The 'seamless garment' may wear thin in the age of the laity
Recently in this space I argued that Archbishop Blaise Cupich of Chicago had pushed the “seamless garment” argument much too far, by suggesting that support for the death penalty is morally equivalent to dismembering unborn babies and offering the parts for sale. This is—or should be—a familiar point. Some actions, such as the deliberate destruction of innocent human life, are intrinsically evil; they can never be justified under any circumstances. Other actions, such as the punishment of criminals or the regulation of immigration, are subjects for prudential judgments; different actions may or may not be morally justifiable under different circumstances.
Samuel Gregg of the Acton Institute makes this point in an essay for Catholic World Report, but then adds another useful point. Prudential judgments on political issues, he reminds us, are the province of the laity. The Church magisterium sets out the moral principles, but it is the laity—more specifically, the lay people in public office—who have the responsibility to study the situation and make the appropriate judgments to put those principles into operation. Gregg explains:
In short, contra the consistent ethic, at least as formulated by Cardinal Bernardin, it’s not the responsibility of Catholic bishops—including, one might add, the bishop of Rome—to engage in the process of evaluating the multifaceted contingent details, competing sets of empirical data, and information yielded by the social and natural sciences that is required to make a determinatio concerning the most optimal ways of addressing genuine problems such as homelessness, environmental degradation, unemployment, or gun-violence: problems to which there are many possible right answers.
Since Vatican II we have been instructed frequently that this is the “age of the laity.” It would be appropriate, then, for prelates to recognize the fields in which lay people hold primary authority. This is not to say that bishops and priests cannot criticize political leaders. They can—just as you can and I can. But in criticizing political judgments, they should not claim political authority.
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: james-w-anderson8230 -
Aug. 19, 2016 10:20 PM ET USA
From the last 4 verses it is obvious that the king made no exceptions to the rules, unlike many of our shepherds. And he expected the people to know the rules. Many shepherds are not doing their job to teach the rules.
Posted by: koinonia -
Aug. 19, 2016 7:45 AM ET USA
Years ago I talked with a cradle Catholic with a Master's degree in theology from a Catholic college. She proudly reported her roles as educator and lay leader at church. It was evident as we talked that either our catechetical formations or our recollections differed. Detecting a Protestant influence, I asked what role, if any, the sacraments played in salvation. She explained they're simply demonstrations of our goodness and commitment to Christ. In brief our faiths were incompatible.
Posted by: feedback -
Aug. 14, 2015 11:35 PM ET USA
Abp Cupich actually helped to expose major inconsistencies (could we say, holes?) in the "seamless garment." When the discussed topic is abortion he changes it to immigration, or to unemployment, or to gun violence. However, when he discusses immigration, or unemployment, he never mentions abortions, as the "seamless garment" would require. Then it becomes evident that the allegedly "flawless" moral garment is full of holes on the seams.