| Politics

A “good” conscience can never cooperate with or further intrinsic evil. Such an exercise of human freedom is “anarchic” and will erode freedom and perpetuate the Culture of death and use.

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (Catholic Online) - In the “Afterword” of his recent book, “Can a Catholic Support Him?”, written to endorse the candidacy of Barack Obama and attempt to persuade fellow Catholics to do the same, Doug Kmiec writes: “Barack Obama has my vote. Your only duty is to cast your own in good conscience. As a Catholic and as an American, you may do so in perfect freedom. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise”. Make no mistake; this is a moral claim. It uses phrases like “good conscience” and “perfect freedom”, which speak to the morality of human action and the acting person.

Consciences are “good” when they are properly formed in the truth which then leads the person to do what is good. Freedom “perfects” a human person only when it is exercised in accordance with the truth and furthers what is truly good. In our last verbal joust, Doug expressed his irritation with my efforts to oppose his support of Senator Obama with this comment, “To just engage in systematic theology or philosophic discourse loses sight of the unborn children, we might actually – right now, this day -- save by improving the life circumstance of expectant mothers.” He argues in this book that the Democratic Party, by emphasizing economic support for women who “choose” not to abort and “sex education” for young people (whatever that term means),is somehow acting more “morally” than the Republican Party. He knows he will not receive an argument from me on the absolute need to provide support for mothers who have children - and for those children. However, both major Party platforms now pledge to do just that.As to who will really deliver, lets save that for future articles. In this article, I want to address Doug’s disparagement of philosophic discourse and his own moral claim.

It seemed a bit odd to me. After all, Doug is being presented by the supporters of Barrack Obama, a candidate who I labeled in my last article as an “Abortion Hawk” because of his unrelenting support of the undeclared war on the occupants of the once safe first home of the whole human race (the womb), precisely to try to make a theological, philosophical and allegedly “moral” argument for voting for Obama. Doug is the intelligent “Catholic scholar” they hope will help them to win more Catholics to the Obama candidacy. They have a serious “Catholic problem” because their candidate has absolutely promised to sign the so called “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) into law as soon as he is elected. He will thereby guarantee the so called “right” to abort (kill) children in the womb. Yet, at the same time, this candidate continues to call abortion a “moral issue”. He then attempts to sound like he wants to make the prevalence of abortion less “necessary”. Just this past week, Cardinal Rigali addressed this kind of contradictory approach in a letter which he sent to the Congress on behalf of all Bishops in the United States. He wrote “…there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can’t reduce abortions by promoting abortion…. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good-faith discussion on how to reduce abortions.” So, Doug has opened the moral discussion and I will continue to engage him on it.

He attempts in this book to explain a “moral” analysis. Namely, how one can determine whether an action, in this instance, voting, is moral when the end result will be to entrench “legal” abortion in American law and make all efforts to limit it even more difficult. Doug makes a great deal of asserting that in voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil (in this instance abortion) he does not “intend” to support that position. So, the real question now becomes whether an intention can change the morality of an act? Doug makes much of the moral concept of proportionality. However, after reading the book I wonder if he is properly presenting the concept of proportionality for his readers or actually falling prey to the error of “proportionalism”? The Catholic Catechism puts the issue quite clearly, “There are certain kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will”.

Our particular "intentions" must therefore be in accord with reason. Reason itself rightly understood must be in accord with the good. St Paul addressed the early Christians in Rome concerning the implications of misusing the concept of intention in the process of making moral choices. He cautioned them about an errant approach which seeks to argue that evil may be done as long as there is a good intention. “There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just’ (Rom 3:8) Catholics are called to form their consciences in accordance with what is true and then to act morally, that is to act in accordance with that truth. This is what true freedom is all about.

The great struggle of ...