On the morality of taking the Covid vaccines

 

From Lifesite News:

In a LifeSiteNews essay which was overlooked by many, a thoughtful priest-theologian offers a decisive explanation of several reasons why it is mortally sinful for a person with sufficient knowledge to receive one of the current abortion-tainted experimental COVID-19 gene-therapy vaccines.

“All Catholics and men of good will must abhor abortion,” wrote “Father Elias,” a pen name used by the priest-author for “the sake of prudence” and to maintain “the focus upon the content of the article.”

Equally repugnant is the fact that all of the current experimental COVID-19 vaccines, which are given emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are abortion-tainted, “having been tested or developed through the abuse of stolen aborted fetal cells.”

In a document released by the Vatican last December, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) articulated principles of remote material cooperation which may permit the use of such abortion-tainted vaccines in grave situations.

Based on his critical analysis of the CDF document, Fr. Elias presented his understanding of the Catholic principles of moral theology which apply to the question of whether it is acceptable to receive an abortion-tainted vaccine:

There is no available morally untainted therapeutic intervention that neutralizes the proposed health threat.

There must exist a proportionate cause for using an abortion tainted therapeutic intervention based on the risks involved.

There must exist an actual grave threat to your health or that of others if you were to refrain from taking the proposed abortion-tainted therapeutic intervention.

One must oppose the fact that the therapeutic intervention is abortion-tainted.

In order for such an abortion-tainted vaccine to be morally acceptable, all four conditions must be met, and if even one of these criteria is missing, Fr. Elias confirms that use of such an abortion-tainted experimental biological agent is gravely sinful. Yet, he goes on to illustrate how not just one, but the first three criteria have not been met for the use of these gene-based vaccines.

In illustrating the gravity of the sin, Fr. Elias offers an analogy: “If your friend steals someone else’s car and then offers to sell it to you cheaply, it would be a mortal sin to buy the car, even if you were personally opposed to the fact that it was stolen. The morally tainted condition of the car being stolen makes it objectively mortally sinful for you to buy it. And likewise, being personally opposed to the evil of abortion does not of itself exempt a person from mortal sin through accepting the use of a baby murder-tainted vaccine.”

Beginning with the first criterion above to prove the mortal sinfulness of using one of these vaccines, Fr. Elias summarizes that “when a safe and effective health intervention that is not tainted by abortion is available to neutralize the health threat, it is sinful to use an abortion-tainted health intervention for the health threat.”

Highly safe, effective, inexpensive, and ethically produced treatments are available, thus an abortion-tainted experimental vaccine cannot be morally used

“Thanks be to God,” the priest exclaims, there are “several morally clean, safe, and effective health intervention protocols available which have been proven to be highly effective against COVID-19 in thousands of cases worldwide. And yet, only one available, safe, effective, and morally clean health intervention is necessary to make morally tainted vaccines morally illicit (unlawful) to use.”

Though it has been aggressively suppressed in the western media, hundreds of doctors and scientists from around the world attest to the availability of safe, very effective, inexpensive and ethically produced health interventions for COVID-19. Early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), zinc, an anti-biotic, and vitamins is one such option with a phenomenal track record.

Another treatment which is hailed as nothing less than “miraculous” is the use of ivermectin, which, as described by Dr. Pierre Kory in an impassioned testimony before a U.S. Senate committee last December, “basically obliterates transmission of this virus.”

Putting it very simply, Kory testified, “If you take it [ivermectin], you will not get sick.”

Related reading here

And the rising Antichristic Magisterium here.

The physical dangers resulting from the vaccine here.

Cardinal Burke: Bishops and Vatican have failed to defend morality

Cardinal Burke notes how our Bishops and the Vatican have failed to defend morality.  In a recent interview, His Eminence, speaking of the crisis in the Church, Said: “The situation in the Church is very alarming, first of all, because the fundamental truths of faith are undermined, put into question.”

He went on to lament that “there is no strong leadership from Rome that could explain and clarify these matters.”

