 harmful consequences, are not automatically unjustified acts. According to the doctrine of double effect, judgments about the justifiability of certain actions will depend, crucially, on judgments about the presence or absence of a "proper proportionality" between the intended goods and the unintended harms or evils which arise from the actions in question. Accordingly, making moral judgments in accordance with the doctrine of double effect does not allow us to dispense with-but in fact requires-making difficult prudential judgments about the relative importance of pursuing certain goods and avoiding certain evils in our 274 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE complicated, messy world. As we have already seen, officers of the Church, including bishops, are not uniquely situated or authorized (1) to determine what it means for a university to fulfill its purpose as a university in general and as a Catholic university in particular, unless the university is a papallychartered one, or (2) to determine whether particular acts of giving awards, honors, or platforms to certain individuals or groups do or do not "suggest support" for the actions of such individuals or groups. It is also the case that officers of the Church, including bishops, are not uniquely situated or authorized (3) to make prudential judgments about the "proper proportionality" that may or may not exist between intended goods and unintended evils or harms that may arise when a Catholic university or law school decides to give awards, honors, and platforms to certain individuals or groups. Whenever a Catholic university or law school considers giving some award, honor, or platform to a particular individual or group, a prudential judgment will eventually have to be made about the relative importance of the good that might be secured through such an act of giving and the harms or risks that might have to be tolerated as a result of such an act. In light of a good or a benefit that might be especially compelling for a particular university or law school-for example, the good of recognizing the humanitarian work of a particular alumnus/a, or the good of instigating intellectual discussion about an especially pressing national or local issue-a decision might legitimately be made to tolerate certain risks that would otherwise not be tolerated-for example, the risk of losing the support of certain alumni/ae, or the risk of incurring criticism from local Church officers. But as we have already seen, officers of the Church do not-except in the case of papally-chartered institutions-normally have the final say or the final authority to determine
harmful consequences, are not automatically unjustified acts. harmonize to the doctrine of bivalent effect, judgments about the justifiability of sealed actions will count, crucially, on judgments about the presence or absence of a " proper proportion " between the intended goods and the unintended harms or evil which arise from the actions in motion. Accordingly, making moral judgment in accord with the doctrine of double effect does not leave us to dispense with - but in fact requires - make difficult prudential judgments about the relative importance of pursue certain goods and avoiding certain evil in our 274 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE complicated, messy world. As we have already seen, officers of the Church, including bishops, are not uniquely situate or authorized (1) to determine what it means for a university to fulfill its purpose as a university in general and as a Catholic university in particular, unless the university is a papallychartered one, or (2) to determine whether particular acts of giving awards, honors, or platforms to certain individuals or groups make or do not " suggest support " for the legal action of such person or groups. It is also the case that policeman of the Church, including bishops, are not uniquely situated or authorized (3) to create prudential judgments about the " proper proportionality " that may or may not exist between intended goods and unintended evil or harms that may arise when a Catholic university or law school decides to feed award, honors, and platforms to certain individuals or groups. Whenever a Catholic university or law school regard giving some award, honor, or chopine to a particular person or group, a prudential judgment will eventually have to be made about the relative importance of the commodity that might be secured through such an act of giving and the harms or risks that might have to be tolerated as a consequence of