Where did the "consistent life ethic" come from?

[spunjalebi]

And furthermore, is it really a “Catholic” and more importantly, a Biblical teaching?

The reason I ask this is because I know many Catholics who are strongly for the death penalty, and argue that the death penalty is Biblical, the death penalty is an effective means to ensure justice by the state, and the death penalty eradicates those who are guilty. This is compared to abortion, where babies are born innocent of wrongdoing and therefore, having these views is not contradictory but are in Biblical agreement.

Huh?

I’m confused-- in RCIA I held somewhat similar views about the death penalty being okay but I was told that as Catholics we strive to have Catholic Social Teaching along with the Consistent Life Ethic, from “conception to natural death.” So what gives?

And also, how does this apply to wars? Does that mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars? Has there ever been a “just war”? I am guessing that the consistent life ethic is about being pro-life across the board, but isn’t this teaching a little well, sketchy?

 

[elts1956]

And furthermore, is it really a “Catholic” and more importantly, a Biblical teaching?

The reason I ask this is because I know many Catholics who are strongly for the death penalty, and argue that the death penalty is Biblical, the death penalty is an effective means to ensure justice by the state, and the death penalty eradicates those who are guilty. This is compared to abortion, where babies are born innocent of wrongdoing and therefore, having these views is not contradictory but are in Biblical agreement.

Huh?

I’m confused-- in RCIA I held somewhat similar views about the death penalty being okay but I was told that as Catholics we strive to have Catholic Social Teaching along with the Consistent Life Ethic, from “conception to natural death.” So what gives?

And also, how does this apply to wars? Does that mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars? Has there ever been a “just war”? I am guessing that the consistent life ethic is about being pro-life across the board, but isn’t this teaching a little well, sketchy?

I have posted on this subject before, but can’t remember which thread. I will try to remember most of what I wrote the first time around. First of all, every human is held to a “consistent ethic of life” every day. In a perfect world, we would have no war, no poverty, no ecological issues. But Adam and Eve sinned and we are their descendents who have not yet earned sainthood, although hopefully, we are trying.

Cardinal Bernadin’s Consistent Ethic of Life has caused much confusion, not in what he has said, but in the way it has been interpreted. Most non catechized Catholics think that in saying what he did, Bernadin is saying we all have the freedom to make choices, little ones, big ones without listening to, or understanding, what the Magisterium of the Church teaches. They believe, for convenience and comfort’s sake, that ALL life issues are equal in weight and morality. This is not so.

They do this through either ignorance, or obstinance. Usually it is a bit of both when individuals give priority to their own conscience, disregarding what has been taught by the Church. The idea of Superiority of Conscience has been taken to a level so high by these folks, they have fallen right off a cliff.

The moist concrete example I can give you is what happened with the majority of voting Catholics in the last POTUS election. The probabilty of support and funding by the Dem party of abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexual unions and embryonic stem cell research, all Intrinsic Evils and said to be “non-negotiable” by the Magisterium and those in solid union with the Papacy, should have been apparent to all Catholics. These five non negotiables were part of the Dem platform in 2008

Apparently 56% of Catholics were instead worried about the economy, which was a worry, but not immediately life threatening to most. So they chose the pro death party because they chose to follow their own subjective consciences which made them comfortable. They chose death rather than life. They were led by the father of lies. Objective TRUTH is the greatest enemy the Devil has. (God is TRUTH) Those Catholics/Christians who VOTED THEIR CONSCIENCE instead of being true to the Absolute Truths taught for centuries by the Catholic Chruch strayed very far from the path Christ gave us.

We must be able to discern, among all the life issues, which has the most immediacy, which cannot be undone once done. The five Intrinsic Evils listed by the Magisterium were ignored through arrogance, pride, ignorance and apathy. That is why we have the administration we now have in DC.

 

[spunjalebi]

Where’s the “consistency” if all life issues are not seen in the same way? How can we be consistent if we hold one above the other? Doesn’t that just mean we value one form of life above the other, and therefore are inconsistent? Why would our priests preach “from conception to natural death” so much? Are they misled?

 

[elts1956]

And furthermore, is it really a “Catholic” and more importantly, a Biblical teaching?

