"Cooperation with Evil", Part III

(Boy, I had to go and start this blog in one of the busiest times of year, didn't I?)

Anyway... we've explored the following, so far:

1) Faith, Hope and Love are acts of the will, not feelings. Feelings are good, but they can't "steer" your life. Thus, making decisions based on your feelings is--well--not smart.

2) An evil effect can never be intended, and can only be tolerated under strict conditions (the intended act is good or neutral, the evil effect is not intended, the good effect is not caused by the evil effect, and the need for the good effect is grave enough to justify tolerance of the evil effect). For example: fatally shooting an intruder is justified if your intent is to protect yourself and/or your family; fatally shooting him/her is not justified if your intent is to have a dead intruder at the end of the scene.

So, we get to some of the more sticky points--not the least of which is, "Can a Catholic justifiably vote for an unapologetically abortion-tolerant candidate (such as Barack Obama)?" Let's sweep up some loose ends, first:

The Catholic Church recognizes some very clear distinctions, when talking about evil and sin (some of these are just FYI, and don't directly feed into the main point--hey, I have to have a *little* fun! :) )...

• "intrinsic" evil: evil regardless of the circumstances (e.g. abortion, contraception, torture, etc.)


• "relatively" evil: evil in some circumstances, but not in others (e.g. breaking a window [perhaps to escape a fire], taking a loaf of bread from someone else's house [perhaps if you and/or your family are starving], etc.)

• "grave" evil: seriously evil (a necessary component of mortal sin) (e.g. stealing a large sum of money, adultery, murder, etc.


• "non-grave" evil: lesser evil (i.e. not involving a serious matter)(e.g. stealing a small sum of money, typical rudeness, etc.)

(Note: the Church has the Christ-given authority and responsibility to discern grave matter from lesser matter.)

• "mortal" sin: a sufficiently free and informed choice to engage in an act (or omission) that is gravely evil


• "venial" sin: a sufficiently free and informed choice to engage in an act (or omission) that is evil, but not gravely so--or, possibly, engaging in a gravely evil act (or omission) with insufficient knowledge or freedom

• formal cooperation with evil: both enabling an evil act (through action/omission) and willing that act (e.g. voting for an abortion-tolerant politician because of his/her abortion stance)


• informal cooperation with evil: enabling an evil act (through action/omission) without willing that act, per se (e.g. selling a gun to a person who intends to murder someone with it, without consenting to the murder)

• material cooperation with evil: performing any action/omission which materially (i.e. "tactically") enables an evil act to happen (e.g. paying for a friend's abortion, or providing a ride to the abortion mill)


• immaterial cooperation with evil: performing any act/omission which offers support to an evil act, but which does not contribute "tactically" to the performance of that action (some might argue that this would constitute a completely separate sin; e.g. being pleased that an abortion-tolerant politician has contracted a terminal illness--note: this is not to be confused with justifiable relief that the politician's pro-abortion activities will come to an end)

• proximate (material) cooperation: any contribution (by action/omission) to an evil act without which the act could not have been done at all (e.g. buying poison for a suicidal friend)


• remote (material) cooperation: any contribution (by action/omission) which assists an evil act in a nonessential way (e.g. verbally defending someone else's choice to abort a child)

So... given that sea of distinctions, how do we know what's morally allowed, and what isn't? Remember the following:

1. Formal cooperation in evil (i.e. willing it) is never morally lawful.


2. Material cooperation in evil is morally lawful only if it meets the conditions for an unintended "double effect" (see previous post for details).

(There are more factors, but this should do, for now.)

Now, then: where do some of the popular Culture of Death (TM) activities fall, in the moral scheme of things? I'll use Planned Parenthood as the key component in most of these first examples, since they're one of the clearest examples of an organization which performs gravely and intrinsically evil acts as a matter of course. I'll also be assuming that the given individual *knows* about the business "ends" of Planned Parenthood (and that they're not "blissfully ignorant").

