McBrien Still Hanging Onto Seamless Garment

[Trelow]

katherine2:

The seamless garment doesn’t introduce any new issues to the Church’s social vision, it just speaks to the connectedness of all of the issues. So its seems it is Minerva who is damning a part of the church’s social vision as “socialist”. This leads me to more suspicion of her faithfulness than of Cardinal Bernardin’s.

Catholics who vote for many pro-life Republicans should feel gulity. I am not saying they should not vote as their conscience dictates. But if they are voting for people who do not support the entirity of the Church’s social vision, they should feel some gulit, particularly if they have not made their candidate know of their reservations on certain issues or otherwise worked to mitigate their support for a canddiate not behind the whole.

That wasn’t the Vatican. That was layman Karl Keating after he tested the phrase through polling and focus groups. (Did Christ use focus groups for His message?).

Catholics are not free to advoate injustice to the poor or workers.

Actually, the seamless garment movement is the best thing that could happen to the pro-life movement. A good number of Americans are troubled and confused about abortion and are alienated from a pro-life movement that seems to be nothing but a faithfull and impotent junior partner to the right wing.

Its interesting that you, like many others, insist we 1) must vote for pro-life candidates, 2) can have different opinions about other issues, even in contradiction from the Church, and 3) Bash the seamless garment.

It seems to me your are terrified of th epossibility of seamless garments success because then you would faced with candidates who are pro-life AND pro-social justice, for which you have no intention of supporting despite your claim that Catholcis MUST vote a certain way.

So legal abortion is ok along as we have government funded charity?

Why not work against legal abortion and fund the charity from our own pockets?

It is a sin to murder, is it a sin to not have your tax dollars go to things that you give to on your own?

The “seamless garment” is smoke and mirrors. A bastardization of the beatitudes. An insult to Christ, and an insult to charity.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Your eternal soul is more important than your temporal body.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Trelow:

BUT people can have differing opinions on how to handle social issues, wither or not the Government should use tax money to fight them, or it’s a personal responsibility. Correct. I agree totally!

Those who use the cloak of the “seamless garment” use it to push a socialist agenda in leu of a moral one. This goes a little far afield. I don’t think they want to push a socialist agenda, much less to do so at the expense of a moral one. The social implications of living the Gospel are a big part of the moral agenda of the Church.

Some issues are more important. People needing to make more money and killing babies are not on the same level. I agree, but we need to also remember "The Lord hears the cry of the poor."

THE POOR AND OPPRESSED ARE BLESSED! And yet no less poor or oppressed. The “Seamless Garment” seeks to address that.
THE ABORTED, AND THE SOULS OF THE PARTICIPANTS ARE DEAD. ***May they rest in everlasting peace, may the Light of Christ shine upon them. The “Seamless Garment” seeks to address this as well./***QUOTE]

 

[JamesD]

katherine2:

The Cardinal simply coined the term. The theory was developed by a first century Jewish rabbi named Jesus.

This rabbi said: Don’t be afraid of he that can kill the body. rather be afraid of him that can kill the soul.
I believe that this contradicts the seamless garment.
Abortion, suicide, uethinasia are all mortal sins that destroy the soul. There may be one or two other mortal sins that are included in the “seamless garment” philosophy but most of the items I have heard included in that philosophy are not.

And yeah what Trelow said:

Trelow:

So legal abortion is ok along as we have government funded charity?

Why not work against legal abortion and fund the charity from our own pockets?

It is a sin to murder, is it a sin to not have your tax dollars go to things that you give to on your own?

The “seamless garment” is smoke and mirrors. A bastardization of the beatitudes. An insult to Christ, and an insult to charity.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Your eternal soul is more important than your temporal body.

 

[fix]

There is a mischievous concept that has made its way into what now passes for standard Catholic theology. This concept, in some quarters’ dogma, goes by the name of “seamless garment of life” or “consistent ethic of life.” The general consensus is that this concept was developed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, of fond memory.

As best I am able to determine the concept means the following: On a whole array of issues affecting human life, Catholic theology calls for the consistent prohibition against the taking of human life. From abortion to euthanasia, from the death penalty to war, killing is to be avoided.

The “seamless garment of life” removes Catholic theology from being a one-issue pro-life movement. Furthermore, the “consistent ethic of life” removes Catholic theology from any embarrassing inconsistency when it comes to defending human life.