The reason I ask this is because I know many Catholics who are strongly for the death penalty, and argue that the death penalty is Biblical, the death penalty is an effective means to ensure justice by the state, and the death penalty eradicates those who are guilty. This is compared to abortion, where babies are born innocent of wrongdoing and therefore, having these views is not contradictory but are in Biblical agreement.

Huh?

I’m confused-- in RCIA I held somewhat similar views about the death penalty being okay but I was told that as Catholics we strive to have Catholic Social Teaching along with the Consistent Life Ethic, from “conception to natural death.” So what gives?

And also, how does this apply to wars? Does that mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars? Has there ever been a “just war”? I am guessing that the consistent life ethic is about being pro-life across the board, but isn’t this teaching a little well, sketchy?

Where’s the “consistency” if all life issues are not seen in the same way? How can we be consistent if we hold one above the other? Doesn’t that just mean we value one form of life above the other, and therefore are inconsistent? Why would our priests preach “from conception to natural death” so much? Are they misled?

Life itself is the consistent foundation. Without this, there is no house. No. the priests are not mislead in believing in a consistent ethic of life, but some do not give priorities to those issues which are most evil, which, as I said, once done cannot be undone.

There is what is called a Hierarchy of evil and Good when it comes to discerning which issues must have the higher priority. Which issues form the foundation of all others??? These are the most important.

 

[elts1956]

And furthermore, is it really a “Catholic” and more importantly, a Biblical teaching?

The reason I ask this is because I know many Catholics who are strongly for the death penalty, and argue that the death penalty is Biblical, the death penalty is an effective means to ensure justice by the state, and the death penalty eradicates those who are guilty. This is compared to abortion, where babies are born innocent of wrongdoing and therefore, having these views is not contradictory but are in Biblical agreement. And another thing, although the Church has given opposition to the Death Penalty, the Death Penalty CANNOT be considered to be on an equal level of morality with abortion. The Death Penalty is heinous, but compared to the number of aborted bablies, the number of those receiving the Death Penalty is a drop in the bucket, even if one later finds that the person punished was not guilty. In Biblical times, the scientific knowledge or understanding of human behavior was pretty low. Hopefully, we as a civilization have advanced further than “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

Huh?

I’m confused-- in RCIA I held somewhat similar views about the death penalty being okay but I was told that as Catholics we strive to have Catholic Social Teaching along with the Consistent Life Ethic, from “conception to natural death.” So what gives?

And also, how does this apply to wars? Does that mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are just wars? Has there ever been a “just war”? I am guessing that the consistent life ethic is about being pro-life across the board, but isn’t this teaching a little well, sketchy?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Lots of people on CAF like to confuse posters regarding this fairly simple issue. Bernardin never said that it was OK to pick and choose among forms of life. His point was that any person really passionate and clear-eyed about Life issues would naturally be passionate about all Life issues, because life is a consistent thread. He wasn’t interested in getting into the blame and hierarchy of political decisions: that didn’t happen to be his “thing.” (Judging others about the political decisions they make as to how authentically “pro-life” they are or are not – a judgment that can go in many directions, btw, not just a single direciton.)

He was talking about the formation of the moral conscience being aligned with the preservation and upholding of life in all its manifestations, from the unborn through the end of life (not skipping the middle of life and artifically concentrating on the beginning and the end). He was talking about the individual Catholic conscience flowing naturally to support that, and everyday decisions involved in that support (including voting but including much else as well – such as financial, practical commitments and advocacy).

Bernardin was not interested in creating rancor and divisions within the Church regarding this – setting apart one “camp” from another. He was a man of unity, which all true lovers of life are, i.m.o. The fact that his love (charity) was so genuine was evident in his false accuser coming to be remorseful about that deceit (the fabricated, non-existent “sexual abuse” which was a pure fantasy): it was the person of the Cardinal himself, who embodied Christ-like love, that drew the young man to him and resulted in the man’s remorse and mutual reconciliation.

It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.

 

[bkayw]

An explanation I’ve heard:

Early societies were not financially able or disposed to housing criminals for a lifetime.

Today, in most states, a person on death row will battle the courts for 25 years, prior to their death. It’s very costly in time, people and money to work through these appeal processes.

However, some states, like Texas, fast track the death sentence dates.

