Talk:Consistent life ethic

Revision as of 30 April

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) Notable exponents include novelist Wendell Berry, the current Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso (the head of state of the Government in exile of Tibet and spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism), Roman Catholic actor Martin Sheen, and atheist Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff.

See also

• Personalism

External links

• 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 [1]
• Nonviolence International
• Fellowship of Reconciliation [2]
• 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)

Potential sources -- after the article is restored

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)

Religious Belief and Attitude Constraint TG Jelen - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1990 - JSTOR

Catholicism and Abortion Attitudes in the American States: A Contextual Analysis EA Cook, TG Jelen, C Wilcox - Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1993 - JSTOR

Assisted Death and Martyrdom DC Thomasma - Christian Bioethics, 1998 - Taylor & Francis

The Politics of the American Catholic Hierarchy TA Byrnes - Political Science Quarterly, 1993 - JSTOR

Building a Culture of Life: A Catholic Perspective JT McHugh - Christian Bioethics, 2001 - Taylor & Francis

http://www.consistent-life.org/ contains this info:

A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue (pdf) by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. The famous "Seamless Garment" speech.

The Nightmares of Choice by Rachel MacNair.

If Our Leaders Had Seen 9/11 as a Crime Against Humanity by Lowell O. Erdahl.

The failure of war by Wendell Berry.

The Dalai Lama's letter to the President of the United States of America regarding the events of September 11.

Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House statement on the 9-11 attacks

Achieving Peace in the Abortion War by Rachel MacNair.

U.S. Shouldn't Fight Violence With Violence by Stephen Zunes.

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)

'Ethical stance' needs rewording or removal

CLE has already been defined as an ideology, making the "ethical stance" section somewhat redundant. In any case, it is deeply POV. Perhaps Wikipedia requires a separate definition for "ethical stance", which could be linked here, but such a definition would certainly not include such an obviously POV sentence like "An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, God, and self". I propose to remove the section to the talk page until someone has time to figure out if there's a neutral way to present this material.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. I first added the "ideology" definition, because the CLE is self-evidently a "coherent system of ideas" and "a set of aims and ideas that directs one's goals, expectations, and actions" (WP); a "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group" (Random House); a "systematic set of ideas, doctrines" (Online Etymological Dictionary); and a "Form of social or political philosophy in which practical elements are as prominent as theoretical ones" (Britannica). Now I suppose it would be better if an outside source defined the CLE as an ideology. But it seems implicit in the definition, and uncontested. And in that case the ethical stance section, indeed, is redundant. Fishal (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I just removed it. Here it is, in case anyone wants to look at it.

===Ethical stance=== Specifically, the Consistent Ethic of Life (or CEL) is an ethical stance. An ethical stance is a coherent combination of value judgments about the world, God, and self. A stance is the focus for determining between right and wrong, and also a search for consistency between and among a range of judgments of value and oughtness. Like all stances, the consistent life ethic structures one's fundamental understanding of moral experience, serves as a critique of others' interpretations of moral reality, and becomes a source of ethical criteria to evaluate particular actions and social policies across a wide range of moral issues. The Consistent Ethic of Life is also analogical in character because it seeks to view issues that are not identical but have the same common characteristics. This analogical interpretation approaches the interpretation of moral experiences with an eye for possible similarities, refusing to see life as disparate and unconnected."
--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Jim Wallis

It was me who added Jim Wallis to the list of notable exponents but after some research I find it at least very arguable to consider him that way. First, the Consistent Life Ethic stands for the right to life from conception to death. From what I have read I didn't find any evidence that Jim Wallis believes that life should be protected by law since conception or what is his general stance in the Consistent Life Ethic philosophy. From what can be read in the Wikipedia article about him, he seems to support a sort of common ground between the pro-life and the pro-choice sides of the abortion question, but there is not a single reference if he believes that the current abortion law in the United States should be changed. That is one of the main Consistent Life Ethic objectives. In a Newsweek article from 2006 he states to believe in 'protecting unborn life in every possible way, but without criminalizing abortion.'" This is rather dubious and I don't think it qualifies him as an exponent of the Consistent Life Ethic.Mistico (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to analyze the situation on your own? Why not settle the matter with reliable sources and go with what they say? Michael McGough writes in the book A field guide to the culture wars: the battle over values from the campaign trail to the classroom, that "Jim Wallis of Sojourners advocates what he calls a 'consistent life ethic' that seeks a decline in abortion 'without criminalizing what is always a tragic choice and often a desperate one.'" (This is a quote from a 2007 Wallis article in Huffington Post.) The Encyclopedia of American religious history, Volume 3, associates Wallis with Sojourners and a consistent life ethic.

