One of the thorniest questions in morality is the issue of whether the ends (what you are intending to accomplish) justify the means (the actions you take). There are certainly moralists who would say that the answer to the question is always "no"-- that you can never do something inherently wrong, even if it is to accomplish something good. For example, those moralists would say that since lying is always wrong, you can't lie, even if it is to save your own life or the life of someone dear to you. Like all absolute propositions, at the extremes the "ends never justify the means" argument gets tough to maintain and, in my view at least, requires a little logical sleight-of-hand. Consider killing. The Church has always taught that we can kill another in self-defense (that is the basis for the whole "just war" theory the Church advances), and killing would certainly seem to be evil ("Thou shalt not kill," after all). But, the argument goes, killing isn't really killing unless the life being taken is "innocent," and someone threatening to kill you isn't "innocent" so then the "means" isn't really killing at all. Perhaps, or perhaps the moral calculus requires an analysis that is somewhat deeper than a simple manipulation of definitions. In today's Gospel reading (Jn 5: 1-16) the Pharisees seem like they are on the side of the absolutists. Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath-- who, by the way, has been waiting to be healed for 38 years-- and tells him to pick up his mat and walk. The man does so, and the Pharisees see it. You can't do work on the Sabbath, they say. Picking up and carrying a mat is work, and you can't work on the Sabbath. The logic of the Pharisees is impecable. Certainly carrying a mat is pysical labor, and there is no doubt that the day is the Sabbath. Therefore you can't carry the mat. QED. But Jesus seems unconcerned about this logic. He seems focused on the "end"-- demonstrating to the man and those around him that he has been healed. In addition, I think He would say, you have to look at the "means"-- doing what might be considered work-- in light of the circumstances and the purposes involved. The man is lifting the mat not as a job for which he will be paid, but as a way to show Jesus' power to heal. After all, Jesus points out that the Sabbath was made for people, not the other way around (see, e.g., Mk 2: 23- 28), so doing something of great benefit to a person on the Sabbath must not be evil, even if it could be called "work." Facts and circumstances matter. The Pharisees are so offended by this way of thnking that they "begin to persecute Jesus." (Jn 5: 16). I suppose I can see why. The absolutist approach is simple, without ambiguity, and gives great power to those with authority to make the rules. In addition, the approach of looking more closely at facts and circumstances in making moral judgments is vulnerable to the problem that people can figure out how to justify almost anything. If there aren't absolute rules, the argument runs, then anything goes. We see both sides of this argument on display in the Church these days on a variety of issues-- think of the debates on how to deal with "irregular marriages." it seems to me that the story in today's Gospel tends to put Jesus on the side of the "facts and circumstances" people, at least when it comes to the Sabbath. When Jesus talks about marriage, He seems much more in the camp of the absolutists. So maybe the answer to the "ends/means" question depends on which "ends" and which "means" are being considered. If that is the case, there is no alternative but to think deeply, and pray often, before making tough choices. But I suppose that is why God gave us a brain, and a conscience.