Lesser evil

Jeff, I hear you saying that love without truth is meaningless. I’m saying that the converse is also true: truth without love is meaningless. God is truth, so it cannot be loving of us to deny the truth, or to allow others to persist in their denial of the truth. But the ultimate truth that God discloses is his love, so how does it make sense for us to disclose his truth in a way that isn’t loving? Certainly under no circumstances should we “be nasty” to someone for the supposed purpose of revealing the truth to them. (To be fair, I think you probably really only meant that we shouldn’t be afraid of others accusing us of being insensitive.) The minute we stop treating people with respect for their God-given dignity, we’re no longer speaking God’s truth.

Case in point: Pat’s left the building, so to speak. Now what good does that do her? Some have chalked it up to her recalcitrance. Maybe. Or maybe she felt humiliated and attacked; it’s pretty hard for anyone to have a conversion under those circumstances.

You’re going to say we can’t worry how people feel. I agree that “being nice” is not the same as being loving, and we can’t abandon the truth to avoid giving offense. But I also believe that in 99& of all cases, it’s a false dichotomy to say that we can’t practice both truth and love — that is, communicating the truth in a way that makes the good of the other person the first priority. To do that, we need to think about whether we’re communicating the truth in a way that the other person can hear and understand. And we need to treat the other person as a whole person, not just as an opponent whose humanity we reduce to their “wrongness.”

It’s too bad the Gospels don’t record what Jesus talked about at all those dinners with sinners that the Pharisees were constantly griping about. How was it that Jesus, a man whose holiness could have been intimidating, got all those dinner invitations from public sinners — the lowest of the low? I’ll wager a guess that he got invited to dinners and parties because people knew how much he cared about them. He opened people’s hearts with his love, and once their hearts were open, they could hear his words of truth and freedom. Would Pat invite any of us on this thread to her house for dinner any time soon?

Yes, none of us are perfect; we all make mistakes. That is why Jesus repeatedly — over and over and over — emphasizes that we ought to treat others with mercy and forgiveness, and err in the direction of loving “too much.” After all, we’re not God…we don’t want to claim, as Adam and Eve did, to have a god-like grasp of the truth…we’re not even the Magisterium. This is why humility is a virtue.

A lot of what I’m saying comes from almost 20 years of experience actively working on the abortion issue. In college I was right out there on campus with the pro-life group, organizing speakers and displays of fetal development and leafleting and writing op-ed pieces in the student paper and marching in Washington. Of course we got a lot of blowback. At first I was frustrated…after all, I had “the truth” — people were just wrong for not listening!

Over time, I got to talk to many, many people on the other side. I listened to lots of stories, and slowly I started to see where people were coming from emotionally (if not logically). The bottom line here is that *I* had to experience a conversion…one in which I went from viewing “them” as “the opposition” to truly seeing them in all their humanity…their hurt, their complexity, and their beauty as ones still loved by God.

Have I softened my position on abortion? No way. Does it still make me go from zero to sixty when I hear the distortions used to justify it? Absolutely. Have I become silent on the issue? No way. I have personally told a woman that she couldn’t use the phone at our homeless shelter to make a long-distance call for an abortion appointment. I spent a good deal of time trying to persuade another woman not to have an abortion. And I continue to write publicly for an end to abortion. But I am much more careful about how I express my views. I try to establish a relationship first — a friendly comment or compliment goes a long way (“Wow, you’re brave for sharing your story…that must be so hard!”). I do a *lot* more listening, because 1) it is a way of respecting the dignity of the other person, and 2) it helps me to say what I am going to say in a way that’s more likely to be heard. And I try to go slow, as opposed to taking the microwave approach (“zap’em for a minute and you’re done”). I ask lots of questions, both as a gesture of humility and as a way of being open to their humanity. And guess what? I’ve found that people are much more open to hearing what I have to say than they were when I just laid out “the truth” without any regard for how that truth might harm someone whose hurt prevents her from even hearing it.

Have you heard the conversion story of Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade? For years and years, those of us in the pro-life movement hammered her with the truth. In the end, though, it was her friendship with a little girl — the daughter of some protesters — that opened her up.

So yes, let’s stand up against the culture of death; let’s perform a spiritual work of mercy by “admonishing the sinner”; let’s evangelize the Gospel and Church teaching. But let’s always make Christ our model for *how* we continue his mission in the world.

I don’t see what is so hard. All the Pope has to do is say, “Cardinal Martini was not in union with Church teaching in his comments about condoms. Thank you.”