I imagine that you will find difficulty in locating reliable sources saying Wallis does not have a consistent life ethic. People attacking Wallis for his centrism are typically not reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have is own CLE, this is true, but my point is that it seems not to be exactly the same that is being promoted by the Catholic Church in the United States, which is the one that the article deals with.Mistico (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this article deals with any instance of "consistent life ethic", not a particular dogma promoted by a particular religion. One of the most consistent of the ethicists is Quaker, for instance: Rachel MacNair. Binksternet (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was started by a cardinal, Joseph Bernardin, and it is certainly non-denominational, but I think Jim Wallis own Consistent Life Ethic legitimates abortion while this present Consistent Life Ethic doesn't. We can't please everyone on controversial life issues and one of the main purposes of the Consistent Life Ethic is to overrule Roe Vs. Wade. Do you have any evidence that Jim Wallis supports that? I don't want to start a edit warrant. The Consistent Life Ethic official website lists other supporters, even Nobel Peace Prize winner, who I think are more suitable as "notable exponents" of this philosophy. Please remember that it was I who originally added Jim Wallis in the first place.Mistico (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you added Wallis in the first place has no bearing on whether he is suitable as a notable proponent of CLE. The article text says, "Notable exponents, according to the Consistent Life organization, include..." Our source is http://www.consistent-life.org/, which lists a bunch of people including Wallis. So the cite supports inclusion.

Your interpretation that CLE's main purpose is to overrule Roe v Wade is not supported the article or by references. I submit that CLE is a description of an attitude or philosophy rather than a recipe for political change. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One of their purposes is the protection from life since conception. I said one of the main purposes, not the main purpose. What that means? Please read more the article: "The consistent life ethic, or the consistent ethic of life, was a term coined in 1983 by Joseph Cardinal Bernardin to express an ethical, religious, and political ideology based on the premise that all human life was sacred and should be protected by law." I will email the Consistent Life Ethic for clarification of who they accept as members. I think the article also needs expansion about their stances on abortion and euthanasia, not only the death penalty. I don't think a person that supports the death penalty only for extreme cases can claim to be a member. A person to support it needs to be altogether anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia and anti-death penalty. If call for abolish the death penalty, ban euthanasia and legal abortion isn't the support for political changes I don't know what it is then. 81.193.27.46 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to think that your opinion is what shapes article content. I think that reliable sources shape the content. Wallis is said to hold a consistent life ethic by the cited source, consistent-life.org, and by two other sources, Michael McGough and the Encyclopedia of American religious history. After we see that to be true, it does not matter that Wallis holds more moderate opinions than hardliners. The article is big enough to contain the spectrum of consistent life ethics.

So let's stop trying to remove Wallis because he is moderate. If you care to dig deeper into the matter, you can add text about the position Wallis holds and how it differs from Bernardin. Such an effort, though, will have a Streisand effect, bringing more notice to Wallis who you apparently wish to hide from view. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, it is the respect for Consistent Life Ethic and what it stands for. I always taught Jim Wallis to be pro-life and that is why I added him. You seem to forget that my objections came from the fact that is own views seem to be distinct from other CLE proponents. I have nothing against Wallis and if you want and have material about it, you can help to improve the Wikipedia article about himself.Mistico (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this source that is usefull to explain Consistent Life Ethic philosophy and objectives [3].Mistico (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That source has nothing about Wallis, so it doesn't apply to our discussion. It's also a primary source, not the preferred WP:Secondary type. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

@Mistico: 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)

My point is that the CLE can't be supported by pro-abortion politicians but its often used to support them. Its not the same thing. This is still related to the content of the entry.Mistico (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mistico: 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)

J. Bryan Hehir

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 Mistico, 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)

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)

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)

References

Euthanasia

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)

References

Not political? Not religious?

