How you will never hear the seamless garment theory used
By Dr. Jeff Mirus ( bio - articles - email ) | Oct 02, 2025
In commenting on the Durbin-award controversy, when Pope Leo XIV made comparative remarks about related contemporary moral positions, he put it this way:
Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.
I think the order of the clauses or phrases in this comment is not only typical but very significant. It indicates that the first instinct of many speakers is to emphasize the seamless garment of morality in ways which subtly but specifically criticize abortion opponents for being insufficiently seamless. I am sure that this is unintentional with Pope Leo, but it does demonstrate the influence of the dominant culture on the manner in which the seamless garment theory of morality is typically discussed and deployed.
In other words, nobody ever says this:
Someone who says I’m against the death penalty but is in favor of abortion is not really pro-life. Someone who says I’m against the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States but I’m not against abortion, I don’t know if that’s pro-life.
The vast majority of people who compare and contrast moral positions using the seamless garment approach do it almost instinctively in ways which single out opposition to abortion as insufficient. You never hear the argument expressed in a way that disqualifies opposition to the death penalty or opposition to restrictions on immigration (or anything else) on the grounds of insufficiency.
No, the argument is almost always used to diminish the moral integrity of those who oppose abortion, and not those who oppose any other evil. This is clearly a cultural thing, by which I mean that in our culture, abortion is the single evil that is reflexively considered most important to ignore, to the point that it has even affected how we express ourselves. Thus even our instinctive use of “seamless garment” phraseology in effect refuses to allow opposition to abortion ever to occupy the moral high ground.
I do not mean that everyone who falls into this trap has recognized that it is a trap. What I am suggesting is that at this point the trap is culturally ingrained. The way people phrase these moral comments, even when they may not intend that particular consequence, invariably reflects the dominant culture’s insistence that abortion must not be singled out as a particularly grave moral evil.
Think about what this means, because it is by now almost completely and often even involuntarily instinctive: Opposition to abortion must never be allowed to occupy the moral high ground—not even rhetorically.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: djw2e6874 -
Oct. 10, 2025 12:44 PM ET USA
I agree with grateful1, I think the basic stance should be that you expect people to mean what they say (and say what they mean). Even when people, especially public figures, are caught "off guard", how often do they say something that really does not represent their thinking? It might not be tactful, prudent, or phrased in the best way, but it seems unlikely they say something which is completely foreign to their minds, especially on topics in their expertise.
-
Posted by: tc6683 -
Oct. 09, 2025 12:28 PM ET USA
This Seamless Garment is just a rhetorical ploy. It skips over (i.e. assumes) the moral equivalence of two issues. Usually, one clear-cut issue and one murky. If you disagree, then we discuss the equivalence, not the murky issue. So it's a tendentious trick to throw one side off balance and try to implicitly assert a questionable result
-
Posted by: grateful1 -
Oct. 08, 2025 8:59 AM ET USA
"I am sure that this is unintentional with Pope Leo..." Why, Jeff? He's an intelligent man. I have no reason to think him stupid, unsure of his words, or given to speaking "off the cuff" -- especially post-Francis. If you meant to imply that he's just another victim of the zeitgeist, then God help us. Either way, his words prompt serious concerns. We must pray for him.
-
Posted by: DrJazz -
Oct. 04, 2025 3:24 PM ET USA
I’m against the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, but I’m in agreement with all humane deportations of illegal immigrants from the United States. How’s that for a seamless garment?
-
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Oct. 03, 2025 5:41 PM ET USA
Exactly right. Let's look critically at the death penalty issue. Someone coldly and callously murders a woman and her unborn child. He is found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. If he kills someone in prison, we either put him in solitary for life (very inhuman) or put him to death. Or ignore the second murder? That puts paid to the "never death penalty" argument. It has to be available to protect the state's right to exist.
-
Posted by: Randal Mandock -
Oct. 03, 2025 12:24 PM ET USA
The only "seamless garment" that should matter when it comes to abortion is the seamless condemnation of all murders of the innocent, starting with abortion, but embracing as well the murders of innocent babies, children, women, rescue personnel, medical personnel, journalists, U.S. citizens, and other innocents in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, Qatar, Iran, and Yemen in the Middle East. These murders are compounded by the genocide by the West (feeders of the war machine) in Ukraine.
-
Posted by: rfr46 -
Oct. 03, 2025 7:05 AM ET USA
Why did Pope Leo make these unwise and dishonest remarks? Who among his advisors counselled him to do so? Was his motive to protect Cupich against other bishops and laymen who disapprove of Cupich´s action? Did PL consider that his remarks were a slap in the face to the courageous bishops who defended Catholic teaching? And undermined a just fraternal correction? And gave Durbin a reason to claim papal approval? I am mystified.
-
Posted by: mverner1960 -
Oct. 03, 2025 6:21 AM ET USA
You echo my exact thoughts that occured in reading Pope Leo's comments.
-
Posted by: philtech2465 -
Oct. 02, 2025 10:36 PM ET USA
For what it's worth, when I discuss pro-life with others, I use the argument "nobody uses". You cannot care about the unjust treatment of human immigrants if you allow unborn humans to be put to death. You cannot care about the execution of judicially condemned criminals if you allow the non-judicial execution of unborn humans, innocent of any crime whatsoever.
-
Posted by: feedback -
Oct. 02, 2025 9:45 PM ET USA
Spot on observation, Dr Mirus! Considering the preeminent intrinsic evil of abortion, yours is the only properly Christian way to talk about "seamless garment" of moral integrity, and never the other way around! Never the Bernardin/Cupich way! At the Mass today (The Holy Guardian Angels), the Gospel was: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father." [Matthew 18:10]
-
Posted by: Crusader -
Oct. 02, 2025 6:39 PM ET USA
"The first instinct of many speakers is to emphasize the seamless garment of morality in ways which subtly but specifically criticize abortion opponents for being insufficiently seamless. "I am sure that this is unintentional with Pope Leo." I congratulate you Mr. Mirus for being much more positive about Pope Leo's intention than I would have been.





