Recently, I had the experience of a wonderful theological discussion with a Protestant repairman who came to our house.
In the course of it, we realized how much we agreed on the truths that divide our respective Christian cultures and their foundation in divine Revelation.
This occasion followed shortly after a visit to Birmingham, Ala., by the papal preacher, Franciscan Father Raniero Cantalamessa, who was enthusiastically received by students at Samford University’s Beeson Divinity School, which is Baptist.
Both incidents have highlighted for me the increasing divide between those seeking to remain faithful to the Gospel and to Christ and those Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic, for whom citizenship in the world is evidently more important than citizenship in the Kingdom.
For Catholics, the initial visible rupture was certainly Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Birth). Its public rejection by many theologians, clergy and laity continues to the present day. However, their protests were, and are, merely the external expression of a pre-existing theological divide.
By 1968, many dogmatic theologians had imbibed the theological methods of Karl Rahner’s transcendental Thomism (more Kant and Heidegger than Aquinas) and Bernard Lonergan’s inductive method in theology (experience in dialogue with ever-new selves and circumstances).
These methods have accomplished what the search for the historical Jesus had already done for Scripture scholarship, separating the dogmas of the Church, seen as historically conditioned, from the faith of the Church, with the former to be discarded in favor of the personal experience of faith.
In moral theology, the consequences have been equally dire, taking the forms of proportionalism and the fundamental option.
For proportionalists, such as the theory’s father, Richard McCormick, moral decision-making is a balancing act. One can choose, in some set of circumstances, to do something acknowledged as evil if the goods to be gained are proportionally justified.
For instance, contraception, or even adultery (as dissenting theologian Father Charles Curran once argued), are morally wrong, but not intrinsically evil. One could envision a set of circumstances when they might be appropriate.
The Church, on the other hand, sees truth as knowable, both in the created order (the natural law) and as expressed in divine Revelation. The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments or of the Sermon on the Mount identify “intrinsic evils” which can never be justified, regardless of circumstances.
The theory of the fundamental option has been equally disastrous. It teaches that one’s “fundamental option” for God is more significant than this or that evil behavior in determining one’s relationship with him.
Without fear of offending God in the details of life, especially the sexual details, who needs to worry about personal sin or confession?
While Pope John Paul II felt it necessary to condemn both moral theories in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, few Catholics have probably heard of them, much less knowingly set out to apply them. They, nonetheless, are quite evident in the Church’s life.
For example, the recent case in the Diocese of Phoenix of the death by abortion of a child in a Catholic hospital, and the excommunication of the religious permitting it, illustrates both the theory of proportionalism and the extent to which it has become the reigning theory of moral theology for many Catholics. (The religious, Sister Margaret McBride, later reconciled with the Church.)
The mother was suffering from pulmonary issues caused by her pregnancy. In order to deliver her from those life-threatening health issues, she was “delivered of her pregnancy” by direct abortion.
The ethicist involved, and the many clergy, moralists and others who jumped to her defense, argued that Catholic teaching permitted such life-saving “treatment.”
The unwanted evil of the death of the child was balanced by the purity of motive of those who participated and the good of saving the mother’s life.
This is a quintessential example of proportionalist logic, a balancing of goods and evils, and the conclusion that the good to be gained outweighed the evil to be endured. After all, they argued, the child would die anyway.
There is also an ongoing example in the reaction of some Catholics and others to the abortifacient-sterilization mandate of the Obama administration.
For the Church, contraception, Plan B and Ella are intrinsically evil, either for a life-denying interference with marital union or for killing that life once conceived. Sterilization is, of course, both life-denying and an unjustified mutilation of the body.
The critics of the bishops, as well as those who see no great evil in compromising, seem to be following a proportionalist logic.
Against the negative of some level of association with evil, they see the good to be gained in terms of “women’s health,” the avoidance of the human and financial cost of poverty and single parenthood, and the assurance that federal funds continue to flow to their charitable institutions.
On balance, the compromise works for them and, like the Phoenix abortion, is justified on proportionate grounds.
Such a utilitarian analysis is at the root of the current crisis, as it is behind the hydra-headed institution of dissent in the Church, whether over sexuality, the priesthood, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, in vitro fertilization, contraception or the Health and Human Services mandate.
Catholics have become accustomed to observing the Church’s morality in the breach, often with a claimed personal opposition to evil, but finding for themselves, and others, the “hard circumstances” that excuse not following Church teaching.
Without a firmer resistance to the well-entrenched theological errors supporting these choices, any victory in the matter of the mandate will be short-lived and of little long-term value for the salvation of souls.
Colin Donovan, STL, is vice president for theology at EWTN.
