When discussing issues around the concept of intrinsic evils, I have noticed over the years that there is a common confusion over the meanings of the English word 'intention' that can easily lead to all kinds of strange conclusions contrary to Catholic teaching.

An example: if someone performs some action, understanding both that the action will be accomplished, and freely choosing to perform that action, then we can ask them the question – in English — "Did you intend to perform that action?", and they will quite reasonably answer, "Yes".

We can also ask them the question: "What were your intentions for performing that action?", and they may answer (for example), "Because it saved me money" or "Because it pleased my wife" or "Because I was frightened", or some such.

But those are different kinds of intending. One kind of intention merely describes that the action was freely chosen, and the other describes the aims, purposes, or goals of the action.

When Catholic teaching indicates that a particular action is an intrinsic evil, this means that the action is evil regardless of the intentions for the action – and here it is using the second kind of intention (aims, goals, purposes), and not the first.

Not grasping this can lead to misinterpreting Catholic teaching — as Jimmy Akin has done in a recent posting on his blog, where he ends up concluding (incorrectly) that proportionality somehow enters into the definition of intrinsic evils.

Mark Shea clearly understands that Akin's discussions have gone off course. Some others do, and some don't. (Alas, blogs aren't very good for correcting mistakes, since the good and bad get mixed up together. We need angels to sort these things out.)