Consequentialmis & the Church's Moral Witness
Conclusion: Doing More Harm than We Intend, Doing Less Good than We Hope
Consequentialism & the Limits of Knowledge
We live in a fallen world and always make decisions under conditions of incomplete and often erroneous information. This means that even when I am acting with morally good intentions, pursuing a morally good goal, and using morally good means, there will often be consequences that are both unintended and undesirable.
Not infrequently, and again even if unintentionally, these undesirable consequences will cause harm to someone. Often people will feel offended and unloved even by the gentlest articulation of the Church's moral teaching on abortion or sexuality. Though not intentionally, and even contrary to what is intended, teaching the tradition of the Church causes harm.
Limiting criticism of the moral tradition to the unintended consequences of its articulation and application has led some to reject the tradition itself. This is why while we can’t be indifferent to the consequences of human actions; but neither can we limit ourselves to considering these consequences. Again, in a fallen world, we can almost always find evidence that allows us to reject an action, a moral teaching, or a public policy as “evil.”
A moral analysis limited to a consideration of consequences, not only leads us to ignore or even misunderstand intentions (e.g., “He hurt my feelings so he must be evil”) but also the importance of careful, objective consideration of the means (of what we do) and ends (or goals) of our actions.
More worrying still consequentialism allows us to justify or condemn any action or public policy by cherry-picking the results we like or dislike. All policies, all human actions, have unintended, harmful consequences. That these often impose a cost on those on the margin of society makes it imperative that we not limit ethical conservation to either intention or exclude consequences. Likewise, it is rare that we do anything which doesn't have at least some, positive consequences. Simply put, this is why moral analysis must be objective and not simply limited to considering intentions or assaying of negative and positive outcomes.
Conclusion
Bishop Irenei is correct. The war in Ukraine has caused immense human harm. But it is not simply evil because of the harm it causes to civilians and combatants alike. At a minimum this tends to level the difference between those involved in the war. Soldiers and civilians, politicians and church men, have radically different roles and so culpability. Some are victims while others are perpetrators. And, yes, there are likely those who are both.
But calls to “pray for peace with special prayers composed for the cessation of this war” and to condemn as wrong “the persecution of prayerful Christians within Ukraine” are political as well as pastoral acts. Rightly, the Church criticizes statements that reduce human affairs to the political and ignore the spiritual. We should likewise criticize statements that limit human affairs to the spiritual and ignore the political dimension.
This is why consequentialism is such a bad moral theory. Focusing on consequences, allows us to divide what should not, indeed, must not, be divided. In the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to try and limit ourselves to either the political or the spiritual consequences is to misrepresent the war, the evil it causes, the myriad motivation that lead to the invasion, and the path toward a just and lasting peace. War, like all of human life, is inherent political and spiritual and any moral theory that allows us to avoid speaking of one apart from—or in favor of—the other undermines the clarity of the Church's witness.