When Moral Distinctions Disappear
Cardinal Blase Cupich’s revival of Joseph Bernardin’s ‘consistent ethic of life’ has acquired renewed significance under Pope Leo XIV. Yet his claim that John Paul II endorsed this approach requires closer examination. The controversy concerns the distinction between absolute moral prohibitions and the obligations of social justice, the political uses to which Catholic teaching is put, and the increasingly temporal understanding of Christian charity.
On 16 October 2026, Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, delivered an address in Fiera di Primiero, northern Italy, commemorating the life and influence of his predecessor, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. The occasion marked the approaching thirtieth anniversary of Bernardin’s death and afforded Cupich an opportunity to commend the consistent ethic of life, popularly known as the Seamless Garment, which has exerted considerable influence upon American Catholic social thought since the 1980s. Cupich went further than simply praising his predecessor. He asserted that Bernardin’s moral vision had anticipated the teaching of John Paul II and had been substantially vindicated by the encyclical Evangelium vitae, published in 1995.¹
According to the official English text issued by the Archdiocese of Chicago, John Paul II had validated Bernardin’s approach by placing direct attacks upon innocent life, including abortion and euthanasia, alongside broader threats arising from warfare, poverty and environmental degradation. The version published by Vatican News on 17 October employed a rather different expression, claiming that the Pope had placed these matters “on the same level”. The distinction is hardly incidental to an argument whose central difficulty concerns the relative moral character of these very issues. Whether the stronger wording resulted from translation or editorial intervention remains unclear, but it invites an examination of what John Paul II actually taught.²
Nuntiatoria addressed the dangers inherent in the Seamless Garment in May 2025, in A Shroud for the Unborn: The Seamless Garment and the Collapse of Catholic Moral Hierarchy. Our more recent examination of Bernardin’s legacy, published on 6 November, considered the circumstances surrounding his renewed ecclesiastical commemoration, including longstanding allegations and documented failures of safeguarding during his administration. Those historical questions remain separate from the theological merits of his argument. Cupich’s present appeal to John Paul II, however, provides an opportunity to examine the theory against its original formulation, the subsequent teaching of the American bishops and the texts of the papal encyclicals themselves.³
Bernardin introduced his proposal at Fordham University on 6 December 1983, shortly after the American bishops had published their pastoral letter on nuclear warfare, The Challenge of Peace. His immediate concern was to establish a relationship between Catholic opposition to abortion and the deliberate destruction of innocent human life through warfare. Both involve moral principles which transcend the interests of governments and political parties. From this foundation he developed a wider argument embracing capital punishment, poverty, unemployment, healthcare and the material circumstances in which human beings live. His intention was to cultivate a comprehensive respect for human dignity, preventing Catholics from treating certain threats to life as matters of grave public concern while remaining indifferent to others.⁴
Catholic social doctrine had long recognised the obligations which Bernardin sought to bring together. Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum had defended the rights of workers and their families in 1891, while Pius XI’s Quadragesimo anno developed the principles of social justice and subsidiarity forty years later. The Church’s concern for the poor, the sick and those subjected to injustice arose from her understanding of the dignity of the human person, the natural law and the duties of Christian charity. It required no new moral principle to justify its existence. What Bernardin proposed was a particular framework through which these obligations might be presented collectively and applied to American political life.
His original Fordham address illustrates both the attraction and the difficulty of this approach. Having argued that Catholics defending the unborn should demonstrate equal concern for those suffering material deprivation, he maintained that such concern must translate into positions on taxation, employment, welfare expenditure and healthcare. He considered it inconsistent to demand public protection for unborn children while questioning the appropriateness of substantial government programmes to relieve poverty. His concern for those in need was entirely proper, but the argument moved rather quickly from an obligation established by the moral law to a judgement about the particular political arrangements through which that obligation ought to be discharged.⁴
The duty to assist the poor cannot be disputed by Catholics without rejecting fundamental obligations of justice and charity. Whether a particular system of taxation, public expenditure or state administration provides the most effective and just means of fulfilling that duty is another matter. Economic policy involves circumstances, competing responsibilities and an assessment of consequences which competent persons may reasonably evaluate differently. Catholic social teaching establishes moral principles governing such decisions; it does not ordinarily determine the precise legislative and administrative measures which governments must adopt. To treat disagreement over those measures as equivalent to rejecting the moral obligation itself would place an unwarranted restriction upon legitimate political judgement.
