End does not justify the means. What does this mean? The misunderstanding and misapplication.

 The end doesn’t justify the means! As Catholics, we know this already. As per the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

So, does it mean it is wrong for a police officer to carry tools of torture such as a baton, pepper spray, taser and firearm? The officer can encounter circumstances where he may need to use those devices that inflict pain and even fatality, but doesn’t the Catechism say that such circumstances still don’t justify the means? How does the Church reconcile Her teaching that the end doesn’t justify the means with Her allowance for self defense and just war?

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Hence, either 1) the Catechism contradicts itself, or 2) we have a sophomoric understanding of the ‘end doesn’t justify the means’ doctrine. As faithful and humble Catholics, we must reject the former, leaving us no other option than to agree with the latter, acknowledging that the ‘end doesn’t justify the means’ doctrine leaves room for further analysis.

Analysis, definition and distinction

By ‘act’, the Catechism doesn’t refer to specific actions such as stabbing, hitting and kicking, but used the example of “blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery”. Note that the acts of blasphemy, perjury, murder and adultery already contain within their definition a certain context. A curse word toward the sacred is blasphemy, but the same curse word toward evil is not (which the Church did by pronouncing anathemas). Producing a fake passport is a form of perjury, but producing the same fake passports and baptismal certificates to Jews fleeing the Nazi is not (which the Church did during WWII). The same action of stabbing someone to death could be murder in one context, but self defense in another. The same action of engaging in a sexual embrace can be adultery in one context, but a blessed marital act in another. Although under no circumstance can one commit blasphemy, perjury, murder and adultery, it is also a certain context that defines the same actions as something other than blasphemy, perjury, murder and adultery. As illustrated, the evil ‘acts’ as referred to in the Catechism contain an inherent context, while the circumstances that tempt those acts pertain to the external climate. In other words, the inherent context does justify certain actions, even to the point of making said actions into good acts, whereas it is the external climate that doesn’t justify. Catholic Answers apologist, Jimmy Akin, explains the same in greater detail in his blog on intrinsic evil http://jimmyakin.com/2006/11/intrinsic_evil.html

In the example of an officer inflicting pain to apprehend a violent suspect, it isn’t that the end justifies the evil means, but rather, the means isn’t even evil to begin with. It is indeed right to inflict a just amount of force and punishment to those who by their behaviour, necessitate the force and punishment levied upon them. Not only is it right, it is a “grave duty” as per the Catechism. You can place variations in the officer-offender example, by adding hypothetical hostages, a bomb detonator, or a ticking time bomb, and the teaching in CCC 2265 and 2266 remains the same: it is a grave duty to exert the necessary level of force to safeguard the common good, rendering the unjust aggressor unable to do harm! If (emphasize ‘if’) it is necessary to break the offender’s arm and fingers in order to take his weapon/detonator, followed by further beating and choking to prevent him from taking the weapon/detonator back, then the damages to the offender are justified. However, if the same actions of breaking, choking and beating are required to learn how to disarm a ticking time bomb, some people tack onto those actions the label of “torture” and “intrinsic evil”. This is arbitrary labeling and must be avoided by any catholic purporting to represent Church teaching!

So, what would be some examples of evil acts that are not justified despite the external circumstance?

One form of evil means would be excessive punishment, as in amputating a hand for the crime of theft, despite its effectiveness in deterring theft. Another would be the punishment of the innocent in addition to or in lieu of the offender. In imperial China, certain crimes such as treason resulted in the death penalty for an entire household, servants included. Air raids over cities populated by non-combatants would be another example of an evil means toward a good end, despite the desperate circumstance of war. In these examples, the punishment is disproportionate to the crime and innocent people are deliberately being used as disposable pawns. Surely, one needs not be a moral theologian to be able to distinguish the aforementioned evil acts from the just act of punishing only the guilty to a proportionate (i.e. necessary) degree.

Fruit of modernism

Imagine a Catholic theologian condemning police undercover work, misapplying the argument that “one may not do evil so that good may result from it”, and opining that no Christian can support underhanded tactics. Imagine this theologian labeling a police payment to a mafia informant as ‘corruption’, because such would be the term if the payment was the other way around. Wouldn’t this betray a deep confusion from the part of the theologian? How embarrassing that would be! Yet, such confusion is spreading around the blogosphere under the guise of Catholic orthodoxy when renowned Catholic critics denounce the covert operation of Live Action (a pro-life group that exposed Planned Parenthood clinics covering up statutory rape and promoting dangerous BDSM to youngsters). It is no coincidence that the same confused critics would misapply Church documents in denouncing the necessary use of force against a terrorist in a hypothetical ticking time bomb scenario, by mislabelling a grave duty as evil means. Whereas our enemies are calling evil good, some of our confused Catholic critics are calling good evil!

Such moral confusion betrays a modernist mindset that we ought to ‘play fair’ with evil, as if evil deserves equal treatment. Inherent in modernism are the heresies of indifferentism and relativism; that all religions are equal thus deserving equal treatment and respect. This error spills onto our moral judgment so we now deem a mass murderer to deserve equal (or better) treatment to that of an innocent babe, as evidenced by some American Catholics’ rationale for voting pro-choice democrat over pro-life republican. This is how modernism sabotages the pro-life movement from within!

Closing remarks

As Christians, we love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Yet, this doesn’t preclude punishment for medicinal purpose. Most importantly, it doesn’t preclude loving, thus protecting the pending victims of the enemy. This very enemy, upon conversion, would wish that he had been coerced into thwarting his evil plan instead of being treated with false compassion. Better to repent from attempted murder than to repent from murder.

Disclaimer:

This article isn’t meant to defend the specific incidents of waterboarding, but to provide a more comprehensive perspective over what constitutes evil means.