The Political Consequences of the Heretical "Seamless Garment"
By Matthew J Bellisario O.P. 2020
Introduction
With the advent of the “Enlightenment”, the world began to turn a blind eye to objective truth. People began to doubt the senses and instead of embracing objective truth, the false subjective philosophies of Hume, Hegel, Descartes, Kant, and many others began to be embraced by the world and later by even many in the Church. There was a movement of “New Theologians” who embraced these deficient philosophies towards the end of the 19th century and really started to take up residency en masse in the 1950s and 60s. Theologians like Maurice Blondel planted the seeds in the late 19th century, followed soon after by "new theologians" like Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, and with them the liturgical deconstructionists like Annibale Bugnini. They were all part of the quickly sprouting crop of weeds that were planted and watered earlier on by the modernist movement which popes consistently from Pius IX's reign beginning in 1846 until the death of Pius XII in 1958 warned about. Soon the great garden giving life to the fruits of Thomism were quickly overgrown by the rotten weeds of modernism.
The consequences have been disastrous and can be seen throughout the Church today. The degradation of the celebration of the Mass and of Church architecture are two highly visible examples. The corruption, however, goes much deeper to a theological and spiritual level. One of these has manifested in the destruction of sacramental theology, which we see in most parishes of the Church today. Core doctrines of the Church such 'Original Sin' have been attacked leading to a secular view of Christ and His Church. We also have seen the subversion of moral theology, most recently witnessed with the attack on the Church's teaching concerning divorce and remarriage and the subversive attack on the Church's perennial teaching concerning capital punishment. The entire theological foundation of Catholicism, although objectively still intact, as it will be until the end of time, has been subverted in most parishes by modernists in the Church.
In this article, I want to focus on one particular area that has been assaulted by this modernist theological/philosophical development commonly referred to as the 'Seamless Garment.'. A popular platform that many bishops today use to further the corruption of moral theology is a new form of secular social justice. The best way to get someone to swallow poison is not to put the bottle of poison on the table and tell them to ingest it but to cleverly mix it in with something that appears to be perfectly edible. This false premise of the Seamless Garment is a clever Trojan Horse developed in large part by a prominent modernist Cardinal Joseph Bernardine of Chicago.
The Foundation of the Seamless Garment
This poison pill known as the “Seamless Garment" is the idea that proposes that there is some unifying moral ideal that essentially teaches that all issues regarding human life in the social arena are somehow equal in nature. The “Seamless Garment” idea is a flawed moral theological position that claims that all life between conception and the grave are all to be treated equally in regard to social justice issues. It is often based on a misrepresentation of human dignity and claims to present a "consistent life ethic." This idea connects issues such as poverty, war, end of life, abortion, capital punishment, and other life issues into a unified "consistent ethic of life at every stage and in every circumstance."
The distinctions of these issues concerning the moral gravity of each of these under this "ethic" are often ignored or dismissed. For example, the distinction between the innocent and the guilty are ignored in regard to the terror of the innocents killed through abortion and the punishment of heinous criminals through capital punishment. As a consequence, the promoters of this nefarious idea falsely promote that the saving of a convicted mass murderer is as important as saving an innocent child in a mother’s womb. Most often in my eyes, they make it seem as if the lives of the guilty are somehow worth more than the innocent since most of these "Seamless Garment" supporters most often focus on the death penalty and rarely speak about the global atrocity of abortion.
Although Cardinal Bernardin, the main proponent of this theologically bankrupt idea, often paid lip service to these distinctions of guilt and innocence, he did not apply them in principle. This is typical for those who have been in the game of corrupting Catholic doctrine in the modern age. Let's examine the modernist tactic he pulled in his William Wade lecture series given in 1984. He stated first in his lecture that he acknowledged the distinction between the innocent and the guilty in regard to moral issues such as abortion and capital punishment, but the conclusion that he draws right after his statement is completely at odds with his acknowledgment. It is like saying, “I am against abortion, but I think I should not let that influence my decision on who I will vote for.”
First Bernardin said the following, “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.” Sadly however Bernardin does not keep the issues separate at all. He continues on using a cloak of contradiction and ambiguity stating, “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.” (Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, A Consistent Ethic of Life, 1984)
Far from Bernardin’s rejection of airtight categories, he completely rejects any distinction or categorization at all in relation to the moral acts that are actually being addressed. Bernardin attempted here to sell the idea that if one embraces the State’s right to exact the just use of capital punishment, then they are somehow complicit and psychologically linked to the acceptance of abortion! This is an outrageous statement. These two acts are not even in the same moral category, one being an immoral intrinsically evil act and the other if used justly being a morally legitimate act! Not only is this “connection” simply nonexistent, but the public opinion at least in the US also contradicts this "connection." In the US, most of the public that supports a pro-life position, (That is they are against abortion and euthanasia, ie the killing of innocent life) are usually consistently pro-capital punishment and vice versa; those who usually support abortion are usually against the death penalty, so even his logic here is severely flawed. It was not as if the acceptance of abortion brought about the acceptance of capital punishment. The connection he imagines simply does not exist on any noticeable scale in our American society.
