• Home
  • Bryan Hehir Chronology
  • Take Action
  • About Bryan Hehir Exposed

Bryan Hehir Exposed

Exposing the words and deeds of Fr. J. Bryan Hehir

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Fr. Bryan Hehir: Early Influences and “Private Morality”
Bryan Hehir, Call to Action, and Marxism: Part 1 »

Fr. Hehir and the “Seamless Garment”

September 16, 2010 by Joe Sacerdo

Feedback on our last post, “Fr. Bryan Hehir: Early Influences and “Private Morality” has been so positive–one commenter said it was “one of the best and most informative posts this blog has ever had”–that we’d like to build on it by today covering the infamous “consistent ethic of life” (aka “seamless garment”) ideology that Fr. Hehir helped establish.  It occurs to us now that perhaps we should have started the blog in March with even more of the historical context, but as they say, “better late than never.”  You will see the close tie-in with the effects of John Courtney Murray’s writings and the “consistent ethic of life” that has given air-cover to a generation of pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians in just a few paragraphs.

We’ll start with another excerpt from the chapter on Fr. Hehir from the 2001 book, “Religious Leaders and Faith-Based Politics” where Fr. Hehir and other observers of his work were interviewed, but we’ll end with something more recent from Cardinal O’Malley.

The chapter mentions Hehir’s “considerable” role played while at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in changing the public policy focus for U.S. bishops starting in 1983.  Fr. Hehir’s influence moved the bishops from an almost exclusive focus on opposing abortion to a broader “consistent ethic of life” approach where abortion was dealt with in conjunction with other threats to life and human well-being like poverty and nuclear war:

Shortly after Roe v Wade a major rift developed within the U.S. [Catholic] hierarchy.  It was split over whether the fight against abortion ought to serve as the principal overarching focal point of its agenda or whether the issue should be addressed in conjunction with other threats to life and human well-being such as poverty and nuclear war.  This disagreement continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with “conservative” bishops like Cardinal Law, Cardinal O’Connor, and bishop James McHugh of Camden supporting the former approach and progressives like Cardinal Bernadin embracing the latter posture.  As one would expect, Hehir sided with the progressive camp…

Shortly after the pastoral on war and peace had been issued. and no doubt trying to take advantage of the momentum it bad generated within the hierarchy. Cardinal Bernardin undertook another major initiative intended to broaden the bishops’ pro-life agenda beyond abortion. On 6 December 1983. he delivered a lecture at Fordham University entitled “The Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue.” In it, he argued that the contemporary world confronts us with a whole range of threats to human life and well-being for which it is necessary to formulate a consistent and comprehensive response, By way of illustration, he linked the bishops’ opposition to abortion to their recent statement on nuclear weapons and went on to draw a further connection with their rejection of capital punishment.  Without equating them,  he suggested that the bishops’ stands on all three issues reflected a commitment to the support and defense of human life-what he called “a consistent ethic of life:’ Bernardin would deliver several more addresses in this vein over the course of the next few years, expanding the range of issues encompassed  within this “consistent life ethic”. He included opposition to euthanasia and pornography as well as support for greater governmental efforts to fight poverty and provide health care to the poor. The result of his effort was quite novel: an expansive vision of what it means to be truly pro-life and a broad social agenda that cuts across the dominant ideolological stances of the Right and the Left on the U.S. political spectrum.

As one would expect, in undertaking this initiative Bernardin received the invaluable assistance of Bryan Hehir. Indeed it is fair to say that this initiative was chiefly the product of their long collaboration. After working together over the years, the two men had become close friends. According to John Langan, who knew both men well, it is impossible to say which of them actually came up with the idea of the consistent ethic, though the basic substance of the idea was something they had long shared. What is clear. however, is that it was Hehir who was responsible for developing the idea in a systematic fashion.  The addresses that Bernardin gave on the subject were thus largely Hehir’s work and heavily reflect his thinking . For although it is true that abortion, war, the death penalty, and so on are life-related issues, the logical connection among them is far from strict. For example, according to Church teaching, abortion entails the taking of an innocent human life: the death penalty, on the other hand involves the execution by the state of someone guilty of a capital crime. It is not self-evident that opposition to the one should automatically demand opposition to the other. Accordingly. it was necessary that Bernardin receive assistance in order to formulate his conception of the consistent ethic in a rigorous and systematic fashion. Hehir supplied this.

Predictably, Bernardin’s initiative proved controversial. Leading opponents of abortion within the hierarchy such as O’Connor and Law feared it would weaken the bishops’ commitment to fight abortion. They also feared that pro-choice Catholic politicians would point to their support for other elements of the Church’s social agenda as a way of deflecting criticism of their pro-choice position — a fear that, as it turned out, proved well founded.