 

[elts1956]

Lots of people on CAF like to confuse posters regarding this fairly simple issue. Bernardin never said that it was OK to pick and choose among forms of life. His point was that any person really passionate and clear-eyed about Life issues would naturally be passionate about all Life issues, because life is a consistent thread. He wasn’t interested in getting into the blame and hierarchy of political decisions that didn’t happen to be his “thing.” (Judging others about the political decisions they make as to how authentically “pro-life” they are or are not – a judgment that can go in many directions, btw, not just a single direciton.)

He was talking about the formation of the moral conscience being aligned with the preservation and upholding of life in all its manifestations, from the unborn through the end of life (not skipping the middle of life and artifically concentrating on the beginning and the end). He was talking about the individual Catholic conscience flowing naturally to support that, and everyday decisions involved in that support (including voting but including much else as well – such as financial, practical commitments and advocacy).

Bernardin was not interested in creating rancor and divisions within the Church regarding this – setting apart one “camp” from another. He was a man of unity, which all true lovers of life are, i.m.o. The fact that his love (charity) was so genuine was evident in his false accuser coming to be remorseful about that deceit (the fabricated, non-existent “sexual abuse” which was a pure fantasy): it was the person of the Cardinal himself, who embodied Christ-like love, that drew the young man to him and resulted in the man’s remorse and mutual reconciliation.

It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.

“hierarchy of political decisions” It’s the Hierarchy of MORAL decisions not political. Some posters like to confuse the two.

 

[elts1956]

Lots of people on CAF like to confuse posters regarding this fairly simple issue. Bernardin never said that it was OK to pick and choose among forms of life. His point was that any person really passionate and clear-eyed about Life issues would naturally be passionate about all Life issues, because life is a consistent thread. He wasn’t interested in getting into the blame and hierarchy of political decisions: that didn’t happen to be his “thing.” (Judging others about the political decisions they make as to how authentically “pro-life” they are or are not – a judgment that can go in many directions, btw, not just a single direciton.)

He was talking about the formation of the moral conscience being aligned with the preservation and upholding of life in all its manifestations, from the unborn through the end of life (not skipping the middle of life and artifically concentrating on the beginning and the end). He was talking about the individual Catholic conscience flowing naturally to support that, and everyday decisions involved in that support (including voting but including much else as well – such as financial, practical commitments and advocacy).

Bernardin was not interested in creating rancor and divisions within the Church regarding this – setting apart one “camp” from another. He was a man of unity, which all true lovers of life are, i.m.o. The fact that his love (charity) was so genuine was evident in his false accuser coming to be remorseful about that deceit (the fabricated, non-existent “sexual abuse” which was a pure fantasy): it was the person of the Cardinal himself, who embodied Christ-like love, that drew the young man to him and resulted in the man’s remorse and mutual reconciliation.

It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.

It must begin with the unborn Elizabeth502, otherwise there is no “other” life to protect.

 

[Elizabeth502]

“hierarchy of political decisions” It’s the Hierarchy of MORAL decisions not political. Some posters like to confuse the two.

I’m not confusing anything. The fact is, sincere Catholics, sincerely and genuinely pro-life, don’t set up arbitrary moral hierarchies. That’s what Bernardin’s message was, a message that resonates with the Jesus’ words in fact, as interpreted by the Magisterium. The genuine pro-life Catholic, and the genuine pro-life Christian – the hearers of Jesus’ message – would not look for excuses and loopholes to support pro-death decisions and actions in any form, based on any “hierarchy.” They would support all life, not just selected life, and oppose all that Jesus himself defined as death (which is also what the Church defines as a culture of death).

 

[spunjalebi]

But nonetheless, we still have to make a choice when looking at decisions, such as with voting, correct? After all I can’t say that I’m a good Catholic who understands consistent life ethics and then vote Democrat because the party is in favor of abortions. Yet can I still say that I’m a good Catholic and vote Republican, because I know that party is in favor for protecting the unborn but wanting to do away with criminals?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have not seen a consistent pro-complete-culture-of-life candidate for any national office, at least in my lifetime. Anyone who thinks that a current major or minor party represents that is fooling themselves. I refer any inquirer back to the Catholic Answers Live radio program of a few months ago, featuring Colin Donovan as guest, who explained how moral decisions are made in the framework of Catholic moral theology, and what the hierarchy of principles in fact is, in making all moral decisions, including voting decisions which were also specifically addressed.

