Can You Do Evil To Get A Good Result?

Q - I watched a show called "The Confession", and it was about how a hit man comes to confession and unrepentantly confesses some of his sins.

One murder he confesses is about how he goes to a man's house and gives him a gun and says if he kills himself, he will let his family live. However, if he will not kill himself, the hit man will kill him and his family.

I know this situation is hypothetical, however I was curious about what Catholic Church would say is the correct path to choose for someone who knew suicide was gravely wrong. I was thinking that the man would not be held liable for killing himself because of freewill, is that correct? Thanks.

A - Thanks for the question. Lucky for us both, the Catholic Church gives us tools to answer questions like this. The principles that guide us in complex moral decisions are clear in this situation.

It boils down to this - we can never do something that is evil in order to get a good outcome. Another way of saying it is this - good ends do not justify evil means. In this case the good end would be saving the life of others, but the evil is taking your own life. We can play out the hypothetical situation below.

Here are the two options that the hit man gives the other man, and the moral reasoning why neither are options:

1. Kill yourself and I will not kill your family.
   --We cannot willfully kill ourselves in any situation. Our lives have an intrinsic value, but are not our own. They belong to God, who alone ought to decide the time of our death.
2. Don't kill yourself and I will kill you and your family.
   --Here we must understand that if the man chooses not to kill himself (a good decision), then the decision is not his to make if the hit man kills anyone because of that decision.

The moral reasoning of modern man is relativistic and utilitarian. Most modern people would say the Catholic Church is too strict in the principles and needs to try and do something in such situations, because lives are going to be lost. Yet, a Christian can never be the one who decide to kill an innocent person (even themselves), because we must answer for how we lived our lives, not the choices of others and life is not our own to take.

Modern moral thinking says that morality is relative to time, people, situations, etc. and that we must do what is best in that situation to bring us the most happiness via pleasure (with the least amount of pain). This kind of moral reasoning has no anchor, but blows on the wind of human whims. This is the thinking that has brought us abortion, genocide, cloning, etc.

A good intention, the situation surrounding the act, and the relationships that are part of the situation cannot make an evil act a good one. Our first priority is to God and his moral law. This law, at it's core, is to do good and avoid evil.

BTW - based on the way you describe the show, the priest would not be able to absolve the man from his sins, because he is unrepentant.

I hope this helps.

Federal Government Now Requires Free Contraception for All

As I predicted last week, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services announced new guidelines today that REQUIRE insurance companies to cover birth control and sterilization. This is scary. There is no conscience clause (they say there is but it doesn't work unless you primarily serve those that believe as you do!), which means there is no opting out. They are also giving money to Planned Parenthood through the backdoor.
More:

(CNN) -- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced new guidelines in Washington Monday requiring health insurance plans beginning on or after August 1, 2012 to cover several women's preventive services, including birth control and voluntary sterilization.

According to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius the decision is a part of the Affordable Care Act's move to stop problems before they start.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," she said in a news release.

In July, the Institute of Medicine issued the results of a scientific review of women's health needs and provided recommendations on specific preventive measures to help them. Today HHS approved those recommendations.

Besides contraceptive use, the list includes free screenings for conditions such as gestational diabetes and the human papillomavirus (HPV), as well as breastfeeding support and counseling on sexually transmitted diseases. The full list is available on the Department of Health and Human Services website.
Continue Reading.

Don't let this one fly under the radar. Call your elected Representatives and tell them you don't want this! Cardinal Dinardo has already spoken out, but we need to as well. Here is a snip of what he said:

The IOM proposal underscores a major deficiency in PPACA – it lacks a conscience clause to prevent the Act itself from being used to suppress the rights and freedoms of those who may have moral or religious objections to specific procedures. This omission is especially glaring in light of the fact that the Act does accommodate the religious beliefs of those who object to participation in government-run benefits programs altogether, those who wish to address illness solely by prayer, and those on Indian reservations who are committed to traditional tribal practices of healing.

As you may know, the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, actively campaigned for the outcome proposed in IOM’s report. The report’s authors note with apparent regret that mandating coverage for surgical abortions is beyond their purview because PPACA forbids such a mandate. Nevertheless, they now recommend that HHS mandate coverage for drugs that can cause abortions.

Last fall the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops presented a detailed case against such a nationwide mandate on several grounds. For example, there are solid reasons to doubt IOM’s claims that expanded contraceptive programs reduce abortions, or that prescription contraceptives enhance the health of women (www.usccb.org/ogc/preventive.pdf). But in this letter I wish to focus on the threat posed by such a mandate to rights of conscience and religious freedom that Congress has protected in the past.
CONTINUE READING

Don't let this happen without working against this plan! If you doubt that it is a bad idea, then check out my previous post which included the following list:
Top 10 Reasons Free Contraception For All is a Terrible Idea.

The Church is Full of Hypocrites!!!

I am guessing most Catholics have heard someone who doesn't go to church tell them one of the reasons they don't darken the doorway of churches anymore is because they are "full of hypocrites".  Is it really?

Well, yes and no.

First things first, we need to define our term. What is a hypocrite?
There are two definitions in the dictionary:

1. a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2. a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Do Catholics fall into either of these definitions? Sometimes we do. Anytime you sin or fail to live up the the standards that are set before us by Christ and the Church, then it could be said we are hypocrites.