Beyond that problem, part of Hehir’s rationale for the “seamless garment” approach—namely his belief that the credibility and effectiveness of the Church’s teaching on abortion would actually be “enhanced rather than diminished by placing it in the context of a broader social agenda”—was also proven wrong.  The book acknowledges (p. 215) that the effect of Fr. Hehir’s recommendations on public policy had “proved quite minimal,”  and as of the time of the book’s publishing, the ‘consistent ethic of life’ had not yet succeeded in diminishing public support for abortion.   Moreover, this chapter also notes Fr. Hehir’s “crucially important” and “principal influence” roles in the Bishops’ peace and economic pastorals.  Both of them were intended to make a significant impact on public policy.  In the end, the impact is described as “utterly negligible.”

So we got no positive impact from the “seamless garment” and instead it gave decades of pro-abortion politicians air-cover for their positions.  Thanks a lot.  Fortunately, the “seamless garment” went underground for a decade from 1998 to 2008, but then it was dusted off in the 2008 presidential campaign, and in 2009 when President Obama spoke at Notre Dame, as George Weigel described in this National Review piece Obama and the ‘Real’ Catholics last year:

What was surprising, and ought to be disturbing to anyone who cares about religious freedom in these United States, was the president’s decision to insert himself into the ongoing Catholic debate over the boundaries of Catholic identity and the applicability of settled Catholic conviction in the public square. Obama did this by suggesting, not altogether subtly, who the real Catholics in America are. The real Catholics, you see, are those like the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who are “congenial and gentle” in persuasion, men and women who are “always trying to bring people together,” Catholics who are “always trying to find the common ground.” The fact that Cardinal Bernardin’s undoubted geniality and gentility in bringing people together to find the common ground invariably ended with a “consensus” that matched the liberal or progressive position of the moment went unremarked — because, for a good postmodern liberal like President Obama, that progressive “consensus” is so self-evidently true that one can afford to be generous in acknowledging that others, less enlightened but arguably sincere, have different views.

And whatever Bernardin’s intentions in formulating what came to be known popularly as the “seamless garment” approach to public policy, the net effect of the consistent ethic of life was to validate politically the intellectual mischief of Mario Cuomo’s notorious 1984 Notre Dame speech (“I’m personally opposed, but I can’t impose my views on a pluralistic society”), and to give two generations of Catholic politicians a virtual pass on the abortion question by allowing them to argue that, hey, I’m batting .667 on the consistent ethic of life.

Hold that thought.  Now fast-forward just a few months after that Notre Dame speech to the fracas over the funeral for Sen. Ted Kennedy to see traces of the “consistent ethic of life” resurrected. We have already covered what Fr. Bryan Hehir said about the Kennedy funeral in our post Fr. Hehir and Ted Kennedy: False Teaching ‘Emboldens’ Greater Evil. Here is a short quote from him once again in the Boston Globe on August 28, 2009.

If you look back over his long career, most of his life was taken up with domestic social policy and social welfare issues, and on those issues the church had a lot of overlap with him,’’

And from Cardinal Sean O’Malley about the funeral:

Needless to say, the Senator’s wake and Catholic funeral were controversial because of the fact that he did not publicly support Catholic teaching and advocacy on behalf of the unborn. ­­­Given the profound effect of Catholic social teaching on so many of the programs and policies espoused by Senator Kennedy and the millions who benefitted from them, there is a tragic sense of lost opportunity in his lack of support for the unborn. To me and many Catholics it was a great disappointment because, had he placed the issue of life at the centerpiece of the Social Gospel where it belongs, he could have multiplied the immensely valuable work he accomplished.

Hopefully, this trip down “memory lane” is enlightening for you, as we have lots more to come there.  In the meantime, we are clearly still suffering from the effects of Fr. Bryan Hehir’s “seamless garment” in 2010, and are not sure how making the issue of life the “centerpiece of the Social Gospel” is fulfilled by the Archdiocese of Boston continuing to feature a speaker at Bryan Hehir’s upcoming Social Justice Conference who publicly backed the pro-abortion politician, Kathleen Sebelius, for Health and Human Services Secretary.  We have not said our last on that topic.

Share this:

  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Bryan Hehir, National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) | Tagged Archdiocese of Boston, Bryan Hehir | 9 Comments

9 Responses

  1. on September 16, 2010 at 7:34 am Jerry

    Thanks for the excellent reporting. I almost choked at that part about Cardinal Law fearing for pro-life! Keep it coming!

    Here’s an article addressing the corrupt theology of the “seamless garment”:
    http://coalitionforthomism.blogspot.com/2010/08/corrupt-theology-of-seamless-garment.html


  2. on September 16, 2010 at 12:15 pm Marie Tremblay

    Paul Melanson has a post on Cardinal Bernardin here:

    http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/09/father-bryan-hehir-and-joseph-cardinal.html


  3. on September 16, 2010 at 10:57 pm St. Thomas AskwhyNice

    Question: I have a chicken-and-egg question.