The time for lying is over.  I have been saying this for years.  Back in 2009, Archbishop Charles Chaput noted that, "40 years of American Catholic complacency and poor formation are bearing exactly the fruit we should have expected...We can't talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and get honest about what we've allowed ourselves to become.  We need to stop lying to each other..." (See here).

The lying must stop.  For this to happen, we need priests and Bishops who fear God more than they do men.  Cowards will not lead us out of the valley of death.  Only shepherds who have the spiritual strength, the Cardinal Gift of Fortitude, to brave the risk of worldly criticism, will be able to lead the American Catholic Church out of the valley of the Culture of Death and back on the road to the Civilization of Love which Pope John Paul II spoke of so often.

Why have so many priests succumbed to fear?  Why is it that their preaching no longer points out sin?  Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange provides us with an answer:


"The reason for this is not difficult to find.  A sermon is the result of the combined effort of all the priest's powers; it reveals his entire person; it is his struggle against the vices of the surrounding world."  In other words, if the preaching is unsound, it is because the priest's spiritual life is unsound.  Fr. Lagrange continues, "Everything in the priest cooperates in his preaching - study, reflection, his powers to compose and revise, the activity of his intellect, his imagination, his memory, his feelings, his voice.  Therefore, when he preaches, the priest stands exposed for all to study; some will be attracted, others will not.  Some will accept what he says, others will simply criticize.  So if the priest approaches his task from the human angle, he will say to himself: 'I cannot afford to lose my reputation; people of weight in the parish who take offense easily must be spared their feelings and not provoked; I must proceed warily so as not to incur criticism.'  In that way Christian eloquence is invaded by a profane eloquence in which the preacher looks after his own interests, not the glory of God or the saving of souls." (The Priest In Union With Christ, p. 156).

I've never been a fan of lying.  And this because Our Lord tells us that the Devil is the Father of all lies (John 8:44),  If it's lying you want, this Blog is not for you.  Forty years of lying has wrought so much damage to the American Catholic Church.  Archbishop Chaput is right, we are merely reaping the fruit of what we've planted.  St. Paul tells us that, "...the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.." (Galatians 5: 22).  But what fruit have we witnessed in the American Catholic Church?  The Church has been infected with dry-rot as so many Catholics have succumbed to the works of the flesh.

We need heroic shepherds.  Men who, like Blessed Miguel Pro, S.J., are willing to give their very lives for the Catholic Church and her teaching.

The False Prophet advances an intellectual swindle to prepare men for the demon...

Life Site News reports:


"Pope Francis has praised the 1960s German moral theologian Bernard Häring, one of the most prominent dissenters from Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, for his new morality which the pope said helped 'moral theology to flourish.'

'I think Bernard Häring was the first to start looking for a new way to help moral theology to flourish again,' he said in comments, published today by La Civiltà Cattolica, that were given during a dialogue with the Jesuit order which was gathered for its 36th general Congregation on October 24, 2016 in Rome.

Pope Francis gave his comments while answering a question about a morality he has often spoken about based on 'discernment.'

'Discernment is the key element: the capacity for discernment. I note the absence of discernment in the formation of priests. We run the risk of getting used to 'white or black,' to that which is legal. We are rather closed, in general, to discernment. One thing is clear: today, in a certain number of seminaries, a rigidity that is far from a discernment of situations has been introduced. And that is dangerous, because it can lead us to a conception of morality that has a casuistic sense,' he said."

In his book "Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense and Explanation of the Catholic Religion," Monsignor Paul J. Glenn, Ph.D, S.T.D., writes, "Let Catholic apologists..not surrender the cause of Christ...by a milk-and-water philosophy of tolerance. Tolerance is for external conduct; it is not for the mind; the mind cannot tolerate error for an instant." (p. 278). And this because error and truth are not "equally good." In other words, we must always strive to tolerate people [including those who disagree with us; and our worst enemies], but we cannot tolerate error. Differing opinions are not equally valid.