Notice how he also mentions the political realm. We should not let this go unnoticed since ones’ perception of these moral issues will affect how Catholics vote on such issues. How anyone can fall for such an absurd concept is truly amazing, but none the less, most bishops today have taken the bait, hook line, and sinker. It must be stated that there is no sound theological principle that can support the Cardinal’s fallacious conclusion of this “linkage.” There is really no comparison of the two distinct moral acts of murder, and the act of just retributive punishment. One is a negative precept, that of murder, the other is a moral act. In regard to Catholic morality, and the proper principles used to arrive at understanding the moral act, which is that of Divine Revelation, the Natural Law, and the Church Magisterium, it impossible to equate these two acts, let alone link them in the manner the Cardinal was attempting to do. Only a malformed philosophy conjured up by a heavy reliance on modernist thinking can account for such an incongruous concept.
Bernardine and the USCCB Reject Church Tradition
In order to drive home the seriousness of this modernist error, I would like to quote another comment made by Cardinal Bernardin in 1985 in his address to the criminal court of Cook County. (The Death Penalty in Our Time-1985) It is here that he readily admits that the core moral principles the Church held in a consistent form (The form of Thomism) in regard to moral acts like capital punishment had now been completely rejected by the bishops en masse. Pay close attention here, “First, they review four traditional arguments justifying capital punishment, retribution, deterrence, reform and protection of the State. Based on their review, the religious leaders have argued that these reasons no longer apply in our age.” This comment is startling and it is the true telling of the tale. The bishops fully rejected sound moral theology in favor of modernist ideology. Somehow the bishops concluded that the natural law and moral theology could change with the age like dust that blows on the changing wind.
Bernardin cited the USCCB’s statement penned in 1980 as denying the traditional Catholic teaching in regard to retributive punishment, “Such punishment might satisfy certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and Christian approach to punishment.” No longer did the UCCB regard retributive punishment as a valid argument for the use of the death penalty, despite the Council of Trent’s doctrinal claim to the contrary hundreds of years before, "...well founded is the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." The USCCB simply turned retribution into a demented form of evil vengeance instead of a just punishment pertaining to the restoration of the moral order. This is simply a dishonest redefining of what retributive punishment really is. Punishment is not done for vengeance per se, and Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1954, “It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the balance of justice.” As we know, justice, however, has no place in the minds of most bishops today.
Bernardin continued on to summarize his position after citing the above passage from the USCCB's erroneous assessment of retributive punishment, “Basing their judgment on this and similar lines of reasoning, many religious leaders conclude that, under our present circumstances, the death penalty as punishment for reasons of deterrence, retribution, reform or protection of society cannot be justified.” Simply put, the USCCB had wholly rejected the accepted norms of defining the moral act of punishment. In short, Thomism and Church Tradition had been substituted with a smorgasbord of modernist philosophies which has resulted in a rejection of sound moral theology. We have only to look at the many other moral issues the bishops as a whole have caved on such as homosexuality and adultery. Unfortunately, there were few if any US bishops who put up any resistance to this faulty proposal.
Damning Consequences
One may ask, what can be the harm in equating a prisoner on death row with an innocent life in a mother’s womb? Life is life correct? The problem with this position is that it undermines objective truth. It is a vehicle that spreads a false philosophy under a cloak of something that appears to be a very noble position indeed. After all, what kindhearted Christian could be opposed to saving a life? It also forces Catholics to either embrace the false system of the “Seamless Garment” or else be ostracized by the mainstream powers that be, like the media, political bodies, councils like the USCCB, or the growing number of neo-conservative Catholics. The lie has now been so widely accepted in society that it appears that one cannot be against the killing of an innocent human baby via abortion, and yet allow a proven guilty serial rapist and murderer to undergo the just punishment of the death penalty. In other words, this delusion of the “Seamless Garment” is a tool used to spread the heresy of modernity among the Church faithful. Objective truth is undermined under a veil of a perceived good, that of saving a life.
This falsehood also has another corruption factor built in that is very useful in promoting political agendas. It allows the horrors of abortion to be downplayed as just another life ethic issue among many. This results in entire bodies of bishops like the USCCB, to spend enormous amounts of time, resources, and money, to stop the executions of guilty criminals, rather than focusing on real immoral actions such as the mass slaughter of innocent babies. Whenever objective truth is sacrificed there are terrible consequences that will follow. So far the bishops of the Church have paid little more than lip service to stop the atrocity of abortion. Instead, they waste time writing letters and promoting campaigns to completely abolish a fundamental right that every legitimate State has been given by divine authority, that of just retributive punishment. Why don’t the bishops write a letter every time an abortion occurs? Let's look at some telling statistics. There are almost 3000 abortions every day in the US. There have only been 1500 executions since 1973 when the death penalty was adopted as a whole in the US. It is so much easier to write a few letters a few times a year when a mass murderer gets executed in their diocese or state than it is to write thousands of letters for every murder of the innocent that takes place in abortion mill, isn’t it? Look below to see how Catholics voted in two critical elections of which the elected president promoted more immorality than any other in the history of our country.
