Challenge: Is Care For The Poor, Sick, And Elderly An Intrinsic Evil?

Earlier today I saw online a Catholic arguing that our Christian obligation to support those that cannot support themselves (the poor, sick, and elderly) is more important than the issue of abortion.  Although I do not know the person, I chose to reply because of the nature of the audience that would see his position.  What follows is my response to his opinion that care for those that cannot support themselves is more important than ending abortion.

Taking care of the poor and sick is certainly a good thing for us to do. However, supporting anyone that stands behind allowing the killing of innocent people is intrinsically evil (for those not familiar with the term intrinsically evil, please see this blog post; it means "evil no matter what the circumstances.") You could argue that one candidate allowing for an exception in limited cases is intrinsically evil in order to not support him, but if you do that you would have to not support the other candidate that supports abortion with no exception for the same reasons. In which case you would have to find another candidate to support. Support for abortion is morally wrong. As the bishop said,"One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils," and that is our first obligation as faithful Catholics.

If a President and Congress make changes that cut back drastically on support of the poor and sick, we can still provide for them through our own work. So long as there are laws that allow abortion (with no exceptions), we are allowing an intrinsic evil to occur. If laws were to come that would make it illegal for us to provide for the poor and sick, we might have an interesting discussion on whether caring for them or allowing abortion were the greater intrinsic evil, but they are both intrinsically evil and we could not support a candidate with either belief. The one intrinsic evil in play here is abortion. We might disagree on how to provide for the poor and sick, but how that is performed is not a moral issue, in which case we are called to support that candidate that does not support abortion (with no exceptions).

There are other moral issues as well, like support for gay marriage, that go against the teaching of the Catholic Church. One might argue that we have no right to force our morality onto others, but this is something that will have an impact on any religion that believes in marriage being between one man and one woman. Laws are being pushed to force churches to perform "same sex marriages." If this is not an issue of religious freedom, then I don't know how far the government would have to push to make people of faith realize that the government is intruding in religion. Secondly, there is a good amount of imagery in our faith that is rooted in marriage like the creation accounts and the marriage of Jesus to the Church. These images lose their meaning as "same sex marriages" become legal. Do you want the teachings of the Church to become watered down because of changes in the law?

"Same sex marriage" is a moral issue as are abortion and care for the poor and sick. The intrinsic evils are abortion and "same sex marriage," which means "evil no matter what the circumstances." I hope you understand how abortion and "same sex marriage" are "evil no matter what the circumstances." Go back and reflect on whether how one party plans to care for the poor and sick is "evil no matter what the circumstances." If you still feel that supporting a candidate that supports abortion and "same sex marriage" is acceptable, please explain your rational. The rationale should explain:
1) How one candidate's plans for caring for the poor and sick is an intrinsic evil.
2) Why abortion and "same sex marriage" are not intrinsic evils OR why it is acceptable to support a candidate that supports one intrinsic evil over a candidate that supports another intrinsic evil.

I challenge any Catholic to provide such rationale.

Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin

My entry is one of the four finalists to the contest to fill in this caption:

My entry is:
"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."

Please click here and vote for my entry.

Some people might think that I am making a judgement about people who are sexually promiscuous.  The judgement is about the act of sexual promiscuity and the comment is in regard to what the sexually promiscuous person is doing to themselves.

The Catholic Church teaches that sex is to be between man and woman in marriage.  You can read what the Church actually teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Archives.


The following is a response I had to someone regarding Rick Santorum's comments about homosexuality.  Contraception, sexual promiscuity, and self-worth are discussed and I eventually get back to self-worth, which is the point I made with my caption entry,"Your sexual promiscuity has cheapened your self-worth to less than a bottle of aspirin."


There is more to sex than just pleasure. If there was no pleasure in the act, a species might not procreate.  The primary purpose of sex is procreation.  This cannot happen with homosexual people.  While Rick Santorum's example of equating that act to having sex with an animal is grotesque and strong, it should drive home the point that such sexual activity is done simply for pleasure.

Another purpose of sex is the unifying aspect.  Some of this is the physical contact between the people and some is chemical.  Physical aspect can be accomplished between homosexual people, but not the fluid interaction that actually makes the woman desire that man.  This is also true for many forms of contraception between heterosexual partners.

Denying any of these aspects of sex is immoral. 


A relationship should be based on common interests, love for each other, and enjoying being with the other person.  When a person feels that the value they bring to a relationship needs to be sex, then they have reduced the value of the other things they bring to a relationship because sex is more important.  As sexual promiscuity continues with a person, they continue to devalue the other things they bring to a relationship.  Their self-worth is tied to their ability to bring sexual pleasure.  Some might say otherwise, but if one chooses to end the relationship because sex is not part of the relationship, they have reduced the value of the other person to being an object for sex.  When one feels that the only thing they bring to a relationship is sex, then that is the self-worth to which they have reduced themselves.