This is a preview of the August 31st Remnant Newspaper. In his “Last Word” column, Fr. Celatus breaks down the Catholic principle of Double Effect, and how we can apply it to the upcoming election.
“You cannot have your cake and eat it too” is an old English proverb that goes back at least 500 years, as evidenced by its use in correspondence between Thomas Cromwell and the Duke of Norfolk. It was also a lesson I learned as a little boy, when I was invited to the birthday party of a childhood friend. His birthday cake was so colorfully decorated that he protested when his mother started to cut it into pieces to eat. She finally convinced him that unless she cut the cake, no one could eat it. He relented and we all ate the cake.
This proverb is often used as an example that we sometimes have to choose between two goods. In this case, one good is continued possession of a colorful cake and the other is eating that same delicious cake. The Last Word suggests there is another principle that can be illustrated with this proverb, namely, the principle of double effect or unintended consequences. The birthday boy did not want to ruin his colorful cake but he soon realized that by choosing to eat it and share it, it would necessarily be ruined; consumed.
Voting itself can be a virtuous act inasmuch as it is a part of patriotism, and if someone votes for Trump based on his good qualities and reasonable hope for good, it would be moral.
Now there are certainly better illustrations of the principle of double effect than a birthday cake and the fact is, many if not most people are engaged in double effect decisions and unintended consequences on a daily basis. Shopping in any number of department stores or online stores may involve unintended consequences. Using a search engine on the internet may involve unintended consequences, as may owning a cell phone. Having life insurance may involve unintended consequences, as may purchasing prescription drugs. Paying taxes to government and paying wages to employees may have unintended consequences. Voting in an election may have unintended consequences, which is the focus of this article.
But first, what are the sorts of unintended consequences that may arise from the sample listed above? These include profits from purchases such as yours donated to immoral causes, privately or publicly; tech services or products that you purchased funding pornography and promoting evil agendas; insurance companies using your premium payments along with others to cover abortions and sterilizations; drug purchases from a company that experiments on fetuses, in a pharmacy that dispenses abortifacients; and, while it is compulsory, taxes fund immoral activities and wages can be spent recklessly and immorally.
Catch Fr. Celatus in EVERY Remnant Newspaper
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
“But wait, but wait! I don’t intend any of these things to happen!” That’s right and that’s the point. These are unintended evil consequences that you would never directly support. This is what is called double effect. The principle of double effect applies to situations in which a person of good will chooses something good or morally neutral which will have evil consequences that are foreseen by that person.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic moral theologians have identified four double effect conditions:
- The choice or action itself must be morally good or morally indifferent
- The evil consequence(s) must not be directly intended by the person
- The good effect cannot arise as a direct consequence of the evil effect
- The unintended evil effect cannot be disproportionate to the good intended
Let’s apply this principle to one of our sample situations we listed. As to the first condition, shopping itself is morally neutral, unless you purchase something that is intrinsically evil (e.g. pornography) or evil for you (an addict buying booze). As for the second condition, you may not be aware that a corporation or retailer financially supports evil causes and organizations from their profits but if you are aware, you do not intend or will that support. As for the third condition, your purchase is directed toward the cost of whatever your purchased and does not go directly toward financing evil causes. It would be a different matter, however, if it were advertised that a percentage of each purchase goes toward an evil cause, such as diaper purchases funding abortions. Finally, and often most complex, is the fourth condition regarding proportionality. If your shopping is done in stores that only incidentally support evil causes from their excess profits it may be moral but if abortion clinics offer cosmetic sales, you cannot buy from them.
It comes down to whether we have a realistic expectation that Donald Trump will do much more good religiously, morally and constitutionally for the Country than whatever bad he does. Based upon his past performance as President, we can have reasonable hope that good will outweigh bad.
Now let’s apply the principle of double effect to civil elections, specifically, to candidate Donald Trump. As for the first condition, voting itself can be a virtuous act inasmuch as it is a part of patriotism, and if someone votes for Trump based on his good qualities and reasonable hope for good, it would be moral. As for the second condition, we do not will or intend his recent compromises on abortion and gay issues. As for the third condition, we are voting for a candidate and not a particular platform or policy, such as support for abortion or gay rights. If we were required to sign an affidavit that we agree with everything a candidate supports then we could not vote for Trump, but there is no such requirement or expectation. As for the fourth condition, it comes down to whether we have a realistic expectation that Donald Trump will do much more good religiously, morally and constitutionally for the Country than whatever bad he does. Based upon his past performance as President, we can have reasonable hope that good will outweigh bad.
What about the other major political party and their candidates? Would the double effect principle permit someone to vote for them? Absolutely not! Their party platform and candidates are fully and ferociously committed to intrinsically evil acts and agendas and their social issues are contrary to religious and moral principles. Nations have a right to secure borders; border invaders have no civil rights; government forced redistribution of wealth is unethical; murder by medicine and mayhem by malcontents is their platform.
So, what is a good Catholic to do in this upcoming presidential election? For our part, we will be casting a vote for Donald Trump. We also intend to email the Trump campaign in advance of voting to register our objection to policies or promises that are evil. We cannot tell you how to vote but we have articulated the principle that would allow a vote for Trump, under the current conditions and with a particular candidate.
Voting for Trump is not choosing the lesser of two evils but rather voting with unintended consequences.
RELATED video — DON’T BACK DOWN or YOU’LL LOSE! A Pro-Life Message to Trump