I have been persuaded that Cardinal Martini’s argument is wrong. (Please note: I think MARTINI IS WRONG!) But none of the theologians in Thomas’ links argue that condom use is “the lesser of two evils.” Nor does Cardinal Martini.

Rather, they argue on the basis of double effect. A common illustration of double effect that is used is the case of an ectopic pregnancy. When a woman gets an ectopic pregnancy, may the embyonic child be removed so that it does not kill her? Most Catholic moral theologian say “Yes.” This is classic orthodox, traditional moral theology. Even the SSPX, for heavens’ sake, says, “Possibly yes.”

Why? Isn’t that abortion and going to kill the child? Well, yes, but it’s also something else, too. It’s removing the embryo so it doesn’t kill the mother.

So, isn’t that doing evil (killing the child), so that good (the mother’s survival) may come of it? No. Isn’t that the lesser of two evils? No.

This is one action with two effects. The one action is: removing the child. The two effects are: first, the child’s death; second, the relief of mortal pressure on the mother’s Fallopian tubes and her survival.

One action–two effects. Which is the effect you want? To save the mother. Do you want to kill the child? No: although you KNOW the child will die, you don’t directly WILL that–you only sadly tolerate it. If there were a way to save the child after its removal, you would do it.

So, can you give the mother “medicines” to kill the child, which will then be miscarried? NO! That’s doing one thing (administering chemical to kill the child) so that another thing (automatic miscarriage and relief of mortal pressure inside the mother) may FOLLOW. TWO actions; not one. Doing evil that good may follow. NOT ALLOWED!

William May’s letter, one of the first links in Thomas’ post, admits that this double effect analysis would probably work with condoms and AIDS IF the only problem with condoms were that they are contraceptives. So far, Martini is right. But they AREN’T just contraceptives. Using a condom is changing the receptacle of seminal fluid from a woman to a balloon. It’s essentially masturbatory and an unnatural act. So double effect (I want safety from disease and I’ll tolerate but not desire the contraceptive effect) won’t work.

Just be careful you don’t mix up double effect with “the lesser of two evils” or you end up trashing Catholic moral teaching. It’s double effect that allows you to kill a dangerous intruder or to shoot an enemy soldier. You don’t directly desire their DEATHS, but killing them is the only effective way of STOPPING them and that is a licit effect of a bullet in the heart.

“…please spare your judgement of others in these unique situations”

Amen! God bless and help you, Pat.

Wow. I am committing a grave evil in order to protect the man that I love. The fact I was refering to is the “certainty” of my husband contracting the virus through the use of a condom. It’s been 16 years and he’s not infected. This is not a case of martyrdom. This is about sharing the gift of love with my husband. Like I said, I’m the one who will stand before God. Remember the scripture,” Judge not, that ye be not judged”. (Matthew 7:1)

Pat, a couple things.

First, I sympathize with your situation. I know it must be very hard.

Second, I would ask if you’ve read any of the Church’s teaching on this subject? Any of the articles I link to, for instance?

You say (I hope sarcastically) that you are committing a grave evil to help protect the man you love. I think we would both agree that you can’t committ grave evils evil to achieve good. I would hope so anyway.

But as far as using a condom – where you deliberately withhold your fertility from your spouse, either directly or through an action you KNOW is contraceptive, isn’t a full sexual act: it is neither open to new life, nor is it a full expression of marital love, because you are withholding an essential part of the act of love.

I would urge you to at least keep an open mind on the topic. You’ll be in my prayers – God Bless.

I sympathize with Pat, too, but I see that her way of thinking is very common among Catholics.

I find Catholics, for example, who are very orthodox in other ways defending acts of mass murder in war the same way: It was necessary, my grandfather would have died if I didn’t do it, we had to do it to defend our country, millions of Americans would have died otherwise…

I would understand, Pat, if you were not convinced that the Church condemned this. But what I don’t understand is that you seem to be saying, I did it out of love, I’m satisfied it’s right, don’t tell me God condemns it, I know better.

That’s just not how Catholics think about these questions. Plenty of people, for example, say, “I’m a homosexual, you have no right to condemn me, you don’t understand, I KNOW it’s good that I and my partner have a relationship. You have no right to judge me.

Do you say, “Fine,” to that, too? Or do you say, “It’s not allowed, it’s against the law of God. I’m a sinner, too, but I can’t tell you it’s okay. It doesn’t matter what you feel, God says it’s wrong.”