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)

I agree with Binksternet 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)

If I edit the page with one of the following, will anyone participating in this talk find it unacceptable?

CLE is not an inherently religious or partisan ethic.

OR

Support of the CLE does not require adherence to a faith or political ideology. -- Notes: The point I am trying to make with my edits is that one may believe in the CLE for reasons that have nothing to do with politics or religion. And many people do. And this is supported by references already in the article.

Just because many practitioners of a religion believe in something, even if it is taught by their faith, doesn’t make it an inherently religious belief. Inherently religious beliefs might include things like “Lord Krishna is an incarnation of the god Vishnu”, or “Christian baptism is necessary to go to heaven”.

Example: Most faiths teach that those who have material means should help the poor. Many people who believe in helping the poor, and/or practice this belief, are religious. Does that mean it’s an inherently religious belief? If so, tell that to the atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, etc. who do it.

Binksternet stated on my talk page, “CLE is religious because many advocates believe in CLE for religious reasons.”. OK. I say “CLE is non-religious because many advocates believe in CLE for non-religious reasons.”

Politics is a little trickier. Certainly all the forms of violence that the CLE opposes have a legislative aspect. But opposition to them does not require a political orientation. One can believe in keeping euthanasia legal for extreme cases and have no interest in what political leaders or candidates think or do about it, but still might hate it and vow never to do it to themselves or a loved one, and they may even work to convince other people not to do it, or they may support the elderly and ill in ways that make it less likely they’d choose that act. War and the death penalty are harder because they are committed by governments, but believing that they are wrong is not an inherently political belief, and certainly there are ways to oppose them that do not involve voting or participating in government activities.

In the US, many CLE advocates are independents or apolitical.

The Wikipedia policy on primary sources does not forbid them: “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Therefore, it may be used under the stated conditions. The fact that two organizations whose core mission is promoting and defining the CLE state that their adherents include non-religious individuals/groups, and that these groups are welcome, would seem to make it a statement of fact.

Regarding the Rehumanize page, FAQ #4 does addresses the religion question.

I paste here some dialog on my talk page and on the revision history for this article that might be relevant…

Binksternet wrote on my talk page:

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Consistent life ethic. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

My response on my talk page: This is not a personal point of view or personal analysis. Not only do the refs I added document it, but the majority of the second paragraph of the "Other Supporters" section is already devoted to listing secular organizations that support the consistent life ethic.

Binksternet soon afterward wrote the following comment when undoing my edit:

• • • contemptible nonsense false pretentious*** stance. [emphasis added] Everything is political about this topic, and much is religious.

My response on my talk page:

If "everything" about the consistent life ethic (CLE) is political, then exactly what political parties in the US, or anywhere, advocate the CLE? Certainly no major ones. There actually is a minor one that does, the American Solidarity Party, but they are too new and small to possibly be seen as the root of the ethic. And what religion does? Catholicism comes close but official Catholic Church teaching, as it currently stands, is seen by many CLE advocates as falling short on war and the death penalty. The Mennonite denomination supports the CLE pretty comprehensively, but again is not large or influential enough that it can reasonably be seen as the driving force behind most CLE advocacy.

Binksternet replied:

It doesn't matter one whit whether a political party advocates CLE or not – that doesn't stop it from being political. CLE is political because it addresses legislation, and legislation is political. CLE is religious because many advocates believe in CLE for religious reasons.

My response to this last statement is above.

My comment on the above discussion:

I question whether the motives of Binksternet in continuing the edit war that took place are pure. When one calls someone’s very simple edit a “contemptible nonsense false pretentious stance” and “ridiculous”, one either loves drama or has some personal, emotional reason for destroying others’ additions. Is either of these reasons in the spirit of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.15.18 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Confusing and weird template?

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)

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, Anupam^Talk 15:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

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: [4]Mistico (talk) 02:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

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)

(edit conflict) I agree the {{Christian democracy sidebar}} 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)

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)

• No comment on the sidebar issue, but I concur that Bernardin should not be the lead image. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of the sidebar. Agree Bernardin image should not be in the lede. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Prominent authors

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)

@Contaldo80: 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)

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)

Pro-life issues

Anupam 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)

Ratzinger "unworthy... communion"

LongIslandThomist914 and I have been butting heads over a summary of Ratzinger's position statement from 2004.[5]

My first problem with the material is that Ratzinger did not exert much pressure against believers in the consistent life ethic, never trying to stop them. The emphasis on the 2004 statement[6] is given too much WP:WEIGHT relative to its importance.