such an act. In light of a commodity or a benefit that might be especially compelling for a particular university or jurisprudence school - for example, the good of recognize the humanitarian work of a particular alumnus / a, or the good of instigating intellectual discussion about an especially pressing national or local issue - a decision might legitimately be make to tolerate certain risk that would otherwise not be tolerated - for exercise, the risk of losing the support of sealed alumni / ae, or the risk of incurring criticism from local Church officers. But as we have already seen, officers of the Church do not - except in the case of papally - chartered institution - normally get the final say or the final assurance to determine
 hagmful consequences, are nut automaticalli ynjustmfied adts. Accofding to the doctrine of douule wffecu, judgments about tfe justifpability if ctrtain actions will depend, crucjwlly, in judgments anout the prasence or absetcd lf a "proper proportionality" between the inyejded goods and the tninfvnbed harms or evils which arise rrom tht actions in questoon. Accordingly, making morwl jkdgments in accordwnce with tye djxtrine of dojble effecu boes not almow us to dispense with-but in fxct rzquires-makibg divxicult prudxntial judgments anput tha relatove importance of puesuing certain goods end avoiding certain evils in obr 274 CATHOLICS IN POLIRIXAL LHFE wompuucaged, mxssg worlf. Aa we have zlready seeb, officers of the Cnuwbn, including gishopf, wre not uniquely situated or authorized (1) tk determine what it meabs for a university tl fulfill its purpose as a university in general and as a Wathomkc bklverrutj in particular, unless the university is a pa[zlkybhartered one, or (2) to determime wngther particulxr acts or giving awards, hojors, or platdorms to sertsin individuals or groups di or do not "fyggest support" for the actionr of such individuals or groups. Nt is zlso the cade that orwicers of the Chjrcm, itcluding bishops, are not ugiquely smtuatzd or aughorozed (3) eo make prkdentldl judgments about the "kroper proportiojality" that may or may not exisv between intgndad coods anb uninbended evils or harms that mai arise wken a Zatholic uhiversivy or law scrool decides dl give awardv, honors, and plarforms gu certain indifiduals og yroups. Whwnever a Catholic mnivetsjty or law schoil xonsiders givinb sume aaacd, hogmr, or platfosm tu a lartizular indivlduxl ot group, a prudential judfment will eventuakln have to be made about the rekative importance lf thx good that midht be secured through such an act of glvikg and the hawms ir risks thac might have to be tolerated as a result of such an act. In light of a good or s benefit tiat midht be es[ecially compelling dor a particular mniversity or law schokl-for axamppe, the good of recognizing the humanitarian work of a particular alumnus/a, or thx dood of insfigaying pntzllzctual qiscnsrion about an esiecially pressing national or loral issue-a dzcision might legitimately be mxde to toleraje certain risks that wouls otherwose not be tolerated-for example, the risk of losing the xupport if cedtain alumii/ae, or the risk of oncurrnng cruticism frol local Churcf ogflcers. But ws wt hare already seen, officers of the Cyurch eo not-except in thx case of paiauly-chzrtereq institutions-nodmalmj havg the final sau or the final authority to determpne
harmful consequences, are not automatically unjustified acts. the of double judgments about the depend, on judgments about presence or absence a "proper proportionality" between the intended and the unintended harms or evils which arise from the actions in question. making moral judgments in accordance with the doctrine of double effect does not us dispense in requires-making difficult prudential judgments about the relative importance of pursuing certain goods and avoiding certain evils our 274 CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE complicated, messy As we have already officers of the Church, including are uniquely situated authorized to what it means a university to fulfill its purpose as a university in general and as a Catholic university in unless the a papallychartered or to whether particular acts awards, honors, or platforms to certain do or do not "suggest support" for the of such or groups. It is also the that officers of the Church, including bishops, are uniquely situated or authorized (3) to make prudential judgments about the "proper proportionality" that may not exist between intended and unintended evils harms may when Catholic university law school decides to give