When the issue of abortion is addressed by Cardinal Blaise Cupich, he typically defaults to a seamless garment position. The seamless garment, also known as “the consistent ethic of life” was initially proposed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, the Archbishop of Chicago from 1982 to 1996. The seamless garment approach acknowledges that many societal ills are threats to human life today, not just abortion. 

In Bernardin’s time, the most pressing social issues on the minds of most Americans were abortion, nuclear war, and the beginnings of a push for euthanasia (if you recall the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian). 

Most Catholics would agree that being pro-life means to protect all human life. This is based on Scripture, logic, and human anthropology. But due to the awful Roe v. Wade decision and the enormous loss of life to abortion since 1972, there has been a significant focus on abortion.

Many sources say that Bernardin saw abortion as a significant evil, but he didn’t want people to focus on abortion at the expense of lives being lost or severely harmed by other problems in the culture. This is likely part of the basis for parts of Pope Francis’ exhortation Gaudete Et Exsultate. 

From Bernardin to Pope Francis, the seamless garment theory could be interpreted differently based on the person’s perspective.  For someone who understood Roe v. Wade as a horrible court decision and an enormous cancer for the nation and the world, the seamless garment theory was like a diversionary tactic during battle. To many pro-lifers after 1972, who were basically building the pro-life movement from scratch, the seamless garment theory created a multitude of distractions and diversions from the preeminent life issue of the time which would go on to kill over 60 million Americans in decades to follow (and still kills untold numbers today worldwide). For most pro-lifers, ending abortion would benefit every aspect of the culture, including all the societal ills included in the seamless garment argument. This perspective, for purposes of this piece is considered a faith-based approach to a political problem, which necessarily blends politics and faith.

To people who were not concerned about the death of millions of defenseless and innocent children, the seamless garment theory was a handy cudgel with which to beat the heads of many in the pro-life movement. Some people will deny it, but this approach is a purely political approach to a political matter. In other words, a secular or faithless approach. 

From this purely political perspective, Bernardin’s theory was separated from the Catholic faith and has since been largely discredited because of it. 

Abortion advocates have spent the last 50 years claiming that pro-life advocates are not actually pro-life because they only care about children until they are born. The pejorative term “birthers” comes to mind as a slur which alleges that a person just wants more people on earth but the person doesn’t care about things like justice, fairness, equality, happiness, and health. In the mind of an abortion advocate, a pro-life advocate is really a “pro-forced birth” activist. 

I propose that there is a third perspective, and giving Cardinal Bernardin the benefit of the doubt, the third perspective does seem compatible and actually fully consistent with the Gospel and 20 centuries of Catholic teaching. Bernardin himself said: “I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic [seamless garment theory] to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it. But the misuse does not invalidate the argument.”

He also said that his theory “…sets forth a spectrum of issues of current concern to the Church and society [and] should not be understood as implying that all issues are qualitatively equal from a moral perspective.”

So, this third way suggests that if the Seamless Garment argument had been developed and implemented properly, it would not be so scandalous today. 

In his exhortation, Francis could have said, that when compared to all the other assaults on human life today, the killing of innocent and defenseless children by doctors, nurses, parents, and governments, is obviously the most severe, brutal, and systematic. He could have quoted St. Teresa of Calcutta who so eloquently said, “But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”

Or St. John Paul II The Great: ” A nation that kills its own children has no future.”

Instead, he stopped at pointing out that all life is sacred. Which is valid and true statement, but unfortunately incomplete. Especially since Bernardin had already explained it further many years ago. 

So, let’s diagram this a bit in order to show where the confusion of paragraphs 101 and 102 of Gaudete Et Exsultate lies, which is important when looking at the current situation. Imagine two elderly people standing on a street corner. One is quietly waiting for a bus while the other has a gun held to his head. Which one should we try and help? Do we help them both onto the bus or do we pull the gun away from the one who is in harm’s way? 

Both lives are sacred right? But Cardinal Bernardin would have focused on helping the person with the gun to his head. Sacred is not a synonym of priority or equality.

Cardinal Bernardin believed that some issues were clearly a higher priority than others but that the people were of equal importance. Hopefully this is how Pope Francis was trying to convey the message in his Apostolic Exhortation.

This brings us back to Cardinal Cupich. 

The bishops of the United States discussed how they should address abortion at the 2019 annual fall meeting of the USCCB. During the discussion, Cardinal Cupich stated that Pope Francis, in his exhortation on holiness (the above-mentioned Gaudete Et Exsultate), “makes sure that we do not make one issue that a political party or a group puts forward to the point where we’re going to ignore all the rest.”  

As you can see, Cardinal Cupich framed the matter as a political concern. He wanted other societal ills listed, but he failed to mention that all life is sacred, not because of mere existence, but because we are created in the image and likeness of God. 

In other words, the USCCB, shepherds from every diocese in the United States and its territories, were encouraged to set the Gospel aside in order to make a political decision. This would have been the ultimate separation of Church and State, but it would have been the separation of every bishop in the U.S. from his faith and his role as the shepherd of his flock, which is an indecent proposal to say the least. 

As a Catholic, whether you are a bishop or a newly baptized lay person, our faith guides our decisions in life, including our political decisions. We should never let our politics guide us, nor can we set our faith aside in order to make a decision, including a political decision, because to do so is to ignore God Himself.

All of this lead up to news that Cardinal Cupich had decided to honor Senator Dick Durbin with a “lifetime achievement” award at an archdiocesan event in November 2025. Senator Durbin professes to be Catholic, however, he has spent decades advocating for abortion and other immoral and unchristian causes in Congress. He has been so persistent that his own bishop, Bishop Paprocki, has declared that he is not to receive the Eucharist until he repents. 

Bishop Paprocki and several other courageous bishops quickly spoke out about the decision, voicing dismay and concern over the confusion it would create due to Durbin’s well-known advocacy for abortion. One can only assume that many other bishops were concerned as well and used back channels to dissuade Cardinal Cupich from his ill-considered plan. Others were apparently ready to make a more public statement through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

Maybe you can see how a politically minded Cardinal could believe it appropriate to award an infamous abortion advocate with a lifetime achievement trophy. One could also see how this would only encourage other Catholic politicians to defy the Church and the Gospel on some things as long as they can point to something they champion which is consistent with Church teaching. To think this would not be continually used to silence faithful Catholics is to be unacceptably naive.

However, as I was writing this piece, there were two developments. First, Durbin informed the archdiocese that he declined the award. One has to wonder if this was an arranged declination which allowed the Cardinal to save face while removing a messy situation from the Senator’s plate as well. I have absolutely no evidence to back that up, but it seems plausible.

The second development was when Pope Leo XIV has briefly weighed in on the matter. The Pope’s words have instantly caused many a Catholic to re-label him as Francis II or as some sort of a 2.0 reformer. 

However, I think this is inappropriate. From what I have seen, Pope Leo said the following, off the cuff, which I break down sentence by sentence:

I am not terribly familiar with the particular case. 

Um… I think that it’s very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate. 

I understand the difficulty and the tensions. 

But I think, um, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teachings of the Church.

Someone who says I’m against abortion but says I’m in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life. 

So someone who says that, ah, I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro life.

So they are very complex issues.

I don’t know if anyone has all the truth on them.

But I would ask first and foremost that there be greater respect for one another and that we search together both as human beings and in that case as American citizens and citizens of the state of Illinois, as well as Catholics, to say that we need to really look closely at all of these ethical issues. 

And to find the way forward as a Church. 

The Church teaching on each one of those issues is very clear.

Looking at each sentence individually, which sentences are disagreeable? Of all of them, I think the one most subject to disagreement is the remark about the death penalty. However, I don’t think any faithful Catholic could disagree with whether or not immigrants should be treated humanely. In reality, Pope Leo is looking at a political issue through the lens of faith, which is how we are supposed to do it. 

As for capital punishment, this is truly a sticky moral issue for Christians. I once mentioned my personal disagreement with the death penalty only to find that one of my guests had a totally different opinion due to the murder of her own sister years ago. She now has to endure regular parole hearings in which her sister’s murderer explains why he should be set free. All the while, she worries that if he is paroled, her life and the lives of her family members will be in grave jeopardy. Once again, perspective matters. As Pope Leo points out, these are complex matters. 

Aside from that issue, Pope Leo’s statement should not cause any real concern for any Catholic. Some might criticize him for not saying something, but I don’t think that criticism is fair either. It was a question from a reporter while the Pope was on his way back to the Vatican, not a pastoral letter, an address, or a prepared statement. 

It should be pointed out that Senator Durbin should never be given lifetime achievement award by any Catholic individual or organization. To do so would intentionally or recklessly send the message that the Church approves of his work not because he was a faithful Catholic, but because he only advocated for the killing of some people. The mainstream media would characterize his career much like they characterized the riots in recent years, deeming them “mostly peaceful”.

In the end, maybe this is something which will lead to a better understanding of morals and ethics in the near future. Maybe this will end the distortion of Catholic moral and ethical teaching to denigrate and demean people who simply want to see an end to abortion. Hopefully there will be respect for one another as we discuss these things.