"working as an abortionist for Planned Parenthood": morally forbidden (principal agent in a grave evil)

"working as a 'family planning' counselor for Planned Parenthood": morally forbidden (proximate material cooperation in a grave evil without proportionate/necessary cause, combined with formal cooperation for those who approve of and/or tolerate abortion)

"contributing financially to Planned Parenthood": morally forbidden (proximate material cooperation without proportionate/necessary cause)

"contributing financially to a company which donates to Planned Parenthood": morally forbidden, under most circumstances (you'd have to show how the need for such donations outweighs the gravity of aiding/abetting an abortion/contraception business, and you'd need to show how no feasible alternative charities exist)

"working as a janitor for Planned Parenthood": morally forbidden, under most circumstances (you'd have to show how your need for that employment outweighs the gravity of helping to maintain an abortion/contraception business, and you'd need to show how no feasible alternative employers exist)

"working as a janitor for a company which contributes to Planned Parenthood": morally allowable, in many circumstances--provided that a ready alternative (all other things being equal) does not exist. In general, this sort of participation is so remote as to remove an obligation to quit one's job... but it would still be morally necessary to work (in whatever way was possible) to have the company change its practices.

Okay... enough teasing. The main event:

"voting for Barack Obama in the previous election": morally forbidden.

Here's a short list of reasons why:

1) Barack Obama's positions support the intrinsic evils of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage", euthanasia, and (as Paul put it well) "recreational human cloning"... and each to a greater extent (categorically) than did his opponent. (Note: this does not imply that a vote for John McCain was obligatory; far from it. There were several fine moral alternatives [Alan Keyes, Chuck Baldwin, write-ins], or one could have withheld one's vote for president, altogether.)

2) Barack Obama's stance against the War on Terror (WOT), the War in Iraq, etc., does not constitute a rejection of an intrinsic evil, nor is a "cut and run" strategy (or any variation thereof) anything like a moral obligation (quite the opposite!) even if one *had* granted that the WOT was/is an unjust war. Even granted a supposed "illegitimacy" of the WOT, there is no single action which Barack Obama could take in this case which would ensure a morally acceptable outcome (e.g. pulling out would devastate the infrastructure of Iraq, it would leave hundreds of thousands of civilians prey to vendetta-seeking extremists who wish quickly to re-conquer the country, etc.), meaning that the "pro-Obama, anti-war" vote has nothing close to the moral weight necessary to counterbalance "cementing" the Culture of Death in America, the SCOTUS, and even the World (via U.N. treaties, etc.) through Barack Obama's positive advocacy of the same.

3) Barack Obama's stance on the economy is dubious, at best; no one is in any position to say that his plan (if he has one) is guaranteed success, or whether such a hypothetical "guaranteed success" would bring good that outweighs a "cemented toleration/promotion" of abortion "rights", or whether such a situation would reduce abortions in any meaningful way (quite the opposite, in all likelihood).

In short: even if one were to try to vote for Barack Obama and try to plead "remote material cooperation", the conditions for morally licit "double-effect" fail, at least insofar as a lack of "proportionate good effect" is concerned.... campaign promises of starry-eyed "hope" notwithstanding.

So... to those of the "Vox Nova" crowd and the like: tell me again why it's okay to vote for Barack Obama and still be considered a "good Catholic/Christian"?

To Be Continued...

Just a quick note: I haven't forgotten you all! The normal frenzy of work, etc., has temporarily captured me... but I shall return soon! (Maybe Wednesday or Thursday? God willing...)

"Cooperation with Evil", Part II

Okay... Hollywood Lies are defined, and we're ready (God willing) for part II of the "How on earth does a Christian form his/her conscience properly?"

Start with the most basic of moral principles:

Moral Law #1: The end (i.e. goal) of an action never justifies evil means.

In practical terms, this means that no one is ever morally allowed to intend an evil act (or outcome), no matter what the potential "payoff" might be. If I could save a billion people from agonizing deaths by the murder of a single innocent child, it would be morally wrong for me to do that. If I could save a billion people from agonizing deaths by the euthanasia of an Alzheimer's patient who was to die in 6 months anyway... it would be morally wrong for me to do that. NO ONE can intend an evil act, even if the potential "payoff" is mind-numbingly "good". Evil is evil, and it must not be chosen. To say otherwise is to say to God, "You designed and You run the universe so badly that I need to break Your Laws in order to do Your Will (i.e. what is good)!" A few moments' reflection will show how absurd that idea is.

