Remote material cooperation:  At election time, Catholics must think very carefully about whom they will vote for.  When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.  Surely the intent of the Church’s teaching on remote material cooperation extends beyond politicians.  This thinking must apply to participating, albeit tacitly, in the recognition of two abortion activists and contributing to the lionization of one in the annals of national history. 

Double effect:  The word ‘proportional’ for a Catholic necessarily conjures the Principle of Double Effect.  According to the Principle of Double Effect, for an act to be morally licit all of the following must apply:

a)         The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one's fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil).  The object of awarding Rev Malloy is not intrinsically evil.  Part [a] applies.

b)         The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm.  The direct intention is to recognize Rev Malloy for his outstanding contribution to Catholic education.  This is a beneficial effect.  The harmful effect is the association of Malloy’s honorary Doctor of Laws with those of Dr Morgentaler and Ms Anderson.  Mr Davenport’s rhetoric equates the accomplishments of Rev Malloy with those of Dr Morgentaler and Ms Anderson.  This also is a harmful effect.  There is also in the public eye the growing suspicion that the award to Malloy is to buy tacit acceptance on the part of the Catholic colleges of the awards to Dr Morgentaler and Ms Anderson.  This also is a harmful effect.  The silence and passivity of the Catholic colleges indicates that the harmful effect has not been avoided as far as possible.  Part [b] does not apply.

c)          The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available.  The Catholic colleges need not recognize the accomplishments of Rev Malloy by means of an honorary degree granted by Western.  We have recommended by means of the Alternative Catholic Solution that a more prestigious and more Catholic award be given to Rev Malloy.  We have also recommended that the convocations of the Catholic colleges be held outside Western property at the Basilica.  Yet Kings Principal Dr Killan forges ahead with his plan, blithely oblivious to the damage incurred by the Catholic community.  Other means are available, but Dr Killan has ignored those other means.  Part [c] does not apply.

d)         The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment).  It is hard to see how the foreseen beneficial effects could outweigh the foreseen harmful effects.  If Dr Morgentaler receives the honorary Doctor of Laws, then it is only a question of time before he receives the Order of Canada which is the nation’s highest honour.  The harmful effects of that are immense:  a moral disaster.  Part [d] does not apply.

e)          The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.  Part [e] applies.

Since all five parts of the Principle of Double Effect must apply and since parts [b], [c], and [d] do not apply then the current position of the Catholic colleges as regards the current conditions under which they will recognize the accomplishments of Rev Malloy is not licit.  Therefore the position of the Catholic colleges appears to be one of remote material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.

Canadians exempt from  ECE?  Archbishop Michael Miller, the Secretary of the Congregation of Catholic Education in Rome, notes that in almost all cases Canadian Catholic educational institutions are affiliated with secular universities.  He also notes that, in Canada, much of the funding comes from government sources.  It would seem, then that Canadian Catholic colleges are under the thumb of the forces of secular relativism.  Does that then exempt our colleges from speaking “uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society”?  (ECE 32) 

Or just another identity crisis?  Or does it bring into sharper focus the requirements of ECE for our colleges to define Catholic identity (ECE 3,4), to extend pastoral care beyond the confines of the bricks and mortar housing our classrooms (ECE 4), to promote dialogue (ECE 15), and to “examine and evaluate the predominant values and norms of modern society and culture in a Christian perspective, and the responsibility to try to communicate to society those ethical and religious principles which give full meaning to human life”?  (ECE 33)  The intent of ECE has been to recognize the Catholic college or university as an incomparable centre of creativity and dissemination of knowledge for the good of humanity.  Creativity  -- not reactivity!   And certainly not passivity, at least not toward secular relativism!