Resisting Throwaway Culture: How a Consistent Life Ethic Can Unite a Fractured People

by Charles Camosy

2020 Resource of the Year - Association of Catholic Publishers.
Winner of the 2020 Excellence in Publishing Award from the Association of Catholic Publishers (General Interest category).
This is a book about hope in the midst of a polarized culture. Camosy begins with a hopeful starting point in the midst of a crumbling US political two of every three Americans constitute an exhausted majority who reject right/left polarization and are open to alternative viewpoints. Especially at this time of realignment, we have been given a unique moment to put aside the frothy, angsty political debates and think harder about our deepest values. A Consistent Life Ethic, especially one which embraces Pope Francis' challenge to resist throwaway culture, has the capacity to unite people who for the last several decades imagined themselves in a polarized culture war. On issues ranging from hook-up culture, reproductive technology, abortion, euthanasia, poverty, immigration, treatment of animals, and mass incarceration, this book articulates a new moral vision in which a culture of encounter and hospitality replaces a consumer culture in which the most vulnerable get used and discarded as so much trash. At bottom, Camosy offers readers a golden opportunity to dialogue about what kinds of values should serve as the foundation for a new political culture.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Religion, Philosophy, Social Justice, Christianity

374 pages, Paperback

Published May 15, 2019

Reviews

[MyLan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Camosy unpacts a lot of the themes of Pope Francis' pontificate and writing and applies them to American life. He looks at the political and cultural implications, and does a wonderful job explaining why Catholics need to be consistent with their promotion of human dignity and life. He offers reflections on a number of different topics. I think the best part of this book is how he crosses political and cultural lines to build a vision for a better society. Yes, this book is for Catholics, but it's also an important read for anyone who wants to see a more just and peaceful world.

[SundaytoSaturday .com · Rating 4 out of 5]

SUMMARY: What would the world look like if Christians, and non-Christians, lived a life focused on a culture of hospitality and encounter? What if we rejected the pervasive consumerist culture that sees humans, especially the poor and the vulnerable, as commodities to be used? Professor of Medical Humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine Charles Camosy, building upon the Consistent Life Ethic (CLE) advocated for by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, provides a compelling framework and well-reasoned arguments for approaching sex, abortion, climate, non-humans, and violence among other polarizing subjects in Resisting Throwaway Culture.

The book devotes seven chapters to specific topics (sex practices, reproductive biotechnology, abortion, a duty to aid the poor and stranger, ecology and non-humans, euthanasia, and state-sponsored violence) where he follows a pattern of looking at the current situation of a vulnerable population subjected to violence then pivots to how to use the CLE to critique how the vulnerable are being treated before addressing several objections to the critique. For the sake of this review, we will focus on the CLE and its key tenets.

"The ethic is founded...upon the defense of the human person. She has sacredness as an individual, but her flourishing cannot be understood except in relation to others," Camosy writes. "The CLE reminds us of our duty to protect the lives of persons at all stages of development (from fertilization until natural death), as well as to give them aid and support."

From a Christian point of view, this is tied to the image of God. This is the belief that all people are created in the image of God and we are called to reflect Him in our interaction with His human and non-human creations. This vitally important distinction stands at odds with American culture that champions subjective truths or moral relativism.

"In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds, and the fur of endangered species?" Camosy asks.

Camposy's basic hypothesis is that violence is being brought upon vulnerable populations that are seen as disposable. A consumeristic mindset, fueled by freedom of choice and autonomy, results in a throwaway culture. America, writ large, treats people as a commodity that is to be used and then discarded. The seed of this insidious ideology begins in the words we use. When we use words such as "illegals," "a clump of cells," or "thugs", we are dehumanizing a fellow human being. We are not seeing the inherent dignity of a fellow image bearer.

"The CLE must call attention to language that reduces the dignity of marginalized populations to mere catchphrases," Camosy pens. "Otherwise we can objectify the vulnerable and allow ourselves to discard them at will—often at the service of consumerist culture, and often in the face of terrible violence."

This mentality justifies Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Texas governor Greg Abbott busing immigrants to Washington D.C., New York, and Chicago for political purposes. This leads to proponents of abortion advocating for the procedure at any stage of pregnancy. This leads to the United States having 20% of the world's incarcerated despite having 4% of the world's population.

Camosy argues that this consumerist mindset "has detached us so totally from encounter and connection" that "we aren’t inclined to think about how we are contributing to a culture in which people are used and thrown away." Simply put, "consumerism...enables throwaway culture."