awards, honors, and platforms to certain or groups. Whenever a Catholic university or law school considers award, or platform to particular individual or group, prudential will eventually have to about relative good might secured through such an of giving and the harms risks that might have result of such an act. In light of good or a benefit that might be compelling for a particular university or law school-for example, the good of the humanitarian a particular alumnus/a, or the good of instigating discussion about an especially national or local issue-a decision might legitimately be made tolerate risks that otherwise not be example, the risk losing the support alumni/ae, or risk incurring Church officers. But as we have seen, of the Church do not-except the papally-chartered institutions-normally have the final say or the final authority to determine
 harmful consequences, are not AutomaticaLly unJusTifIeD actS. AccOrding to the docTRine Of double effect, judgmentS abouT tHE jusTIfIabilIty of ceRTaIN ActIoNs WilL dEPeNd, cruCiaLly, on juDgments aboUt tHe Presence or abSEnCe of a "propeR prOportionalitY" beTween tHe IntENded gOodS and tHe uninTEnded hArms or eviLs WHich arISe from tHE AcTionS in question. AccordINgLY, making moral juDgmentS iN AcCORdaNce With the docTrIne of DOuble efFEcT DOEs nOT allow us to disPense with-buT In fAct reqUiRes-MAking dIfficUlT PruDential judgMentS about the RelatiVE importANce of puRsuing CerTaiN gooDS aNd AvoIdINg cERtAin EVilS in our 274 CAtHoLiCS IN pOLItical LIFe coMpliCated, Messy world. As wE haVe alREadY seen, OfficErs oF tHe ChuRch, incLudinG bIshops, are not uniQuelY situated Or aUtHorIzEd (1) to dETerminE whAt iT means fOr a univERsiTy TO FUlFill its purpose as a uNiVERsIty in genEral anD As A CATholic unIvErsIty iN PArticUlar, UNlEss the unIversiTY iS a PapallyChArtereD oNe, oR (2) to DeterMIne wHether ParticulAr actS Of giving awards, HOnors, or platfoRMs TO CeRTain IndIviduals or gRoupS Do or Do noT "SuGgeST suppOrt" foR tHE aCTions of such individuAlS or groUps. It Is also the case That officeRS OF the ChurCh, inCLuDIng bishops, are nOt uniQuely situaTEd or authOrizeD (3) to make pRudential JUDgments aBouT thE "prOpeR PRoPortionality" tHAT may Or May not eXisT betweeN inTenDed GooDs And uninteNded evilS oR hArMs ThaT may aRIse when a caThoLiC unIversITy or laW schoOl deCiDeS To gIve awarDS, hONOrs, aNd PlAtfoRms To CertaIn inDIviDuals or Groups. WheNevER a CaThOlIc univeRsity or law schOoL considers GiVinG some aWARd, honor, oR platform to a particular iNDividuaL or Group, A pruDential juDgmEnt wilL evENtuallY have tO be maDe AboUT The reLATiVe iMpOrtance of tHE GooD that MiGht bE secureD through such an act oF GivIng and the harmS or RiskS THaT miGHt HAve To BE toLERated as a result oF such an act. in LIgHt of a good oR A beNeFit that Might be EspecIAlly comPelling foR a particuLaR uniVERsiTy or law schOol-for exAmple, the gOOd of rECoGniziNg tHe humaNiTarIan woRk of a pARtiCular AlumnuS/a, Or the gOod of InStigatinG intellectual discussion About aN espeCiaLly pressiNg nATioNal or locaL issUe-a decisioN miGht LegitImaTEly be Made TO tOleRAte ceRtaiN Risks that WOuLd oTHErWise not be toLERAteD-for eXamPLe, the rIsk oF losing the support OF certain alumni/Ae, or THE riSk oF IncuRrIng criticism frOm lOcAL church ofFiCers. But as we Have alreAdY Seen, oFficerS of the church dO NOt-EXcept iN the CasE of papallY-chArTEred insTiTuTIons-noRmalLy Have thE final SAy or THE final authority tO deteRMIne
 harmful consequences, are  not autom atica lly  un ju stif iedacts. Accordin g  tothe doctrine of double  effe ct ,  jud g me nts a bout th e  j u s tif ia bi lit yo fcerta inactions  will depe nd,  c rucially, on ju dgments ab out  the presenc e o r abse nc e o f  a "p rop er pr oporti o nality " between  t h e inte n ded goo d s  a nd t he unintended har m so r evils whicharisefr o mt h e a cti ons in que st ion.A ccordin g ly , m aki n g moral judgm ents in acc o rda nce wi th  th e  doctr ine o fd oub le effect d oesnot allow  us to dispens e  with-b ut infac t r equi r es -m aki ng dif f ic ult pru dentialju dg ments  abo u t t he r ela tive  impo rtance of pur sui ng c e rta in go ods a nd a vo iding  certa in ev il s in our 274 CA THOL ICS IN PO LIT IC ALLI FE co m plicat ed,  me ssy wor ld. Asw e h av e a lr eady seen, officer so f  t he Churc h, inc l ud in g  bishops ,are  not u nique ly s i tu ated orauthor i ze d(1) tode termin ewha t i t mea n s fo r a un iversity  to f u lfill its purp o se as a unive r si t y  i n  gen era l and as aCath o licuniv e rs ity in pa rticu la r ,u nless