Are there any ... “Necessary Evils”?

and if there are,

can we co-operate with them?
 
 

·         Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”
                                                                   (CCC 1761)

·         Vatican (Francis and Friends):
There are: “differing degrees of responsibility, of cooperation in      evil.”

Can we really turn a blind eye to evil because “the Authorities” say it’s okay?” — whether that “authority” is the pope or the secular state?

Of course, we have come to understand that the complicity of the secular State in promoting evil s a given: we have seen it in Nazi Germany’s murderous pogroms, in the Soviet Union’s gulags and the ideological “cleansing” of dissidents, in Communist China’s “Great Leap Forward” over the bodies of 27 million starved to death, and yes, in America where 63 million babies have been aborted with the approval of and funding by, the government.

Permissible Evils?

But only with the present pontificate of Francis have we encountered a tolerance of evil; a tolerance couched in terms of what is permissible; of “differing degrees of responsibility in cooperating with evil.” This is unchartered territory. It is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in the history of the Church. We have had other wicked pontiffs before Francis, but none who had even remotely verged on the possibility of a discussion of tolerating evil — let alone cooperating with it.

Until the papacy of Francis, such a question would have been absurd. But it is very much to the point that the papacy of Francis has been riddled with absurdities, deceptions, and contradictions.

Today, Jorge’s (Francis’s) response to the growing concern about the vaccines’ use of stem cells from human fetal tissue is all the more barbaric and absurd: “Why not take it?” he casually asked.

That a third-grader could answer this, understanding the context, borders not on absurdity but insanity: “because an innocent baby was killed to get it!”

That Jorge is no theologian is a given; but that he lacks the intellectual perspicacity of an 8-year-old is truly astounding ... and frightening — because he then went on to urge its universal use as an ethical imperative! Indeed, he went so far as to demand that “it must be done.”  Morality apart, could he have asked a more incredulous question given the many, many, unanswered questions and unanticipated side-effects concerning the proffered vaccine that has already killed some in the taking?

Since when were we allowed by God and Holy Mother Church to have any complicity in evil, much less to “cooperate” with evil in any way and to any degree?

Saint Paul himself condemns this evil sophistry thus:
“we are slandered … as some affirm that we say, “let us do evil, that there may come good.” [and their] damnation is just.” (Romans 3.8)
 

Kinda’ Dead
To say that “One may not do evil so that good may result from it” — period! — in no way invokes, or even admits of, any specious notion of “degree.”

It is much like saying that the person one killed is either dead — or is not. There is no middle way. There are no “differing degrees” of death and being dead.
This is formally called “casuistry” — the use of sophistical reasoning, the appeal to equivocal, deliberately abstruse, and overly-subtle principles or reasoning to justify what is manifestly wrong — in this case, evil. It is aptly described as “Jesuitical casuistry” (Jorge is a Jesuit) — addressing moral issues not by appealing to indefeasible precepts, but to isolated instances abstracted from any moral principles to the end of either attenuating them or abrogating them altogether. In other words, it is simply another tiresome iteration of the bankrupt notion of “situation ethics”: there are no absolutes and no moral precept is immutable.

We are called in no uncertain terms to be good — not evil. To do good — not evil. Always. Everywhere. At all times.

In fact, Christ tells us that we must be perfect even as His Heavenly Father is perfect. (Saint Matthew 5.48)

Christ never said that you are to be good “only insofar as …” — or that it is “morally legitimate” to be complicit in evil “to a certain degree” as Francis maintains.

Neither has the Church ... only her increasingly evil “princes”. That is the casuistry of the World, the Jesuits, and the Evil One.

A few babies, we are told, were murdered 60 years ago — but somehow “parts” of their tissues were … inadvertently, mind you … “kept”. Not for “research”, you understand … they were just — somehow — conveniently stored for no reason at all! What is more, they were “somehow” kept in a viable state for over half a century — by “scientists”, “biologists”, and “physicians”, no less! What a remarkable coincidence that they were serendipitously “just found” — and quite suddenly and unexpectedly became “useful”! We are amazed at this concatenation of totally unanticipated and otherwise unrelated series of events! More amazing still is that such evil does indeed have pedigree:


Unit 71 of the Handbook on Moral Sophistry

Remarkably, it is not, however, important now (you will soon see why I emphasize “now”) that a baby was killed and its organs “harvested” — after all, the murder happened 60 years ago … so it’s okay. As the years go by, apparently, culpability is commensurably diminished with time until culpability no longer exists — despite the parts remaining. Oh, yes, in the present case, they are only “little parts” — so that somehow makes the crime “little,” too.

The crime, we are implicitly given to understand, is only commensurable to tissue size and weight. The mitral valve in your heart is small, about a half-inch to just under an inch. According to this reasoning, then, a lung that measures roughly 10 inches in height (or 20 times larger than the mitral valve) is more vital (valuable) than a mitral valve. After all, it is larger — and, eo ipso, more important! That one can live without one lung for 80 years (like Jorge!) but cannot without a mitral valve 1/20th its size for little more than five seconds, is only of superficial significance. And stem cells are smaller still! And what is more, they do not count as the products of murder ... since it was committed 60 years ago!

As we had said earlier: these murders happened 60 years ago — so it’s okay! If murder was committed yesterday, then, it is of far greater gravity than had it been committed last year — and it diminishes in gravity and culpability as the weeks, months, and years pass until it no longer attains to being murder at all. This is not juridical reasoning, still less moral reasoning. In fact, there is no reasoning at all. It simply falls under the auspices of liberal “policy” articulated in the proposition that “abortion-is-not-understood-as-the-murder-of-a-baby-and-so-it’s-okay” — the logically indefensible tenet of Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party at large.

Do not be shocked by the moral indifference of our scientific “caregivers” — they are largely the product of other ghouls from earlier historical nightmares: Unit 731 and Operation Paperclip. American doctors, scientists, biologists and virologists, among others, eagerly poured into those abattoirs to take notes on the Japanese “experiments” before they could be destroyed — and even granted the death-dealers immunity as a trade for their findings in the bodies subjected to vivisection and every imaginable torture! Almost as frightening as this, is that there is no existing record or account of pangs of conscience from these ... academics. No moral outrage. Only sterile scientific notes, and the picking of the bones of the dead.

_________________________

¹   https://www.genetargeting.com/stem-cell/what-is-a-stem-cell-line/#:~:text=A — stem — cell — line — is,using — other — types — of — cells

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

____________________________________________