Being consistent in defense of life

The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin did not invent the term “consistent life ethic,” but he popularized the idea in the 1980s and took considerable heat for it. A close examination of his record reveals that he had it right: a genuine respect for life takes in a broad spectrum of issues even beyond abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. It encompasses all threats to human life and dignity, including matters like capital punishment, war, and poverty. Today that list has expanded to recognize other threats to human dignity such as racism, addiction, migration, and care for the environment. 

That’s not to say these issues are equal in gravity. That’s where “consistent life ethic” and “seamless garment” got a bad name. Moral conservatives sometimes resented those who used these terms to fight for other life issues while being “soft” on abortion; others criticized pro-lifers for focusing too narrowly on a single issue. “The conservative cries out against the murder of unborn babes while contemplating placidly the prospect of nuking the men, women, and children of Russian cities,” wrote the late Sheldon Vanauken in New Oxford Review in 1986, “and the liberal weeps for murderers facing execution and Russians facing the MX while shutting at least his left eye to the death chambers of the abortionists.”

The U.S. bishops, however, have always characterized abortion as the foremost life issue. “The threat of abortion remains our pre-eminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed,” they said in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship ahead of the 2020 national elections. “At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.”

“Consistent life ethic” has long since given way to Pope St. John Paul II’s term, “culture of life,” which likewise calls everyone to recognize the dignity of human life and to love every human person — “willing the good of the other,” in St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition. Willing the good of others means not only wishing that their temporal needs be filled, but most importantly that they someday attain eternal life, the ultimate good for which they were created. 

Naturally, one can’t be all things to all life issues. Each must pick his battles. Some may immerse themselves in defending the unborn; others might devote their energies toward serving the homeless, the disabled, the elderly, or refugees. Some may focus on building a culture of life in their own homes by forming a faith-filled family. And all must support the culture of life on their knees.

Prudential judgment enters the picture. Building a culture of life doesn’t require backing every movement or legislative proposal that claims to lift up the vulnerable. It does require, however, that we consistently recognize, protect, and defend the human dignity of every person and work toward their truest good both in the here and the hereafter.