Comments
Post a Comment
Colin: This is an excellent piece on a difficult issue. I like to think about it as, writ large, the sort of moral calculations everyone makes in his or her life. Most of us “fudge” a little, thinking it does no harm, and I assume that is part of the human condition. That’s why we need moral theology to draw the lines for us. Because we really can’t imagine the consequences. Just as, before divorce was common, most people thought about extreme cases in which it seemed so obvious that divorce was the humane and kind thing for all concerned, and never believed that it could in any way lead to 40% of births being to unmarried women. How could that follow? Who would ever divorce unless they really, really needed to? It is so non-obvious that even today, when the fallout is all around us and even documented by all sorts of studies, most people fail to connect the dots. Same with abortion, which most people (not in the abortion business) continue to to think of in terms of hard cases and desperate women, despite the obvious fact that there could not possibly be 4,000 hard cases and desperate women every day for decades.
I think the same is true for “morning after” pills. At one point, these were routinely given out to rape victims. There are very few people, even the most staunch prolife people, that would deny a hysterical woman who has just been brutally raped whatever “Plan B” used to be called. In the casual calculus of everyday morals, a rape victim taking this medication within a few hours of an attack was very different from using it as a form of elective birth control. But…. after years of this, people who found out about it asked what the real difference was, and why anyone couldn’t have these drugs for any reason. I imagine that people who used to give these medications to suffering victims of brutal attacks never imagined that they might end up being sold in vending machines to anyone with $25. Yet here we are. It is a terrible but unavoidable FACT that bending the rules out of compassion can lead to wide-scale suffering and even (in the case of abortion) millions of deaths. Who wants to believe that? But it’s true.
Thank you so much! This was so informative, and really helps me understand the reasons behind all of this chaos. Please continue to disseminate this information in season and out, when convenient and when inconvenient. It really is extremely helpful, and explains where others are coming from and how they got to be that way.
Now I will reread Veritatis Splendor with greater awareness and understanding. Please continue on in this vein.
I think your article is unfinished. You missed a glaring example of proportionalism by failing to include the sins of bishops who hid priestly crimes against children (the doing of evil) for what they thought was the higher proportional good of protecting the Church. Just look where that has gotten us and it’s not over yet.
This is an excellent article. Thank you. The Church leaders have been too busy teaching that faith is feeding the poor and using proportionalism themselves so the idea of intrinsic evil has been ignored. Proportionalism explains to me how our Church leaders have gone off track in their quest to do good. The violation of the principle of subsidiarity by our Church must be due to porportionalism. HOw Catholic Charities can rake in almost 3 billion dollars, mostly from the gov’t (our tax dollars) and still call themselves a charity is beyond me. The taking of gov’t money, because they can do so much good, has watered down the faith. Personally, I’ve seen hospitals, food pantries, medical clinics and soup kitchens that take gov’t money and do not evangelize the faith. Instead I wonder if a new form of Christianity has arisen and I ask are we giving to make us feel good and look good? It seems to be no longer about Christ and His gospel. Hollywood feeds the poor! I believe Mother Theresa said she didn’t know how to feed the poor in this country but for some reason we are called to use her formula? Of course, I don’t think she used gov’t money. When there’s a food pantry on every corner, I ask is there big money in looking Christian? How would Christ feed the poor in America? I certainly don’t think Catholic Charities taking $250,000 from the gov’t to give sterile needles to drug addicts is what our Lord had in mind. What happened to building a half way house? Of course, Catholic Charities keeps what percentage of that money for themselves? Porportionalism makes our leaders believe taking gov’t money is ok as long as they do something good! Has our religious leaders allowed Christianity to become big business while compromising their own faith by down grading objective moral Truth and ignoring intrinsic evil?
Discrimination is an evil, a sin, agaisnt women, married men, gays and lesbians. Yet the hierarchy persists in this un-Chistlike evil. How do they justify it other than to protect their good-ole-boys club?
Mr. Donovan has hit the nail on the head regarding how people generally view their faith. Sometimes it seems that the “headiness” or more precisely the need for those in academia to “break new ground” is at the center of the problem. This problem takes deep roots when the academic separates their thinking from God and His Church. Certainly we all fall prey to separating ourselves from God but the academic world seems to encourage or even require it to succeed. The erroneous ideas then gains traction in the public realm precisely because it IS erroneous. May God help us to hate sin and love Him.