It is therefore instructive to discover that Bernardin himself recognised the danger of conflating different moral questions. Addressing St Louis University on 11 March 1984, he explicitly acknowledged that abortion and capital punishment were distinguishable because the prohibition against killing innocent human beings separates the unborn child from the convicted murderer. He also rejected the suggestion that considering several issues within a common moral framework rendered them qualitatively equal. Each, he insisted, required its own moral analysis, while priorities necessarily had to be established according to the circumstances. No individual could reasonably undertake every possible moral cause.⁵
These were substantial qualifications, and they deserve greater attention from those who now invoke his authority. Bernardin understood that the prohibition of abortion and the evaluation of capital punishment involved different considerations, even while maintaining that both contributed to society’s understanding of respect for life. His explanation also distinguished the actual destruction of human life from broader questions concerning the promotion of human dignity. The difficulty which remained was that his proposed political application could nevertheless encourage precisely the confusion which his theological qualifications sought to prevent.
Richard A. Spinello, writing in The Catholic Thing on 4 November, identifies the philosophical issue with greater precision. Moral absolutes, such as the prohibition against deliberately killing innocent human beings, differ in their structure from positive obligations to promote human welfare. An intrinsically evil action may never be chosen as a means to some desirable end. Positive duties, however binding, ordinarily require prudence in determining how they should be discharged. The obligation to protect the environment, for example, does not establish the moral superiority of every proposed environmental regulation. Similarly, a government’s responsibility to provide for the common good does not make each particular economic programme an obligation of divine law.⁶
This distinction must itself be understood correctly. There are intrinsically evil actions within social, economic and political life. Deliberately attacking civilians, practising racial persecution, trafficking human beings and torturing prisoners cannot be justified by appeals to national interest or administrative convenience. Conversely, a failure to fulfil positive obligations may constitute grave sin, particularly where those responsible knowingly permit serious and avoidable suffering. The difference concerns the nature of the act and the manner in which the moral law governs it. That distinction is indispensable to any proper understanding of Catholic moral theology.
John Paul II developed precisely this argument in Veritatis splendor, published in 1993. Rejecting proportionalist theories which sought to determine the morality of actions through the balance of anticipated benefits and harms, he reaffirmed the existence of intrinsically evil acts whose moral character could never be transformed by good intentions or desirable consequences. His treatment of the moral object in paragraphs 79–83 was especially important. The moral law could not be reduced to a calculation of competing goods, however attractive the proposed outcome.⁷
Two years later, Evangelium vitae reaffirmed the absolute inviolability of innocent human life, expressly distinguishing the protection owed to innocent persons from questions concerning criminals and unjust aggressors. John Paul II condemned direct abortion and euthanasia as gravely immoral, while addressing capital punishment within the traditional understanding of legitimate public authority. He urged that execution should be restricted to circumstances of absolute necessity, which he considered exceptionally rare in contemporary society. Paragraph 73 further identified laws authorising abortion and euthanasia as fundamentally unjust and imposing a grave obligation of opposition.⁸
The distinction was subsequently expressed in particularly accessible terms by the American bishops in their 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life. Employing the analogy of a building, they described the right to life as the foundation upon which other human rights depend. The protection of innocent human beings could therefore never be treated as merely one concern among several, any more than a building might retain its integrity after the destruction of its foundations. The bishops insisted that support for desirable social policies could not excuse a failure to defend innocent life against direct attack. This was the collective judgement of the American episcopate fifteen years after Bernardin’s original lecture, and it was grounded explicitly in John Paul II’s teaching.⁹
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made the same essential distinction in his 2004 memorandum Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles. Addressing the obligations of Catholic politicians, he distinguished direct support for abortion and euthanasia from disagreements concerning warfare and capital punishment, where the questions under consideration admitted legitimate differences of judgement. The memorandum concerned the moral responsibilities of those participating in public life and the sacramental consequences of persistent cooperation with grave injustice. It offered little encouragement to any theory by which a politician’s support for abortion could be offset by commendable positions on unrelated social questions.¹⁰
The revision of paragraph 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis in 2018, has introduced a further question concerning capital punishment. The revised text describes the death penalty as inadmissible and commits the Church to working for its abolition. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presented the change as a development of teaching, relating it to a deeper appreciation of human dignity, the purposes of punishment and improvements in the protection of society through modern penal systems. The accompanying explanation acknowledges that previous Catholic teaching had permitted recourse to capital punishment under certain conditions. The reconciliation of these positions remains a legitimate subject of theological examination, particularly concerning the distinction between the moral authority of the state and the circumstances governing its exercise. The present official teaching must be represented accurately, just as the historical doctrine cannot be rewritten as though it had never existed.¹¹
Cardinal Cupich’s revival of Bernardin’s theory also needs to be understood against the controversy surrounding Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois in September 2025. Cupich had proposed honouring Durbin for his work on behalf of migrants through the Archdiocese of Chicago’s Keep Hope Alive immigration ministry. Several American bishops objected because Durbin’s longstanding public support for legal abortion conflicted with Catholic moral teaching. Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield argued that the proposed award would cause scandal and should be withdrawn. Durbin subsequently declined the honour.¹²
Cupich defended the proposed recognition by appealing directly to the consistent ethic of life, arguing that Catholic teaching could not be reduced to one issue, however important. He was certainly entitled to recognise the senator’s work on immigration as a contribution to the common good. The difficulty concerned the public honour which an ecclesiastical institution intended to confer upon a Catholic politician whose record included support for legislation authorising abortion. Such an award necessarily carries implications beyond an acknowledgement of administrative achievement. It conveys an institutional judgement concerning the recipient’s public example.
