Isaac was confronted after Mass last year during the election cycle by a parishioner, Ben, who told him that Catholics were morally required to vote for a particular candidate because the candidate of the opposite party supported a position that was "intrinsically evil."

Ben suggested that even if you didn't agree with all the positions of the candidate he was promoting, as a Catholic you had no choice, since only one of his candidate's positions (pro embryonic stem cell research) was clearly "intrinsically evil. "The other candidate, Ben pointed out, had two (pro abortion and pro embryonic stem cell research).

Isaac, a life-long practicing Catholic, had never heard that term "intrinsic evil" before and was confused. He had been taught that mortal sins had to meet three conditions: serious matter, knowledge that it was serious matter, and full consent of the will. How come no one had taught him about this "intrinsically evil" aspect? If it was so important that it could determine the morality of his vote, what was it, what did it mean, and was Ben applying the term correctly?

Isaac agreed with the pope and the Vatican that the war in Iraq was not a just war, and he was also concerned with the increasing levels of poverty in the U.S., with global warming, and the difficulty of average folks to get health insurance. Were these issues being theologically trumped by Ben's "intrinsic evil" argument?

'Evil' vs. 'sinful'
Perhaps the best place to start in helping Isaac understand the term "intrinsic evil" would be to make a fundamental distinction, foundational in understanding Catholic moral theology, that will help us understand how the term "evil" is used in Catholic moral analysis.

There is a major distinction between the use of the term "evil" and the use of the term "sinful." "Evil" can be used to refer to an action, whereas "sinful" always and uniquely refers to a person. Only people commit sins. Actions can be described as evil, but actions per se, cannot be sinful. Persons can be sinful, because sin is the direct result of knowledge and intention. Catholic moral theology tries to keep these categories distinct for very legitimate reasons when it teaches moral theology.

First, the Catholic Church would be reluctant to define a person as "evil" because all creation is good, and specifically human beings, as revealed in Genesis 1, are created in the image of God. What humans do --- or, more clearly, what humans "choose" to do --- can be sinful, but humans are not "evil" in this theological sense. Often enough, the term "evil" is applied to persons, but in Catholic theology it is more precisely used to define actions.

Thus, it is more correct in Catholic theology to speak of the actions of lying, theft, racism, embryonic stem cell research or abortion as "evil" rather than as "sinful." The person who knowingly and willingly chooses to lie, steal, be a racist, or destroy embryos either in or outside the womb is committing a sin.

When actions that are evil, or even thought to be evil ("If you so much as lust after another, you have already committed adultery in your heart," says Matthew 5:28), and are freely and knowingly chosen by someone, that is "sinful." The origin of sin as found in the book of Genesis in the Bible helps us understand the depravity of sin. Adam and Eve knew that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to them, yet they freely chose to eat of it.

Every one of us is guilty of exactly the same choice. There is no sinner alive who cannot fail to admit that we "knew" something was evil when we chose to do it anyway. That is sin, as we have experienced in our lives.

Christians are, fundamentally, people who can never say, "The devil made me do it." We are made in God's image through the gifts that make us different from all other creatures, intellect and free will. We are expected to use our brains and to take responsibility for our informed choices.

When 'evil' isn't 'sinful'
Catholic moral tradition is firm in its teaching that an "evil" action is not sinful if there is either a lack of knowledge that the act is evil or a lack of a free intention. Thus, the Church understands and teaches that it is difficult if not impossible for many developmentally disabled or psychologically ill (temporarily or permanently) people to commit sin even though they may tragically commit evil actions, even heinously evil actions.

This was made clear to most Catholics when the Church reformed her teaching on the right to a Christian funeral and burial in consecrated land for those who had committed suicide. The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses suicide in five paragraphs, yet in none of them does it proclaim suicide as a sin, or forbidden because it is sinful. Rather, it makes is clear that it is evil for multiple reasons and forbidden (CCC, n. 2280-2283).

But at the same time, the Catechism reminds us that not every suicide is a sin. "Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing the suicide. We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives" (n. 2282-2283).

It should be noted that the new code of Canon Law (1983) does not include a previous prohibition for funeral rites for someone who has committed suicide. In the context of the theological explanation in the new Catechism, the new Canon (n. 1184) makes sense.

On the other hand, a sin does not have to involve an evil act in every case. If one thinks an act is evil, even if it is not, and chooses to do it, that is a sinful choice. Similarly, if one has made the full intention of doing something evil, but never has the opportunity to follow through, they have already committed the sin (cf. Matthew 5:28: "They have committed adultery in their heart").