Even holy cardinals are not immune from the law of unintended consequences. Today this “seamless garment of life” ethic is being used to discredit those who make moral distinctions, and valid distinctions they are, among the life issues…

clarionherald.org/20040714/maestri.htm

 

[fix]

lifeissues.org/radio/r1999/r99-02/lr1976.html

Radio Transcript

LIFE ISSUES NO. 1976

SEAMLESS GARMENT

Well, the election is well past us, but I recently turned up a statement that I think would be of interest to you – and particularly to those of you who are Catholic. Many of you know about “the seamless garment”. This was originally enunciated by Cardinal Bernadin in Chicago. He stated that, before voting, Catholics should consider as many as 16 different issues in evaluating a candidate. These included fair housing, job discrimination, poverty, peace, education and others. Abortion was one of those issues.

This was seized upon by people interested in the political aspects of peace and justice and they’d elevate an issue, such as maybe fair housing, to an importance greater than abortion and we were then told by them, that if a candidate was good on fair housing or some other issue, that then, in good conscience, a Catholic could vote for this candidate, even though he was solidly pro-abortion.

Well, in response to this time of argument, Cardinal Bernadin then did state that the most important issue was abortion, but somehow a lot of people didn’t hear that.

This “seamless garment” concept is still with us, and it’s because of this confusion of prioritization of these social issues, that so many Catholics ended up voting for strongly pro-abortion, anti-family candidates.

Well, now we have a statement, it was issued by seven U.S. Cardinals at a meeting of the U.S. Catholic Bishops in November, and I quote: “*Catholics must address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, education, housing and health care. But being quote right' on these can never excuse a wrong choice quote on issues such as abortion and euthanasia.” It goes on… “Catholic public officials who disregard Church teaching on the dignity of the human person, are indirectly in collusion in the taking of innocent human life. In so doing, they jeopardize their own salvation, erode the Community of Faith, and give scandal to the faithful.” … *

It goes on*…“Catholic officials who support abortion do so at their own spiritual peril. Abortion is not the only issue voters should consider before voting, but it has to be a major consideration.” *And again: “People don’t really have rights if they’re not alive.”

Hey – this is a great statement! I hope that this gets wide circulation before the next election. This is a real clarification and it’s a specific direction for those people who insist that if a politician is right on other issues, but wrong on abortion, they can still vote for him. This makes the priorities for Catholics who vote very clear. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is wrong.

%between%

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“seamless garment” sounds nice in theory, but in reality is has simply been a way to advocate socialism and downplay the abortion issue. It is a way for bishops and priests who are in bed witht the DNC to guilt-trip faithful Catholics who vote for pro-life Republicans. And it isn’t Catholic teaching either - remember the Vatican’s list of non-negotiable issues this election year? Catholics cannot be or vote pro-abortion. However Catholics can hold a variety of opinions on how the govt should handle poverty. the seamless garmentites would deny this liberty and impose socialism on us, while doing next to nothing about abortion.

I don’t see the Seamless Garment as synonymous with socialism. Some socialists may see this as a great way to get their ideas in among Catholics, but I doubt it, as I’m not much given to conspiracy theories. It would be like saying, oh, I don’t know, that Republicans could remain in the White House on the strength of telling devout Catholics that "we’re gonna do something about abortion,"and then behave like robber barons for next four years “while doing next to nothing about abortion.” But that would mean we’d been played like a fiddle, wouldn’t it? Thank goodness I’m not given to conspiracy theories.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

katherine2:

Catholics are not free to advoate injustice to the poor or workers.

Typical tactic of liberals. Accuse people of injustice when they disagree with your views.

It is a fact that Catholics can stand on both sides of the issue of “social justice”.

It is also a fact that Catholics can never support abortion.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

fix:

Even holy cardinals are not immune from the law of unintended consequences. Today this “seamless garment of life” ethic is being used to discredit those who make moral distinctions, and valid distinctions they are, among the life issues…

clarionherald.org/20040714/maestri.htm

The key word in the above passage is “being used.” Is “Seamless Garment” wrong in and of itself or is it being used wrongly? The Bible is used wrongly all the time. I see the Bull “Extra Ecclesiam Nola Salus” used wrongly on these threads all the time. I can see the problem with people like the Newman Club director at my old college, who talked about Sandino more than Christ, worried more about politics than sin and loving God. He talked alot about the “Seamless Garment.” As I’ve aged, though, I’ve learned that he had quite a bit wrong, not just about this teaching articulated by Cardinal Bernadin. So how its being used may have no bearing on what it’s real intent is or the intent of it progenitor.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ByzCath:

Typical tactic of liberals. Accuse people of injustice when they disagree with your views.