Mr. Donovan has hit the nail on the head regarding how people generally view their faith. We trust certain people; our priests, almost anyone with a title (especially Dr., both medical and academic) Sometimes it seems that the “headiness” or more precisely the need for those in academia to “break new ground” is the heart of the problem. This takes deep roots when the academic separates their thinking from God and His Church. Certainly we all fall prey to separating ourselves from God but the academic world seems to encourage or even require it to succeed. The erroneous ideas developed in this environment then gains traction in the public realm precisely because it IS erroneous. May God help us to hate sin and love Him.
Colin, EVIL IS EVIL IS EVIL. Man can twist and distort the Catholic Church’s Teaching about SIN and EVIL. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ Himself and rejecting Her Teachings is rejecting Christ. “He who hears you, hears Me and the One Who sent Me. He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who sent Me”. Christ is unambiguous when it comes to obeying His Church’s Teachings. In disobeying God’s and Natural Law, one must remember one cannot compromise with God. GOD IS TRUTH AND HE NEVER CHANGES. You disobey Him at your own peril and forfeiture of Eternal Life with Him.
I am not up on theology but I am very happy to now understand why some Catholics behave as they do. These folks echo Pilate, “What is truth?”
I quite agree with Colin Donovan’s overall theme and sobering conclusion. Regarding the text, I offer a small correction: Although Fr. Richard McCormick, S.J., along with Fr. Charles Curran, led the forulation and dissemination of proportionalism in this country, he was not its “father.” That title perhaps goes to Fr. Louis Jannsens of Louvain and/or Fr. Joseph Fuchs, S.J., of Germany. I offer fuller accounts of their ideas—and the Catholic tradition’s critique of them—in my philosophical dictionary, Words of Wisdom (University of Notre Dame Press, 2012). In addition to the entry for “proportionalism,” see the entries for “determinants or sources of morality,” “exceptionless moral rules,” and “intrinsic(ally) evil”—as well as related entries to which the reader is referred.
Easter Blessings to all!
John W. Carlson
There is no middlle ground or gray area with God and HIS moral law.. If we are not for HIM then we are against HIM and Decllare against HIM
2012 is the year of decision for all people. Who do you wish to serve?
Please explain why the accepted principle of double effect does not apply
here.
greetings and PEACE! Concerning abortion I don’t understand the issue since it states in Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I consecrated you.” Thus much to the dismay of the secular world life as a person does not begin with birth. We are not only a person, before we ever enter the womb, but we are consecrated, blessed by our creator. Thus, abortion is murder of a consecrated person. What more is there to say. Concerning the religious, Sister Margaret McBride, if it is a choice as to the infant or mother I think much prayer is needed because it is not a case of walking into an abortion clinic because the mother wanted the fun, the instant gratification, but not the responsibility. Finally, concerning “The prohibitions of the Ten Commandments or of the Sermon on the Mount identify “intrinsic evils” which can never be justified, regardless of circumstances.” If this is the case, how is it the Church believes in “Justified Wars?” Killing is killing. As a combat veteran, I have killed and will kill again before I would allow say, Israel to be wiped out, but having said that how can the Church claim it both ways. For me having been in the insanity of war it can not be both ways for the Church. Jesus did not say it was OK to kill in a war or any other time.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/there-is-no-way-to-justify-evil?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail#When:2012-04-7#ixzz1rU4emrTn
Mr. Donovan,
I have the greatest respect for all the work and ministry EWTN carrys out. EWTN, was and is an amazing resource and helped bring me back to the faith after a very long absence. So, it greatly pains me to see the “Resurrect your dating life” advertising slogan and the general advert. campaign for CatholicMatch.com, especially during this the Easter Octave. Mr Donovan, I respectfully implore you to consider removing this advertisement from the “pages” of NCRegister.
Thanking you and wishing you and all at EWTN a Blessed and Holy Easter!
Sincerely,
Mary.
Great article! I think fundamentally, these dissenters continue to try and seperate Church doctrine from Jesus. They argue, for instance, that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality” as a way to justify living an active homosexual lifestyle and yet making the claim that because Jesus never said anything “directly” therefore it must mean that it’s OK. Of course we know this logic to be false. But, this also applies to contraception and other Church teachings that the dissenters find unpopular. I just can’t imagine Jesus telling a woman to kill her child in her womb under ANY circumstance. He specifically told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more.” I just can’t imagine Jesus telling a poor person to steal from a rich person in order to feed his/her family. I just can’t imagine Jesus telling a doctor to assist someone at their death bed by killing them. I just can’t imagine Jesus telling married couples that children are a “burden,” therefore you must use contraception to prevent having them. I just can’t imagine Jesus telling a married woman who gets pregnant that it was an “accident”. I just can’t imagine Jesus saying many of things that these dissenters keep saying. And yet, this attempt at separating Jesus from His Church has become very successful among some of the flock being led by these dissenting shepherds.