As we can see, the political realm mentioned by Cardinal Bernardin above, have had strong political ties and consequences. This fallacious reasoning has unfortunately given many Catholics the impression that issues like capital punishment, immigration, and just war are just as important as issues like abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. As a result, we see Catholics often voting for politicians who support atrocities like abortion, ignorantly claiming that they are against an unjust war, capital punishment, borders or some other lesser moral issue of the day. These ideas have prevailed largely because the bishops promote them! This is why monsters like Obama get elected. How appalling it is to see half of Catholics voting for one of the most pro-abortion presidents in history!
The “Seamless Garment” also implicitly gives a false notion that all taking of human life is somehow a moral evil. This, however, is not the truth at all. The Fifth Commandment has always pertained to the taking of innocent human life. In other words, the negative precept is not the taking of “any” life by anyone or any public entity, it is the taking of “innocent” life by anyone or any public entity. The taking of a life can be justified when the object of a moral act is ordered towards self-defense or in the State justly taking the life of a guilty person for the sake of keeping or restoring the moral order through proportionate retributive punishment. These are fundamental principles that have always and everywhere been upheld and taught explicitly by the Church. Now, however, they have been swept under the carpet by the bishops of our age. If they are recognized in any capacity it is only to pay lip service to these serious distinctions long-held in Catholic moral theology, while treating them in their actions as if they are equal in moral stature.
The Danger of Overturning the Natural Order
Catholic teaching and the natural law tells us that the act of abortion falls under a negative precept and can never be done under any circumstance, it is murder and therefore an intrinsic evil. Capital punishment on the other hand, if carried out by a legitimate State in a just manner concerning a guilty party is no way an immoral act, but a just act carried out to restore the moral order of society. To make any connection between the two acts in regard to morality demonstrates either a complete failure in understanding of basic moral principles or a complete rejection of them. Judging by the USCCB’s statement in 1980 I will let you determine which is true.
It is my fear that we are in danger of completely overturning the divine natural order by allowing the bishops of the Church to promote such rash positions such as the complete abolishment of the death penalty or the emphasizing of moral issues like immigration over the atrocity of abortion. We must have our priorities straight, and it is clear that the bishops as a whole do not because they have adopted these faulty principles. The bishops are trying to usurp a divine right and duty that every State has, not only to defend human life but more importantly, to retain a strong moral order among society by use of just retributive punishment. There is absolutely no theological principle that can justify or support the complete abolishment of capital punishment. One may argue for a more prudential application based on how it fits in with restoring or keeping the moral order in a society, but to lobby for the complete abolishment of the punishment is clearly against the natural law. and clearly against the consistent teaching of the Church. It denies the State’s the right to properly determine what just means it will use to restore and retain the moral order, and that is not a right that can be taken away by anyone, including misguided bishops or even the pope, who have divorced themselves from right reason and instead have substituted it with the double-dealing concept of the “Seamless Garment.” The bishops do not have the right to determine whether or not a State should use a certain form of just punishment. It is the State’s right and duty to prudently decide what are the most effective just means it will use to retain and preserve the moral order. This notion that the bishops have a right to dictate what type of just punishments the State can use is a delusional one.
Changing Principles: Retribution and Punishment
We must ask the question, based on what theological grounds or moral principles do these conclusions rest on? It rests on a perceived excess of the use of an act that is viewed as being only ordered towards the protection of innocents from possible future crimes that the criminal may commit. Statements by many bishops and Pope Francis himself acknowledge punishment in relation to rehabilitation and the possibility of repentance and possible restitution, but never mention the foundational principle of retribution for the restoration of the moral order to which all punishment is oriented. Rehabilitation is quite desirable but is not always possible. Rehabilitation is only a secondary reason for punishment. Yet this secondary principle has now been put forth as being the primary principle for just punishment. This inversion of principles is a technique that is quite commonly used to further modernism. A true moral theologian must ask the bishops and the pope, what happened to the retributive element of punishment which must address the expiation of the criminal’s crime? If this core element is done away with the entire teleology of punishment is also negated. This foundational principle is soundly illustrated by Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1952, “Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
Retribution and expiation are a necessary part of the equation to this moral question, and they are an integral component of how crime and punishment fit within the natural law and society. You can't punish someone for what they may do in the future! It must be based on and address the past criminal act. Only by understanding and applying proper principles can we determine the nature of moral acts with any accuracy. This crucial part of the equation has been dismissed. The bishops must reconsider their stance on this issue by looking to tradition and applying the principles of Thomism. The “Consistent Life Ethic” that is being endorsed now is based on a flawed premise.
Ambiguity Rules
How are these false ideas able to be so easily embedded in the modern Catholic mind? The answer lies largely in the ambiguity of documents released by the Church over the past 50 years or so, and the ability to promote these false views via the media. In order to oppose truth most effectively, you either make the truth obscure by not mentioning it, or you promote a less important truth or principle and emphasize that over a foundational principle. A perfect example is how the celebration of Mass has been corrupted the theology of the Eucharist over the last 50 years. In practice, the foundational principle of the Mass as Sacrifice has been replaced by the communal aspect. Now the vertical worship of God in the Mass has been substituted by the desires of the horizontal community. Yet we know that without the foundational principle of the Sacrifice and proper worship of God we have no true community. God makes the community, the community does make God! The “New Theologians” of the day, however, have taken a lesser principle or element, like that of the communal aspect of the Mass, and have made that the foundational principle. As a result, we have the entire foundation of the Mass undermined and turned on its head by substituting a lesser principle for a foundational one.
