From the moment this encyclical was produced moral theologians have offered their opinion in respect to this delicate matter. It is not my intention to add to that here. The reason I offer this reflection and the excerpt from the encyclical below is because outside of the academic discussion on the issues of Catholic morality I have noticed, and for a long time taken for granted, a singular interpretation of what is considered “intrinsically evil.” I was led to reread this encyclical because again I have heard this term being used in lay Catholic arguments regarding what some consider the absolute importance of certain social issues over others. In the case that affected me, it was considered that abortion and euthanasia was of preeminent importance and that other social issues such as poverty or torture were either secondary or outside the Church’s sphere of social concern. The rational given was because they are “intrinsically evil.” The difficulty with this position was that it stood against the consistent ethic of life principle, which the Church upheld in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Knowing that the position of Intrinsically evil acts was defined in Veritatis Splendor I chose to study this document and to find the difinitive position of the Catholic Church regarding this principle. Below is section 80 of this document.        

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator”.

It has been my observation that a younger generation of Catholics is emerging that is not happy  with the partisan style of moral Catholicism that has been the recent status quo for American Catholics. The healthy tension between the individual conscience and the teaching authority of the Church will continue being debated as it has for generations before. But if we are to wrestle with valid principles then we must not do disservice to our Church and faith by allowing a divisive misinterpretation of any principle to hold sway. The Church does indeed believe that certain acts are “intrinsically evil.” In the above quote the Church defines these acts as Whatever is hostile to life itself and whatever is offensive to human dignity. Insofar as some of us are engaged with making statements on the Catholic concern of social issues we need to be challenged by the fact that our Church has adopted a consistent ethic in expressing its moral position on all issues that violate the integrity of human life and creation. Even in the principle of “intrinsically evil” acts this consistent ethic is again reiterated.

The “Consistent Ethic of Life” is a Catholic moral framework that has tried to build a bridge on the issues of life that have been fragmented by partisan politics in the United States.  The right has articulated this ethic is terms of issues that impact personal sexual morality while the left tends to articulate this ethic with regards to public social issues. For decades now members of the American Catholic/Christian community has tried to develop a movement to bridge this morality, the current consistent-life network is part of this movement. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago was a champion of this movement and he pushed the agenda of the “Consistent Ethic of Life” within the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Through this ethic Cardinal Bernardin developed a consistent moral framework to address issues such as Abortion, Nuclear War, Euthanasia, and the Death Penalty. In his 1983 address Cardinal Bernardin defined the movement in this way:

If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways: We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

In 1995 Pope John Paul II wrote his encyclical on this subject titled Evangelium Vitae. While the Pope certainly approved and promoted this consistent ethic in light of what he called “The Culture of Death” the issue focus was turned to abortion and euthanasia. The result was that although the concept of the “Consistent Ethic of Life” became the moral fabric for Catholic morality, here in the United States partisan politics continued to emphasize the issues that they considered important and took from the movement whatever supported their political position.

There can be no doubt that with this encyclical Pope Benedict XVI is looking at undoing this partisan stranglehold on American and western morality. In chapter one he informs that there is a consistent morality with two encyclicals by Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (which addresses Catholic sexual ethics in terms of abortion and contraception) and Populorum Progressio (which addresses international economic development and global poverty.) The issue focus for Caritas in Veritate is the Global economy and the contemporary reality of poverty and development. It is with this social issue that Pope Benedict addressed the consistent moral framework. In so doing he is associating the “Consistent Ethic of Life” within these social issues, he reminds us in that openness to life is at the centre of true development.

The second chapter of the Encyclical gives us an update on the issue of human development from the time when Populorum Progressio was written. While Pope Benedict XVI comments on the ongoing social issues that Pope Paul VI wrote about he also introduces some new social concerns that have developed since then. This includes the further integration of globalization with its paradoxical increased of global wealth, poverty and inequality. As he concludes his analysis of poverty and development he connects the right to life within the social responsibility that we have to address global poverty and to promote a true definition of progress and development that is based on the dignity of the individual and the demands of justice. And so with regards to the issue of the global food crisis he tells us:

The right to food, like the right to water, has an important place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings without distinction or discrimination. (#27)