"This culture fosters a mentality in which everything has a price, everything can be bought, everything is negotiable. This way of thinking has room only for a select few, while it discards all those who are unproductive. It reduces everything—including people—into mere things whose worth consists only in being bought, sold, or used, and which are then discarded when their market value has been exhausted."

For Americans, this calls into question the very water we swim in. "When we err on the side of autonomy and freedom of choice, we ignore the claims (and even the existence) of the vulnerable," Camosy says.

This manifests itself in 24% of the population struggling to put food on the table despite living in the richest country in the world. It is why gun deaths continue to rise and we do nothing to curb the epidemic.

To break this destructive cycle we need to create a culture of encounter and hospitality. We must get out of our houses and plug into our communities with authentic face-to-face interactions. We must to go the "peripheries of our familiar communities" and be the hands and feet of Jesus. It means getting uncomfortable. And sometimes it means having a conversation, just to have a conversation.

"Genuine encounter requires a posture of hospitality—and such encounters will be understood as good and fitting even if there seems to be no utilitarian reason for engaging."

Camposy does not gloss over that the fact that the CLE is a difficult, nuanced philosophy that is filled with tension. We live in a broken world, and yet we are called to work with God to bring heaven to earth. It goes against everything our society values. It should be filled with grace, mercy, love, and compassion -- and it should be done in community - especially with people that you disagree.

"A culture of encounter, characterized by mercy for those we are tempted to judge, means being in intellectual solidarity with those who hold different opinions than we do," Camosy pens. "It means listening first, presuming good will, and tolerating views that we find uncomfortable."

"Do it in dialogue with others, especially those who think differently. Steelman, don’t straw man, their point of view. Resist with all your might the urge to define yourself by opposition to the other. Lead with what you are for, not with what you are against, in the hopes of finding unifying common ground."

"Our relationship can be shaped by the violent, destructive consumerism a throwaway culture generates, or it can be shaped by a culture of encounter and mercy."

One final note, you may not fully agree with all the points of the consistent life ethic as Camosy lists it, especially for birth control, but the philosophy, at the very least, is intellectually challenging and should not be dismissed just because you might not agree with him.

KEY QUOTE: "The CLE can provide an antidote to the throwaway culture’s treatment of the poor and the stranger. Its vision demands more than not killing. It demands more than voting a certain way. It means each of us taking seriously the stories and realities of these Christ-bearers. It means cultivating a genuine encounter and allowing that encounter to transform us."

MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate topics for a disillusioned church.

[Jason K · Rating 2 out of 5]

I like the idea of this book, but I don't like the execution. What's good is that the book lays out how the Consistent Life Ethic can be applied to a number of contemporary issues after giving some background on it. Having been unfamiliar with the CLE I learned from and enjoyed the background material. I also like that he helpfully highlights various social and other consequences of technological and other changes (e.g., social consequences of birth control or our of our economic system and financial pursuits). His shining a light on these issues and asking us to think more seriously about them in light of our values and the CLE in particular is my favorite aspect of the book.

Things that I didn't like:

1. Camosy seems not to take women's agency seriously. He frequently talks of opinions and views being "coerced" or "shaped" without defining the terms. Whenever women (e.g., feminists) hold views contrary to his preferred views (e.g., on sex), he suggests they have been coerced. This is consistent with his Beyond the Abortion Wars book. His work would be a lot more interesting if he took others views at face value and had "genuine dialogue" and assumed others' "good will" has he recommends later for how to engage with others (p. 174).

2. He raises opposing views without doing them justice (i.e., providing reasons for them), and especially frustrating, he makes his case based on selective empirical evidence (e.g., he mentions cancer risks associated with certain methods of birth control while failing to mention the magnitude and while also failing to discuss protective effects against certain cancers). If he presented his opponents' best arguments and also presented their evidence, while being sufficiently careful with the presentation of his favored evidence, his argument would be stronger.

3. With respect to Ecology and Non-Human Animals, he suggests creating a "Culture of encounter of hospitality with non-human animals. Get to know the producers of meat and other products." It's not clear here if by "producers" he means the animals themselves or farmers, but it's hard to understand how "getting to know" and practicing "hospitality" can jibe with using and killing animals for food. But maybe the CLE doesn't view animals as valuable in themselves? If that's the case, the CLE ought to be extended.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Notes: I have also written a review of this book in the magazine Life Matters Journal. This review uses some material from that earlier piece, but is its own piece, mostly because of specifics of that publication’s audience (e.g., the audience consisting primarily of Consistent Life Ethic advocates, the group that publishes the magazine being officially secular).