Must we wonder why priests act the way they do in the sanctuary? Why is the tabernacle often hidden and the Real Presence de-emphasized? We have the same result in the realm of moral theology. Intrinsic evils like abortion and homosexuality have been de-emphasized while the abolishment of capital punishment and immigration are now emphasized. The priorities regarding the moral order have been turned upside down and it is clearly seen in how we act! Suddenly the attention gets drawn away from such abominable offenses to God like abortion, and the focus instead gets put upon a convicted criminal who is getting just punishment for his crime. The common battle cry the modernists have made in the moral theology arena is that those who do not make the abolishment of capital punishment their priority are somehow uncharitable and evil and propose falsely that they have no compassion for people whatsoever. The picture that they paint is an illusory one based on an illusory premise.
Thomism and Tradition is the Answer
A Catholic moral theologian must start his argument on capital punishment by actually defining what punishment is, and then take the issue of capital punishment and plug it into the definition to see if it holds up to scrutiny. For one, punishment is always defined as a redressing of a past injustice committed against someone. This means that it actually looks back at the crime committed before even thinking about the possibility of future crimes being committed by the criminal. Punishment deems to use retribution to restore the moral order that has been disrupted by the injustice. It also seeks to inflict some sort of penance on the criminal to make reparation for the injustice and to deter others. After this is done if possible seeks to reform the unjust aggressor so the crime will be discouraged in the future by the criminal himself. The entire definition of punishment is being changed before our eyes. Does anyone remember what prisons were called in the past? Anyone remember the word penitentiary? Guess where that word comes from? Now we call them Correctional Facilities. Think about that for a moment.
Catholics today who are arguing against the abolition of the death penalty are doing so by removing the retributive aspect of punishment and are replacing it with future prevention of the unjust aggressor committing the crime again. This however completely redefines the nature of punishment, which cannot be done. Punishment can never be looking only to the future possibility of the crime being committed again by that criminal. The principle of redressing the crime which happened in the past cannot be done away with. It must be addressed and if punishment is to remain intact as defined objectively, one could never argue that keeping the criminal from committing the crime again would be enough to restore the moral order and exact a penance from the criminal. So when it comes to capital punishment, the unjust aggressor has committed such a heinous crime that the only way to redress the moral order and exact an appropriate penance to make reparation for the crime is to call for the penalty of their life.
For example, if a serial killer was convicted of murdering and raping 15 people, it could be argued that keeping them in prison may not be enough to make retribution for their crimes. The state would most likely want to redress the moral order by taking the criminals life. Obviously individual cases would have to examined to determine culpability, etc. But all things being equal, a list of crimes like this would exceed lesser forms of punishment such as taking away individual freedoms, incarceration or probationary action. The punishment should ideally fit the crime. A kid stealing a sucker might get a slap on the bottom and be grounded for a month, while a convicted serial killer would deserve far more penance. If one could murder 12 people and only serve a few years in prison this would certainly rent asunder the moral order of a society. This would lead to anarchy, and we are seeing anarchy becoming more prominent in our society! No one has the right to take away the state's obligation and duty of dealing out proper punishment. This could only happen if the government was illegitimate and completely incapable of carrying out a just punishment.
The solution then resides in Aristotelian Thomistic philosophy and theology which the Church has always held in high esteem. We must get back to the roots of Thomism so that we may understand and make the proper distinctions in regard to moral theological questions. The corrupt theology of the “Seamless Garment” is only able to fly because of the noxious modernism that fuels it. Removing or changing the core principles that allow for the proper examination of the moral act has been a complete disaster in Catholic theology. Few theologians before the acceptance of these modernist philosophies would have never have given consideration to completely abolishing capital punishment because Thomism exposes the position as being theologically and philosophically untenable. It is only with the adoption of modern, corrupt philosophical principles that this nonsense could have prevailed to the extent that it has. Thomism and the Tradition of the Church is the key to bringing back a solid theological and philosophical foundation to the Church at large. Since social justice issues are such a hot arena for the Church today and have such serious ramifications concerning the election of public officials, there is no better place to start the resurrection of Thomism.
I would like to close with Father John Hardon's defense of Capital Punishment as being legitimate in the eyes of the Church for all ages. I recommend reading this entire article.
"The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely "medicinal" and "vindictive." The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrongdoing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated.
Equally important is the Pope's insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church's teaching on "the coercive power of legitimate human authority" is based on "the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine." It is wrong, therefore "to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances." On the contrary, they have "a general and abiding validity." ( Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).