Note: make every effort to keep in mind the proper place of emotions; they are good things, created by God, but they were never designed to replace your intellect (the power by which you "know" things), or your free will (the power by which you "choose" things). Just as Faith, Hope and Charity ultimately reside in the Will, so do sins reside in the will. For example: "feeling" angry is not a sin; but the free *choice* to *nurture* that anger (i.e. hold a grudge, or inflame your anger into unjust wrath) is a sin.

I mention this, because one of the most common (and fierce) objections to these principles is the cry, "I couldn't possibly bear to do (or not to do) [x, y, or z]!" That's your heart, taking... you know, the thing that's "deceitful above all things"? Don't trust it to run your life. The heart needs to be directed by the will, which needs to be informed by the intellect; that may seem "cold and unfeeling" (it isn't!), but that's how not to fall into moral evil. Too many "heart-led" people have "followed their foolish hearts" and killed their unborn children, or murdered their disabled and/or elderly relatives/friends, or violated and betrayed their marriages in order to "follow their hearts" to "new soul-mates". In short: the heart is good; but it's not a good driver.

Moral Law #2: If an action has multiple effects--both good and evil--the evil effects are not sinful to the extent that they are not willed.

This is often called the "principle of double-effect". If you intend an action to cause [good outcome x], but it also causes [evil outcome y], the action is not necessarily sinful for you, provided that it satisfies four basic conditions:

1) the intended action is good, or at least morally neutral
2) the evil effect is not intended
3) the good effect is not caused by the evil effect
4) there is sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect

(See HERE for details, on this.)

So... let's try a few examples, to flesh out this principle. (In the below, when I say "lawful", I mean morally lawful; civil law is irrelevant, to the extent that it violates the moral law, anyway.)

Situation #1: Is it lawful to kill an embryonic human baby (for the purpose of "harvesting" his/her embryonic stem cells), so that potential (or even guaranteed) cures for others may result--even to the extent of saving lives?

Answer: NO. The saving of lives is certainly a good intention; but no matter how many lives are saved (i.e no matter what the "potential or actual payoff"), it is never lawful to intend the death of any other person (see condition #1). Even if every last human on earth were threatened with death from agonizing disease, and if only one embryonic child's death were necessary to save all of humanity from terrible suffering and death, it would still be immoral.

Situation #2: Is it lawful to kill an unborn baby by abortion, if he/she was conceived through rape or incest?

Answer: NO. Even if the intended effect were "relief of the mother from alleged psychological distress" (which is a false hope, anyway), it is never lawful to intend the death of any other person (see condition #1), and no appeals to emotion will avail against this truth.

In my next section, I'll try to tackle the thornier issue of "to what extent can someone vote for abortion-tolerant [or tolerant of other intrinsic evils] politicians?"... which is one of the main reasons I started this 3-part series in the first place! To be continued...

"Cooperation with Evil", Part I

As some readers of Paul's Masterful Blog may have detected in my comments, already: I have some rather large issues with anything that smacks of "cooperation", "compromise", or even (a particular weasel-word, when used with moral absolutes) "negotiation" with the culture of death. Do I dialogue with other people? Absolutely... and charity (note: "charity" = "self-sacrificial seeking of another person's best good--not to be confused with "niceness", "mildness", or any other oft-synonym of Political Correctness) certainly should be the rule, there. But a great many Catholics in the USA, at least, have gotten rather muddled on this point, and can no longer tell the difference between the obligations of God, and the demands of a secular culture that's making corrupt demands.

Perhaps a refresher course of basic terms would be in order. It's a big refresher course. "Twelve credits might not be enough, it's so big..." (Okay, name the movie!)

Here are what I "affectionately" call "The Three Hollywood Lies (TM)"; those who are even passingly familiar with St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13, will pick up a pattern to these, rather readily...

Hollywood Lie #1: "Faith is a feeling."
Hollywood (and its ilk) says, "Your faith in God is a function of the feelings you can whip up; if you're feeling distant from God, you are distant from God, and you'd better get that fixed!"

