On Faith: Intrinsically evil acts
John Nassivera On Faith
Aug 8, 2026
In the July 28 issue of Religion
News Service, an excellent article appeared by Charles Camosy titled “Catholics
Aren’t Consequentialists.” That word is a mouthful, but an important one for
anyone wanting to get a handle on a good deal of the postmodern moral
philosophy of today.
Consequentialism is very similar to
utilitarianism because both hold that whether an action is ethically good can
only be determined by the consequences of said act. Does the act contribute
more to a greater balance of good over evil than any available alternative
would? This means rightness and wrongness is always contingent upon end results
and/or intended end results. Of course, this is a descendant of Machiavelli’s
idea “the ends justify the means” as spelled out in his instruction booklet for
princes titled “Il Principe” written in the early 1500s.
Machiavelli’s booklet is widely
considered to be the first truly modern formulation of a moral system for
rulers that was divorced from Christian ethics and canon law. The context in
which it was written was Renaissance Italy, where various princes were
constantly at war with each other — and even the pope had his own army and
papal states to be defended with that army.
Catholic political and moral
philosophy has never been consequentialist. It has always been, and remains
today, the exact opposite, often called “virtue ethics.” Virtue ethics holds
that there are ethical absolutes that cannot ever be violated, such as killing
unarmed civilians and children, destroying food and water supplies, homicide,
genocide, torture, slavery, racism, separation of families, sub-human living
conditions — in short, any acts that purposely violate the dignity of human
persons and/or cause innocents harm. These actions are “intrinsically evil.” They
can never be justified, no matter what the desired, or accomplished, outcomes
may be. Ends do not justify means. Collateral damage is never acceptable.
The Catholic Church and the United
Nations both stand in strong opposition to consequentialism; they stand for
virtue ethics. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, created through the
U.N. in 1948, is one of the greatest achievements of the human race — and it is
opposed to consequentialism. It is worthy of note, and sad to say, the U.S. did
not sign the Universal Declaration until 1992. Most Muslim-majority countries
signed the declaration immediately in 1948. That is food for difficult thought.
These are two severely conflicting
approaches to moral philosophy. This conflict is front and center right now,
today — especially with what is happening in the Middle East and what is
happening in the U.S. The most important question of our time today is quite
easy to state: Is there a universal standard by which humans can determine
right from wrong? Another way to ask this is are there moral laws inherent in
human nature that can be universally understood through reason — laws
independent from written laws, societal norms and politics?
Until the late-20th century, the
Western world accepted the idea that such a thing as “natural law” existed, and
the morality taught by Christianity was in harmony with natural law. St. Thomas
Aquinas (1225-71) taught this in detail in his masterwork “Summa Theologiae.”
However, with the advent of postmodernism in the later 20th century, there
appeared a pronounced tendency to reject any and all universal standards and
narratives — because, it claims, they are always shaped and tainted by power
structures and tactical needs of any given society and its sociopolitical power
base.
So here we are. The U.S. is involved
in, and supportive of, horrible violence in the occupied territories, in Gaza,
in Iran, and in Lebanon. There are three world leaders who are completely
devoid of any moral compass: Netanyahu, Putin and Trump. These three leaders
have, over and over again, engaged and promoted intrinsically evil acts. It is
important to call these acts and actors exactly what they are.
It is very troubling to say, but
within the U.S. today, there is a form of intrinsically evil Christianity:
Christian nationalism, especially as evidenced by those who are fanatical
supporters of Trump and the MAGA agenda. These actors and their actions merit
being called intrinsically evil because they are perverting Christianity into
something truly heretical, most definitely counter to all the key teachings of
Jesus as so clearly laid out in the New Testament. Nonetheless, they shout
loudly they are the “true Christians” and all other Christians are not among
the chosen, not among the elect. Through this heated rhetoric, a new schism is
being created within the Christian religion across America. Christian
nationalism also leans quite often toward Aryan Christianity, which is probably
the worst Christian heresy ever to rear its head.
From my point of view, the advent of
postmodernism created a loop hole through which very nefarious actions and
ideas can pass. We live now in a world filled with “alternative facts” and
“alternative narratives” that color and interpret everything around us. In
addition, the internet is making this process far worse. The internet operates
without filters and guide posts — basically without any ethical standards.
Flagrant lies can be packaged perfectly to seem like clear-headed thinking —
and millions of people accept them as truths.
Here in America, Trump’s “Truth
Social” internet platform is the clearest and most pernicious example of lies
being put forth as truth — in fact, that is the whole purpose of his platform.
These sorts of platforms are especially evil because they enter directly into
our homes and converse, seemingly one-on-one, with each of us as we sit in
front of our computers or phones. The use of the internet in this fashion, to
take vicious advantage of the less educated (and/or lazy) members of the
electorate, is intrinsically evil: No other word for it.
The problem with weak-kneed “secular
humanism,” which informs so much of the Democrat political platform and its
rhetoric, is it doesn’t take the reality of intrinsically evil actions (and
individuals) seriously enough. The war mongering of Trump and Netanyahu is
above and beyond the ups and downs of international politics. Their wars and
invasions are killing large numbers of innocent civilians, including children,
and doing so purposely. This is indeed intrinsically evil. There is no way to
justify it … none.
Nobody likes to talk about hell
anymore — it’s off limits in polite society. But I’ve found myself being forced
to conclude: There has to be a hell because there has to be a place where
intrinsically evil people end up. To be that evil, a person has to “cut himself
off from God.” These evil individuals condemn themselves to hell. That is a
horrible thought, but some actions are indeed that horrible.
Unlike the philosophies and
religions of our predecessors, the Greeks and Romans, our Christian tradition
has always attempted (but not always succeeded) to establish a set of shared,
absolute, unchanging moral teachings — teachings and demands handed down from
on high, via the God-Man Jesus (the Word made flesh). These teachings arise
from a higher plane, above the changeability of our daily world.
There is much to be said in favor of
this Christian tradition. The cultivation of virtue has always been a huge part
of this tradition. As the West has become more “secular” and less traditionally
Christian, we have lost a certain awareness of the reality of evil and the real
work required of us every day in order to combat evil. We do not live in a
perfect world. But we can improve it, and we’ve received instructions on how to
improve it — it’s called the New Testament.
We must never abandon faith in
absolute moral values and virtues. To do so is the first step on a very
slippery slope.
John Nassivera is a former professor
who retains affiliation with Columbia University’s Society of Fellows in the
Humanities. He lives in Vermont and part time in Mexico.