By Matthew J Bellisario O.P. 2020
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/SaintThomasAquinas-118154833-5fabb720771a4108902aab24956c0c01.jpg) |
With the advent of the “Enlightenment”, the world began to turn a blind eye to objective truth. People began to doubt the senses and instead of embracing objective truth, the false subjective philosophies of Hume, Hegel, Descartes, Kant, and many others began to be embraced by the world and later by even many in the Church. There was a movement of “New Theologians” who embraced these deficient philosophies towards the end of the 19th century and really started to take up residency en masse in the 1950s and 60s. Theologians like Maurice Blondel planted the seeds in the late 19th century, followed soon after by "new theologians" like Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, and with them the liturgical deconstructionists like Annibale Bugnini. They were all part of the quickly sprouting crop of weeds that were planted and watered earlier on by the modernist movement which popes consistently from Pius IX's reign beginning in 1846 until the death of Pius XII in 1958 warned about. Soon the great garden giving life to the fruits of Thomism were quickly overgrown by the rotten weeds of modernism.
The consequences have been disastrous and can be seen throughout the Church today. The degradation of the celebration of the Mass and of Church architecture are two highly visible examples. The corruption, however, goes much deeper to a theological and spiritual level. One of these has manifested in the destruction of sacramental theology, which we see in most parishes of the Church today. Core doctrines of the Church such 'Original Sin' have been attacked leading to a secular view of Christ and His Church. We also have seen the subversion of moral theology, most recently witnessed with the attack on the Church's teaching concerning divorce and remarriage and the subversive attack on the Church's perennial teaching concerning capital punishment. The entire theological foundation of Catholicism, although objectively still intact, as it will be until the end of time, has been subverted in most parishes by modernists in the Church.
In this article, I want to focus on one particular area that has been assaulted by this modernist theological/philosophical development commonly referred to as the 'Seamless Garment.'. A popular platform that many bishops today use to further the corruption of moral theology is a new form of secular social justice. The best way to get someone to swallow poison is not to put the bottle of poison on the table and tell them to ingest it but to cleverly mix it in with something that appears to be perfectly edible. This false premise of the Seamless Garment is a clever Trojan Horse developed in large part by a prominent modernist Cardinal Joseph Bernardine of Chicago.
The Foundation of the Seamless Garment
This poison pill known as the “Seamless Garment" is the idea that proposes that there is some unifying moral ideal that essentially teaches that all issues regarding human life in the social arena are somehow equal in nature. The “Seamless Garment” idea is a flawed moral theological position that claims that all life between conception and the grave are all to be treated equally in regard to social justice issues. It is often based on a misrepresentation of human dignity and claims to present a "consistent life ethic." This idea connects issues such as poverty, war, end of life, abortion, capital punishment, and other life issues into a unified "consistent ethic of life at every stage and in every circumstance."
The distinctions of these issues concerning the moral gravity of each of these under this "ethic" are often ignored or dismissed. For example, the distinction between the innocent and the guilty are ignored in regard to the terror of the innocents killed through abortion and the punishment of heinous criminals through capital punishment. As a consequence, the promoters of this nefarious idea falsely promote that the saving of a convicted mass murderer is as important as saving an innocent child in a mother’s womb. Most often in my eyes, they make it seem as if the lives of the guilty are somehow worth more than the innocent since most of these "Seamless Garment" supporters most often focus on the death penalty and rarely speak about the global atrocity of abortion.
 |
| Cardinal Bernadine |
Although Cardinal Bernardin, the main proponent of this theologically bankrupt idea, often paid lip service to these distinctions of guilt and innocence, he did not apply them in principle. This is typical for those who have been in the game of corrupting Catholic doctrine in the modern age. Let's examine the modernist tactic he pulled in his William Wade lecture series given in 1984. He stated first in his lecture that he acknowledged the distinction between the innocent and the guilty in regard to moral issues such as abortion and capital punishment, but the conclusion that he draws right after his statement is completely at odds with his acknowledgment. It is like saying, “I am against abortion, but I think I should not let that influence my decision on who I will vote for.”
First Bernardin said the following, “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.” Sadly however Bernardin does not keep the issues separate at all. He continues on using a cloak of contradiction and ambiguity stating, “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.” (Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, A Consistent Ethic of Life, 1984)
Far from Bernardin’s rejection of airtight categories, he completely rejects any distinction or categorization at all in relation to the moral acts that are actually being addressed. Bernardin attempted here to sell the idea that if one embraces the State’s right to exact the just use of capital punishment, then they are somehow complicit and psychologically linked to the acceptance of abortion! This is an outrageous statement. These two acts are not even in the same moral category, one being an immoral intrinsically evil act and the other if used justly being a morally legitimate act! Not only is this “connection” simply nonexistent, but the public opinion at least in the US also contradicts this "connection." In the US, most of the public that supports a pro-life position, (That is they are against abortion and euthanasia, ie the killing of innocent life) are usually consistently pro-capital punishment and vice versa; those who usually support abortion are usually against the death penalty, so even his logic here is severely flawed. It was not as if the acceptance of abortion brought about the acceptance of capital punishment. The connection he imagines simply does not exist on any noticeable scale in our American society.
Notice how he also mentions the political realm. We should not let this go unnoticed since ones’ perception of these moral issues will affect how Catholics vote on such issues. How anyone can fall for such an absurd concept is truly amazing, but none the less, most bishops today have taken the bait, hook line, and sinker. It must be stated that there is no sound theological principle that can support the Cardinal’s fallacious conclusion of this “linkage.” There is really no comparison of the two distinct moral acts of murder, and the act of just retributive punishment. One is a negative precept, that of murder, the other is a moral act. In regard to Catholic morality, and the proper principles used to arrive at understanding the moral act, which is that of Divine Revelation, the Natural Law, and the Church Magisterium, it impossible to equate these two acts, let alone link them in the manner the Cardinal was attempting to do. Only a malformed philosophy conjured up by a heavy reliance on modernist thinking can account for such an incongruous concept.
Bernardine and the USCCB Reject Church Tradition
In order to drive home the seriousness of this modernist error, I would like to quote another comment made by Cardinal Bernardin in 1985 in his address to the criminal court of Cook County. (The Death Penalty in Our Time-1985) It is here that he readily admits that the core moral principles the Church held in a consistent form (The form of Thomism) in regard to moral acts like capital punishment had now been completely rejected by the bishops en masse. Pay close attention here, “First, they review four traditional arguments justifying capital punishment, retribution, deterrence, reform and protection of the State. Based on their review, the religious leaders have argued that these reasons no longer apply in our age.” This comment is startling and it is the true telling of the tale. The bishops fully rejected sound moral theology in favor of modernist ideology. Somehow the bishops concluded that the natural law and moral theology could change with the age like dust that blows on the changing wind.
Bernardin cited the USCCB’s statement penned in 1980 as denying the traditional Catholic teaching in regard to retributive punishment, “Such punishment might satisfy certain vindictive desires that we or the victim might feel, but the satisfaction of such desires is not and cannot be an objective of a humane and Christian approach to punishment.” No longer did the UCCB regard retributive punishment as a valid argument for the use of the death penalty, despite the Council of Trent’s doctrinal claim to the contrary hundreds of years before, "...well founded is the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty." The USCCB simply turned retribution into a demented form of evil vengeance instead of a just punishment pertaining to the restoration of the moral order. This is simply a dishonest redefining of what retributive punishment really is. Punishment is not done for vengeance per se, and Pope Pius XII made that very clear in 1954, “It should be noted that to vindicate the moral order means not the taking of vengeance upon the criminal, but imposing upon the criminal some act or loss or suffering as a form of compensation to right the balance of justice.” As we know, justice, however, has no place in the minds of most bishops today.
Bernardin continued on to summarize his position after citing the above passage from the USCCB's erroneous assessment of retributive punishment, “Basing their judgment on this and similar lines of reasoning, many religious leaders conclude that, under our present circumstances, the death penalty as punishment for reasons of deterrence, retribution, reform or protection of society cannot be justified.” Simply put, the USCCB had wholly rejected the accepted norms of defining the moral act of punishment. In short, Thomism and Church Tradition had been substituted with a smorgasbord of modernist philosophies which has resulted in a rejection of sound moral theology. We have only to look at the many other moral issues the bishops as a whole have caved on such as homosexuality and adultery. Unfortunately, there were few if any US bishops who put up any resistance to this faulty proposal.
Damning Consequences
One may ask, what can be the harm in equating a prisoner on death row with an innocent life in a mother’s womb? Life is life correct? The problem with this position is that it undermines objective truth. It is a vehicle that spreads a false philosophy under a cloak of something that appears to be a very noble position indeed. After all, what kindhearted Christian could be opposed to saving a life? It also forces Catholics to either embrace the false system of the “Seamless Garment” or else be ostracized by the mainstream powers that be, like the media, political bodies, councils like the USCCB, or the growing number of neo-conservative Catholics. The lie has now been so widely accepted in society that it appears that one cannot be against the killing of an innocent human baby via abortion, and yet allow a proven guilty serial rapist and murderer to undergo the just punishment of the death penalty. In other words, this delusion of the “Seamless Garment” is a tool used to spread the heresy of modernity among the Church faithful. Objective truth is undermined under a veil of a perceived good, that of saving a life.
This falsehood also has another corruption factor built in that is very useful in promoting political agendas. It allows the horrors of abortion to be downplayed as just another life ethic issue among many. This results in entire bodies of bishops like the USCCB, to spend enormous amounts of time, resources, and money, to stop the executions of guilty criminals, rather than focusing on real immoral actions such as the mass slaughter of innocent babies. Whenever objective truth is sacrificed there are terrible consequences that will follow. So far the bishops of the Church have paid little more than lip service to stop the atrocity of abortion. Instead, they waste time writing letters and promoting campaigns to completely abolish a fundamental right that every legitimate State has been given by divine authority, that of just retributive punishment. Why don’t the bishops write a letter every time an abortion occurs? Let's look at some telling statistics. There are almost 3000 abortions every day in the US. There have only been 1500 executions since 1973 when the death penalty was adopted as a whole in the US. It is so much easier to write a few letters a few times a year when a mass murderer gets executed in their diocese or state than it is to write thousands of letters for every murder of the innocent that takes place in abortion mill, isn’t it? Look below to see how Catholics voted in two critical elections of which the elected president promoted more immorality than any other in the history of our country.