And btw, neither the Magisterium nor these forums endorses a particular political party.

 

[elts1956]

Lots of people on CAF like to confuse posters regarding this fairly simple issue. Bernardin never said that it was OK to pick and choose among forms of life. His point was that any person really passionate and clear-eyed about Life issues would naturally be passionate about all Life issues, because life is a consistent thread. He wasn’t interested in getting into the blame and hierarchy of political decisions: that didn’t happen to be his “thing.” (Judging others about the political decisions they make as to how authentically “pro-life” they are or are not – a judgment that can go in many directions, btw, not just a single direciton.)

He was talking about the formation of the moral conscience being aligned with the preservation and upholding of life in all its manifestations, from the unborn through the end of life (not skipping the middle of life and artifically concentrating on the beginning and the end). He was talking about the individual Catholic conscience flowing naturally to support that, and everyday decisions involved in that support (including voting but including much else as well – such as financial, practical commitments and advocacy).

Bernardin was not interested in creating rancor and divisions within the Church regarding this – setting apart one “camp” from another. He was a man of unity, which all true lovers of life are, i.m.o. The fact that his love (charity) was so genuine was evident in his false accuser coming to be remorseful about that deceit (the fabricated, non-existent “sexual abuse” which was a pure fantasy): it was the person of the Cardinal himself, who embodied Christ-like love, that drew the young man to him and resulted in the man’s remorse and mutual reconciliation.

It’s not either/or; it’s both/and.

I’m not confusing anything. The fact is, sincere Catholics, sincerely and genuinely pro-life, don’t set up arbitrary moral hierarchies. That’s what Bernardin’s message was, a message that resonates with the Jesus’ words in fact, as interpreted by the Magisterium. The genuine pro-life Catholic, and the genuine pro-life Christian – the hearers of Jesus’ message – would not look for excuses and loopholes to support pro-death decisions and actions in any form, based on any “hierarchy.” They would support all life, not just selected life, and oppose all that Jesus himself defined as death (which is also what the Church defines as a culture of death).

These Hierarchies are not subjectively arbitrary, but have been set up as moral guidelines for all people by God Himself. Start with the ten commandments and follow them on down to the tinest issue. Which is more sinful, killing a human or destroying a reputation, intentionally, or unintentionally? Bernadin’s Consistent Ethic of Life theology, unless one has a correct formation of conscience, is that all life issues are equal and they are not. This hierarchy,whether of good or evil also depends on the immediacy of the issue and whether it is a matter of Intrinsic Evil, that which once done cannot be undone, or a matter of Prudential Judgement. Check it out.

 

[elts1956]

I have not seen a consistent pro-complete-culture-of-life candidate for any national office, at least in my lifetime. Anyone who thinks that a current major or minor party represents that is fooling themselves. I refer any inquirer back to the Catholic Answers Live radio program of a few months ago, featuring Colin Donovan as guest, who explained how moral decisions are made in the framework of Catholic moral theology, and what the hierarchy of principles in fact is, in making all moral decisions, including voting decisions which were also specifically addressed.

And btw, neither the Magisterium nor these forums endorses a particular political party.

A political party was not endorsed, but used as the most concrete example I could think of, one that, in fact, should matter to all Catholics. I’m not saying this politcally, but morally, sorry some voted for brand X and strayed the path.

 

[elts1956]

I have not seen a consistent pro-complete-culture-of-life candidate for any national office, at least in my lifetime. Anyone who thinks that a current major or minor party represents that is fooling themselves. I refer any inquirer back to the Catholic Answers Live radio program of a few months ago, featuring Colin Donovan as guest, who explained how moral decisions are made in the framework of Catholic moral theology, and what the hierarchy of principles in fact is, in making all moral decisions, including voting decisions which were also specifically addressed.

And btw, neither the Magisterium nor these forums endorses a particular political party.

But nonetheless, we still have to make a choice when looking at decisions, such as with voting, correct? After all I can’t say that I’m a good Catholic who understands consistent life ethics and then vote Democrat because the party is in favor of abortions. Yet can I still say that I’m a good Catholic and vote Republican, because I know that party is in favor for protecting the unborn but wanting to do away with criminals?