This book came very highly recommended by several of my fellow supporters of the Consistent Life Ethic—a philosophy involving support for a wide array of “life” issues across traditional political lines, including opposition to abortion, the death penalty, nuclear weapons and most other forms of war, and many other types of violence. Many of the people who recommended the book to me know the author personally, though I do not. It started out very promisingly, and I found a lot to like about it. In particular, I wholeheartedly agree with Camosy’s contention that the CLE has great potential to unite people across particularly fraught political lines and create a peaceful culture that values all human beings. I think his explanation of the development of the CLE is excellent. I appreciate that he draws examples from a wide range of sources, everything from Catholic philosophers to popular culture, and cites data on societal trends from sources both conservative and liberal, secular and religious. The book does an excellent job of showing how the CLE handles a variety of contemporary issues, some commonly associated with the movement (e.g., abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia) and others that are less focused on, such as poverty and environmental issues (the environment chapter in particular is excellent). I learned a lot from the book, and picked up both some compelling new arguments and a sense of encouragement. Especially in today’s political climate, supporting the range of positions covered by the CLE can feel very lonely, as most people disagree with you—often very angrily — about something. So hearing someone defend it as passionately as Camosy does was heartening.

My main problem with the book, though, was that Camosy can’t seem to decide who his audience is. He’s a Catholic—as am I—the publisher is Christian, and the CLE was originally a Catholic philosophy. So in some ways it would make sense to expect a purely religious book, and Camosy does say in the introduction that he will focus on Catholic arguments and readers. However, his main thesis, that the CLE can unite not just Catholics or Christians but “people of good will” argues, at least to my way of thinking, for a much less explicitly religious focus, especially if he wants to introduce such people to the CLE’s ideas and try to use it as a way to heal societal divisions.

The book does include many elements that I think would appeal to non-Christian or non-religious people. The author’s examples of the issues caused by “thorwaway culture” draw from many aspects of culture with a wide appeal, everything from current events to popular films, music, and social trends. In fact, I think he draws on popular culture for examples much more than would really be necessary if he were writing primarily for a Catholic/Christian audience, as he sometimes gets sidetracked by cultural allusions and examples. . Also, as mentioned above, the range of news and other sources he cites for statistics is impressive for how much it’s not one-sided. And the his replies to potential objections included at the end of each chapter focus mostly on broader values, in a way that felt chosen specifically to appeal to readers who don’t share Camosy’s religious convictions.

However, when it comes to actually appealing to authorities to back up his philosophical points (even if he’s made them in a broadly appealing way that mentions humanity and dignity), Camosy nearly always uses the authority of the Church, citing Catholic Church documents and the writings of Church leaders, especially Pope Francis (As an aside, I know Pope Francis is more admired in secular society than any Pope in a long time, and I think he has done a lot of good, but I also have problems with many of his positions, particularly how he has handled the recent resurgence of sex abuse issues in the Church, so the almost unfailingly positive tone in which he is discussed rubbed me the wrong way). I think that by appealing so much to Catholic authority at the same time as he is, in other ways writing in a style that felt to me aimed more at readers outside the Church, Camosy is handicapping himself and his message. As a person who has worked with many non-Catholic or non-religious activists on many life issues, I was very mindful of how this balance of authorities might seem to those sorts of readers. I worry that this could be severely off-putting to readers who aren’t already in agreement with the Church, and make them not only put aside Camosy’s book, but also put aside the idea of the CLE, since it seems to be grounded so much in religion. I think Camosy’s ultimate stated goal of uniting a divided culture by means of the CLE, would have been better accomplished if he had included more non-Christian or secular authorities--be they philosophers, world leaders, or others. On the other hand, if the author knew he was going to rely so much on religious authority, it might have been better to focus the book even more explicitly on religious readers. I think introducing the book in a way that seems to invite a more diverse group of people but then not appealing to authorities that will speak to them is in many ways counterproductive, and I think it does both Camosy and the ideas he’s promoting a disservice. I think he could have written a wonderful book about the CLE aimed specifically at his fellow Christians, or, with more effort to find a variety of supporting arguments, could have written an excellent book for a general audience. The book as written felt confusing, because Camosy couldn’t seem to decide which sort of book he wanted to write, and so wrote a book that’s certainly good, but didn’t feel like a great fit for either audience.

