Roman Catholic moral theology is based on the concept of acts, also called human acts. Human persons are subject to the eternal moral law of God because we have reason and free will. By reason, we can know right from wrong. By freewill, we can choose to do good or to do evil. An act, in Catholic teaching, is a knowing choice; it is an exercise of intellect, which understands the morality of a choice, and freewill, which makes such a choice. A knowing choice is a deliberate (voluntary, intentional) act, based on the understanding provided by reason. Every knowing choice of the human person is subject to the eternal moral law. Each and every knowingly chosen act is either good or evil.

This point is not a mere theological opinion. It is the teaching of the Church:

“THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS
“1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

“no human act is morally indifferent to one’s conscience or before God” (Cardinal William Baum)

There are no morally-neutral acts. Every deliberate choice of the human person, every exercise of intellect and free will, every knowing choice, is subject to conscience and to the eternal moral law of God.

The claim that some acts are morally-neutral is a common false teaching that has spread widely among the faithful. There are three reasons typically given as the basis of this claim.

1. Acts that are neither virtuous, nor sinful

Some persons say that an act such as taking a walk or eating a meal is morally neutral. What they mean is that the act deserves neither reward nor punishment. Virtuous acts in cooperation with grace deserve a reward. Sinful acts necessarily refuse cooperation with grace and always deserve punishment. But some acts are neutral as regards reward and punishment.

Suppose that, when you die and are judged by God, you point out to God that, on a particular day, you ate three square meals and got a good night’s sleep. Fine. You won’t be punished for this type of act. By neither will you be rewarded.

However, it is certainly false to say that this type of act is morally neutral. An act is moral, if it is permissible without sin. An act is immoral, if it is not permissible without sin. Moral acts are never sinful. Immoral acts are always sinful. Even if an act deserves no reward, it might still not be a sin. A knowingly chosen act is always either morally good or morally evil. There are no morally neutral acts.

2. A hypothetical lacking sufficient information

Some persons say that killing is morally neutral, because an act of killing can be either moral self-defense or immoral murder. Given a hypothetical situation in which person A kills person B, the claim is made that the act is morally neutral because we don’t know if the act is self-defense or murder. But this only applies as long as the knowledge needed to judge the act in a hypothetical is lacking. Every knowingly chosen act of killing another human person is either moral or immoral. If we do not have enough information to make the proper judgment about the morality of a particular act, the act is nevertheless either good or evil. A lack of knowledge does not make the act itself morally neutral.

3. Objects, rather than acts

Some persons say that contraception is morally neutral. They claim that “contraception” is merely a pill or a device, and therefore contraception itself is morally neutral. The typical argument of this type then goes on to justify the use of such an “object” in various ways as being sometimes moral, and other times immoral, based on intention or circumstances. However, this type of claim misrepresents the meaning of the term “contraception” as it is used in moral theology and magisterial documents.

The short-hand term “contraception” actually refers to contraceptive acts. In terms of moral theology, when we say contraception is intrinsically evil, we don’t mean that an object is evil, but that an act is evil. To fall within the realm of morality, contraception must be an act. There are several different terms used to signify this idea of an act subject to morality: knowingly chosen act, deliberate act, voluntary act, intentional act, concrete act, objective behavior, etc. But in every case, when a human person makes a deliberate knowing choice, his act is subject to the moral law. Each and every knowingly chosen act is either morally good or morally evil.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.