I think that’s all that’s going on here. People are trying to be true to the law of Christ and testify to it even if it makes them seem mean. Sometimes that hurts. Sometimes it seems harsh or unfair. But we have to try to find out what God allows and what he doesn’t and we can’t just go on our feelings, or what the results are, or what feels right to us.

Anyway, God bless you. I can’t imagine facing what you’re facing; most likely I wouldn’t handle it with anything like your grace.

Jeff: please tell me where in scripture that this is a grave sin. Publius: parachutes aren’t 100% effective, but you don’t see people jumping out of planes without them. Billy: gee, I feel judged by your statement and that’s just rude and obnoxious on your part. I’m done talking to you perfect Catholics. You have no clue as to what my life is like and to who I am. Keep writing your little blogs and I’ll continue with the Corporal Works of Mercy.

Pat, I sympathize with your agony of mind — both about your infection and about what you perceive to be the attitude toward you here. It so happens that I mostly agree with the doctrinal points that people are making, but I think the approach might be reconsidered. Folks, I don’t think we should talk to Pat as though she were (a) deliberately choosing evil or (b) mentally deficient. It’s possible that there are complexities involved that a blog comment can’t encompass, and that there’s a way for Pat to find some peace of mind without anyone’s soul being endangered (including the souls of those involved in this discussion).

Pat, maybe you can find an orthodox moral theologian who can help you with the problem. If in fact you’re post-menopausal, there might not, as you say, be any blocking of the openness to life — but I honestly don’t know. If that’s not the case … well, I’m thinking of people who’ve contracted other infectious and in fact disabling or potentially fatal diseases that would injure their spouses in the course of loving acts, even simple embraces. There are very hard choices to make in these cases. Does the uninfected spouse choose to risk infection? Does the infected spouse choose the agonizing course – agonizing for both parties – of abstaining from the loving acts? Or what? (To risk reducing the discussion to a trivial level, doesn’t this happen when a spouse has a severe cold?)

This isn’t an easy way to live by any means, and I don’t think anyone should take Pat’s situation lightly. But, as everyone keeps saying, there are more than bodies at stake here; there are immortal souls. Pat deserves both sympathy and loving guidance toward a way to love, not just now but forever.

Pat, I do sincerely sympathize (suffer with). What agony of mind you must be going through as you’re suddenly confronted with a possibility of having to make additional painful choices. But do try to find out for certain. Living with even a crumb of uncertainty in the back of the mind can be even worse than knowing the worst. (As I’m sure you found out when you first suspected that you’d been infected.) When God gives trials, He also gives strength. The cross of Christ be between you and harm. I’ll keep you in my prayers.

Pat, a short note about me being very young and “not having the life experience” to talk to someone older than myself.

I agree that I am relatively young, but the truths I’m talking about are the truths of the Church, which has a 2000 year experience. The Church is a “specialist in man” because it has been helping man in his fallen state and has been given the task by the Holy Spirit to convey to him the truth of Christ.

Second, a young man living in today’s world has to deal with sexual issues and decisions EVERY day – I have friends who are living together, practicing every type of sex imaginable. I have had friends who are gay, etc., etc.,

Every person I’ve ever talked to about sexual sins has always said at the beginning of the conversation “I know what I’m doing is right because it feels right and who are you to say that it isn’t You can never know what I’ve been through.”

That’s how the conversation starts, by the end the person almost always admits that they aren’t happy with their life, aren’t happy with their decisions and desperately want to feel healing (they often try to compensate by showing what other – legitimate – good works they do).

In other words, whenever I simply tell them the truth of the Church, their first acts are always defensive (and some of them stay that way). However, I have heard (sometimes years later) that they eventually gave the Church a chance – and everytime they have they have felt tremendously better – happier. One of my friends stopped living with his girlfriend and hopes to marry her later… after they manage to live chastly.

In other words, what I’m trying to say is that everyone initially resists the Church when they are scared of her truth, it takes TRUE humility to admit that other people could be telling them a truth they don’t want to hear – because it is always not that person who is speaking, but Christ in them.

God Bless Pat, I hope you have the courage and humility to give the Church’s teaching another chance, God gives all of us as many chances as we need.

>>>>”What I’ve been wondering is whether it would necessarily be wrong for a couple in your situation to continue your sexual relationship WITHOUT condoms. A terrible risk to your husband, yes–but the whole point of our Faith is that our souls are so much more important than our bodies.” !!!!

