On Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes, and Intrinsic Evil:
(Musings of your humble servant at
Rerum Novarum)
Though I have written on this subject before at length, to avoid providing fodder for potential distractions, I am going to write this exposition as a stand alone piece. On the subject of intrinsic evils of certain sorts, I see frequent references to
Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of
Gaudium et Spes §27. Since the primary text involved here is from the former but cites the latter, let us look at the underlying context starting with some considerations about the Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council.
Like all magisterial texts,
Gaudium et Spes (GS) is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation. The diverse elements contained within that particular document make this obligation even more important than is normally the case -
so much so that Gaudium et Spes itself in its first footnote specifically says this. To wit:
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.{1}
If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote{2} says that the first part of the text is presenting
a pastoral slant in the first part of the text, then it is what it is. No
pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have. There is no small problem with those who approach magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment as fundamentalists do with the Bible. And with that in mind, let us consider now for a moment
Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of
Gaudium et Spes §27:
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".{3}
This quote from Veritatis Splendor (VS) certainly appears to support the reading of this text as certain pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists claim. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. A reference to GS in VS cannot make the former statements more authoritative than they already were if there is no manifested intention in the text to actually do so. So that brings us to an important question not even considered by the aforementioned pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists; namely, what was the intention of the Pope in issuing Veritatis Splendor §80 and what was the intention of the Pope in citing
Gaudium et Spes §27 in the text? Let us
turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is mine and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:
Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions.
...
Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology", foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies.{4}
Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. There is no such harmony of
Veritatis Splendor §80 with prior teaching when attempting to take such a theologically flawed interpretation of the text. Plus, such a fundamentalist reading of the text as not a few theologically challenged
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists do has its own share of problems. Let us consider one such example right now: the claim of slavery as being intrinsically evil according to a fundamentally flawed reading of
Veritatis Splendor §80. This is a problem noted back in 2005 by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles in the following fashion:
In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, “liberate all your slaves at once.” Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law.{5}
The reason I cite the above source will hopefully be evident when considering some of what I have written in years past on these and other related themes. To wit:
The church's position on slavery is often misunderstood. The prohibition was on chattel slavery, not all forms of slavery indiscriminately. This is why the Holy Office in 1866 proclaimed the following:
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Holy Office: Instruction (circa June 20, 1866)]
The condemnations of Vatican II of slavery do not contradict this at all but is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the papal condemnations of chattel slavery issued by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, Pope Pius VII in 1815, Pope Benedict XIV in 1741, Pope Innocent XI in 1686, Pope Urban VIII in 1639, Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, Pope Paul III in 1537, and Pope Eugene IV in 1435. Vatican II did not proclaim any dogmas[...] or give any indication of condemning slavery except in passing so we cannot under general norms of theological interpretation take such a condemnation any further than was previously the case.{6}
By the very general norms of theological interpretation specifically invoked in Gaudium et Spes itself,
it is not credible to read the reference in Gaudium et Spes §27 to slavery in the sort of all encompassing universal fashion that most pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists would attempt to do. In just the slavery example alone, it is easy to demonstrate that a fundamentalist reading of Gaudium et Spes §27 as cited in Veritatis Splendor §80 is highly problematical theologically. Why? Because slavery is hardly the only subject that at first glance would be given a blanket condemnation of "intrinsically evil" in VS §80. Furthermore, there is far more documented evidence on the subject of slavery than on virtually any other example cited in the paragraph and despite that factor, the text itself if not read carefully would appear to involve itself in a blatant contradiction of settled church teaching on that matter which would discredit the very veracity of the Church itself. This is why general norms of theological interpretation are so damn important and why the pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who flatly ignore them in their reams of various and sundry online virtue signalling bloviations frankly do not deserve to be taken seriously.
This is also why rather than go off into the sort of games to which not a few pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists like to play, I want to at this time propose some questions for the aforementioned folks who would read the subjects touched on in Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion to buttress particular pet issues of theirs without concern for accuracy or honesty. Namely:
- Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?
- Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?
Those
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who would approach
Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion without concern for general norms of theological interpretation are asked to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. I am not interested in any commentary from them. I am not interested in qualifications of any kind from them. Why?
Because something that is intrinsically evil does not admit of objective qualifications: that is what the word "intrinsic" means. Ergo, a simple yes or no answer to these questions is in itself sufficient to reply. And its important for the
Veritatis Splendor §80 fundamentalists to answer these questions because VS §80 also says this (all emphasis is mine):
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".{7}
I trust those who pay particular attention to the bolded parts of the excised paragraph above from
Veritatis Splendor §80 can see what problems their fundamentalist hermeneutic leads to interpretation wise. So again, I ask:
- Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?
- Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?
Please give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. For the record, my answer is no. It is very evident that
Veritatis Splendor §80 enunciated a general principle and then sought to give some examples; however, rather than parse the source cited to be theologically exact, it cited the entire passage without qualification. This would appear to be a defect in the text itself as is not irregular where lengthy magisterial texts are concerned and the Vatican has itself admitted this can happen from time to time. Observe:
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.{8}
From a straightforward reading of
Veritatis Splendor §80, it is evident that in that paragraph there is a deficiency. Namely, the failure to parse the text of
Gaudium et Spes §27 to delineate between intrinsic evils and more generally abhorrent or disgraceful actions. While making no attempt at completion, if I was to attempt such a separation myself, I would classify the following items from the lengthy
Gaudium et Spes §27 citation in
Veritatis Splendor §80 as intrinsic evils: homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, voluntary suicide. The rest while admitting of varying degrees of disgrace{9} do not meet the criteria for being considered intrinsically evil; ergo, a more precise delineation in
Veritatis Splendor §80 would have been preferable from a more precise doctrinal or theological point of view. Of course
Veritatis Splendor by its own admission{10} did not manifestly intend to do this. This is why it is a theologically flawed reading of the text to attempt to interpret it in this kind of fashion.
I realize this sort of claim will likely enrage certain
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who seemingly spend much of their waking online lives doing this sort of thing but that is their problem, not those who are interested in what the Church actually teaches and who utilize tools the Church herself has put forward for correctly ascertaining these matters.
So having given my answer to the questions above, I will ask one final time of all
pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists to answer these two questions with a simple yes or no answer with no commentary whatsoever:
- Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?
- Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?
For until these questions are answered in the manner requested above, there is no reason to take any
pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists seriously whenever they regularly virtue signal their presumptive all piousness by kvetching and generally act like a pompous blowhard on discussing these subjects. (Or any that pertain directly or indirectly to them.)
Notes:
{1} Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa
December 7, 1965)
{2} Which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text.
{3} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendor §80 (circa
August 6, 1993)
{4} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendor §4, §5 (circa
August 6, 1993)
{5} Cardinal Avery Dulles: From the
First Things Article
Development or Reversal (
circa October 2005)
{6} Excerpt from a
Rerum Novarum Post (
circa August 21, 2018)
{7} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter
Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa
August 6, 1993)
{8} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction
Donum Veritatis on the
Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Sections 24 (
circa May 24, 1990)
{9} I note this for those who will in the absence of an explicit statement from me on this matter rashly presume that I am somehow claiming that there is nothing ever problematical (actually or at least potentially) in the other areas so listed.
{10} See footnote four.