The second problem is that the source is largely primary, repeating Ratzinger's message verbatim. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources describing how the issue meets reality. We need a third party observer telling us how Ratzinger's message was received.

The third problem is that Ratzinger changed his position on capital punishment. In 2004 he was tolerant of it, but in 2011 he called for abolishing the death penalty.[7] The current pope's position is similar, wishing to end the death penalty. So, again, there is too much weight given to Ratzinger's 2004 stance.

The fourth problem is that there are no cases – zero – of voters who were denied communion after voting for a politician who supported free access to abortion. LongIslandThomist914's version of the article is suspiciously in line with an attempt to influence upcoming U.S. elections, by telling voters they will rot in hell if they don't vote a certain way. To me, this looks like a violation of how Wikipedia should not be used for political activism. LongIslandThomist914's version must be removed. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MULTIPLE.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The above objections are easily disposed of. As to the editor's first problem with LongIslandThomist's rock solid edit, there was very little reason for Ratzinger or anyone else in the Catholic hierarchy to "exert much pressure against" or "try to stop" believers in the consistent life ethic. CLE advocates in the Catholic Church, are very much anti-abortion. For an institution that has an enormous problem with nominal Catholics who openly support abortion rights, it would make little sense for it to spend a vast amount time and effort cracking down on CLE. That doesn't mean the distinction between the Church's official position and CLE shouldn't be noted. As to the second problem, there are many good sources that covered Ratzinger's 2004 statement on denying communion to openly pro-abortion rights political candidates. I would actually prefer a different source than the more-Catholic-than-the-Pope EWTN, but finding more neutral sources is not a problem. There have been, of course, well publicized cases where such candidates were indeed denied communion. As to the third problem, though Ratzinger's position on the death penalty may very well have evolved, and though the present Pope may be even more sympathetic toward abolishing the death penalty than Ratzinger, has the church's official position on denying communion to those who openly support abortion rights changed? The answer, I'm rather sure, is NO. Of course, if the Church somewhere along the line changes that position, perhaps starts denying communion to politicians who support capital punishment, then we can make note of that in the article. As to the fourth problem, about ordinary voters never being denied communion after voting for a pro-abortion rights candidate, the Church rather shrewdly set a condition on denial that was impossible to follow. For it isn't just voting for a pro-choice candidate that would get one in trouble (already precluded because of the secret ballot} but voting for that candidate specifically because of their stand on abortion (an extra safeguard if needed). So unless a church-going Catholic who deliberately supported abortion rights by his vote is an utter blabbermouth, they still get the wine and wafer. Finally, politics are indeed involved here, but the far more blatant exercise of political will here is by the editor who ended their last edit above with the words "LongIslandThomist914's version must be removed". FBPlunger (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"Pro-life" in quotes

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)

@Elizium23: 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 Jones argued that Foo was a life-ethic issue, rather than Jones argued that Foo was a "pro-life" issue? Cheers, gnu57 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

NonReproBlue, 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)

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)

Binksternet, 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)

Removal of ethicists

Per @Avatar317:'s removals, I am not sure whether the user is trying to justify their removal based on the notion that those quoted must somehow be political activists/leaders. Per the speaker's qualifications to speak on CLE, Charles Camosy (who looks like a different person in every year's photo it seems, but other refs line up) has his positions easily found -- he's a mainstream subject matter expert. Gloria Purivis is the Pastoral Fellow for the University of Notre Dame's Office of Life and Human Dignity (NDOLHD) at the McGrath Institute for Church Life (I don't know how meaningful this position is, if at all, but she is also a regular public commentator on Catholic issues in mainstream media).