And in his important work "The New Tower of Babel," Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand explains that, "Although the dethronement of truth manifests itself in the most drastic and radical way in Nazism and Bolshevism, unfortunately many symptoms of this spiritual disease are also to be found in democratic countries. For example, in discussions we sometimes hear the following argument: 'Why should your opinion be more valid than mine? We are equal and have the same rights. It is undemocratic to pretend that your opinion is preferable.' This attitude is extremely significant because it reveals the complete absence of the notion of truth, the tacit elimination of truth as the determining norm for the value of an opinion....The immanent theme of every opinion is truth; the only thing that matters here is whether or not it is in conformity with reality..This brings us to another slogan disclosing the dethronement of truth. It is the often repeated statement 'It is true for me, but it may not be true for you.' The truth of a proposition is essentially objective; a truth which as such would be valid for one person only is a contradiction in terms. A proposition is true or false, but it can never be true for one person and false for another. The statement that a certain action is morally good may be true or false; but if it is true, it can never be false for any other person.." (pp. 56-58).

Some might be tempted to believe that the rejection of error and falsehood [ and here, again, we are speaking of ideas not persons] is something "negative" and even cult-like. But such is simply not the case. Again, Dr. Hildebrand explains: "Perhaps never before has there been as much intellectual fraud as there is today. In the mass media - and even in discussions on university campuses - this intellectual fraud appears chiefly as the manipulation of slogans designed to bluff the hearer or reader, and prevent him from thinking clearly. For a typical example, let us consider how the terms positive and negative are now most often used to discredit the refutation of pernicious errors and to give credit to the most shallow speculations. The intellectual swindlers who play such an important role in public discussions will often denominate as 'positive' propositions and attitudes they favor. They thereby seek to forestall questions of truth and value by enveloping their prejudices in a vague suggestion of 'creativity,' 'originality,' 'openness,' 'unaggressiveness.' This is the device of the cuttlefish. The moment one tries to grasp it, it emits a murky substance to confuse and deceive.

In reality, the popular slogan usages of positive and negative is a distortion of the genuine meanings of the terms. In proper usage they can refer to existence and nonexistence or to value and disvalue. They can refer to desirability and undesirability, or to answers to questions and demands, or to results of tests and inquiries. But when these terms are applied to attitudes of mind or to theses - by way of suggesting an evaluation - an intellectual fraud is committed; for they are then being used to evoke vague associations that distract from the question that alone matters - namely: Is this attitude objectively called for? Or: Is this thesis true?...It is the nature of truth to exclude every contradiction of itself. Thus, the rejection of errors and falsehoods can never be separated from the affirmation of truth. The one implies the other...

To give the impression that affirmations are 'positive' and denials 'negative' is to misrepresent completely the nature of judgments and propositions. This abuse of the language transforms the terms positive and negative into deceptive slogans and thus amounts to an intellectual swindle..." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 45-47).

This is the intellectual swindle of the Masonic False Prophet in Rome, who accuses faithful Catholics of "rigidity" and of seeing only "black and white" rather than right and wrong; this to prepare men to worship the man-god (John 5:43).

Background on Bernard Haring here.

The fraudulent banner of "pluralism"...

Life Site reports:



"Freedom doesn’t need reassignment surgery. But the scalpel is out. The anesthesia has been administered.

Tragically, most are asleep.

Overnight, we are witnessing the most radical (and destructive) transformation in America’s legal and cultural landscape than we’ve ever seen before. President Obama has long declared his intentions of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. No one realized he meant the change would be of a sexual nature.

We’ve gone from “no one should have a say what goes on in the privacy of someone’s bedroom” to forced conformation through the loss of your job or business, the imposing of steep fines or even the threat of prison. Bow to the rainbow god of LGBTQXYZ activism or you will be assimilated. I thought the Borg were some Star Trek fiction. But it’s the Obama administration and its fascist efforts to silence opposition and demand allegiance to the flag of the united states of LGBT fascism.