Reply: Hogwash. Faith is a *choice*--an act of the WILL--and it has nothing especially to do with "feelings". No, not even the "deepest feelings of your heart" (and no denigration of those is meant!). How about the old (and all-too-common) dodge of, "No, no... I don't mean just superficial, fly-by-night feelings; Like, I mean the... (*insert sounds, words and gestures that imply emotionally "gushing" over something, here*)... really DEEP feelings, like, at the very core of your very BEING, y'know??" Sorry... wrong answer. Those feelings have a real and good place in life (God made them, after all), but they no more belong in the "driver's seat" of your faith than would a 5-gallon can of gasoline belong in the driver's seat of your new Prius. Emotions (e-motion) give you needed energy to cling to the good, or to fight/flee from evil. They don't do your choosing for you. Your free will, informed by a non-secular intellect, is still on for that job.

Hollywood Lie #2: Hope is a Feeling.
This is a particularly timely item, given that the main slogan of the Candidate of Death has been "HOPE" [sic].

Hope is not wishing (no, not even on a star--sorry, Pinocchio fans!), nor is it fervently, fervently wanting something to happen reeeeeeeeally badly. Hope is--you might have guessed it--a *choice*--an act of the will, by which we can be assured that God will keep His promises, because He is all-able to to keep them, He has promised them, and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. God is the *only* true basis of hope; no one else is. (Sorry, "Catholics" [sic] for Obama, and Vox Nova: the Secular Messiah doesn't count, and the Catholic Catechism--to which you allegedly adhere, as faithful Catholics--says so. The secular messiah *does*, however, make a very schnazzy Antichrist; point to ponder?)

And the deadliest of all three (which will be eminently predictable, by now... though usually the hardest for secularists to swallow):

Hollywood Lie #3: Love is a Feeling.

From the top of the highest roof to the bottom of the lowest valley, let this be shouted: LOVE IS NOT A FEELING!!! IT ISN'T, IT ISN'T, IT ISN'T!!!! NO!!! NEVER WAS, ISN'T NOW, AND NEVER WILL BE!!!!!"

(*ahem*)

Love (a.k.a. "charity", mentioned earlier) is a *choice*--an act of the will--to sacrifice oneself for the best good of another. That's it. That's how God loves. God gets nothing out of the bargain that He didn't already have (except aggravation), when He loves us; just so, are we to love others. "Love one another,", Jesus the True and Only Messiah says, "as I have loved you."

Is that quite clear? Love is not an emotion, or a collection of emotions... no, not even the "deepest" ones. Those are called "affections", and they're good and proper, in their place... but love is far beyond that. (That's a helpful hint to those in relationships of any kind; if you think "love" lasts only until you stop feeling a certain way, I pity your relationship's life-expectancy. Feelings come and go, and then come back again; that's just what they do. Love, on the other hand, never fails.)

More to come on this...

Prayer request

Could I ask everyone to pray for a special intention, which came up suddenly? I just heard, today, that two students (who go to the school system in which I teach), along with their father, died in a private plane crash, earlier today... while the mother and other siblings were driving home to meet them. It's going to be a rough few days.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Requiescant in pace.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord;
and let light perpetual shine upon them.
May they rest in peace.

When Revelation Comes Alive

As long as I'm still in a "pensive" mood about our nation's recent and apparent betrothal to darkness, let me share a few tid-bits that I'd noticed, in recent days, which seem to put a bit more "flesh on the bones" of the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. "Apocalypse") in some very provincial, arguably small, but still unsettling ways.

Some of you already know that I teach math at a Catholic high school; some of you (if you've read any of my comments on Paul's masterful blog also know that, for the most part, its Catholic identity is presently in a rather sorry state. Case in point: the school held "mock elections" for each grade, and for the faculty; and John McCain (for whose candidacy I've never had anything even resembling enthusiasm) "won" by the slimmest of margins, overall... but the breakdown of the classes was striking:

6-8th grade: McCain (by about 55%)
9th grade: McCain (by about 60%)
10th grade: McCain (by about 55%)
11th grade: Obama (by about 60%)
12th grade: Obama (by about 65%)
faculty: McCain (by 12 to 9, I think--I'm sure about the 9)

