Of the nine justices that preside over the Supreme Court, five of them are Catholic. Along with judges throughout the country, they face the delicate task of balancing their religious beliefs with legal policy. When it comes time to make morally challenging decisions on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment - issues that typically come in conflict with the Catholic faith - they are obligated to privilege the public good over their personal beliefs.
In recognition of this dilemma, Boston College Law School and the Church in the 21st Century Center sponsored a panel titled "Catholic Faith and Cooperation in a Pluralistic Society: Navigating Conflicts Between Conscience and the Law." Panelists included Edward Hartnett, professor of law at Seton Hall Law School; M. Cathleen Kaveny, professor of law and theology at the Notre Dame Law School; James Keenan, S.J, professor of theology at Boston College; and the Rev. Russell Smith, the senior director of ethics for the Catholic Health Association.
Keenan began the discussion by defining the principle of "cooperation in wrongdoing." This principle suggests that a person who is complicit in the act of a wrongdoer can be a "formal" or "material" participant.
Keenan defined formal cooperation as an instance in which the cooperator is conscious of the wrongdoer's malicious activity and approves of it. To illustrate this concept, he spoke of a Catholic hospital's practice of therapeutic sterilization. The hospital, not wanting to openly condone the practice, created a wing outside of the "Catholic" realm of the facility so the procedure could still be performed. "This allowed the hospital to be competitive in the market," said Keenan, "and it was still cooperating formally in evil."
Material cooperation, Kennan said, is a morally sound cooperation with evil. In order for cooperation to be classified as material, a person must not intend to participate or assist in a morally wrong act.
Spring Break
