Fabric of the Seamless Garmet
I
n 1984, President Ronald Reagan declared January 22 “National Sanctity of Human Life Day.” That year, January 22 was the 11th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (the infamous US Supreme Court case which legalized abortion nationwide). Every year since 1984, pro-life presidents have re-proclaimed January 22nd or the Sunday closest to it as the same designation and prolife advocates have demonstrated and made their voices heard in various ways. As we approach this year’s National Sanctity of Human Life Day, I would like to address an issue that is a common topic of debate among Catholics of all stripes. That is whether or not there is a “pre-eminent” prolife issue. Spoiler alert! The Church’s answer is a resounding yes! Opponents of this answer (Note: I am not asserting opponents of this answer are opponents of the pro-life cause) usually cite what is known as the “Consistent Ethic of Life Theory” or the “Seamless Garment Theory” which posits that all human life, from conception to natural death is sacred and that any form of threat against the inherent dignity of human life (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unjust war, slavery, racial prejudice and many more) must be opposed. This is indeed Catholic teaching. However, it is important to note what the authentic and Catholic version of this teaching is saying, and what it is not saying. What it is saying is that all human life is sacred no matter what the circumstances, that all issues concerning the sanctity 24 THE CATHOLIC CONNECTION
abortion. Would these same people argue that a car wreck is as much a disaster as a 9.0 earthquake in New York city? The reality of this interpretation of the Seamless Garment theory is that it is neither an accurate portrayal of the theory, nor in conformity with Catholic moral teaching. The term “Above all, the “Seamless garment” was coined by common outcry, Eileen Eagan in 1971 in a pamphlet entitled The Unborn Child and the which is justly made Protection of Human Life, in which she on behalf of human argued the need for consistency in our defense of human life using the image rights-for example, of Jesus’ prized seamless garment. She the right to health, rightly pointed out that, especially at that time, many people failed to see to home, to work, to the pro-life issue as extending beyond family, to culture- is the evil of abortion. The phrase was later popularized by Cardinal Joseph false and illusory if the Bernardin of Chicago who also right to life, the most argued that to be pro-life is to be concerned for and actively opposed basic and fundamental to all threats against human life. He right and the condition said, “When human life is considered ‘cheap’ or easily expendable in one for all other personal area, eventually nothing is held as rights, is not defended sacred and all lives are in jeopardy.” This was not a novel teaching but was with maximum a reemphasizing of Catholic doctrine determination.” which had been neglected by many who called themselves “pro-life” -Pope John Paul II, but held views contrary to Church Christifideles Laici, 38 teaching on issues such as war, treatment of the needy, etc. All of get uncomfortable and some outright this was perfectly accurate and much disagree. For example, there are needed. A new interpretation of this theory those who would actually make the argument that an employer paying has become somewhat popular which their employees an unjustly low wage proposes that not only should all is as equal a violation of the dignity of threats against human life be opposed human life as euthanasia. Or, selfishly (true), but that they are all equal in refusing to give a homeless person gravity (false). It is worth noting a meal is equal to performing an that Eileen Eagan and Cardinal of human life are fundamentally intertwined, and that any and all threats to the sanctity of human life are unjust, immoral, and must be opposed. What this teaching is not saying is that all threats to human life and dignity are equal. This latter point is where many people start to