OK, you people have now proved you’re self-righteous and arrogant to the point of telling people to kill those they love (and yes, I think that’s a risk to your soul too!!!). I’m ***horrified*** at how you have treated our sister in Christ, Pat. And if you have the sense God gave you, you’d recognize that the proper moral move–even holding to the condoms are always grave moral evils no matter what the use–would be abstinance, not risking a deadly infection for her husband. Good God almighty. And that’s a prayer for mercy, not taking his name in vain.

Thanks for the appropriate understanding of double effect up there. I suspect many of you use it in other circumstances. For example, are all you all pacifists too? Good for you if you are, but I don’t hear you thumping about the unjust war we (the US) is in nearly as much as outing liturgical abuses and skewering dying women.

I’m OUT.

Thanks for the appropriate understanding of double effect up there. I suspect many of you use it in other circumstances. For example, are all you all pacifists too?

See Jeff’s comment about that above (fourth from the top). Double effect does not mean that the ends justify the means. In fact, if the means to the good end are intrisically evil, double effect doesn’t apply. Thus it is not permissible to inject poison into a embryo/fetus lodged in a fallopian tube, but it is permissible to remove the tube (since it will become infected and kill the mother) even though doing so will indirectly cause the death of the unborn child. Jeff’s point (and William May’s) is that a double effect argument would probably work if the only thing wrong with condoms were that they were contraceptive, but that that isn’t the case*.

*Though the matter isn’t as certain as that contraception is wrong. Which is why going to see an orthodox confessor is excellent advice.

Well, I have a lot of sympathy for Pat but don’t agree with her. I brought this up to my relatives and they had a different take on it. In my family it was quite common for women to die in childbirth or during the course of a pregnancy, so married couples swearing off sex for the sake of health wasn’t exactly a new concept. In fact, two sisters had to discontinue marital relations because doctors told them, “You survived this time, but have another child and you’ll probably die.”

We’re not talking the 1800s, either. Or post-menopausal women, either. Imagine being told at 28 that you and your 32-year-old husband must have separate beds and live chastely until you were past the child-bearing years. There’s nothing easy about that.

Please don’t forget that on the Internet it’s not just hard to develop a true relationship, but it’s easy to misconstrue intent. And, frankly, we’re assuming that Pat was being truthful and not provocative. The final sentence of her introduction was a nice example: “Until then, please spare your judgement of others in these unique situations.” It can be interpreted as “Please be charitable” or as “You don’t get it, so spare me”.

Incidentally, I don’t think it would matter how nicely everything was phrased. Pat would still have rejected it and gotten angry. When my friends very NICELY tried to steer me clear of my sins, I raged against them. I stopped seeing them. The fact that my best friend cried when I told her what I was doing just sent me into a self-righteous rant about how *I* was doing so much charitable work and *I* was quite ready to defend myself to God. (Not unlike Pat’s parting shot.) I’m ashamed to say that I found it easy to manipulate most people into acknowledging that I was a good person and it was a rough situation, etc. ad nauseum. THAT was what I took away from the discussions – confirmation of my “okayness”, not the constructive criticism.

So, yes, we should try to be charitable. But we should also realize the limits of communicating with nicknamed strangers via text on the Internet.

this is what goes on in Jeff’s head: “koo-koo….koo-koo” i imagine it somewhat like the bird chirping in the cartoons.

Joseph – I learned much from what you wrote. Thank you especially for this line from your last post: “Humility should not prevent us from speaking the truth . . .” In my case all too many times my bottom line motivation in “speaking truth” is more about being right than caring for the good of the other. For me, I must remember that the good of the other should be my only priority, lest I give my pride any kind of opening in which to feed itself.

I get that, Jeff. Which is why 99.9% of the time, I’m better off just keeping my mouth shut.

Jeff – permit me to toss a bit of water on your Eureka moment (and to mix metaphors in doing so). It’s not the risk of being wrong that’s the issue for me – in fact, being wrong is a fine way to learn to be humble. It is that I really need to learn to be humble which for me (and I’m only speaking for myself here) means checking my motivation: is it really to help someone else by pointing out a truth that they need to hear (a fine motive, indeed perhaps an obligation of mercy) or is a prideful need to be right really the driver. So, what I’m trying to say — and apparently doing so rather poorly — is that if I, personally, can’t truthfully be coming from a place of clear, charitable, non-prideful intention, then I, personally, should keep quiet.

As far as these posts are concerned, I join you in praising those who struck the balance you referenced. The issue that I brought up was ancillary to that, and not a comment or a critique of any of the posters. In fact, I stand in awe of their ability to communicate the truth the way that they did, yourself included.