cAtholic voting & the “seAmless gArment” theory Special Report: How to vote with a clear conscience. HEN AMERICAN CATHOLICS VOTE , THEY typically divide into roughly two groups — those who consider themselves “life-and-family issues voters” and those who consider themselves “social-justice issues” voters. A life-and-family issues voter will automatically disqualify candidates with a voting record supporting abortion or homosex- Wual civil unions. A social-justice issues voter tends to be flexible on the life issues and will put more emphasis on war and peace, on poverty and taxes, and on the death penalty. The very existence of these “different kinds” of voters makes us ask what, exactly, is the relationship of all these issues? Are some more impor- tant than others? If so, how should they be ranked, and by what criteria? UCH QUESTIONS WILL matter quite a lot in the upcoming More boldly than in any other magisterial document, Pope 2008 election, and we are likely to see some rather John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor, explored and proclaimed Sinteresting dilemmas form in the minds of Catholic this personalist foundation, showing that absolute moral voters. Life-and-family voters will be very hesitant if Rudy norms exist precisely to defend the dignity of the per- Giuliani is the Republican candidate, but some will be son, that the Church’s social doctrine is united with the tempted to support him for other good reasons, not least rest of her moral doctrine by this of which is the defeat of a candidate common foundation, and that even more deficient on life and fam- the phenomenon of martyrdom ily issues and woefully inadequate is also rooted in the dignity of or even dangerous on other issues. the person. In a word, all moral Our purpose here — in this and the next cou- issues are critical, because in all of them the ple of installments of “Gray Matters” — is to gather dignity of the human person is at stake. Hence, their some key intellectual equipment that will be necessary principle can be thought of as a “seamless garment” or items in the Catholic voter’s toolbox when election day a “consistent ethic of life.” comes around. The key piece of equipment we’ll dis- cuss here is the “seamless garment” theory, also called NCE THE COMMON foundation is noted and acknowl- the “consistent ethic of life.” edged, a critical distinction must be made between Otwo different types of issues, which for purposes HE “SEAMLESS GARMENT ” THEORY IS a tremen- of convenience we will label “level A” and “level B.” dous idea when properly understood (it often is First, there are issues that yield what are called “abso- Tnot), and also an idea that is tremendously prone lute negative moral norms.” (In biblical terminology, a to misuse. Properly understood, it simply, and pro- “negative moral norm” is something we are forbidden foundly, means that the idea of the dignity of the human by God never to do. For example, several of the Ten person is at the heart of all moral issues. Put otherwise, Commandments God gave Moses in Exodus 20 are abso- regardless of the moral issue being debated, ultimately lute negative moral norms. They begin with the phrase, the debate redounds to the question of the absolute dig- “Thou shalt not . .”)This means that to violate such nity of the human person. In a word, we have here a highly personalist foundation for ethics. by mArk lowery, ph.D. A speciAl report on cAtholic voting from Envoy mAgAzine www.envoymagazine.com An mAgAzine speciAl report: CatholiC voting & thE “SEamlESS garmEnt” thEory a norm is to violate the dignity of the salvation” (Gaudium et Spes 43). and un-nuanced exhortation to consider human person, always and in every It is the laity who have the unique the “full range of issues.” The follow- circumstance. These negative moral competence to deal with the various ing statement, perfectly acceptable norms remind us — indeed, they com- spheres of the temporal order. The and laudatory in itself, could easily be mand us — to always and everywhere Church respects the legitimate auton- thus misunderstood: We hope that vot- avoid actions that are intrinsically evil. omy of the temporal order (the Church ers will examine candidates on the full The most poignant example is the neg- is not an expert in politics, e.g.), and range of issues and on their personal ative moral norm instructing us never the laity who have expertise are to integrity, philosophy and performance. to intentionally take the life of an inno- work toward making each sphere of A consistent ethic of life should be the cent person. To do so inherently denies the temporal order compatible with the moral framework to address issues in the dignity of that person. Issues such Christian faith. the