The following comes from a February 4 Catholic News Agency article:
Efforts to combat social injustice cannot forget that the right to life is foundational, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez of Los Angeles said January 30 at the Hispanic Pro-Life Congress in Santa Ana, California.
Pro-life questions are not just one issue among many, the archbishop said, criticizing the effects of a “seamless garment” approach advocated by some Catholics, or what is sometimes called “a consistent ethic of life.” These views mislead people in practice, he said, and result in “a mistaken idea that all issues are morally equivalent.”
“So in everything we need to be clear that the root violence in our society is the violence against those who are not yet born and those who are at the end of their lives,” the archbishop said.
“If the child in the womb has no right to be born, if the sick and the old have no right to be taken care of – then there is no solid foundation to defend anyone’s human rights.”
The archbishop noted the problems of violence, drugs, “scandalous” prison conditions, the death penalty, deportations and injustices in the immigration system, racial discrimination, unemployment and homelessness, and environmental pollution.
“I am not trying to say that all of these issues are ‘equal.’ They are not. And we always need to be clear about that,” he said.
However, he continued. “In the face of the suffering and human need in the world, we cannot compartmentalize our compassion or draw lines between those we will care about and those we will not.”
The archbishop said the pro-life movement’s vision is “spiritual, not political.” This means it does not make sense for pro-life efforts to be separate from social justice efforts.
Everyone has a right to life, including the unborn. Archbishop Gomez is quite correct on this. Gun ownership, the death penalty, and the homeless are also important, but not as important as life. Man has a free will given to him by God. If he does evil things, such as murder, perhaps he deserves the death penalty. If he uses drugs, maybe he will become homeless. Because the 10 Commandments are no longer taught, society is ignorant of the moral consequences of sin.
Yes. The “Roman Catholic Church” and the “Pro Life Movement” are not synonymous! The RCC should and does exhort its members to be concerned about ALL the “social issues” while recognizing a “hierarchy” among those issues.
The Pro Life Movement, on the other hand, was formed to combat the liberal abortion movement of the 20th century, and the various problems to which it gave rise. It has developed the organizational structure and the know how necessary for such a struggle (and, thank God, is showing signs of success). As an organization it should not be expected to dissipate its energy and resources to serve other causes however worthy they may be.
Catholic Pro Lifers can certainly join organizations devoted to causes like…
like ending war or hunger. But the Pro Life ORGANIZATION must remain devoted to its particular mission.
The fact is that the promotion of the “seamless garment” is a ploy to obstruct the progress of Pro Life, by dissipating its energy and resources. Why else would the New York Times, President Obama and other stalwarts of liberal abortion be partial to it, and be lionizing Cardinal Bernardin? Pro Lifers must not take that bait.
God bless you, for those clear and unequivocal distinctions. And for taking to task those (including MANY of to-day’s bishops—and your predecessor, Card. Mahony) who mislead the faithful by the morally faulty “seamless garment” equivalence. Keep saying it loud and clear. You have great support among many in the pews, for whom your clarity and candor are most welcome!
…and where, pray, is the morally faulty “seamless garment” equivalence taught, caritas? Who are you to judge that this bishop in his words is any better informed or theologically grounded than another?
You presume to praise, but in doing so you judge those who promote that which is observably faulty, perhaps even those with world-respected “Greg” doctorate. Are you not by your very words disparaging the theological approach of +Mahoney? Your theological superior who, sadly, held an official position?
Perhaps it is the consistency of other groups in decrying that which is faulty and cleaving to that which is true – despite those “educated” clerics with official positions within the Church – that threaten you. But since…
… you say you care, caritas, I will ask that you care enough to exercise consistency when attempting to chasten others… and the groups you erroneously assert to be outside the fold.
Your logic is morally flawed.
I judged Archbishop Gomez’s comments regarding the flaws in the “seamless garment” theory by reading and considering his words. How else? Unlike you, I didn’t presume Divine implantation of wisdom authorizing me to congratulate or chastise him. Quite different from some bloggers here, who (without authority or any theological knowledge), feel free to correct and judge EVERYONE. Bloggers who are saccharine sweet until you dare disagree with them. Then come the raising of strawmen; the refusal to answer challenges to positions; the insults to challengers, altho made in replies to third parties. You were nice for a while. You have reverted to form. [To paraphrase the promo ad for “Jaws”: “she’s baaaaack! just when you thought it…
was safe to go into the water.”] The know-it-all who claims the right to “defend” the Church against its own Magisterium. Quo warranto?—you
who have left the Catholic Church by affiliating with the SSPX. Now that you’ve left the Church, leave it alone.
Quo warranto you…Mr. Un-loving?
