Dear St. Rita Families,

Please do not forget, as we approach this election, that we as Catholics are unable to support abortion in any way. We very simply acknowledge that there is no reason out there that justifies the direct taking of the life of an unborn child. Remember that to justify something is literally “to make something just”, which cannot be possible in the case of sin.

To help us think about this, a little moral reasoning can be useful. The Church speaks of three parts to any moral act: the object, the intention, and the circumstance.[1] The object of a moral act is that to which an action tends towards intrinsically. In other words, it has to do with the intrinsic nature of the action itself. Actions in accord with reason (and God’s eternal law) are good. The object of other actions can be neutral: for example, choosing the color of your car or which flower to plant in your garden, etc. It is also the case, however, that some activities are intrinsically evil: adultery, abortion, homosexual activity, torture.

The other two parts of a moral act – intention and circumstance – do not define the action intrinsically or generally in all cases, but are characteristics of a particular action that may make the action morally good or evil, or more/less good, or more/less evil. Circumstance can be divided into seven parts – who, what, when, where, why, how, or with what aids. Stealing is sinful, but stealing a lot of money or something big is mortally sinful. The object stolen (the ‘what’) is part of the circumstance. Likewise, stealing in order to give alms (e.g. Robin Hood) is not as bad as stealing in order to get drunk, but both are still sinful.

The intention of an action is the individual’s subjective intention or motive in acting. It is clear and universally acknowledged that an evil intention, if it is the primary motivation of an action, totally vitiates or destroys the goodness of the action. There is no goodness in speaking truths to another in order to lead them to sin. This is why the Lord silences demons whenever they speak in the Gospels, even when they acknowledge publicly that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” (Mk 1:24). Purity of intention is also why the Lord says, “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” (Mt 6:3) in the context of giving alms, so that vanity does not become the primary motivation.

Regarding intention, however, we must note one more important point, highlighted by the popular phrase, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” It is impossible for a good intention to make an evil action into a good action. St. Paul speaks against it (cf. Rom 3:8). The object of an action is its intrinsic direction, or “objective intention”. The intention – the “subjective intention” – that the actor (me, for example) gives to it cannot undo or reverse or change the intrinsic direction. The reason is simple: I am not the Creator. I did not create the order of things or “make the rules”, so to speak. Therefore, I cannot change them, and to think I am able to do so is an act of pride and an attempt to make myself like God. That’s what Adam and Eve were doing when they ate from the tree – trying to make themselves like God, because they believed the lie of the devil.

Returning to the topic of abortion, we find ourselves in a very simple position that has some complex consequences. We can never support direct abortion. Politicians – and especially Catholic ones – can never do so, either. For them, to do so publicly, is to create a circumstance that makes it sinful in another way: scandal. It leads others to sin and gives poor witness. Nor is it the case that for the sake of getting elected one can publicly advocate a position on abortion that is not one’s own. That would be both a lie and a scandal.

For most of us, however, who are not politicians, we simply look for ways to support the women in our lives who may find themselves in a difficult situation regarding pregnancy. One of those ways is by supporting the restriction of access to abortion as much as possible, even if our options are limited. If I have the opportunity to choose a between a candidate who seeks unfettered access and one who seeks only very limited access, it’s permitted to choose a candidate who supports very limited access while wishing for and hoping for a complete restriction. Not choosing at all would likely assist, albeit unintentionally, unfettered access. In the language of this newsletter, the object is voting – neutral/good act. The circumstances are the moral questions involved – the topic of abortion is highest on this list of questions. Abortion access will be an issue in the next administration, and we cannot support increasing access. The intention is to save babies and to prevent self-destruction through sin – both good intentions. Thus, choosing a candidate who increases restrictions to abortion is permitted, even if the candidate does not support a total ban. 

With regards to the women, the Lord loves them dearly as well as the little lives they carry. We Catholics must be their advocates – first to keep them alive, second to help them to live well, and third (our main goal) to lead them to live eternally.

In Christ,

Fr. Christensen 

 [1] In much of what follows, I reference heavily Fr. Dominic Prümmer, OP, Handbook of Moral Theology.