The recently fired baseball hall-of-famer, Curt Schilling, should have known better than to think free speech applied to him, personally. He dared to post a meme about transgenderism (not my style at all, but the First Amendment is more important than my own personal messaging preference). Silly conservative. It only applies to the Left as they parade their absolute intolerance through mainstream media, Hollywood, academia, public education, courts of law and now—aggressively—through the Department of (In)Justice.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX (as added in the 1972 Educational Amendments to the civil rights bill) in a press conference on C-SPAN attacking North Carolina’s recent House Bill 2, or HB2. She declared that these federal statutes were meant to cover “gender identity” issues because they bar discrimination based on “sex” (although the laws never mention this newly conjured up “gender identity”). Well, if that’s the case, then scholarship-stealing former NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal is covered by “race identity”, too. Why can’t white people, who thinks they’re black, apply for any black minority-based scholarship? Who are we to prevent their delusion…I mean, equality?

Lynch, who is adamantly pro-abortion, mentioned how the DOJ is concerned about discrimination against any American. Oh, but not those in the womb. Over 1 million a year have a lack of access to Life, but let’s pretend that the real injustice is the faux LGBT lack-of-access to bathrooms. Never mind that the nation’s largest abortion chain has been caught on video and in documented evidence illegally selling aborted baby body parts for profit. Lynch wasn’t moved, as the nation’s top attorney, to act. But within weeks of #HB2 becoming law, the Civil Rights division of the DOJ moved with lightning speed to protect the “equal rights” of 0.1% of the population.

Lynch says that North Carolina’s common sense #HB2 “presents the problem that does not exist.” We haven’t yet legalized men (whether transgender or not, because those bathroom bills don’t require any proof of such “status") going into girls’ bathrooms and changing rooms on a nationwide scale. Of course, we’ve never seen any articles of men secretly videoing or photographing women in bathrooms or similar facilities. Lynch says “North Carolina’s HB2 is based on distinction without a difference.” Really? No difference? Our sexual anatomy’s the same?

Lynch, like the rest of so-called progressives, compared the “transgender” issue with the struggle for dignity and justice of American blacks. Comparing something that esteemed medical professionals like Dr. Paul McHugh (former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital) and others call a “mental disorder” is nothing like the irrefutable innate characteristic of skin color. Of course, the deluded NAACP’s leadership agrees that opposing men using women’s bathrooms (or vice versa) is akin to racist support of Jim Crow laws. This, from the organization that recently forgot the actual wording of the First Amendment and sued me (and The Radiance Foundation) for exercising my right to free speech. I accurately called the far-left, pro-abortion organization the “National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” in several of my articles. Thankfully, Alliance Defending Freedom defended my actual civil rights. The NAACP was crushed in court and smacked down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for trying to “censor speech it didn’t like.”

Here’s the thing. If we take this twisted liberal “logic” to its illogical conclusion by eradicating gender distinctions, it’s biological women (as if the term “women” needs a qualifier) who will always be harmed the most. Since LGBT activists are hell-bent on pretending that biological binary sex is just a figment of our imagination, let’s just do away with all gender-divided sports, for instance. Men should now be able to play in all women’s sports. Well, actually, there should be no women’s sports—just sports. Gee, I wonder which “gender” will dominate those records? Science has shown repeatedly that even among the most elite of professional athletes, there is a huge gap in performance as evidenced by the 10%-25% difference in world records between men and women.
This isn’t sexism. It’s realism. My wife and I are equal, but we’re not the same. She has a womb. I don’t. And I’m perfectly ok with that. She bore three of our four amazing children. She wins the Trophy of Strength Award for that category, all the way! We’re different, and no amount of political BS (bogus stuff) will change that.

But Obama’s administration is desperately trying to force this nation into having reassignment surgery. Forget the Constitution. Fundamentally transforming America requires ignoring the very thing that makes the United States great. Law. Order. And a rich cultural heritage of Religious Freedom that “hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Apparently, common sense is not evident to this current President and those who work in our Executive Branch. Flagrantly disregarding the fact that they’re not in the legislative branch of government, they act like dictators, twisting the law to suit their gender-confused agenda.
This is no time to sleep, fellow Americans. The surgery is in progress, and it just might be irreversible. This isn’t about loving anyone you want, tolerance, or equality. Love illuminates the truth and lifts people out of their circumstances. Tolerance keeps people where they are and pretends there are no circumstances. (If you think that a perfectly healthy part of your anatomy needs to be cut off, there are definitely some circumstances.) And equality is too precious to have it distorted and defined by those who do all they can to suppress the truth."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in June of 2005 I posted the following here at La Salette Journey:


Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, 'First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior.' (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).


