common good" (Gaudiem et Spes, No. 43).

Questions for Reflection

• Where/how have I seen or experienced the dignity of human life threatened, diminished, or destroyed? What life issues do I believe are present in these situations?
• Who/what guides me as I make decisions about human life issues?
• What are the key "dignity of human life issues" present in our world today?
• What causes a lack of respect for the dignity of human life in our world today?
• What causes a lack of response by people (myself or others) to life controlling, life threatening, life diminishing, life-destroying issues?
• Have I ever been in a position to regulate/control/threaten/diminish/destroy the dignity of human life? How did I respond? Why did I respond this way? Would I change this response today?