It is a fact that Catholics can stand on both sides of the issue of “social justice”.

It is also a fact that Catholics can never support abortion.

With respect, ByzCath (I quite enjoy your posts), I would submit that if it is TRULY a matter of justice, then it is truly a matter of God, from whom Justice flows. “Justice, justice, shalt though pursue.” I think it’s in Deut.

 

[fix]

JKirkLVNV:

The key word in the above passage is “being used.” Is “Seamless Garment” wrong in and of itself or is it being used wrongly? The Bible is used wrongly all the time. I see the Bull “Extra Ecclesiam Nola Salus” used wrongly on these threads all the time. I can see the problem with people like the Newman Club director at my old college, who talked about Sandino more than Christ, worried more about politics than sin and loving God. He talked alot about the “Seamless Garment.” As I’ve aged, though, I’ve learned that he had quite a bit wrong, not just about this teaching articulated by Cardinal Bernadin. So how its being used may have no bearing on what it’s real intent is or the intent of it progenitor.

The priest writing the essay was being very kind. Bernardin was a hard left winger with a heterodox agenda. He is the godfather of many of the problems in the Church in America today. He knew exacrly what he was doing. I have said publicly that the biggest heresy today in the Church is the concept of trying to combine truth with error, while never publicly denying Church teaching. It goes on all the time. It is not innocent, it is manipulative.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

ByzCath:

Typical tactic of liberals. Accuse people of injustice when they disagree with your views.

It is a fact that Catholics can stand on both sides of the issue of “social justice”.

It is also a fact that Catholics can never support abortion.

Amen, social issues are void and null if your DEAD!God Bless

 

[BLB_Oregon]

katherine2:

Catholics who vote for many pro-life Republicans should feel gulity. I am not saying they should not vote as their conscience dictates. But if they are voting for people who do not support the entirity of the Church’s social vision, they should feel some gulit, particularly if they have not made their candidate know of their reservations on certain issues or otherwise worked to mitigate their support for a canddiate not behind the whole.
…
It seems to me your are terrified of th epossibility of seamless garments success because then you would faced with candidates who are pro-life AND pro-social justice, for which you have no intention of supporting despite your claim that Catholcis MUST vote a certain way.

I don’t know where pushing guilt gets us. With the exception of the very few who seem to think that George Bush was the best thing we could have short of the second coming, we were all put in a position of not having the candidate we would like to have had on the ballot. It does no good to project bad motives on someone because they have a single-minded agenda against what is arguably the greatest evil in our country in modern times. I would argue, rather, in favor of inviting each other higher up and further in. Challenge each other to more, and in doing so welcome challenges to our own set script.

We have brothers and sisters who vote solely on abortion and euthanasia, some who vote based on social issues instead, some who voted on the death penalty, some who vote on all these, and some who vote on none. The thing is, with a secret ballot, we shouldn’t be so certain we know who is who.

There are conservatives who have a different vision of social justice which relies more heavily on private initiative, partly because they are wary of government and partly because private initiative is rightly responsible for at least some part of the implementation of a just society. That is not the same as being anti-social justice. You can’t buy a just society by just getting our taxes high enough and throwing money in the correct directions wrapped up in the correct rules. Yes, you also can’t bring about a just society without being willing to dig deeply into your own wallet and without advocating that others do the same. You need both. Right now it seems that the Church has at least two big groups that feel so strongly about their piece of the puzzle that they don’t want to hear about anyone else’s.

We are going to get nowhere by running holier-than-thou guilt trips on each other. We need to remember that there is a bigger picture than what we see by ourselves. That is why we Catholics don’t talk about Jesus being our “personal” savior. We are commanded to love each other, to be a body, and by that shared life be a witness to the life of God. Never, not in the Gospels, not in Acts, not in the Epistles, was it ever implied that everybody in the Body always agrees. St. Paul took on St. Peter. We are not given perfect sight, we are not pitch perfect. We have to put the music in the air, anyway. It may make us feel good to be right, but being right at all costs doesn’t put the food on the table or convince the girl to welcome life. We need to try much harder to* keep the main thing the main thing*… and THAT is a big picture, indeed.

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

So legal abortion is ok along as we have government funded charity?

The seamless garment school would say let us work BOTH for social protection of the unborn and social justice for the poor.

Why not work against legal abortion and fund the charity from our own pockets?

.
You have a dispute with the Church over her vision of social justice.

