In 2024, the Seamless Garment Offers No Cover for Democrats

Last updated on: October 14, 2024 at 4:14 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

In 2024, the Seamless Garment Offers No Cover for Democrats 2024-10-14T16:14:43-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As I write this, less than twenty-three days remain until election day. The polls appear closer than ever between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump. In my last article, I shared the statement from USCCB regarding the upcoming election and offered some needed guidance on how faithful Catholics ought to vote.

For this article, I address those Catholics who would attempt an appeal to the seamless garment to justify voting for candidates who support abortion and other extreme anti-Catholic views (gender ideology and same-sex marriage). In their appeal to the seamless garment, these Catholics commit an unjustifiable moral equivocation.

Below, I demonstrate that in 2024, the seamless garment offers no cover when voting for Democrats.

**What is the Seamless Garment?**

According to Steven P. Millies, the seamless garment took shape mostly due to the work of Chicago’s Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. First given during a lecture series at Fordham University, Cardinal Bernardin attempted to expand the meaning to “prolife” to include more than merely an appeal to ending abortion. He referred to this new understanding of “prolife” as a consistent ethic of life.

The purpose of proposing a consistent ethic of life is to argue that success on any one of the issues threatening life requires a concern for the broader attitude in society about respect for life.

So, instead of focusing only on abortion, a consistent life ethic also focuses on hunger, poverty, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. The thought here reflects the reality that human life is threatened not just pre-birth, but unto natural death. Now, this view eventually gained support by St. Pope John Paul II in 1995’s Evangelium Vitae.

Therefore, since this view now reflects magisterial teaching, why my concern and condemnation of its potential use in 2024?

Unjustifiable Moral Equivocation

The main issue with appeals to the seamless garment/consistent life ethic occurs when it turns into unjustifiable moral equivocations. For example, equivocating the intrinsic evils of abortion with carbon emissions. Other Catholics, knowing that one issue cannot outweigh the intrinsic evil of abortion, attempt to place abortion on one side of the life scale and Cardinal Bernadin’s other life issues on the other side. These Catholics think the “life” issue “balances out,” so a vote for someone who supports abortion (and euthanasia) becomes morally neutral.

Furthermore, Cardinal Bernardin lamented this misuse of the seamless garment/consistent life ethic. In a 1988 interview with National Catholic Register, he said:

I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it. But the misuse does not invalidate the argument.

Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, this misuse remains an issue among Catholics. Some progressive Catholics also seek to want to add more items to the list of “life issues.”

Adding “Existential Threats” to the Seamless Garment

Recently, Notre Dame’s Gerard Powers spoke at a Catholic parish, and according to the progressive National Catholic Reporter (NCR), he “was not going to tell parishioners how to vote, nor would he present a Catholic report card on the two presidential candidates.” Not true to this reporting, Powers added four “existential threats” for Catholics to consider in the upcoming election: climate change, nuclear war, another pandemic, and artificial intelligence. At the end of this talk, Powers added a fifth “existential threat”—the end of democracy as we know it. He warned:

This election is different. … [It] is very much about the future of democracy. Everything else is secondary. [emphasis mine]

I assume Powers includes abortion in “everything” he considers secondary.

Furthermore, he lists only one non-negotiable in this year’s election: “fitness for the office of president.” He then, according to NCR, lists out some of the progressive talking points against Donald Trump after the 2020 election. Clearly, with all his “existential threat” talk, Powers tipped his hand to whom he recommends Catholics place their vote come November (hint: Kamala Harris).

Catholics Cannot Vote for Kamala Harris in 2024

As someone who cast their first vote in 1992, I remember when the then Democrat candidate for president (Bill Clinton) seemed to understand the intrinsic evils of abortion. The mantra of these Democrats was “safe, legal, and rare.” Here, “rare” understands that abortions only occur as a necessary evil, not a celebrated “right.” Rights do not belong in the “rare” category. Therefore, during these elections, I grant the validity in an appeal to the seamless garment/consistent life ethic when voting for the Democrat candidate. However, those days are long over.

Harris is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate in US history. For example, Harris:

Became the first Vice President (and presidential nominee) to visit Planned Parenthood in March of 2024.

I’m here at this health care clinic to uplift the work that is happening in Minnesota as an example of what true leadership looks like.

As a presidential candidate, she promised in September to support an end to the filibuster and enshrine abortion up to nine months into law.

I’ve been very clear, I think we should eliminate the filibuster for Roe and get us to the point where 51 votes would be what we need to actually put back in law the protections for reproductive freedom…

Made abortion rights a key issue in her presidential campaign. Gone are the days of “safe, legal, and rare.” Her campaign promises:

As President, she will never allow a national abortion ban to become law. And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom nationwide, she will sign it.

To reiterate, for Catholics, the above removes Harris from any sort of consideration for president in 2024. An appeal to the seamless garment/consistent life ethic does not apply with Harris factored into the equation.

Final Thoughts…

To all those Catholics considering voting for Kamala Harris come November, an appeal to the seamless garment/consistent life ethic does not apply to Kamala Harris. Her extreme view on abortion disqualifies her outright. Please notice that I did not mention her views on gender ideology or same-sex marriage. Why? Given her extreme view on abortion, I saw no need to include them.

Again, in 2024, the seamless garment offers no cover when voting for Democrats.