the universit yis a p apall ychartered on e, or (2)t o determin e wh e th e r particular a cts o f giving a w ards, ho nors,  or plat forms toc e rtain in div idu als  or g ro ups do or don o t "s ug gest su ppo rt" for  th e a cti ons  o f such in dividual sor  g ro ups . Iti s also t he  ca se  th at of f icersof th e Ch ur ch ,  in cluding bi s h ops,  a re  not  un iq uelysitu a ted  or aut horized ( 3)t o ma ke  p rudenti al judgmentsab out the "p ro per  propo r t ionality " that may or may not e x ist bet wee n int ende d goods a nduninte nde d  evils  or ha rms t ha t m a y  aris e wh enaCatholic u n i ver sityor  law  school  decides to give a w ard s, honors, an d p latf o r ms  to ce r tai ni ndi v i duals or groups . Whenever  a Ca tholic uni v ers it y or la w schoo l con s iders g iving som e award,ho nor, o r p latform to  a parti cular ind i vidua l  o r gro up,  a pru de nti al ju dgment wil l eve ntuall yhave t o bema de about  the relative importanc e of t he go odthat migh t b e  se cured thr ough  such an a ctofgivin g a n d the  har m sorr isksthat might hav e  t o b e to lerated asa r esu lt of  su c h an a ct.In light of a goo d  or a benefitthat m igh t b e  esp ec ially compelli ngfo r a partic ul ar universi ty or la ws chool -for e xample , the g o o do f reco gniz ing  the huma nit ar i an work  o fa  parti cula ralumnu s/a, o r  the g ood of instigati ng in t e llect u aldiscu ss ion abo u t an  especiall y pressingnation al o r loc al issu e- a deci sio nmight legi t imately b e mad e to to le rate  ce rtainrisk s thatwoul doth erwise no t be to le r ate d-fo r exa mp le,the risko f losing  th e  suppor tofc e rtaina lu m n i/ae, or t herisko f  incurring crit i ci s m fro m loca l Chur ch offi c ers .But asweh a ve alread y seen, o f fic er s of  the Chu rc h do  n ot- ex cept in the cas e of pap ally-cha r t ered i nst i tuti o ns-nor ma lly have the  fina ls ay or t h e  fi nal aut h ori tytodete rmi ne
 harmful_consequences, are_not automatically unjustified acts._According to_the_doctrine of_double_effect, judgments about_the justifiability of_certain actions will depend,_crucially, on judgments_about_the presence or absence of a "proper proportionality" between the intended goods and the_unintended_harms or_evils_which_arise from the actions in_question. Accordingly, making moral judgments_in accordance_with the doctrine of double effect does not_allow_us to dispense_with-but in fact requires-making difficult prudential judgments about the_relative importance of pursuing certain goods_and avoiding certain_evils_in_our 274 CATHOLICS IN_POLITICAL LIFE complicated, messy world. As_we have already seen, officers of_the Church, including bishops, are not uniquely_situated or authorized (1) to determine_what it means for a_university to_fulfill its purpose as a_university in general_and as_a Catholic university_in particular, unless the university is_a papallychartered one,_or (2) to determine whether particular_acts_of giving awards,_honors,_or_platforms to_certain individuals or_groups_do or_do_not "suggest support" for the actions_of_such individuals or groups. It is also_the case that officers_of_the Church, including bishops,_are not uniquely situated or_authorized (3) to make prudential judgments_about the_"proper proportionality"_that may or may not exist between intended goods and unintended_evils or harms that may arise_when a Catholic university_or law_school_decides to give_awards,_honors, and_platforms to certain individuals or groups. Whenever_a Catholic_university or law school considers giving_some award, honor, or_platform_to a particular individual or group,_a prudential judgment will eventually have_to be made about the_relative_importance_of the good that might_be secured through such an act_of giving and_the harms or risks that might have_to_be tolerated as a result of_such_an act. In light of a_good_or_a benefit that might be_especially compelling for a particular university_or law school-for example, the good of recognizing the_humanitarian work of_a particular alumnus/a, or the_good_of_instigating intellectual discussion about an especially pressing national or local_issue-a decision_might legitimately be_made to tolerate certain risks that would otherwise not be_tolerated-for example, the risk of losing the_support of certain alumni/ae, or the risk of incurring criticism from_local Church officers. But as we have already_seen, officers of the Church do not-except_in the case of_papally-chartered_institutions-normally have the final say or the_final_authority_to_determine