A Third Letter, on Politics, to Grandchildren: Inherent Evil vs. Prudential Judgement

An important distinction must be made: things that are inherently, always evil; and other things that are practical, prudential decisions about which we can disagree. For a Catholic there are actions and practices that are always and everywhere evil: adultery, abortion, sacrilige, suicide, torture, genocide and so forth. Such actions can NEVER be even considered... whatever the circumstances, intentions or consequences. In politics, for example, Nazism with its racist hatred of Jews is inherently evil: a Catholic cannot be a Nazi; the Church would have to deny Communion to a declared Nazi. The same for Communism with its hatred of God and Church; and Jihadism with its contempt for Christianity. Any direct, intended destruction of innocent human life is inherently evil: bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the USA, abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and so forth. By contrast to these inherent issues are a host of issues about which we can differ: immigration policy, gun control, mandating of vaccines and masks during covid, global warming, increased taxes on the wealthy or minimum wage, the building of a wall on the border and so forth. These policy or political issues do not involve an inherent evil but a universe of contingent, practical circumstances, intentions and consequences which entail a prudential judgment. Such issues are open to a range of judgments. One's decision will depend upon one's situatuional and communal position, values and personal history. We need to educate ourselves and develop our views responsibly but realize our limitations and that others of greater intelligence and better intentions will come to opposing views. The Church itself must avoid sanctifying any particular view on such practical issues. The pope and the Church are authoritative on moral questions regarding inherent actions but have no competence in the area of social policy. Therefore if a pope, bishop or priest offers an opinion on a contingent, prudential matter they do so without special authority. As a matter, of fact, competence in political, not purely moral, matters belongs more to the laity who deal with such matters and develop expertise and need to apply Christian judgement. So, for example an episcopal or papal statement on a given war or economic policy or health program is to be received respectfully but realistically as open to criticism and disagreement. To summarize, as Catholics we need to be united in our renunciation of pure evil (genocide, abortion, euthanasia, etc.) but be free to disagree respectfully on issues of prudential judgment involving complex considerations of policy. The American bishops are now arguing about whether to deny Communion to President Biden because of his position on the value of innocent unborn life. A majority apparently favor denying him. The Vatican just recently urged caution and patience on the matter: they want to avoid a schism among the bishops. This is not essentially a prudential political or policy matter as much as a moral reality of pure evil. My own strongly held view is that giving Communion to pro-abortion advocates is a sacrilege against the Body of Christ and the bodies of the little innocent ones as well as a scandal to the Church. It is scandal in that it causes shock to our faith; and also scandal in that it divides us. Not all agree. We await their decision. Already a few bishops have acted on their own, directing such politicians to refrain from receiving. It is possible that the body of bishops will issue a weak statement and that individual bishops will make different decisions. So a politician might be welcome to receive Communion in Newark but not in New York City, across the river. This is not good! But it is a binary decision: it is YES or NO! (Next letter will apply this crucial distinction (inherent evil vs. prudential judgement) to the death penalty.