    Did the priests that studied/loved politics, like Murray, Hehir, Drinan, Bernadin, SEEK TO CREATE “theologies” (or “political religious philosophy”) that would help the democratic party (or “progressives”) that they were so intertwined with?

    Or

    Did they genuinely believe these things, articulate them, and then see “catholics” like Cuomo, Kennedy and so many others embrace and further these “teachings” as they provided the good fortune of political cover?

    The former is worse in my mind because it would be intentionally corrosive to our treasured deposit of faith.


    • on September 18, 2010 at 12:21 pm Chicken and Egg Answer

      I don’t know if we can ever answer that question with 100-percent certainty, but I wonder if the answer really matters in the end.

      If you look at the end results of the statements and actions by these priests, they resulted in propagating a culture of death and progressive/Democratic party ideals contrary to church teachings and beliefs. Even if they did genuinely believe these things, they were smart enough to see the result and could have changed if they wanted to come in line with church teachings and prevent further harm to the deposit of faith upon seeing what happened.

      I have met and interacted with Fr. Hehir and he comes across as a well-read man who knows exactly what he is doing. I have no doubt he knows what church teachings are defined as saying. When I listen to his recorded comments on women priests, Catholic conscience exemptions, voting for pro-abort politicians, the leadership of the Catholic Healthcare Association, I hear someone who is intentionally undermining those teachings. Regardless of what he believes deep down inside or what ultimate agenda or intentions he is serving, what he is doing is corrosive to our treasured deposit of faith. I hope the efforts of this blog will help eliminate that corrosion before it is too late.


  4. on September 17, 2010 at 12:00 pm Alice Slattery

    Many of the priests and theologians who are now dissenting from the Magisterium have fallen into the entrapment of “proportionalism” and “consequentialism” -errors which are addressed in the Splendor of the Truth encyclical letter of John PaulII-from p.p.90-104:”The Moral Act-Teleology and teleologism”. Basically they deny that there is objective truth and believe that “it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behavior which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture,with those values.”(p.95). The weighing of “the greater good’ and “the lesser evil” of moral acts by these dissenting priests and theologians puts them in the position of playing “God”. The encyclical states:”Such theories however are not faithful to the Church’s teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good,deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition.”(p.97)
    I experienced the anger of the director of the Boston Archdiocesan Institute For Ministry(AIM) program,Bill Dittrich, when I referred to the Splendor of the Truth when in my course work in his course, detailing my experience with the development and implementation of the Companions program, which promoted same-sex sex and same-sex marriage by encouraging Catholics to join the New Ways Ministry and PFLAG during the meetings at Fr. Cuenin’s parish,Our Lady Help of Christians and at the Catholic Charities’ Companions
    meetings run by Vivian Soper , Pat Dunne and Jean Proia at the Wilson St.,Natick site at St. Patrick’s in Natick when Fr. Twomey was pastor. When I asked them if Cardinal Law knew what they were doing, I was physically thrown out and then Fr. Twomey silenced me. . To this day, I do not believe that Cardinal Law knew what they were up to! But “proportionalism” and “consequentialism” were certainly very evident in their justification of the Companions program! Bill Dittrich was very much involved with the “Structural Change” efforts of Voice of the Faithful,by the way.


  5. on September 18, 2010 at 11:41 am Jerry

    Alice makes a good point that the moderns reject the existence of objective truth. And yes, they make hay by drawing a proportion between the unborn child and the man on death row. However, their deviousness delves deeper, or it would have been easy to squelch this error from the beginning. Or was Rome just sleeping when Cardinal Bernardin delivered his infamous speech? Did Pope John Paul, who later condemned proportionalism, not recognize the error in the speech? Was Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the CDF, simply out to lunch? Why did these men not vociferously condemn the whole “seamless garment” movement?

    The crux of the matter is that modern thinkers have broken from the Catholic Tradition approving capital punishment. Breaking with this tradition (which is, by the way, a rejection of God’s original punishment of man, condemning him to die) allows them to frame the execution of a criminal as a violation of his right to life. The solution, then, is the “consistent ethic of life.” Of course, a child can see through this false argument. So why, twenty-six years later, are we still grappling with this error?

    The reason is that the whole hierarchy has fallen into the capital-punishment trap. Pope John Paul II ended all debate with his infamous undermining of the traditional position in his encyclical, Gospel of Life, no. 56. No, he didn’t condemn capital punishment, which would place him squarely against St. Thomas and the Council of Trent. But he so thoroughly undermined it that no one would dare to defend it. This gave the destroyers the ammunition they needed. For when faced with a politician who favored it, these men, who don’t give a hoot what the pope thinks, could now piously retort that so-and-so speaks against the pope. It’s checkmate, and the seamless garment moves ahead.