One of the students, who knew my pro-life convictions (I'm not exactly secret about it, with Feminists for Life fliers plastering my door, a 120-point font pro-life quote from Pope John Paul II spanning my back wall, etc.), turned to me as this was announced, and said, "Aren't you happy that McCain won?" I said something noncommittal... since I simply couldn't explain to him how emotionally crippling it was to hear the results. Of the grades 6-12 staff in a Catholic school, *NINE* teachers not only voted for Obama, but did so in a mock election (which stood to gain nothing politically) which was read for the whole student body to hear. The message? "Voting for America's foremost advocate of the Culture of Death is hereby declared a viable option [among others, of course--we're very tolerant!] at this Catholic school!"

I wanted to cry.

"Father, forgive them; they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34) At least, I hope they don't. God, have mercy on us.

Later, on the following day, some of the senior boys were carrying through a sort of "gag routine"; every time they'd pass each other in the hallway between classes, they'd yell, "O-BAMAAAA... YAH!" and give each other a high-five. The effect this had on me can't easily be put into words... save, perhaps for this: a day later, I came to the ugly realization:

These are the same kids who would be cheering at the Coliseum, 1800 years ago.

That doesn't quite mean what many people might think; I don't say that in order to call them wickedly evil, or even fully responsible for what they were doing. (I'm sure much of it expressed one of many ways that teens--especially those in institutional schools--rebel against what they perceive to be "irksome, chafing rules" against their "freedom"--and their understanding of the entire spiritual battle was shallow, or nonexistent.) It actually gave me a glimpse into the hearts of the people who screamed, cheered, and cried for more Christian blood in the Roman ampitheatres. Such people, if you met them in a quiet moment at home, would doubtlessly have thought of themselves as "good people"--and said so, readily. Such people might well have lived fairly self-disciplined lives (secularly speaking--many athletes do, for example, regardless of their faith), just as these kids do (some of whom literally stay up until midnight, studying for classes in-between their extracurricular commitments). These same people, if met with a person who had fallen on hard times, would be likely to donate food, money, help in finding a place to stay, and more. "Nice" people, beyond any reasonable doubt.

How can this be?

How can such "good" kids embrace (and even defend, in school-assigned political papers) such sweeping evils, and be so ready to treat their Faith as "just one more extracurricular activity"?

Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.

But the second connection came when I was talking with my wife, this morning; she was reading from the daily Mass readings (which are from the Book of Revelation, as the Church year comes to an end, this Sunday), and she noted the death of the "two witnesses" of God (see Revelation 11:3-13). She noted the part where the Antichrist rose up and slew the two witnesses (Rev 11:7), and the following verse after that struck her (and me):

"And their bodies shall lie in the streets of the great city, which is called spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord also was crucified. And they of the tribes, and peoples, and tongues, and nations, shall see their bodies for three days and a half: and they shall not suffer their bodies to be laid in sepulchres. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry: and shall send gifts one to another, because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt upon the earth." (Rev 11:8-10)

High-five, guys. The culture of death won; time to rejoice and make merry!

Father, forgive them; they know not what they do.

Michael D. O'Brien, the author of "Fr. Elijah"--a book that I highly recommend--once wrote that (I'm paraphrasing), "the end times will probably look very different from the inside (i.e. living it), than from the outside (i.e. reading about it). The dramatic and apocalyptic signs that are so easy to see in story form, will not attract a great deal of attention from those who've grown up with it seeming 'normal'."