Pope Leo XIV was asked about the controversy on 30 September 2025. Although he acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with its particulars, he urged consideration of the senator’s wider public service and questioned whether someone who opposed abortion while supporting capital punishment, or accepting inhumane treatment of migrants, could properly be described as pro-life. Cupich subsequently cited these remarks in his October 2026 lecture as confirmation of Bernardin’s continuing relevance.¹³
The problem with such an appeal is readily apparent when applied to the circumstances which prompted it. A politician may perform valuable service in defending migrants while supporting abortion legislation which Catholic teaching identifies as gravely unjust. The former deserves assessment according to its actual merits; it cannot extinguish the moral responsibility incurred by the latter. Equally, a politician opposing abortion is not thereby absolved from his obligations towards refugees, the poor or others suffering injustice. But those obligations must be examined according to the moral principles governing them, including the legitimate responsibilities of public authorities and the scope for prudent disagreement about their application.
It is perfectly possible to reject inhumane treatment of migrants while disputing particular arrangements for immigration control. Catholic social doctrine has consistently recognised both the dignity of the migrant and the responsibility of government for the common good of the political community. The same principle applies to economic and environmental policy. The obligation to protect human dignity does not relieve Catholics of the responsibility to evaluate whether the proposed means are just, proportionate and likely to achieve their stated purpose.
The political consequences of misunderstanding these distinctions are considerable. The Seamless Garment can become a convenient means of demanding adherence to an extensive programme of social policies as evidence of Catholic moral consistency. Opposition to abortion may then be represented as inadequate unless accompanied by support for particular positions on public expenditure, environmental regulation or immigration. Meanwhile, politicians supporting abortion can appeal to their concern for those other matters as evidence of an equally respectable commitment to human dignity. In effect, the absolute prohibition risks becoming one consideration within a comprehensive political assessment, while disputed legislative preferences acquire an authority belonging properly to the moral law.
Behind this confusion lies a more serious theological tendency, one which Nuntiatoria has repeatedly examined in relation to the increasingly anthropological character of contemporary Christianity. Since the 1960s, Catholic and Protestant discourse alike has shown a growing inclination to interpret Christian obligations principally through the improvement of human society. Social justice, liberation from oppression, economic development and the promotion of communal welfare have increasingly supplied the vocabulary through which religious institutions describe their public purpose. These are legitimate concerns of Christian morality, but their prominence has too often been accompanied by a diminishing appreciation of the supernatural end towards which the Church’s mission is directed.
The theological difficulty becomes apparent when the second commandment of the Summary of the Law, to love one’s neighbour as oneself, is considered without adequate reference to the first and greatest commandment, to love God above all things. Christian charity necessarily seeks the good of the neighbour, but the supreme good to which man is called consists in eternal communion with God. Temporal welfare matters because man is a creature of body and soul, whose earthly existence possesses genuine dignity and whose material needs impose real obligations upon others. Yet the Christian understanding of human flourishing cannot be exhausted by the provision of healthcare, economic security, freedom from oppression or improved social conditions.
