|
(cont.)
II. The Seamless Garment: The Levels of the
A consistent ethic of life should
honor the complexity of the multiple issues it must
address. It is necessary to distinguish several levels
of the question. Without attempting to be comprehensive,
allow me to explore four distinct dimensions of a
consistent ethic.
First, at the level of general moral principles, it is
possible to identify a single principle with diverse
applications. In the Fordham address I used the prohibition
against direct attacks on innocent life. This principle
is both central to the Catholic moral vision and systematically
related to a range of specific moral issues. It prohibits
direct attacks on unborn life in the womb, direct
attacks on civilians in warfare, and the direct killing
of patients in nursing homes.
Each of these topics has a constituency in society concerned
with the morality of abortion, war, and care of the
aged and dying. A consistent ethic of life encourages
the specific concerns of each constituency, but also
calls them to see the interrelatedness of their efforts.
The need to defend the integrity of the moral principle
in the full range of its application is a responsibility
of each distinct constituency. If the principle is
eroded in the public mind, all lose.
A second level of a consistent ethic stresses the distinction
among cases rather than their similarities. We need
different moral principles to apply to diverse cases.
The classical distinction between ordinary and extraordinary
means has applicability in the care of the dying but
no relevance in the case of warfare. Not all moral
principles have relevance across the whole range of
life issues. Moreover, sometimes a systemic vision
of the life issues requires a combination of moral
insights to provide direction on one issue. At Fordham,
I cited the classical teaching on capital punishment
which gives the State the right to take life in defense
of key social values. But I also pointed out how a
concern for promoting a public attitude of respect
for life has led the bishops of the United States
to oppose the exercise of that right.
Some of the responses I have received on the Fordham address
correctly say that abortion and capital punishment
are not identical issues. The principle which protects
innocent life distinguishes the unborn child from
the convicted murderer.
Other letters stress that while nuclear war is a threat
to life, abortion involves the actual taking of life,
here and now. I accept both of these distinctions,
of course, but I also find compelling the need to
relate the cases while keeping them in distinct categories.
Abortion is taking of life in ever growing numbers in our
society. Those concerned about it, I believe, will
find their case enhanced by taking note of the rapidly
expanding use of public execution. In a similar way,
those who are particularly concerned about these executions,
even if the accused has taken another life, should
recognize the elementary truth that a society which
can be indifferent to the innocent life of an unborn
child will not be easily stirred to concern for a
convicted criminal. There is, I maintain, a political
and psychological linkage among the life issues—from
war to welfare concerns—which we ignore at our own
peril: a systemic vision of life seeks to expand the
moral imagination of a society, not partition it into
airtight categories.
A third level of the question before us involves how we
relate a commitment to principles to our public witness
of life. As I have said, no one can do everything.
There are limits to both competency and energy; both
point to the wisdom of setting priorities and defining
distinct functions. The Church, however, must be credible
across a wide range of issues; the very scope of our
moral vision requires a commitment to a multiplicity
of questions. In this way the teaching of the Church
will sustain a variety of individual commitments.
Neither the Fordham address nor this one is intended to
constrain wise and vigorous efforts to protect and
promote life through specific, precise forms of action.
Both addresses do seek to cultivate a dialogue within
the Church and in the wider society among individuals
and groups which draw on common principles (e.g.,
the prohibition against killing the innocent) but
seem convinced that they do not share common ground.
The appeal here is not for anyone to do everything,
but to recognize points of interdependence which should
be stressed, not denied.
A fourth level, one where dialogue is sorely needed, is
the relationship between moral principles and concrete
political choices. The moral questions of abortion,
the arms race, the fate of social programs for the
poor, and the role of human rights in foreign policy
are public moral issues. The arena in which they are
ultimately decided is not the academy or the Church
but the political process. A consistent ethic of life
seeks to present a coherent linkage among a diverse
set of issues. It can and should be used to test party
platforms, public policies, and political candidates.
The Church legitimately fulfills a public role by
articulating a framework for political choices by
relating that framework to specific issues and by
calling for systematic moral analysis of all areas
of public policy.
This is the role our Bishops' Conference has sought to
fulfill by publishing a "Statement on Political
Responsibility" during each of the presidential
and congressional election years in the past decade.
The purpose is surely not to tell citizens how to
vote, but to help shape the public debate and form
personal conscience so that every citizen will vote
thoughtfully and responsibly. Our "Statement
on Political Responsibility" has always been,
like our "Respect Life Program," a multi-issue
approach to public morality. The fact that this Statement
sets forth a spectrum of issues of current concern
to the Church and society should not be understood
as implying that all issues are qualitatively equal
from a moral perspective.
As I indicated earlier, each of the life issues—while related
to all the others—is distinct and calls for its own
specific moral analysis. Both the Statement and the
Respect Life program have direct relevance to the
political order, but they are applied concretely by
the choice of citizens. This is as it should be. In
the political order the Church is primarily a teacher;
it possesses a carefully cultivated tradition of moral
analysis of personal and public issues. It makes that
tradition available in a special manner for the community
of the Church, but it offers it also to all who find
meaning and guidance in its moral teaching.
Page 1 - 2 -
3 - 4
| 