    Is there a bishop today who defends the traditional teaching on capital punishment? Even Abp. Chaput, mentioned in an earlier post, speaks against it (see the link in my previous comment). Until the hierarchy sheds this error, we will probably continue to suffer with the seamless garment. But even if they shed this error, will they have the resolve to put an end to abortion? Unfortunately, there are more errors to overcome before that happens. Primarily we need a restoration of the Church’s doctrine of Original Sin, the stain of which the poor unborn carry with themselves into eternity.


  6. on September 18, 2010 at 2:07 pm David

    Bernardin was an ideologue who used his influence as General Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Conference to select bishops who would condone homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle while tolerating the sexual abuse of children by priests. His hatchet man at the NCCB, Sheehan, ordered the resignations of longtime employees when Bernardin was restructuring the conference.

    His “seamless garment” approach has not contributed anything positive to the political process. Its’ legacy is that politicians who support abortion might invoke it to rationalize their support of the culture of death.

    By rejecting the notion that Catholics should adopt a single-issue approach to politics – even when that issue hapens to be abortion – Bernardi effectively undermined the pro-life movement in the United States.


  7. on September 25, 2010 at 1:24 am Fr. Bryan Hehir and Call to Action: Part 2 « Bryan Hehir Exposed

    […] were already thinking about “seamless garment” back in […]


  8. on November 17, 2010 at 1:15 pm Bryan Hehir’s “Seamless Garment” Unravels « Bryan Hehir Exposed

    […] has come to finish unraveling the late Cardinal Bernadin’s and Fr. Bryan Hehir’s “seamless garment” principles.  This piece from George Neumayr at Catholic World Report said it well: In the […]



Comments are closed.

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 139 other followers
  • Recent Posts

    • Bryan Hehir Panel Discussion with Rep. Barney Frank
    • Bryan Hehir wins Cardinal Bernardin Award
    • Mexican Diocese’s Gay Ministry Comes Under Vatican Scrutiny
    • Fr. Unni Receiving Award from St. James Society
    • True Compassion, by Dale O’Leary
    • Rise of the Evangelical Catholic Bishops
    • Gay Catholics feel pride at Mass
    • “Gay Genes,” Sexual Attractions, and the Call to Chastity
    • The Gospel of Chastity
    • Going Nuts in Boston: Michael Voris on the Scandal at St. Cecilia’s
  • Categories

    • Archdiocese of Boston (99)
    • Boston College (6)
    • Bryan Hehir (82)
    • Call to Action (4)
    • Caritas Christi (6)
    • Catholic Charities (6)
    • Catholic Schools (23)
    • Gay/Lesbian Related (64)
    • Mass Catholic Conference (6)
    • National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) (4)
    • RENEW International (2)
    • Social Justice Conference (9)
    • St Cecilia Boston (4)
    • U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (8)
    • U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) (9)
    • Uncategorized (4)
  • Archives

    • January 2012 (1)
    • September 2011 (1)
    • August 2011 (2)
    • July 2011 (12)
    • June 2011 (15)
    • May 2011 (1)
    • April 2011 (1)
    • March 2011 (3)
    • February 2011 (4)
    • January 2011 (8)
    • December 2010 (4)
    • November 2010 (7)
    • October 2010 (11)
    • September 2010 (9)
    • August 2010 (7)
    • July 2010 (11)
    • June 2010 (9)
    • May 2010 (13)
    • April 2010 (12)
    • March 2010 (5)
  • Top Posts

    • On the Issue of False Compassion to Homosexuals
    • When a Pupil Has 2 Daddies
  • Blogroll

    • Abyssus Abyssum Invocat
    • American Life League
    • American Papist
    • Boston Catholic Insider
    • Bryan Hehir Exposed
    • Catholic Preaching
    • La Salette Journey
    • Michael Voris/The Vortex
    • Off The Record
    • Pewsitter
    • The Curt Jester
    • Throw the Bums Out
    • Whispers in the Loggia
  • Twitter Updates

    • Bryan Hehir Panel Discussion with Rep. Barney Frank wp.me/pQfKt-sL 10 years ago
    • Bryan Hehir wins Cardinal Bernardin Award wp.me/pQfKt-sv 10 years ago
    • Mexican Diocese’s Gay Ministry Comes Under Vatican Scrutiny http://wp.me/pQfKt-sh 11 years ago
    • Fr. Unni Receiving Award from St. James Society http://wp.me/pQfKt-sa 11 years ago
    • True Compassion, by Dale O'Leary http://wp.me/pQfKt-rZ 11 years ago
  • wordpress hit counter

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


  • Follow Following
    • Bryan Hehir Exposed
    • Join 139 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Bryan Hehir Exposed
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: