Talk:Consistent life ethic

message: Seeing as a lot of this content has been lost and I think it could be useful if sourced I'm reproducing it on the talk page here;
The Consistent Life Ethic is an ethical, religious, and political ideology with the basic premise that "all human life is sacred", and that this calls for "a coherent social policy which seeks to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, the unborn, the infirm, the refugee, the homeless, and the poor." Advocates of the Consistent Life Ethic are consequently opposed to abortion, capital punishment, economic injustice, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and unjust war; there are some who hold that the Consistent Life Ethic opposes all war.
In the United States, one of the pioneering organizations which developed the "consistent" approach was the Prolifers for Survival, founded by Juli Loesch Wiley.  Today the ethic is promoted by an umbrella organization called Consistent Life which includes about 400 anti-war, pro-life, nonviolence, Christian, Buddhist, and other organizations. The current movement's formal organization began in 1987, with the creation of the Seamless Garment Network.  In November of 2002, the Seamless Garment Network changed its name to Consistent Life. Most of its support initially came from religiously conservative, politically liberal Catholics, including the late Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, but that has broadened to include people with many religious affiliations as well as atheists.  Member groups include such major alternative pro-life groups as Feminists for Life of America and Democrats for Life of America.
The movement is difficult to define in terms of the political spectrum, since those who subscribe to the ethic are often at odds with both the right wing over capital punishment, war, and economic issues, as well as the left wing over abortion, embryo-destructive research, and euthanasia.
Others who would fit into the Consistent Life Ethic would be anti-war, anti-abortion conservatives/libertarians such as Ron Paul,  Andrew Napolitano, Laurence M. Vance, ect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifenik (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Categories were removed so as not to show up on Talk page.) HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision as of 30 April 

message: * United States Institute of Peace
* The Peace Alliance Campaign for a US Department of Peace
* International People's Initiative for Departments of Peace
* International Coalition for the Decade of a Culture of Peace and Nonviolence 
* Nonviolence International
* Fellowship of Reconciliation 
*Consistent Life
*The Seamless Garment site
*Another Seamless Garment site
*The Consistent Life net ring
*No Violence Period (article collection)
* Common Ground on Abortion
*Catholic, Ecumenical
*Consistent Life Ethics Discussion Forum
: (Categories were removed so as not to show up on Talk page.) HG 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: After the article is restored, as it should be, we may want to use or include some of the following sources.
HG 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently reading God's Politics by Jim Wallis, which has a few chapters devoted to consistent life.  I hope to add some material sourced to Wallis as I go.  Fishal 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources -- after the article is restored 

message: I think that the main criticism, often done by social conservatives, that the CLE provides cover for pro-abortion politicians in itself its not totally correct. A politician only can support the CLE if he or she is pro-life on abortion. In fact, there arent many CLE supporters in American politicians, if you take a look at their official list endorsers, being the most notable example Sargent Shriver. In fact, the main criticism is that it provides cover to support pro-abortion politicians, considering that anti-abortion legislation can be seen this way as less relevant than other legislation to protect human life after birth. There are several cases that can be presented for the usage of the CLE for support of pro-abortion politicians, like when Andrew Greeley supported and donated for pro-abortion politicians, even for Barack Obama, in 2008, or when the National Catholic Reporter, a dissident pro-life Catholic newspaper, endorses regularly these kind of politicians. Other criticism is that some of the CLE endorsers stances on abortion are at least dubious, like it can be noticed by the presence of Joan Chittister and actor Martin Sheen at their list.Mistico (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather confused by your comment. At first, you seem to be arguing that the critique isn't valid, then you seem to be arguing that it is. In either case, this talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article, not the relative merits of CLE or its critics. Am I misunderstanding you? Daask (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I understand now. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. I'll keep this in mind in future edits to this article. Daask (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Charles Curran credits J. Bryan Hehir, staff writer for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on political affairs with coining the term "consistent ethic of life" I have added this fact to the article and been reverted twice by , on the basis that Curran is pro-abortion. It is not apparent to me that this has bearing on his credibility in this matter.
The claim seems highly probably to me, given that he is crediting a largely unknown figure, instead of the well-known Bernardin. Usually mistaken attributions work the other way around. Furthermore, I see no really good source which claims that Bernardin himself coined the term. I cited one source, but it's on a largely unrelated topic. Finally, Curran seems like a good source for insider information on Catholic advocacy and thought in this era. I am not aware of him having a strong opinion for or against CLE as such, and don't see why he would be biased on its history.
What am I missing? Daask (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advice a better source than Charles Curran about what he claims. He doesnt seem to be a very RS. He is a notorius dissident and has written on topics like his support for abortion rights based in incorrect facts, like the alleged support for abortion in the first centuries of Christianity, which its totally untrue. I think I will email the Consistent Life Network about the origin of this naming. Mistico (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: While I make no claims about Curran's writings on church history before the 20th century or his moral views, I continue to believe he is a good source in this case and would like to restore this section. What do others think? Daask (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. Bryan Hehir 

message: The article still misses the stance and the important activism that the CLE has done against euthanasia and assisted suicide. I will do my best to add this to the article.Mistico (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Euthanasia

message: Someone using IP addresses from the Poconos has been adding text saying that consistent life ethic "is neither a religious nor a political concept" which is supported by some sort of user-uploaded PDF that I can't open, a FAQ page from rehumanizeintl.org, and the main page of consistentlifenetwork.org. These are all primary sources, whereas Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. The Rehumanize FAQ page does not contain the word political and its variations, and it does not contain the word religious and its variations, so I'm flummoxed as to how our friend from the Poconos can see it supporting the desired statement. On the other hand, the Consistent Life Network page says explicitly that they are political, as they "seek... all the political and structural changes that this will bring about."
The non-political/non-religious statement is ridiculous on its face. Everything about CLE is political and much is religious. If one takes a position on government-sponsored capital punishment then that's a political position with possible religious underpinnings. If one takes a position on the legality of abortion then that is of course a political position, and the issue often has a religious basis.
So my stance is that we are not hosting any such statement as is wished by the Poconos oontributor. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  on all points. I can open the PDF, and it describes the Consistent Life Network organization, not the Consistent life ethic as such. Daask (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

text: You spend a lot of time here talking about what I said that made you mad, but you have not pointed to reliable sources to support your position, no independent secondary sources to back up your stance. I already pointed out that the Consistent Life Network page says explicitly that they are political, even though this was used by you as a reference to say that CLE does not have to be political. What you will need to do is find solid sources for the text you wish to insert. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

text: It made me "mad"?  Am I the one who called someone's edit "contemptible nonsense false pretentious"?  
Please explain what is "unreliable" about my sources. Just because they are "user-uploaded documents" does not mean they are not published as part of Web sites.  I have already addressed the primary/secondary source issue.
Consistent Life Network's Web site refers to seeking political change--among other types of change.  That does not make the organization inherently political, and even if it did, it doesn't make the ethic inherently political.  I explain all of this above.  But anyway ... In my latest edit, I did not use the word political, but rather partisan.  It makes sense that that the things the CLE opposes are all tied up in some way with politics, but as discussed above, there are no major, long-standing political parties that support it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.15.18 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not political? Not religious? 

message: I don't understand why the Christian democracy template is on this page? Christian democracy is an essentially conservative political movement most prominent in Western Europe (Italy, Germany, Austria) after the Second World War. It is a specific thing. The theory in this article has no connection whatsoever to that political movement. 
This is a specifically 1980s American idea, from the Archdiocese of Chicago, where Bernardin was attempting to ingratiate himself to the socially liberal Democratic Party which runs Chicago by downgrading the abortion issue to just one among many other issues, including anti-capital punishment (traditionally supported by the Church) and support for "refugees"/immigration (Church has historically gone either way on this one). 
Also, this article should be located at "Seamless Garment" since that is the most prominent name. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Some Christian Democratic political parties, such as the American Solidarity Party, advocate a consistent life ethic as part of Christian Democracy political ideology. Based on this information, User:Binksternet's restoration of the template makes perfect sense. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The American Solidarity Party are quite an obscure grouping and only recently founded though (2011). This theory is much older than them (late 1970s) and most of the proponents are fellow travelers of the mainstream Democratic Party. What other Christian democracy groups are associated with this theory other than the ASP? The main aim of this theory is to shoehorn American Catholics with liberal tendencies into supporting the US Democratic Party despite their leaderships support for abortion, rather than anything to do with the (mainly European) Christian democracy ideology covered by the template. The introduction of the below template to the article would appear to be more relevant, since this is a US-specific thing. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that the Consistent life ethic is used to downplay the abortion issue has been around since it was created but in fact it can be interpreted as being rooted in the Catholic Church "culture of life". Very strong pro-life activists like Frank Pavone and Abby Johnson are their endorsers. But its true that it can be used to minimize the abortion issue and often covers for support for pro-abortion politicians, like the liberal National Catholic Reporter continuous endorsement of them proves it. There are those who refuse these claims, like Charles Camosy, in this article: Mistico (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I disagree with your use of the word "theory" tacked onto "seamless garment". I disagree with your assertion that Bernardin originated the idea. I disagree with putting a photo of Bernardin at the top. I disagree with your caption that makes abortion the raison d'être of CLE. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the  template is a better choice for the lede section, the image of Bernardin can be used in that section.  - FlightTime (open channel) 16:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I have protected the article for 24 hours due to the slow-burning edit warring on this article (and not just from you) - please try and come to an agreement here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the inclusion of the sidebar. Agree Bernardin image should not be in the lede. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing and weird template? 

message: The sentence reads "Other prominent authors who have written in support of the consistent life ethic include Frank Pavone, James Martin, John Dear, Ron Sider Tony Campolo, Joel Hunter, Wendell Berry, and Shane Claiborne." The majority of these are ordained priests and pastors. Somewhat misleading to present them under the neutral term of "prominent author". They are paid clergy. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That list is certainly full of seminary graduates. While I am not familiar with with Frank Pavone, I think the rest of them are known primarily as authors and speakers, rather than as leaders of religious congregations. I speculate that their income is also largely derived from book sales and speaking tours, except for Ron Sider, who is a professor. How would you prefer to characterize them? Daask (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the simplest thing would be to preface their names with their clerical titles so it is transparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent authors

message: recently added "pro-life issues" as an alternate title for this article. I reverted the edit for now, but I'm not sure how best to handle this. This article currently presents CLE as if it were a coherent philosophy which includes positions on specific public policy issues. It is fairly obvious that it is also a rhetorical strategy to persuade those who affirm a pro-life position to also support other policies which they might not otherwise consider to be related. An article titled "pro-life issues" would be about precisely that rhetorical strategy. However, CLE is not just that strategy; it is also an ideology. Furthermore, CLE has also worked in the opposite direction: it has drawn in pacifists to support a pro-life position who might not otherwise have been drawn to it. Should we write a new "pro-life issues" article? Am I wrong that CLE has ever been a coherent philosophical framework? Daask (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life issues 

message: We have consistently agreed on using quotes around "pro-life" and "pro-choice" where they appear in prose and they cannot be accurately changed to "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion rights", respectively. Because the article titles have been changed and the need to remain neutral on this, the quotes are the best way to show this is not Wikipedia's voice using those terms. Elizium23 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree entirely that it is framing language to use "pro-life" narrowly as a synonym for "anti-abortion", I think that sources related to the CLE often use "pro-life" in a broader sense of "in line with CLE". For instance, someone stating that "police brutality is a pro-life issue" is not saying specifically that "police brutality is an anti-abortion issue". Would you accept (where possible) using alternate wording such as , rather than ? Cheers, gnu57 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "life-ethic issue" is indeed preferable to using "pro-life" in Wikipedia's voice, but this brings up another thing. When the quotes in question do not mention "life-ethic issue" or "Consistent life ethic", it seem to me that inclusion of these examples might constitute original research, could it not? Personally I would prefer to see them removed or replaced with examples that actually specifically mention "Consistent life ethic" (Such as the James Hedges source which directly mentions it). For instance, the fact that one of the statements begins "While not directly appealing to the consistent life ethic" means that whatever follows probably doesn't belong on this page, since none of the cited sources mention "Consistent life ethic" at all. Personally I think that the parts about Caitlin Sica, Chris Christie, Leonardo Blair, and James Martin should all be removed as original research unless alternative sources that actually mention "Consistent life ethic" can be found. I cannot see how they are anything but original research otherwise. NonReproBlue (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I agree; if it's become a WP:COATRACK then the sources need to be vetted and the text pared down to that which is relevant. Elizium23 (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

text: This is the one article in which pro-life truly means "in favor of life, against death". I think we can relax the anti-abortion practices and constraints here, to allow CLE issues to be described as pro-life, without quotes. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , it's still just framing. Framing that doesn't know how many things it can be in favor of. Many of the things included in so-called "Consistent Life Ethic" are not even life issues. It's an attempt to subvert the "pro-life" label for something it wasn't intended for. Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-life" in quotes 

message: I think the entry needs to clarify that the concept of a consistent life ethic isn't by any means official Roman Catholic doctrine, which is the culture of life, but an American version of it, created and developed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, in the United States. I will do my best to clarify that part of the entry. The concept is rarely used outside of the United States and most of their endorsers are from there. Other things, the concept really seems to point to the values of social justice and is mostly connected with left-leaning and progressive policies, and as such tends to be supported by the most progressive members of the American episcopate. As such it really tends to minimize the pro-life stance on abortion by allowing to vote for people with the pro-choice stance, even with extreme tendencies, on behalf of the social justice values. It seems that a large number of the members of the American episcopate doesn't use or have rejected this concept, preferring instead the culture of life.Mistico Dois (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "the values of social justice" Social justice with an emphasis of social mobility, or some type of liberation theology? Dimadick (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant social justice in the more generic sense, liberation theology has a more Marxist inspired conotation, it does exist in the United States but not with the same impact as in Latin America.Mistico Dois (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent life ethic isn't official Roman Catholic doctrine

message: I would like to see some discussion as to why animal and environmental rights aren't part of this ethic. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal and environmental rights