As we can see, the political realm mentioned by Cardinal Bernardin above, have had strong political ties and consequences. This fallacious reasoning has unfortunately given many Catholics the impression that issues like capital punishment, immigration, and just war are just as important as issues like abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia. As a result, we see Catholics often voting for politicians who support atrocities like abortion, ignorantly claiming that they are against an unjust war, capital punishment, borders or some other lesser moral issue of the day. These ideas have prevailed largely because the bishops promote them! This is why monsters like Obama get elected. How appalling it is to see half of Catholics voting for one of the most pro-abortion presidents in history!
The “Seamless Garment” also implicitly gives a false notion that all taking of human life is somehow a moral evil. This, however, is not the truth at all. The Fifth Commandment has always pertained to the taking of innocent human life. In other words, the negative precept is not the taking of “any” life by anyone or any public entity, it is the taking of “innocent” life by anyone or any public entity. The taking of a life can be justified when the object of a moral act is ordered towards self-defense or in the State justly taking the life of a guilty person for the sake of keeping or restoring the moral order through proportionate retributive punishment. These are fundamental principles that have always and everywhere been upheld and taught explicitly by the Church. Now, however, they have been swept under the carpet by the bishops of our age. If they are recognized in any capacity it is only to pay lip service to these serious distinctions long-held in Catholic moral theology, while treating them in their actions as if they are equal in moral stature.
 |
The Danger of Overturning the Natural Order
Catholic teaching and the natural law tells us that the act of abortion falls under a negative precept and can never be done under any circumstance, it is murder and therefore an intrinsic evil. Capital punishment on the other hand, if carried out by a legitimate State in a just manner concerning a guilty party is no way an immoral act, but a just act carried out to restore the moral order of society. To make any connection between the two acts in regard to morality demonstrates either a complete failure in understanding of basic moral principles or a complete rejection of them. Judging by the USCCB’s statement in 1980 I will let you determine which is true.
It is my fear that we are in danger of completely overturning the divine natural order by allowing the bishops of the Church to promote such rash positions such as the complete abolishment of the death penalty or the emphasizing of moral issues like immigration over the atrocity of abortion. We must have our priorities straight, and it is clear that the bishops as a whole do not because they have adopted these faulty principles. The bishops are trying to usurp a divine right and duty that every State has, not only to defend human life but more importantly, to retain a strong moral order among society by use of just retributive punishment. There is absolutely no theological principle that can justify or support the complete abolishment of capital punishment. One may argue for a more prudential application based on how it fits in with restoring or keeping the moral order in a society, but to lobby for the complete abolishment of the punishment is clearly against the natural law. and clearly against the consistent teaching of the Church. It denies the State’s the right to properly determine what just means it will use to restore and retain the moral order, and that is not a right that can be taken away by anyone, including misguided bishops or even the pope, who have divorced themselves from right reason and instead have substituted it with the double-dealing concept of the “Seamless Garment.” The bishops do not have the right to determine whether or not a State should use a certain form of just punishment. It is the State’s right and duty to prudently decide what are the most effective just means it will use to retain and preserve the moral order. This notion that the bishops have a right to dictate what type of just punishments the State can use is a delusional one.
 |
Changing Principles: Retribution and Punishment
We must ask the question, based on what theological grounds or moral principles do these conclusions rest on? It rests on a perceived excess of the use of an act that is viewed as being only ordered towards the protection of innocents from possible future crimes that the criminal may commit. Statements by many bishops and Pope Francis himself acknowledge punishment in relation to rehabilitation and the possibility of repentance and possible restitution, but never mention the foundational principle of retribution for the restoration of the moral order to which all punishment is oriented. Rehabilitation is quite desirable but is not always possible. Rehabilitation is only a secondary reason for punishment. Yet this secondary principle has now been put forth as being the primary principle for just punishment. This inversion of principles is a technique that is quite commonly used to further modernism. A true moral theologian must ask the bishops and the pope, what happened to the retributive element of punishment which must address the expiation of the criminal’s crime? If this core element is done away with the entire teleology of punishment is also negated. This foundational principle is soundly illustrated by Pope Pius XII’s statement in 1952, “Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
Retribution and expiation are a necessary part of the equation to this moral question, and they are an integral component of how crime and punishment fit within the natural law and society. You can't punish someone for what they may do in the future! It must be based on and address the past criminal act. Only by understanding and applying proper principles can we determine the nature of moral acts with any accuracy. This crucial part of the equation has been dismissed. The bishops must reconsider their stance on this issue by looking to tradition and applying the principles of Thomism. The “Consistent Life Ethic” that is being endorsed now is based on a flawed premise.