I will have to admit, I support neither party, but the one most likely to do lesser evil. I always first consider the life platform of any party, beginning with conception, or whether a party has an agenda pushing an Intrinsic evil. Sorry to derail the thread. That was not my intention. I apologize.

 

[Elizabeth502]

These Hierarchies are not subjectively arbitrary, but have been set up as moral guidelines for all people by God Himself. Start with the ten commandments and follow them on down to the tinest issue. Which is more sinful, killing a human or destroying a reputation, intentionally, or unintentionally? Bernadin’s Consistent Ethic of Life theology, unless one has a correct formation of conscience, is that all life issues are equal and they are not. This hierarchy,whether of good or evil also depends on the immediacy of the issue and whether it is a matter of Intrinsic Evil, that which once done cannot be undone, or a matter of Prudential Judgement. Check it out.

Again, quit misleading new posters on CAF. Here’s an excerpt from Bernardin’s speech at Fordham. There’s nothing in there about “destroying a reputation.” Trivializing him in this way is at best inaccurate.

“If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus,” Bernardin declared, "then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth.

“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.”

“Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways,” Bernardin argued. “We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs On behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.”

A consistent ethic of life, however, needs a supportive constituency if it is to be effective. “The building of such a consistency,” the cardinal insisted, “is precisely the task before the church and the nation.”

The point is that one cannot stop at abortion. That’s precisely what he’s saying. Nothing about “reputations.”

 

[elts1956]

Again, quit misleading new posters on CAF. Here’s an excerpt from Bernardin’s speech at Fordham. There’s nothing in there about “destroying a reputation.” Trivializing him in this way is at best inaccurate.

The point is that one cannot stop at abortion. That’s precisely what he’s saying. Nothing about “reputations.”

Who said anything about stopping at abortion? I am saying that is where it BEGINS. If I have to spell it out for you, “destroying a reputation” is killing a person in a spiritual way. Understand? So which is worse, physical killing, or killing part of a person spiritually? THINK about it!! There really is a hierarchy of good and evil. Do you really think that the ones who commit either sin will be sitting on the same ring of Hell when final judgement comes?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Who said anything about stopping at abortion? I am saying that is where it BEGINS. If I have to spell it out for you, “destroying a reputation” is killing a person in a spiritual way. Understand? So which is worse, physical killing, or killing part of a person spiritually? THINK about it!! There really is a hierarchy of good and evil. Do you really think that the ones who commit either sin will be sitting on the same ring of Hell when final judgement comes?

No. Nor did Cardinal Bernardin ever say or imply that the ones who commit either sin [physical murder/spiritual murder] “will be sitting on the same ring of Hell when final judgment comes.” Which is why it is OFF-TOPIC and straw man. “Do I have to spell it out for you?” (Yes, apparently)

Which is more sinful, killing a human or destroying a reputation, intentionally, or unintentionally?

As to the other highly inaccurate point,

Bernadin’s Consistent Ethic of Life theology, unless one has a correct formation of conscience, is that all life issues are equal and they are not.

In the Cardinal’s own words:

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.

www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardinwade.html

(It helps, when debating, to know what you’re talking about, and to know your sources.)

 

[elts1956]

No. Nor did Cardinal Bernardin ever say or imply that the ones who commit either sin [physical murder/spiritual murder] “will be sitting on the same ring of Hell when final judgment comes.” Which is why it is OFF-TOPIC and straw man. “Do I have to spell it out for you?” (Yes, apparently)

As to the other highly inaccurate point,

In the Cardinal’s own words:

www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardinwade.html

Yep, that’s what the USCCB said, but not specifically Bernadin. Sources do come in handy.

Yep, that’s what “the USCCB” said, but not Bernadin personally. Sources do help.

(It helps, when debating, to know what you’re talking about, and to know your sources.)

 

[elts1956]

No. Nor did Cardinal Bernardin ever say or imply that the ones who commit either sin [physical murder/spiritual murder] “will be sitting on the same ring of Hell when final judgment comes.” Which is why it is OFF-TOPIC and straw man. “Do I have to spell it out for you?” (Yes, apparently)

As to the other highly inaccurate point,

In the Cardinal’s own words:

www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardinwade.html

(It helps, when debating, to know what you’re talking about, and to know your sources.)

Yep, that’s what the USCCB said. Show me where Bernadin said the same thing.