But, what most people mean when they call someone a hypocrite is that the person is two-faced and does not even try to act in accord with the standards of their faith. So, in this respect many Catholics are not hypocrites.

Regardless of the semantics, I think some motherly wisdom is the best way to get to the heart of the matter.

My mom was a public high school teacher for decades. She frequently had her students throw the hypocrite charge at her as a reason they didn't care to engage Christianity. My mother simply replied with something similar to this (she also used it on me when I made the same accusation of hypocrisy when I was rebelling):

"You are correct, the Church is full of hypocrites. Come join us."

Motherly wisdom for the modern man.

Fr. Barron on Relationships and Marriage

Open Minds

"Don't you have an open mind about everything?" I guess I really don't have an open mind if it has to be open to everything and to tell you the truth, I think that is a very good thing.

An open mind can be a dangerous thing to waste because:

• Do you really want an open mind about genocide?
• Do you really want an open mind about rape?
• Do you really want an open mind about terrorism?
• Do you really want an open mind about evil?

I think that problem lies in the fact that many who style themselves as open-minded people aren't very "open-minded" about those who disagree with them. They want everyone to think as they do...of course it ends up looking pretty close-minded when quickly examined.

I think GK Chesterton said it best:

Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.

Our Anti-Child Culture

I previously wrote about the anti-child movement, but most of the movement, as I knew it at the time, was fringe groups that had a small sphere of influence. The groups included radical environmentalists who believe humans need to be eradicated and those that want to have a lot of fun and think kids are a distraction.

But, I was wrong, because the trend isn't just fringe groups. A recent article shows how mainstream the movement is becoming and it is a very disturbing trend. Here is a snip:

"Call me a grinch, a misanthrope, a DINK (dual-income-no-kids), or the anti-cute-police, but I hate (hate a thousand times over) ill-behaved children/infants/screaming banshees in upscale restaurants (ok, anywhere, really, but I don’t want any death threats)," writes Charlotte Savino on Travel and Leisure's blog. She lists a slew of a popular destination restaurants with kid-free areas and policies for travelers looking for quiet vacation dining.

Traveling is one thing, but what about in kids' own hometowns? Should kids been banned from local movie theaters, like they were at a recent adults-only Harry Potter screening? In Texas, one cinema chain has even flipped the model, banning kids under six altogether, except on specified "baby days".

Even running errands with toddlers may be changing. This summer Whole Foods stores in Missouri are offering child-free shopping hours (kids are allowed inside but childcare service is available for parents who want to shop kid-free.) Meanwhile in Florida, a controversy brews over whether kids can be banned from a condominium's outdoor area. That's right, some people don't even want kids outdoors.

I echo the article's author when she asks, "When did kids become the equivalent of second-hand smoke?"

What a tragedy, our future interfering with our present pleasures. Another example of the me-first, pleasure-seeking, damn-you-if-you-get-in-my-way attitude that has filled our culture. We are a spoiled culture of people that has forgotten the value of humanity. Where does it come from? It comes from a God-less world view that tells us the ultimate purpose of life is to eliminate pain and maximize pleasure as much as possible, because pleasure is the greatest of all goods.

The sad thing is that if pleasure is the greatest thing there is in life, there is no hope. Without hope in the future our culture has no future.

This is why Catholics must offer the alternative world view that the purpose of life is much more grand and that we are all made for something much better.

We must bring the antidote to our culture which is killing itself and everyone who lives by it's laws of pleasure.

Facebook + Bathing Suits = Bad Idea

Something I never really wanted to post about, but feel I have to, because I don't think that young women quite understand the problem.

Yesterday when I logged onto Facebook, I had several pictures of college co-eds in bathing suits, who are friends on Facebook, come up on my feed. In response, I posted the following on Facebook as my status:

A note to young women on Facebook, from a guy who works with young men struggling with pornography...you might look good in your bathing suit, but if you were able to see yourself through 20 year-old male eyes, which are struggling to see you as a human and not an object, you would never post that pic. Just a thought.

But, that isn't enough to describe what is going on. So, here is the science behind it all:

Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated.

Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other people's emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures.

Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the changes in brain activity suggest sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon.

I believe that most young women who post pics of themselves in bathing suits aren't looking to be objectified, but it is happening to them nonetheless. I hope this shows once again why modesty is a necessary virtue in our society today and it is an act of charity to your brothers-in-Christ to avoid immodest behavior, including posting pictures of yourself that are not modest.

A note for men - you are not off the hook for lusting after women because a woman dresses immodestly. There is no excuse for using a woman, regardless of how she might present herself. Your lust is your problem, not her problem. Her problem is immodesty.

I should add a note for the women - you would never have put on the bikini in the first place if you ever had 30 seconds behind those 20 year-old male eyes I describe above.

UPDATE: I forgot to post the history behind the bikini - I summarize it like this:
The modern bikini came from a Frenchman running a lingerie boutique. When he introduced it, he couldn't find a model to wear it so he hired a stripper. It was a hit with the guys and caught on.

Related posts:
**Top 10 Reasons Men Should Practice Custody of the Eyes
**Top 10 Reasonr Women Should Dress Modestly