St Thomas Aquinas, treating the order of charity in the Summa Theologiae, II–II, question 26, explains that God is to be loved above all as the source and object of eternal happiness, while our neighbour is loved as one called to participate in that same beatitude. This ordering establishes the proper relationship between spiritual and corporal works of mercy. The Christian who feeds the hungry acts in genuine charity, but the same virtue also desires the recipient’s reconciliation with God and eternal salvation. Charity deprived of this supernatural orientation may retain considerable humanitarian value while ceasing to express the fullness of the Christian virtue.¹⁴
John Paul II himself supplied the clearest answer in the opening paragraphs of the very encyclical to which Cupich appeals. Evangelium vitae teaches that man is called to a fullness of life exceeding the limits of earthly existence through participation in the divine life. In paragraph 2, the Pope explicitly describes earthly life as a reality which is not ultimate, while insisting upon its sacred character and its place within the whole of human existence. The dignity of temporal life is therefore illuminated by the supernatural destiny of the person. The remainder of the encyclical, including its condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, must be read in the light of that theological foundation.⁸
Benedict XVI returned to the same principle in Caritas in veritate, where he connected authentic human development with truth, charity and the transcendent vocation of man. He specifically warned that openness to life is fundamental to genuine development and that a society which tolerates the destruction of unborn children undermines the moral foundations of its own professed concern for human welfare. His argument neither isolated abortion from wider social obligations nor dissolved its distinctive moral character within them. It understood these obligations according to their proper relationship within the Christian conception of human dignity.¹⁵
There is a danger that ecclesiastical teaching, when increasingly expressed through the political vocabulary of contemporary humanitarianism, may become indistinguishable from the programmes of secular institutions. The Catholic Church has every reason to engage questions of poverty, peace, healthcare and migration, and her moral teaching necessarily bears upon the conduct of governments. Her authority, however, derives from the divine revelation entrusted to her and from the natural moral law which she is obliged to defend. It is weakened whenever the distinction between authoritative moral teaching and episcopal preference concerning political means becomes uncertain.
This is particularly relevant to Cupich’s contention that Bernardin’s theory offers a remedy for the polarisation of American society. The Catholic Church must remain independent of partisan allegiance, and there is no political party whose programme may be regarded as an adequate expression of the entirety of Catholic doctrine. Yet independence requires that ecclesiastical judgements be governed by consistent moral principles, even when their application proves inconvenient to favoured political figures. The Church’s authority cannot be made dependent upon the successful construction of a programme sufficiently comprehensive to satisfy competing political constituencies.
Cupich’s central claim concerning John Paul II is therefore difficult to sustain in the sense suggested by the Vatican News formulation. Bernardin himself acknowledged distinctions which the language of moral equivalence obscures. The American bishops subsequently reaffirmed the foundational character of the right to innocent life, while John Paul II’s treatment of moral absolutes, legitimate public authority and the supernatural vocation of man leaves little room for the interpretation now being commended.
The consistency demanded of Catholics arises from the objective moral law, rightly understood and applied according to the nature of each obligation. It cannot be established by assembling every desirable social cause beneath a common title and expecting the resulting collection to supply its own moral coherence. Bernardin’s original qualifications deserve to be remembered, especially by those who claim to inherit his legacy. Cardinal Cupich’s commemorative address would have benefited from attending more closely to them.
Ultimately, the weakness of the contemporary Seamless Garment lies in the confusion it permits between the preservation of human life, the promotion of temporal welfare and the supernatural end of Christian charity. These concerns belong together within Catholic doctrine, but their proper relationship depends upon the very distinctions which the theory, in its political application, so frequently obscures. John Paul II did not dispense with those distinctions in Evangelium vitae. He explained why they mattered.
¹ Archdiocese of Chicago, Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, Lecture on Cardinal Bernardin’s Legacy for the Church and the World, 16 October 2026.
² Vatican News, Cardinal Bernardin: An Example for the Church and the World, 17 October 2026.
³ Nuntiatoria LVI, A Shroud for the Unborn: The Seamless Garment and the Collapse of Catholic Moral Hierarchy, 23 May 2025; Nuntiatoria CXXXI, Bernardin’s Legacy: The Allegation That Never Went Away, 6 November 2026.
⁴ Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue, Fordham University, 6 December 1983.
⁵ Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, A Consistent Ethic of Life: Continuing the Dialogue, St Louis University, 11 March 1984.
⁶ Richard A. Spinello, Cardinal Cupich and the ‘Seamless Garment’, The Catholic Thing, 4 November 2026.
⁷ John Paul II, Veritatis splendor, 6 August 1993, §§79–83.
⁸ John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, 25 March 1995, §§1–2, 56–57, 58–62, 73–74.
⁹ National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics, 1998, §§20–23.
¹⁰ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles, June 2004, §§2–5.
¹¹ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops Regarding the New Revision of Number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty, 1 August 2018.
¹² Archdiocese of Chicago, Statement of Cardinal Blase J. Cupich on the Keep Hope Alive Immigration Ministry Fundraiser, 22 September 2025; OSV News, Bishop Paprocki on Cardinal Cupich, Durbin Showdown, 24 September 2025; Chicago Sun-Times, Sen. Durbin Rejects Award from Chicago Archdiocese Following Backlash, 30 September 2025.
¹³ Vatican News, Pope: Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan Realistic, Hopefully Hamas Will Accept, 30 September 2025, section ‘Look to Church Teaching’.
¹⁴ St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q.26, articles 1–4.
¹⁵ Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate, 29 June 2009, §§1–5, 18, 28–29.
Leave a Reply