One May Not Do Evil that Good May Come of It: (CCC 1756, 1761, 1789)

How critical is intent in one’s actions? Article 1756 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states, “It is therefore an error to judge morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object, such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” The Catechism also states that one must consider the outcome of an act when judging its morality. Article 1755 states, “A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action...”

In a recent interview Pope Francis is quoted as saying, “In political morality, it is generally said that not voting is bad, not good: one must vote. And one has to choose the lesser evil.” He also called both U.S. presidential candidates as “anti-life.” There are some who have jumped on this statement basically equating immigration issues, which frequently do not look at the common good which is supposed to guide our actions, with its concomitant crime, human trafficking, abuse, and law-breaking to begin with, to the grave issue of killing innocent babies in the womb. To support their claim that they can vote for a pro-abortion candidate they bring up the issue of intent.

In at least one case they bring up the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and its apparent invitation to waffle by “allowing” one to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because you aren’t intending to vote for abortion, you are voting against the other candidate. This overlooks the statement in that document which says that there are actions so deeply flawed as to be intrinsically evil and that these include abortion and euthanasia.

Forming Consciences recognizes the dilemma of choosing the lesser evil: “... all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.” (37) In the two dioceses of Virginia, Arlington and Richmond, the bishops have put out voting guidelines which include the statements that not all issues are morally equal and “Protecting life is paramount.”

Another part of the Catechism talks about being complicit in another’s sins. We are complicit when we cooperate in them (e.g., the sins of pro-abortion politicians) and neglect to hinder them (e.g., by voting for them) (CCC 1868). A fellow parishioner lamented over the mental gymnastics that some Catholics appear to be resorting to in order to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians. It’s a wonder that they don’t strain their brains. But then, we humans have a knack for deceiving ourselves. In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis has the experienced deceiver (Screwtape) advising his charge (Wormwood) about their targeted human, “Your man is accustomed to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head.” In other words, keep him from the truth or else you won’t be able to capture his soul.

We should keep in mind the words of Pope St. John Paul II, “It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all inalienable rights are founded and from which they develop.” The common good should guide our actions. In doing so we should look at the outcomes of our choices. True, we may not be able to see everything; there’s always the specter of “unintended consequences.” But we must take into consideration the obvious consequences when we make our choice.

Back to Pope Francis – he urged people to vote and to pick the lesser of two evils. There is no equivalence between abortion, which stops a life in its tracks, and any other considerations which require life to proceed to have any meaning. Trent Horn of Catholic Answers explains the situation this way: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it ... even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family, or of society in general.” (Trent Horn, Confusion in the Kingdom: How “Progressive” Catholicism is Bringing Harm and Scandal to the Church

It would be hard for someone (especially a Catholic) to say that they don’t know that by supporting the party of death they are actively supporting abortion. The USCCB has again reiterated that abortion is the preeminent issue for Catholics in this election.

So, while it may be licit to vote against a candidate one does not like, it is NOT correct to vote for one who knowingly and adamantly supports abortion. Do not withhold your vote, that only benefits the party of death. And, at all costs, vote for life. If we voted for life as a matter of policy, the politicians would already have gotten the message. “All one’s ways are pure in one’s own eyes, but the measurer of motives is the LORD” (Proverbs 16:2)

In my opinion, it is hard for me to conceive that a vote for the party of death could result in any good, especially considering the record of damage to our government, to our freedom of religion, and to our constitution by the current administration.

“On the day of judgment no one will be able to hide. No one will be able to plead the excuse that they simply did not know what was good and what was evil, what was God’s will and what was not.” Dr. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul, Cycle C