By Rev. John Trigilio, Phd, ThD
(from a Facebook post, 9/30/25)
Before he was Pope Benedict XVI, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). He wrote a letter to the American Bishops (USCCB) in 2004 in which he stated:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. … There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
The ‘seamless garment’ argument, however, attempts to give equal weight to several moral issues, some of which are intrinsically evil by nature and some of which can be morally wrong based on the context.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that “the object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts” (#1750).
An unjust aggressor, be it an individual, a terrorist group, or a nation, can forfeit their right to life if there are no other means to protect the lives of innocent persons. “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing” (#2263)
While the English translation of the Catechism defines capital punishment as ‘inadmissible’ (#2267), the Latin typical text says ‘non posse admitti quippe’, which is not the same as intrinsece malus (intrinsically evil) as used in describing the sin of rape (#2356). Therefore, the death penalty is not the same level as abortion or rape which have innocent victims. As the Ratzinger letter said, there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Similarly, immigration abuse is another issue where the gravity depends on the context and circumstances. “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin … Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions.” (#2241)
Deliberate inhumane treatment of immigrants would be gravely wrong, of course, but the prudential judgments of particular immigration laws, policies, and procedures can be of legitimate debate and discussion.
Consequently, there is a hierarchy of moral values and of immoral evils. Direct and deliberate attacks on innocent human life are of paramount importance. The American Bishops said as much in their 2023 pastoral letter “Faithful Citizenship” (#64): “Abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all others.”
Formal and material cooperation in evil by supporting abortion is a paramount moral wrong, even though there can be other examples of potential threats to human life that are not of the same level of gravity.