Professor James Hitchcock, in his excellent work entitled 'Catholicism and Modernity' (New York:Seabury Press, 1979, p. 86), explains the role of the media in this entire process: 'The media's alleged commitment to 'pluralism' is at base a kind of hoax. The banner of pluralism is raised in order to win toleration for new ideas as yet unacceptable to the majority. Once toleration has been achieved, public opinion is systematically manipulated first to enforce a status of equality between the old and the new, then to assert the superiority of the new over the old. A final stage is often the total discrediting, even sometimes the banning, of what had previously been orthodox.'

Was I exaggerating?  Cardinal Raymond Burke told the Catholic News Agency, back in 2011, that he could envision a time when the Catholic Church in the United States "even by announcing her own teaching" will be accused of "engaging in illegal activity, for instance, in its teaching on human sexuality."  When asked if he could even see American Catholics being arrested for their faith he replied, "I can see it happening, yes."  See here.

That time is now.  The persecution will now intensify.  Soon, when the Man of Sin reveals himself, that persecution will gradually sharpen until it erupts into full-scale violence and murder.


Related reading here.

As twilight fades....The Moloch State emerges

Russell Shaw writes, "As Robert Hugh Benson’s apocalyptic novel Lord of the World moves toward its shocking conclusion, a naïve young woman who has placed simple-minded faith in the utter goodness of the Antichrist figure at the center of the story awakens to the fact that her hero has artfully constructed a regime of violence, oppression and thought control.

Profoundly disillusioned, she turns to one of the new state-run euthanasia ‘homes’ for help in ending her life. As she ponders what has happened and what lies ahead, she thinks of the humanist belief system that has brought here: “There seemed no way out of it. The Humanity-Religion was the only one. Man was God, or at least His highest manifestation; and He was a God with which she did not wish to have anything more to do.”

It’s easy to see why Benson’s century-old tale is one of Pope Francis’s favorite books. Driven by a compelling narrative, the story depicts the frightening reality of a dystopian society without religion that in many respects resembles Western secular society now.

I thought of Lord of the World while absorbing the news from California that Gov. Jerry Brown—who the media obsessively kept reminding us is a “lifelong Catholic”—had signed into law a bill making his state the fifth in the U.S. where assisted suicide is legal. The others are Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana. Proponents of assisted suicide were quoted as saying they would turn next to New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Curiously enough, though, around the same time California was joining the ranks of states where doctors can help their patients do away with themselves without falling afoul of the law, Britain’s House of Commons was overwhelmingly rejecting an assisted suicide bill. The vote against was 330 to 118.

Our British cousins have hardly been slouches when it comes to endorsing whatever the secular establishment is currently pushing as the application du jour of utilitarian morality. Is it possible, then, that the lawmakers discerned some flaws in assisted suicide that have escaped the attention of Governor Brown and others like him?

Although even advocates of the right to die generally concede the need for safeguards against abuses, the dynamic of the underlying ideology encourages step by step movement in a radical direction. Perhaps the MPs who voted no were impressed by a medical journal report containing—along with other disturbing facts—the information that in one recent year a right-to-die clinic that had been set up in the Netherlands to serve people whose regular doctors wouldn’t give them lethal injections approved the killing of eleven whose only complaint was that they were “tired of living.”
Reviewing this and similar cases, the authors of the article in JAMA Internal Medicine concluded that European trends in euthanasia and assisted suicide were “very worrisome” and “should give us pause.” Really? That’s a bit like saying that you wonder if the neighbors have a problem while you watch the smoke and flames pouring out of the windows of their house.

Is America bent on going the same way? Are the rise of moral libertarianism and the decline of religious faith having the predictable result of making Americans increasingly vulnerable to an ideology of self-destruction promoted under the banner of liberation? Should we expect sooner or later to see the Supreme Court deliver a 5-4 decision announcing that the court has discovered a constitutional right to assisted suicide—complete with paper thin safeguards of course? This isn’t scare talk. I only wish it were.