 

[katherine2]

fix:

As best I am able to determine the concept means the following: On a whole array of issues affecting human life, Catholic theology calls for the consistent prohibition against the taking of human life. From abortion to euthanasia, from the death penalty to war, killing is to be avoided.

Yep. That would be right.

The “seamless garment of life” removes Catholic theology from being a one-issue pro-life movement. Furthermore, the “consistent ethic of life” removes Catholic theology from any embarrassing inconsistency when it comes to defending human life.

That observation has been made and seems fair.

 

[katherine2]

ByzCath:

Typical tactic of liberals. Accuse people of injustice when they disagree with your views.

It is a fact that Catholics can stand on both sides of the issue of “social justice”.

It is also a fact that Catholics can never support abortion.

No, dear. Catholics must always oppose abortion and support social justice. They don’t have the moral option of picking one and not the other.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

The seamless garment school would say let us work BOTH for social protection of the unborn and social justice for the poor.

Why not work against legal abortion and fund the charity from our own pockets?

.

You have a dispute with the Church over her vision of social justice.

are you saying that voting for someone 100% pro-abort who has a socialist social justice agenda over some one who has dome more to stanch abortion than any president we have ever had AND has a strong social justice agenda, then defending that choice withe the “seamless garment” is the Church’s view of social justice?

Sniff it, look at it, and taste it. Then tell me what it is.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

ByzCath:

It is a fact that Catholics can stand on both sides of the issue of “social justice”.

Sure, they can stand wherever they want, but I think they do so at the peril of their eternal salvation.

What Catholics can legitimately disagree about is what form (if any) social or government policy should take in addressing issues of social (in)justice. But hopefully there aren’t many Catholics who choose to think that we need more poverty and oppression all around, or that they have no part in the issue, and can leave it up to other people to take care of. That would be standing on the wrong side of the social justice issue.

Hopefully those who think the federal government already does too much (or the wrong thing) in addressing these issues don’t use that as a flimsy excuse to not take the concern to heart, e.g. “I pay taxes to support people on Welfare - those poor people can rot in Hell for all I care. It’s their own fault they’re poor - bunch of no-good leeches lay around all day watcing TV and having babies and collecting their checks from the government and sucking us regular people dry. They’ve got it made! No way I’m giving up a Wednesday night to help out at the soup kitchen - that’s my night to watch West Wing.” That’s standing on the wrong side of social justice. (disclaimer: that screed was an exaggeration. I wouldn’t claim anyone here thinks that way.)

Regardless of what the government may or may not be doing to address “social justice”, it remains for each of us to recognize that we have been tremendously gifted by God, and that being part of the Kingdom of God means doing something with that. To give generously of yourself whenever you see the need. As Mother Teresa did - to see the face of Christ in all people, including the poorest of the poor. And not helping the poor because they’re somehow the King in disguise, as in a fairy tale, but to help them because you’re concerned about them, and to come to know Christ in that. So you already pay taxes. Guess what - so does everyone else. That doesn’t relieve you for one instant of your responsibility to work for social justice. It doesn’t mean that you have to give away everything you have while you and your family starve. But when you encounter someone in need, you help out generously, not grudgingly, because you actually love and respect the poor or the oppressed, because he or she really is beloved by God, and you really believe that in your heart. So that’s what social justice is about.

I don’t know why some people think this is incompatible with fighting against abortion. Again, Mother Teresa is a great example - she gave her whole life for the poor, and was also a powerful voice against abortion. We strive to be holy, to be perfect - we don’t give up our sins one at a time. A husband doesn’t say to his wife “I’ll stop beating you after I stop cheating on you, which may be a while yet.” In practice we may have special devotion or zeal in fighting against one evil thing in particular, but that doesn’t mean we ignore or gloss over another evil whenever we encounter it.

 

[Trelow]

The government can’t make poverty illegal.
It can make abortion illegal.

 

[PRoach]

JKirkLVNV:

I’m also not defending McBrien. His stuff is so absurdly unorthodox.

Apparently, you can come to campus and he will introduce you to his “wife” (i.e. concubine). He isn’t even allowed to preside at mass on campus anymore. I suspect the only reason he’s still here is because he was tenured before he really started opening his mouth. I’m half inclined to audit one of his classes before I graduate so that I can call him out on all the baloney that spews forth from his mouth.

As for the “wife” rumor, I can neither confirm nor deny it’s validity, but I’ve heard several people allege that it’s true.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Trelow:

The government can’t make poverty illegal.
It can make abortion illegal.

Why does everything have to be about the government? It’s an unhealthy obsession.