Thank you for this lucid description of what I am seeing among my Catholic friends today. This article has helped me clarify my thoughts about truth and given me the necessary material to counteract many things I hear expressed. God bless you and I pray you will persevere in your work.
Great post! We live in an era of subtle casuistry that enslaves those brothers and sister among us possessed of a weak and proud human nature prone to self deception… Truth is simple, eternal and not subject to the whim and fancy of the zeitgeist of this wicked generation. There is a special place reserved in the lowest dungeon of Hell for false priests, worldly educated but idiot Catholic theologians and certain worldly bishops and cardinals who intrinsically lack faith because they have been seduced by the world and the whispering suggestions of self glorification.
Dear Mr. Donovan,
Many, many thanks to Mother Angelica & EWTN. EWTN has been a wonderful help and resource to me - a revert who came back to the Catholic Church after many years away from Holy Mother Church.
Mr. Donovan, I respectfully, ask you to consider removing the adverts placed by Catholic Match. Having to view the “resurrect your dating life” advert., especially, makes me feel somewhat nauseous. It saddens me to see the way the glorious resurrection of Our Lord Jesus, is being harnessed in this vulgar bid for our attention.
Sincerely,
Mary.
Could you try to explain why the principle of double effect cannot apply in many cases?
John Carlson, Thank you for the correction. I will indeed locate and read your article.
Re: McCormick, perhaps foster-father might be better. He brought this evil child of Janssens and Fuchs from Europe to the U.S. and through the professional journal “Moral Theology Notes” disseminated it to the post-Vatican II generation of theologians, both through his own opinions in MTN and his selection of contributors.
A blessed Easter.
Joseph Veilone, Double Effect is the principle which permits us to tolerate an effect which is bad when we do something which 1) of itself is good or neutral 2) we will the act which produces the good effect and merely tolerate that it also produces the bad effect, 3) the good effect is caused no less directly than the bad, and 4) there is sufficient proportionality of good versus the bad effect to justify the act. Superficially this 4th condition sounds a like proportionalism. It merely says that, for example, you couldn’t amputate your finger for a hangnail (disproortionate), but could if it was gangrenous (proportionate). The evil of removing a digit is balanced by the good of stopping the spread of disease.
To use this principle all four conditions must be met, the most important of which being, 1) that the act is not of itself evil. Proportionalism, by rejecting the possibility of intrinsically evil acts, makes proportionality the most significant moral factor. For example, in the Phoenix case they didn’t treat the woman’s lungs with a therapy aimed at producing health, but which as an unwanted side-effect killed her child, that would had been permissible. They aborted the child to deliver the mother’s lungs of the burden of pregnancy. “Proportion” was applied to the very act itself, the abortion; whereas, by the principle of double-effect it failed the first condition. It also violated one of the oldest moral axioms known to human beings, “you may not do evil that good may come of it.”
Joseph Veilone, Double Effect is the principle which permits us to tolerate an effect which is bad when we do something which 1) of itself is good or neutral 2) we will the act which produces the good effect and merely tolerate that it also produces the bad effect, 3) the good effect is caused no less directly than the bad, and 4) there is sufficient proportionality of good versus bad effects to justify the act. Superficially this 4th condition sounds like proportionalism; however, it merely says that, for example, you couldn’t amputate your finger for a hangnail (disproportionate), but could if it was gangrenous (proportionate). The evil of the loss of a digit is balanced by the good of stopping the spread of disease.
To use this principle all four conditions must be met, the most important of which is, 1) that the act is not of itself evil (i.e. it is morally good or neutral). Proportionalism, by rejecting the possibility of intrinsically evil acts, makes proportionality the most significant moral factor.
For example, in the Phoenix case they didn’t treat the woman’s lungs with a therapy aimed at producing health, but which as an unwanted side-effect indirectly killed her child, that would had been permissible. Rather, they aborted the child to deliver the mother’s lungs of the burden of pregnancy. “Proportion” was applied to the very act itself, the abortion; whereas, by the principle of double-effect it failed the first condition since it was an evil act, the direct taking of a human life.
It also violated one of the oldest moral axioms known to human beings, “you may not do evil that good may come of it.”
The situation in Phoenix with the dying mother and the abortion was a tragedy, but your second guessing the doctors by advising what treatment should have been done is wrong. You are not a physician and your judgement in such matters is not of value. The excommunication of the nun who ran the hospital by Olmstead was also wrong. He only compounded the tragedy, and his judgement is wrong as well.
Interesting how people with ZERO medical training are able to second guess the doctors and people who are actually involved. Your smug, self righteous pronouncements are toxic.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.