I'm not sure exactly what your expectation of prestige is when you're looking at a specific ideological subset of ethics, as there's not going to be a Peter Singer-tier figure representing every nuance of view. Long-form articles like those cited are about as good as you get for this purpose (peer-reviewed articles in philosophy only go so far in scope, and nonfiction/scholarly books have very limited (if any) formal review) I certainly think that modern ethicists' articles are far more appropriate to an article about a take on ethics than the views of some political activist groups. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean that persons cited here must be political activists; sorry if that came across in the short space of edit summaries. What I am trying to say is that any person on the street can claim to believe the CLE ethic, just like lots of people in Italy self-identify as Catholic; yet with Italy having one of the lowest birth rates in the EU, it is clear that many are cafeteria-Catholics in regards to birth control and that the person on the street identifying as Catholic is not a reasonable interview candidate for the position/ethics of the Catholic church.

I am saying that we need sources to say that Camosy and/or Purvis are KNOWN as experts *who can speak on this ethic*. The Mother Jones source listed ...Herb Geraghty, the president of the Pittsburgh-based group Rehumanize International, was the only one who agreed to an interview. Unlike many other anti-abortion organizations, Rehumanize is a secular group, and it promotes what it refers to as a “consistent life ethic,” advocating against the death penalty and gun violence as well as abortion. - Do we have any sources stating something similar about Camosy and Purvis? If we do than yes, we can include a reasonable summary of their assessment of the CLE view on various topics. But we should be using Independent Sources WP:IS to establish this reputation, since Catholic sources are (in my opinion) a propagandistic source promoting their own view, and publicising content that the mainsteam world may not care about. If these persons are ONLY cited in Catholic media, than their opinions should be stated as being a Catholic-based version of CLE. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

They are professional academic ethicists (Camosy more so than Purvis -- I again don't know what the precise nature of her Notre Dame position is, but based on her other qualifications and the general noncontroversial claims I'm not too concerned) who are speaking about CLE, explicitly. It doesn't matter whether or not they are Catholic (they both are) or whether they personally believe in abortion (they both do) -- for the purposes of including their quotations the initial criterion is sufficient. I don't see what your notion of WP:IS is -- what independent sources are you expecting to establish that "Professor of physics X" is reputable on quantum physics specifically or qualified to speak on some kind of physics when their appointment from a major institution is in that field and they wrote something on it. Do you want me to dig up a newspaper article entitled "The NYT annual list of experts on CLE specifically, part of our series on satisfy hyper-literal interpretations of WP guidelines"? Whether it's due or not depends on context. In this context, CLE, in which big-name philosophers and ethicists aren't weighing in, we settle for the C-team.

When they talk about how CLE applies to Christianity and Christian ethics specifically, it's no surprise that Catholic media (among others -- Desert is secular btw, even if owned by LDS) pick them up. Catholic academia also has a lot of press that will cover this kind of thing, and in case you haven't noticed, these people are affiliated with Catholic institutions, which makes that coverage more likely. If you think this is some kind of propaganda, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe read the articles in question if you're worried? If you think Catholic sources in general should be deprecated that's a question for WP:RSN. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

So part of the point here is WHAT they are being used to say: both of these people not only are (maybe) scholars in this area, but the quotes in the disputed edit are using them to state their own PERSONAL OPINIONS, which happen to be FOR this ethic. If we were to use a (qualified) scholar to say "CLE advocates tend to desire that the government provide enough health/economic/day -care for a woman such that she need not choose an abortion", that would be acceptable.

But the text in the disputed edit is using these people as promotional figures of this ethic (with large pro-CLE quotes), not objective describers of it. And that gets to my point about Independent Sources. Someone who believes in this ethic and promotes it is NOT an Independent person who can describe it. (to note, scientists are rigorously taught to make objective observations, and journalists also; this is clearly not happening with these two)

This is exactly what I mean about Catholic sources; it depends on what the source is being used for. Deprecating Catholic sources in general; no, deprecating them for use describing positions supported by the Catholic church, yes.

Note this source [8] which includes statements on both sides of the pro-life-feminists idea. You'll get no opposing view from a proponent of CLE giving their quote, nor will you get that from Catholic media's portrayal of any issue they take a side on. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

So an ethicist can't state their opinions on ethics as an RS? Lots of ethicists may believe or disbelieve a philosophy they might describe -- your notion that someone like Singer (to take an A-team example) can't reliably describe his own ethics is absurd. This isn't science, and if it were you'd be arguing that a theoretical physicists can't reliably describe a theory of their own creation. I'll agree that the quotations used in this particular case in the article are argumentative. Better ones are possible, even in the same source. But you're arguing that the authors are disqualified wholesale. Also, you still seem to be confusing this for some kind of political/social movement: "CLE advocates tend to desire ...". If ethicists are talking about a "consistent life ethic", they're not talking about it in that way.