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that the final showdown between Christ and Antichrist, or Church and Anti-Church, is imminent; I have no idea whether it is, or not, and--ultimately--it really shouldn't make much difference to our Christian walk. (Our Lord told us to "be ready" all the time, right? Not panicked, or hysterical, or obsessively preoccupied with signs and omens, but ready.) But it gave me something of a new insight into how such a large number of Christians can apostasize (Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are both unanimous and firm in their guarantee that, in the final days, a vast number of Christians will abandon the Faith)--can abandon the Faith, slowly or quickly--without realizing (or caring) what they're doing; the ones who intend to follow their passions (for carnal lust, power, money, pleasure, entertainment, etc.) until stopped by a clear "dramatic sign from the sky" will probably be surprised to find the Angel of Death taking them unawares, without any trumpet fanfare. Christ assured us that the end of time would be ushered in with dramatic signs. He didn't assure us that we'd be of a mind to recognize them when they happened... or to pay attention to them (much less heed them) when they did. And He certainly didn't assure us that our OWN end (i.e. physical death) would be heralded by high-scale theatrics. "If they will not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they convert even if one should rise from the dead. (Luke 16:31)" We've been warned plentifully, already. The choice is ours, now. Do we follow Christ, and try to lead as many of these lost sheep to Him as possible? Or do we give up--or worse, slip quietly and "comfortably" into the smooth slide into the culture of eternal death?

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)

The Twilight of Our Culture?

Well. I wish I could say that I picked an uplifting time to start this "chronicle of my own" (rather than simply "mooching" off of Paul's excellent blog... :) ), but that simply isn't so. Oh, I'm sure I'll branch off into comments on the usual current events, and such, in the days that follow... but for the moment, I have to at least try to say something about what's on my heart, in recent days.

It's a good thing that the hope of every Christian is in God alone... because we seem to be on the edge of one of the darkest eras of our nation. Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a well-respected and widely known Catholic priest/speaker, called this time "the beginning of the twilight" of our country. Argue that point, if you will, but it led me to think: am I ready?

The call of every Christian is to keep watch, for we know neither the day nor the hour that Our Lord will come again... and to wait faithfully for His return, no matter how long that takes, and no matter what tribulations we must suffer. But, while I'm generally a sober (and even skeptical) type regarding anything that smacks of the preternatural, I've watched the events of the past few weeks (re: the elections in the United States) with--well--what I can only call "grim sobriety".

I've faced death, before. I know that this life is not the end, and I know that God is in control, and I know that "to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints." (Romans 8:28) But what I find so very oppressive about this current time is not only the ongoing holocaust of the blood of millions of helpless children, ripped apart in the name of "compassion", "tolerance", "convenience", or even "coercion". It's not only the seemingly head-first plunge that our culture has taken into sexual immorality (e.g. contraception, fornication, same-sex intercourse, etc.). It's not only the corruption of the mass media, by which the darkest elements of our society seem to find an unswerving advocate.

It's the Christians who betray Christ.

Somehow, a Judas is harder to handle than a Caiaphas; at least, when you run into an avowed enemy who's marching under an enemy flag, you can respect their integrity, and you don't have to struggle with betrayal. Michael Card (one of my favourite Christian recording artists) once wrote, in one of his songs, "Only a friend can betray a friend; a stranger has nothing to gain. And only a friend comes close enough to ever cause so much pain." (See HERE to listen.) But when I meet a Christian who betrays the Gospel, it hurts me in ways that physical suffering and dying never could. It really doesn't help much to find out that such betrayals are often done "in all sincerity", or "out of honest conviction", or (my least favourite) "following their own conscience". It doesn't help much when I learn that such people are doing so because they're ignorant, uncatechized, misled, scandalized by other heretical "Catholics", or simply clueless.

If someone dropped your newborn infant daughter on the stone floor, would it take away all of your pain to know that it was done without direct malice?

Just so, should I be expected to "absorb" the abuse that bloodies the Body of My Lord, and walk away whistling a happy tune, just because the attackers don't know any better?

Some people (especially heterodox Catholics), when they hear me talk like this, react with a great deal of defensive vigour, accuse me of melodramatics, and worse. I can sympathize, actually; because I was of their number, not so very long ago, and I remember being offended at the direct words of those who challenged my "privatized Gospel". I remember thinking of those people as "cold, unfeeling, hateful Pharisees", and worse. So if I absorb some of that type of abuse in turn, now, I pray that God uses it to help atone for the damage that I did--to myself and others--in my ignorance, stubbornness, and (yes) PRIDE. To the people who now hurl such at me, all I can say is this: I pray for you, every day, that your eyes be opened, and your heart healed. I will not stop proclaiming the truth--to you, and to others; may God give me the strength. And as for my stridency?

Get used to it.

In Christ, now and forever,
Paladin