Will We Be Brought To This Point?

A few weeks ago I posted one of Chuck Colson's videos in which he exposed the vocabular sophistry being employed by the Messiah Most Miserable and his lackeys in substituting "freedom of worship" for "freedom of religion".  He has released another video in which he explains why it may be necessary to disobey unjust law in order to obey God's law.  I'll state some thoughts first, because with all due respect to Mr. Colson, he's not Catholic.  While I have no disagreement with what he says, I think it needs to be examined a bit with a "Catholic eye".

As Catholics, we must conduct ourselves in light of the Moral Principle of Double Effect.  This principle, based on Romans 6, was developed largely by St Thomas Aquinas to evaluate the morality of a given act when it most likely will have two effects, one good and the other bad.  In order for such an act to pass muster, it must meet four criteria:

• · The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
• · The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
• · The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
• · The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

To use the example that Colson used, that is, Peter and John being dragged before the Sanhedren for preaching the Gospel in spite of the Sanhedren's earlier prohibition, we can see the principle in play here.  The action in question was preaching the Gospel.  There were two sets of effects.  The good effects were that Peter and John obeyed God and the Gospel was further spread.  The bad effects were that the Sanhedran was disobeyed and they were flogged.  

The first condition is met in that the action of preaching the Gospel is certainly a good.   Secondly, they did not intend to break the man-made law.  Their focus was on obeying the call they had from Our Lord.  That was Peter's point in stating that "we must obey God".  Again, their focus was on obeying God, not disobeying man.  But in this situation, the former could not be done without doing the latter.  The third criteria stipulated that the preaching could not flow from disobedience to the Sanhedren.  Peter and John would have obeyed God with or without that law being in place.  Lastly, obedience to God more than compensates disobedience to man - if not in this life, certainly in eternal life.

There has been some confusion in the past.  Some have focused on disobeying unjust laws to "make a statement" or "to get noticed".  That's treading some treacherous water here.  The desired good effect cannot flow from the evil effect.  Moreover, are the good effects of "making a statement" and/or obtaining publicity at least comensurate with the evil effects such as jail, fines, impact on families, etc?  In many cases, the answer is probably "no".

Some might object that this seems to be a bunch of "hair-splitting".  I answer that we had better be very prepared to make rigorous examinations and reflections on contemplated actions, lest we find ourselves plopped in legal and moral quagmires that may be crippling and that were entirely avoidable.  We most likely will find ourselves in the situation where we'll have to engage in civil disobedience in order to obey God's higher laws.  Let's make sure we're doing so properly, so that we suffer for doing good and not for doing evil. (1 Peter 2:20)

Now here's the video. (Click here if you can't see embedded video).