Your notion that Catholic sources are deprecated for "describing positions supported by the Catholic church" must be taken to WP:RSN. It is an extremist position that is irrelevant to the substance of this article and will disrupt editing until it's resolved. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This article's topic is not mentioned at all in the source offered up by SamuelRiv. When the source doesn't mention the topic, you are usually looking at a violation of WP:SYNTH. I don't see how the thoughts of Camosy or Purvis are relevant when they aren't making a direct and explicit correlation to this topic. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Camosy is talking about it directly in the second ref -- it's literally in the title. The first citation I agree should probably go. As for Purvis, the proper ref was in a set of two citations that were part of a set of large removals from Avatar317. I'm not opposed to hacking up the article, as I was doing so already, but there's clearly been some slop.

The conversation has not moved past the issue of whether ethicists commenting on their own ethics is reliable, or Catholic sources publishing people commenting on Catholic ethics. I noted that question is more properly raised somewhere like RSN than here, where as the literature is sparse it's more just a matter of making do with as well-credentialed people as possible who write on the topic. The conversation also seems to be stalled as to whether this is primarily a political movement or a philosophy. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The way I have attemped to explain sourcing here is that there is no default for how a source should be treated; it depends on what the source is being used for, like opinion articles: they are RS's for the opinion of the author, not for facts WP:OPINION.

I see from your user page that you are an inclusionist; I'm likely the opposite, and disagree with your statement "where as the literature is sparse it's more just a matter of making do with as well-credentialed people as possible who write on the topic." I feel that some topics simply don't deserve any coverage, because they are so non-popular (fringish -not meant derogatorially) that giving them ANY coverage is UNDUE coverage compared to mainstream topics. This topic (CLE) is clearly notable, but on the border, as it seems that likely at least 10-100x as many people subscribe to the Anti-Abortion-and-Pro-Capital-Punishment "ethic", but since there is no name for the "AA-PCP" ethic, it has no article at all, which results in WP:FALSEBALANCE in the encyclopedia, which should be minimized. This is why I support the Independent Sources policy as I stated above.

For background, none of my removals are of longstanding content: this text we are discussing was part of a HUGE (7k) addition [9] of similarly poorly-sourced, SYTH text that was added by a brand new editor; I considered reverting the entire edit, but felt that some sources might be useable, and tried to pick through what was added, which is where my removals came from. And I think more of that addition needs to be removed/restated to source.

Lastly, this Chamosy source [10] is his opinion and in my opinion is propaganda/WP:PROMOTIONAL or WP:SOAPBOX as he says himself: "A central part of my vocation as a Catholic moral theologian is thinking about and **making the case for a Consistent Life Ethic (CLE).**" We need INDEPENENT sources which offer an OBJECTIVE view of this ethic, as I said above in my scientist comment.

Neither Chamosy or Purvis are objective, and unless they are mentioned in an objective source primarily discussing CLE (which would balance their opinions with opposing views) their opinions don't belong in Wikipedia, per WP:IS. ---Avatar317^(talk) 05:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Consistent life ethic isn't official Roman Catholic doctrine

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)

"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)

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)

Animal and environmental rights

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)

James Martin is arguably pro-life

I don't think James Martin qualifies as really pro-life on abortion. He is at best a moral relativist on the matter, not in accordance with the consistent life ethic. This is what he posted on X (former Twitter) on the overruling of Roe vs. Wade: "This is no surprise, given the leaked SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade. Also, though I am pro life, for some of my close friends this decision is an outrage (sic). Thus, the heavy coverage. But I've noticed that there have been, at least in the hours I've listened, no pro life voices..."[11]Mistico Dois (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole section listing authors is questionable because the cited sources are primary, not WP:SECONDARY. I'm removing Martin because you have challenged the listing of him, and because you did not contradict a secondary source. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)