Is there really any doubt where we are heading?


It was Edmund Leach who warned that, "Having abandoned the God of love, the Supreme Creator, 21st-century man is now ready to worship himself and to usurp the divine powers of creation and destruction. In the words of Dr. Edmund Leach of King's College at Cambridge: 'The scientist can now play God in his role as wonder-worker, but can he - and should he - also play God as moral arbiter?...There can be no source for these moral judgments except the scientist himself. In traditional religion, morality was held to derive from God, but God was only credited with the authority to establish and enforce moral laws because He was also credited with supernatural powers of creation and destruction. Those powers have now been usurped by man, and he must take on the moral responsibility that goes with them' (Edmund Leach, "We Scientists Have the Right to Play God," The Saturday Evening Post, November 16, 1968, p. 16).

But make no mistake about it, when man becomes God society becomes, in the words of the French philosopher Gabriel Marcel (who inspired my philosophy), 'a termite colony.' We are still in the twilight . But unless we take a stand now, we will have the Moloch state. As at Auschwitz, men will determine who has quality of life and who should be "mercifully terminated."

The New Hampshire and House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt get it wrong

The editorial staff of The New Hampshire, an independent student newspaper at the University of New Hampshire, are upset over two bills currently before the New Hampshire House: HB 437 and HB 443.  Both would ban same-sex "marriage" in the Granite State.

In an editorial which may be found here, the bright lights of The New Hampshire, suddenly concerned with the economy (a concern which was noticeably absent when legislators were pusing for same-sex "marriage" in a floundering economy), assert that, "...the larger issue behind this debate is that the House's insistence to focus on social issues is doing little to benefit the state at this time."  They go on to quote from House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt, who told the Nashua Telegraph that it is his belief that "the same sex marriage repeal must be retained in the Judiciary Committee this year so that our full and undivided attention is focused on New Hampshire's outstanding financial issues."

Issues of morality are merely a distraction from financial issues?  Our nation's first president would have disagreed.  In his Farewell Address given on September 19, 1796, George Washington specifically warned that, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Any attack on the Common Good will have ramifications across the political and economic spectrum.  There is a direct connection between a nation's moral health and its economic health.  Which is why the United States is now in crisis.  Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build it.

Now where did I read that?

Related reading: The rot in values that is causing America's decline.

A dissent rooted in utilitarian philosophy

Theologians, pastors and others who deny there is a necessary connection between moral goodness and right action are dissenting. And this dissent has its roots in utilitarian philosophy. In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II teaches that, "The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the 'object' rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches*, 'there are certain specific kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.'" (No. 78).

In the same encyclical, the Holy Father teaches that the teleological ethical theories (proportionalism and consequentialism), "while acknowledging that moral values are indicated by reason and by revelation, maintain that it is never possible to formulate an absolute prohibition of particular kinds of behavior which would be in conflict, in every circumstance and in every culture, with those values." (No. 75) and goes on to explain that, "Such theories..are not faithful to the Church's teaching, when they believe they can justify, as morally good, deliberate choices of kinds of behavior contrary to the commandments of the divine and natural law. These theories cannot claim to be grounded in the Catholic moral tradition....The faithful are obliged to acknowledge and respect the specific moral precepts declared and taught by the Church in the name of God, the Creator and Lord." (No. 76).

Certain acts (such as abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts) are intrinsically evil and are always and everywhere wrong by reason of their object, "Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature 'incapable of being ordered' to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed 'intrinsically evil' (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that 'there exists acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object." (No. 80).

* CCC, 1761: "There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it."



"Historically, utilitarianism has been the best-known form of consequentialism. Utilitarianism assesses acts and/or character traits, practices, and institutions solely in terms of overall net benefit, which is often referred to as well-being or welfare. Overall welfare is calculated by counting a benefit or harm to any one individual the same as the same size benefit or harm to any other individual, and then adding all the benefits and harms together to reach an aggregate sum. There is considerable dispute among consequentialists about what the best account of welfare is." (See here).