I would still recommend Camosy’s book to those interested in learning more about the Consistent Life Ethic, as it’s a very thorough introduction grounded in contemporary issues. Non-Christian readers might struggle somewhat to look beyond the sheer number appeals to religious authority. My fellow Christians may struggle with some other aspects of the presentation given the foregrounding of religious authority. I believe the issues our culture faces today make both versions of the struggle still worth it. But I think a book which did not require that struggle to the same extent would have done more for the CLE as a movement and done Camosy even more credit than the current book—which is well-researched, thorough, and engagingly written—already does. So I think the book is a valuable resource but falls short in important ways from what it could have been.

[Mary]

Jan. 5, 2022
I agree with his overall thesis, but a lot of his details are sloppy. For example, I think most people would agree with him that cruel factory farm practices are wrong, but he doesn't address the issue of food insecurity and poverty. Factory farm practices result in inexpensive food -- that's why they exist. Abandoning the factory farm model means rising food prices. This isn't a defense of factory farms; this is just to say that (a) not everyone is financially stable/well-off enough to boycott factory farms, and (b) if factory farms are closed down, food price will rise, making it harder for people in poverty to afford enough food. Again, this isn't a defense of factory farms. I'm just saying that Camosy should have raised this point and addressed it. This is just an example -- there are lots of things like this in the book: logical holes, important points not addressed, also a lot of sentences that are really confusing to read.

[Jan Petrozzi · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is excellent. If one wants to truly “get with the program” regarding the dignity of life, reading this will be a great start. I love how Camosy is not single-focused and recognizes how many ways our culture and society dehumanizes people. He carries the point demonstrated by Jesus Christ and reiterated by Pope Francis that we must be right “in it” even with those who we are not normally comfortable interacting with so we can see Christ’s face in their faces.

[Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Charlie Camosy is a leader in advancing the Consistent Life Ethic as the way to be truly pro-life in our deeply polarized world today. A must read for all Catholics and anyone interested in the future of our collective home.

[sare · Rating 4 out of 5]

good introduction to the principles, not a great overview of any specific topic from a consistent life ethic perspective, but it's not trying to do that so. Would recommend for someone wanting to learn more about why their opposition to abortion shouldn't be accompanied by insane militarism or a love for incarceration culture etc

[Jenine Young · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gave me a great deal to think about and is worth a read.

[Davy Lait · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a delightful read! In this book, we have Charles Camosy introduces us to the CLE, or the Consistent Life Ethic, as a framework to approach modern social issues with catholic moral theology in mind. Personally, I have felt like I have always subscribed to something like the CLE, but I thank Camosy for putting a name to this frame of mind.

Essentially, the CLE holds many standards of approach, but the main summary is that it is morally wrong to radically reduce someone's dignity to some other end. Essentially, everyone is an image of God, especially the most vulnerable who are subjects and victims of what Camosy called our Throwaway culture.

Each chapter is quite repetitive, but that's only because Camosy has a methodical way of presenting contextual evidence of an issue or evidence supporting CLE's claim for every respective issue as well as raising possible objections and answering those objections with statistical evidence or thought experiments.

There were certainly many issues that I was familiar with, as with the chapter concerning Global Warming. However, most chapters were surprising as each chapter introduced social issues I never interacted with before reading this book. Indeed, there were many points where I learned new statistics and concepts.

Fittingly, what I also like is Camosy's constant warning against polarizing politics and how neither the left nor right succeed in representing all the concerns that the CLE states. Indeed, Camosy makes note of the rising polarization seen in the US. However, though CLE is a guidepost to show us "what" is right, he also repeats throughout the book that we also need our current "Throwaway" culture, which is conceptualized as a consumeristic, highly-individualistic and autonomous culture where the individual and his/her rights and pleasures have ultimate say over what is considered acceptable or unacceptable.

Camosy insists to complement CLE with a culture of hospitality and encounter, in which discourages the view of using people for a bigger end but to meet them where they are at, with open arms and with an ethic of compassion and hospitality.

Indeed, even though one is to be expected of holding firm of CLE, that does not mean closing your heart and attention towards those that think differently than yourself. We are encouraged to love, help and understand our enemies. What is this unconditional love we show our "enemies"?

I'll finish off by noting Camosy's final ethic, one proposed by Jesus, Panta hypoménei. In other words, a love that bears a positive attitude in every trial. A dogged and persistent form of love that doesn't give up. A love that meets everyone where they are at. A love that does not throw people away.