political arena. (U.S. Bishops, The as abortion, active and passive eutha- Challenge of Faithful Citizenship, 2004, nasia, infanticide, and embryonic stem S CITIZENS AMONG citizens they from the section “Role of the Church.” cell research all fall under this negative must bring to their cooperation The document cites the CDF document moral norm. awith others their own special Participation of Catholics in Political competence, and act on their own Life (PCPL) #4, which itself avoids any ECOND , LEVEL B ISSUES . THESE are responsibility; everywhere and always ambiguity.) The fact is, a candidate issues wherein a moral norm they have to seek the justice of the king- with a perfectly legitimate stance on Sapplies, but not a negative moral dom of God. The temporal order is to one or more level B issues can disqual- norm that prohibits the action in each be renewed in such a way that, while ify himself by taking the wrong position and every instance. Rather, qualified lay its own principles are fully respected, on a level A issue. Listen to Fr. Frank people are obliged to critically examine Pavone’s advice on this point: “Suppose a concrete situation and make a pru- your choices in an election aren’t that dent determination as to whether or great. One helpful question to ask not a norm is being violated. An excel- war and abortion is, ‘How fundamental is the issue on lent example is the phenomenon of the which the candidate is off base? Does just versus unjust war.The criteria for are both critically the candidate embrace any disqualifying just war offer a set of norms, but these positions?’… Some disagreements with criteria must be applied cautiously to a important issues, candidates are legitimate; others are particular war or potential war to deter- not. Some positions are so fundamen- mine whether or not the criteria can but they are tally wrong that they should be beyond be met. The issue of the dignity of the the realm of the optional…. [You might human person is just as much at work, different kinds ask] May we vote for one who, free of or at stake, in such a moral setting as it disqualifying faults, is better than the is when a negative moral norm is appli- of issues. alternative, even if not right on every- cable, but it is harder to determine when thing? Of course.”1 dignity is being violated. Alongside the Note very carefully: It is question of just war, other issues that it is harmonized with the principles not necessarily the case that fall under into this second area include of the Christian life… (Apostolicam the level A issue is more school funding (e.g., the issue of vouch- Actuositatem 7 [Vatican Council important than the level B ers), the rare case where the death II]; see also Gaudium et Spes 42). issue — that is difficult to penalty might be legitimate, the issue Having made the all-impor- weigh and decide, and of immigration policy, and technical tant distinction between A and B the whole point of the economic questions involving hunger, issues, it almost goes without say- seamless garment is population, and third-world debt. ing that the seamless garment to recognize that the Who makes the decision regarding or the consistent ethic of life is one super-issue, the such applications? Qualified members vulnerable to misuse whenever dignity of the person, of the laity have the obligation to do this that distinction is left unmade. affects every issue. as part of their larger vocation of bring- A voter might favor a candi- Rather, they are ing the Gospel to bear on all spheres date’s position on one or several different kinds of of the temporal order. “Therefore let level B issues, and that candidate issues. That is why there be no opposition between profes- might have disqualified himself various attempts sional and social activities on the one on one or several level A issues, to weigh issues part, and religious life on the other.... yet the voter might uncritically against one another The Christian who neglects his tem- justify voting for that candidate turn out to be too fac- poral duties…. jeopardizes his eternal on the basis of an unqualified ile. War and abortion ➤ We need yOur help! CliCk here to www.envoymagazine.com | 800-55-envOy ➤ CliCk here to Sign up fOr addiTiOnal make a Tax-deduCTible dOnaTiOn. 2 free Envoy SpeCial repOrTS. An mAgAzine speciAl report: CatholiC voting & thE “SEamlESS garmEnt” thEory are both critically impor- mark lowery, ph.D. (envoy magazine’s resident moral theologian), responds tant issues, but they are to issues and arguments regarding voting raised by casimir Dadak, ph.D. different kinds of issues. The analysis just given is rooted in the natu- morAl DISTINCTIONS Between ral law, and therefore is wAr & ABORTION applicable to all human Dr.