|
(cont.)
I. The Seamless Garment: The Logic of the Case
The invitation extended to me for both the Gannon Lecture
at Fordham and the Wade Lecture today asked that I
address some aspect of the bishops' pastoral, "The
Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response."
While I would gladly have spent each lecture on the
question of war and peace, I decided that it was equally
necessary to show how the pastoral is rooted in a
wider moral vision. Understanding that vision can
enhance the way we address specific questions like
the arms race. When I set forth the argument about
this wider moral vision—a consistent ethic of life—it
evoked favorable comments, often from individuals
and groups who had supported the peace pastoral but
found themselves at odds with other positions the
Catholic Church has taken on issues touching human
life. At the same time, the Fordham address also generated
letters from people who fear that the case for a consistent
ethic will smother the Catholic opposition to abortion
or will weaken our stance against the arms race.
Precisely in response to these concerns, I wish to state
the essence of the case for a consistent ethic of
life, specifying why it is needed and what is actually
being advocated in a call for such an ethic. There
are, in my view, two reasons why we need to espouse
a consistent ethic of life: (1) the dimensions of
the threats to life today; and (2) the value of our
moral vision.
The threat to human life posed by nuclear war is so tangible
that it has captured the attention of the nation.
Public opinion polls rank it as one of the leading
issues in the 1984 election campaign; popular movements
like the "nuclear Freeze" and professional
organizations of physicians and scientists have shaped
the nuclear question in terms which engage citizens
and experts alike.
The Church is part of the process which has raised the
nuclear issue to a new standing in our public life.
I submit that the Church should be a leader in the
dialogue which shows that the nuclear question itself
is part of the larger cultural--political--moral drama.
Pope John Paul II regularly situates his examination
of the nuclear issue in the framework of the broader
problem of technology, politics, and ethics.
When this broader canvas is analyzed, the concern for a
specific issue does not recede, but the meaning of
multiple threats to life today—the full dimension
of the problems of politics and technology—becomes
vividly clear. The case being made here is not a condemnation
of either politics or technology, but a recognition
with the Pope that, on a range of key issues, "it
is only through a conscious choice and through a deliberate
policy that humanity can be saved." That quote
from the Holy Father has unique relevance to nuclear
war, but it can be used creatively to address other
threats to life.
The range of application is all too evident: nuclear war
threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale;
abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale; public
executions are fast becoming weekly events in the
most advanced technological society in history; and
euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated.
Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning
and morality; they cannot be collapsed into one problem,
but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger
pattern.
The reason I have placed such stress on the idea of a consistent
ethic of life from the beginning of my term as chairman
of the Pro-Life Committee of the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops is twofold: I am persuaded by
the interrelatedness of these diverse problems, and
I am convinced that the Catholic moral vision has
the scope, the strength and the subtlety to address
this wide range of issues in an effective fashion.
It is precisely the potential of our moral vision
that is often not recognized even within the community
of the Church. The case for a consistent ethic of
life—one which stands for the protection of the right
to life and the promotion of the rights which enhance
life from womb to tomb—manifests the positive potential
of the Catholic moral and social tradition.
It is both a complex and a demanding tradition; it joins
the humanity of the unborn infant and the humanity
of the hungry; it calls for positive legal action
to prevent the killing of the unborn or the aged and
positive societal action to provide shelter for the
homeless and education for the illiterate. The potential
of the moral and social vision is appreciated in a
new way when the systemic vision of Catholic ethics
is seen as the background for the specific positions
we take on a range of issues.
In response to those who fear otherwise, I contend that
the systemic vision of a consistent ethic of life
will not erode our crucial public opposition to the
direction of the arms race; neither will it smother
our persistent and necessary public opposition to
abortion. The systemic vision is rooted in the conviction
that our opposition to these distinct problems has
a common foundation and that both Church and society
are served by making it evident.
A consistent ethic of life does not equate the problem
of taking life (e.g., through abortion and in war)
with the problem of promoting human dignity (through
humane programs of nutrition, health care, and housing).
But a consistent ethic identifies both the protection
of life and its promotion as moral questions. It argues
for a continuum of life which must be sustained in
the face of diverse and distinct threats.
A consistent ethic does not say everyone in the Church
must do all things, but it does say that as individuals
and groups pursue one issue, whether it is opposing
abortion or capital punishment, the way we oppose
one threat should be related to support for a systemic
vision of life. It is not necessary or possible for
every person to engage in each issue, but it is both
possible and necessary for the Church as a whole to
cultivate a conscious explicit connection among the
several issues. And it is very necessary for preserving
a systemic vision that individuals and groups who
seek to witness to life at one point of the spectrum
of life not be seen as insensitive to or even opposed
to other moral claims on the overall spectrum of life.
Consistency does rule out contradictory moral positions
about the unique value of human life. No one is called
to do everything, but each of us can do something.
And we can strive not to stand against each other
when the protection and the promotion of life are
at stake.
Page 1 - 2 -
3 - 4
| 