This fundamental theological distinction between "evil" and "sinful" allows us to begin to address Isaac's concern: "What is an intrinsically evil action?" In order to answer the question, we need to make a further distinction between "evil" and "intrinsically evil" actions.

The 'three-font principle'
Evil actions have traditionally been determined in classic Catholic moral theology through the application of the "three-font principle." This principle recognizes that there are three "fonts" or "determinants" of moral evil: (1) the intention; (2) the act itself; and 3) the circumstances. The principle states that in order for a choice to be good, all three of the "fonts" or "determinants" need to be good, and if any one of the fonts is evil, then the action is morally evil and morally forbidden.

Thomas Aquinas, in explaining this principle, uses the example of a wealthy person exiting the Cathedral after Mass on Sunday and giving money to a beggar on the church steps. He points out that although the act itself (2: a wealthy man giving some of his surplus property to the poor) is good, and the circumstances (3: a person is in dire need and another has the means to provide for that need) are both good, the goodness or evil of the action could turn on the first font, the intention.

If the wealthy person were giving money to the beggar deliberately and solely in order to be thought well of by his peers, he or she could be guilty of the sin of pride, whereas if he or she were genuinely concerned with the welfare of the beggar, it would be a good and even meritorious action.

The three-font principle is in fact what most Catholics use on a daily basis in their moral analysis. Without knowing its name or its history, we look at the choices we are faced with at home, at work and in society by weighing and analyzing our intentions, the act itself and the circumstances. Sometimes the issue is so complex and the decision so pivotal to our Christian discipleship that we seek counsel from someone we trust: our parish life director, our spiritual director, our pastor, our spouse, or our best friend.

The use of the classic three-font principle challenges us to be thoughtful, informed and responsible Catholics. It is not a license for us to "make up" morality for ourselves but to come to the objectively right choice and for us to own that choice and stick to it.

'Intrinsically evil' actions
While the three-font principle is in fact what is most commonly used by each of us for our daily moral decisions, there is another category, the category that Ben brought to Isaac in our opening scenario, the category of "intrinsically evil" actions.

Intrinsically evil actions are those actions that, in and of themselves, apart from any motive or circumstances, can never be morally permitted. Intrinsically evil actions are actions that directly assault the dignity of the human person and can never be morally chosen.

Essentially, intrinsically evil actions are "unreasonable." They are beyond an argument for acceptance. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Veritatis Splendor:

"Reason attests that there are human acts which are by their nature 'incapable of being ordered' to God because they radically contradict the good of the person made in God's image…they are always and per se …intrinsically evil quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances" (VS, n. 80).

A list of examples of intrinsically evil actions is found in Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (1965) from the Second Vatican Council, and repeated in Veritatis Splendor ("The Splendor of Truth," 1993):

"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 laborers 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 honor due to the Creator" (GS, n. 27; VS, n. 80).

In conclusion
The Catholic moral tradition respects the integrity of the human person, created in the image of God, by expecting that every one of us use our intellect and our free will to discover the morally good in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, by analyzing our intentions and our actions so as to pursue and do good and to avoid evil.

Humans do not "make" morality but have the God-given gifts as part of our very human nature to discover moral truth. At the same time, our intellect can help us grasp the fact that there are actions which, despite intentions and circumstances, can never be morally contemplated.

Isaac needs to present Ben with the complete list of examples of intrinsically evil actions found in contemporary church documents. It is also important to remember that in the Catholic tradition of moral theology, "evil" and "intrinsic evil" are not different in "degree" of evil but in "kind." "Evil" can be the result of a bad intention, a bad action, bad circumstances, whereas "intrinsic evil" is always the result of an "action" that is always evil in itself, apart from intention and circumstances.

While it is important to recognize that the right to life is preeminent to all other human rights that the Church defends, it is equally important for Catholics to bring a vision of a "consistent ethic of life" into the political area and to stand against any evil threat to human life and dignity, whether that threat is an "evil" or an "intrinsic evil."

Additionally, Catholics understand that the Church teaches that torture and abortion are intrinsically evil actions, that subhuman living conditions are intrinsically offensive to human dignity, and that the torturers and abortionists both infect human civilization and contaminate those involved more than those who suffer the injustice.

The Catholic moral vision is one that brings to society the decision to protect human life from the moment of conception to natural death. Abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, torture, unjust wars, nuclear weapons, along with racism, prejudice, the denial of human rights and all other acts that violate the integrity of the human person, are abominations.

Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. His column appears monthly in The Tidings.