Ambiguity Rules
How are these false ideas able to be so easily embedded in the modern Catholic mind? The answer lies largely in the ambiguity of documents released by the Church over the past 50 years or so, and the ability to promote these false views via the media. In order to oppose truth most effectively, you either make the truth obscure by not mentioning it, or you promote a less important truth or principle and emphasize that over a foundational principle. A perfect example is how the celebration of Mass has been corrupted the theology of the Eucharist over the last 50 years. In practice, the foundational principle of the Mass as Sacrifice has been replaced by the communal aspect. Now the vertical worship of God in the Mass has been substituted by the desires of the horizontal community. Yet we know that without the foundational principle of the Sacrifice and proper worship of God we have no true community. God makes the community, the community does make God! The “New Theologians” of the day, however, have taken a lesser principle or element, like that of the communal aspect of the Mass, and have made that the foundational principle. As a result, we have the entire foundation of the Mass undermined and turned on its head by substituting a lesser principle for a foundational one.
Must we wonder why priests act the way they do in the sanctuary? Why is the tabernacle often hidden and the Real Presence de-emphasized? We have the same result in the realm of moral theology. Intrinsic evils like abortion and homosexuality have been de-emphasized while the abolishment of capital punishment and immigration are now emphasized. The priorities regarding the moral order have been turned upside down and it is clearly seen in how we act! Suddenly the attention gets drawn away from such abominable offenses to God like abortion, and the focus instead gets put upon a convicted criminal who is getting just punishment for his crime. The common battle cry the modernists have made in the moral theology arena is that those who do not make the abolishment of capital punishment their priority are somehow uncharitable and evil and propose falsely that they have no compassion for people whatsoever. The picture that they paint is an illusory one based on an illusory premise.
 |
| The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas |
Thomism and Tradition is the Answer
A Catholic moral theologian must start his argument on capital punishment by actually defining what punishment is, and then take the issue of capital punishment and plug it into the definition to see if it holds up to scrutiny. For one, punishment is always defined as a redressing of a past injustice committed against someone. This means that it actually looks back at the crime committed before even thinking about the possibility of future crimes being committed by the criminal. Punishment deems to use retribution to restore the moral order that has been disrupted by the injustice. It also seeks to inflict some sort of penance on the criminal to make reparation for the injustice and to deter others. After this is done if possible seeks to reform the unjust aggressor so the crime will be discouraged in the future by the criminal himself. The entire definition of punishment is being changed before our eyes. Does anyone remember what prisons were called in the past? Anyone remember the word penitentiary? Guess where that word comes from? Now we call them Correctional Facilities. Think about that for a moment.
Catholics today who are arguing against the abolition of the death penalty are doing so by removing the retributive aspect of punishment and are replacing it with future prevention of the unjust aggressor committing the crime again. This however completely redefines the nature of punishment, which cannot be done. Punishment can never be looking only to the future possibility of the crime being committed again by that criminal. The principle of redressing the crime which happened in the past cannot be done away with. It must be addressed and if punishment is to remain intact as defined objectively, one could never argue that keeping the criminal from committing the crime again would be enough to restore the moral order and exact a penance from the criminal. So when it comes to capital punishment, the unjust aggressor has committed such a heinous crime that the only way to redress the moral order and exact an appropriate penance to make reparation for the crime is to call for the penalty of their life.
For example, if a serial killer was convicted of murdering and raping 15 people, it could be argued that keeping them in prison may not be enough to make retribution for their crimes. The state would most likely want to redress the moral order by taking the criminals life. Obviously individual cases would have to examined to determine culpability, etc. But all things being equal, a list of crimes like this would exceed lesser forms of punishment such as taking away individual freedoms, incarceration or probationary action. The punishment should ideally fit the crime. A kid stealing a sucker might get a slap on the bottom and be grounded for a month, while a convicted serial killer would deserve far more penance. If one could murder 12 people and only serve a few years in prison this would certainly rent asunder the moral order of a society. This would lead to anarchy, and we are seeing anarchy becoming more prominent in our society! No one has the right to take away the state's obligation and duty of dealing out proper punishment. This could only happen if the government was illegitimate and completely incapable of carrying out a just punishment.
The solution then resides in Aristotelian Thomistic philosophy and theology which the Church has always held in high esteem. We must get back to the roots of Thomism so that we may understand and make the proper distinctions in regard to moral theological questions. The corrupt theology of the “Seamless Garment” is only able to fly because of the noxious modernism that fuels it. Removing or changing the core principles that allow for the proper examination of the moral act has been a complete disaster in Catholic theology. Few theologians before the acceptance of these modernist philosophies would have never have given consideration to completely abolishing capital punishment because Thomism exposes the position as being theologically and philosophically untenable. It is only with the adoption of modern, corrupt philosophical principles that this nonsense could have prevailed to the extent that it has. Thomism and the Tradition of the Church is the key to bringing back a solid theological and philosophical foundation to the Church at large. Since social justice issues are such a hot arena for the Church today and have such serious ramifications concerning the election of public officials, there is no better place to start the resurrection of Thomism.
 |
I would like to close with Father John Hardon's defense of Capital Punishment as being legitimate in the eyes of the Church for all ages. I recommend reading this entire article.
"The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely "medicinal" and "vindictive." The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime, and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrongdoing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated.
Equally important is the Pope's insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church's teaching on "the coercive power of legitimate human authority" is based on "the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine." It is wrong, therefore "to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances." On the contrary, they have "a general and abiding validity." ( Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2).
Comments
Post a Comment