You need another course in logic. Perhaps you don’t realize that YOU are the uncharitable one assuming “Divine implantation of wisdom.” Your post makes no sense because someone being affiliated with the SSPX would also mean you’re accusing Pope Francis of leaving the Church for affiliating with the SSPX. Shame on you for your inconsistency AND real lack of “caritas”. Don’t worry though! Mercifully, Pope Francis has “affiliate-tingly” given permission to the SSPX priests to even hear *your* contrite confession should the necessity arise.
Again, caritas, your logic is morally flawed.
“…I didn’t presume Divine implantation of wisdom authorizing me to congratulate or chastise him.”
You didn’t presume to judge a tree by its fruits either as we have been mandated by God, caritas. Solid, well educated Catholics who retain the capacity to reason in accordance with what the Church has always taught didn’t need authorization to understand the bad fruits that would and did quickly follow on seamless garment theorizing. Or is blind obedience the only fruit hoped for in an expensive Catholic School education. I have 12 years of the above. Though, I admit, no Greg training.
There is no strawman in your obvious flip flop of who can or cannot judge. Having said that,…
…you may want to defer to the proper authority in your error of judging the SSPX outside the Church. You know not of what you speak…. only of what, perhaps, you wish really hard were true.
But the magisterium doesn’t work that way, caritas.
As to the SSPX, Benedict XVI made an official pronouncement that it enjoys no canonical status or mission WITHIN the Catholic Church. Good enough for me.
Thank you, Catherine, for the consistency, logic, and true Catholic charity. And thank you too, caritas, for demonstrating what it means to be an idealogue. Good enough for ‘me’ is you determining the stopping point where you are comfortable, not the truth and nothing of what BXVI was speaking to.
No wonder you get so flustered when others use logic, reasoning, and sound Catholic theology to judge the fruits of the tree. You don’t judge the fruits of the tree and you don’t even stay current on the realities of current position.
You may want to consider, however, that while BXVI’s words are good enough for you, the words of all the popes from Peter until the present day are what we are to heed. Again, thank you for…
…demonstrating that you are the one guilty of all you fling at others. And it doesn’t take a Greg degree to see it.
The “seamless garment” , like all models, only approximates reality (and as a chemist, I use models all the time). It’s strength is in showing the interrelatedness of all the threads of Catholic teaching; its weakness is that in a real garment, all threads are equally important. It does not show the hierarchy of goods and does not always clearly delineate matters wherein prudential judgment is allowed.
Good analysis Tom, in general. However, some garments are made with gold threads woven into them, so it is not always true that all threads are equal in a seamless garment.
One tiny quibble: Though this story was published in Angelus, its source was CNA — the Catholic News Agency.
Thank you. The source has been updated.
Shred the seamless garbage theory..Amen
Hopefully, other bishops will begin to make these same points. The seamless garment theory is nothing other than a subterfuge designed to dilute consciousness of the sacredness of life, which it has surely accomplished. We need bishops who will lead and deeply understand the effects of policies on societies, economies, governments and human welfare. Concepts of prudential judgment are worthless when exercised by progressives with no prudence or judgment and who personally reject the Magisterium and hundreds of years of papal teaching. Advocacy of modern concepts of social justice while ignoring Marxist implications is prevalent and particularly dangerous.
Thank you, Archbishop Gomez, for clarifying the truth.
The Anonymous post above, February 5th at 11:10 pm was mine — Anne T.
My understanding it is a mortal sin for a catholic to vote for a pro choicer.
Chris, you misunderstand. It is against church teaching to vote for a pro-choice politician BECAUSE they are pro-choice. If, however, both candidates support pro-choice, you can vote for them in spite of their stand on choice. You can also(I hate this one) vote for a pro-choice candidate if you feel that they are better than the other candidates stands on other issues, in spite of the their stand on choice. Not everyone will agree with this comment because they don’t think it is right to vote pro-choice under any condition.
You are correct on the last part ole Bob liberal One… Catholic pro-aborts ( and thats what they are) should be excommunicated…
That is not the position of the Church, Canisius.
Catholics are obliged to vote for the best candidate overall, but not permitted to vote for a candidate BECAUSE they may be pro choice. Abortion is not the only issue in politics or morality.
Archbishop Jose Gomez has proven to be a very good pastor for our afflicted diocese od 4million babtized souls. He moves slowly but surely.
The greates news from His Exellency is that the Tuesday after Memorial Day Weekend, May 31st, he will officiate a Ponrifical Solemn Mass at 7 PM at St. Victor’s, 8634 Holloway Dr, West Hollywood, CA 90069. He will celebrate the confirmations of the children from the FSSPLA as well. A Latin Pontifical Mass has not taken place in Los Angeles for at least 40 years. It requires the Bishop and three priests. The choir will have 60 voices. So if you are near Los Angeles come join us for the treat of your life. Archbishop Gomez cares for his entire flock, even the least among us.
I wish I could just yawn whenever I hear this guy use the presumptive “Our Society,” but for some reason the gag reflex always kicks in.