[Question:]{.underline} Is it morally permissible to pass through full body scanners?
[Answer:]{.underline} This is a problem of conscience that is going to become progressively more acute as these scanners are introduced into more and more airports, as well as into public buildings, such as court houses, and public activities such as baseball and football games.
The problem arises since these scanners take a three dimensional image of the naked body in such detail that they can be likened to pornographic images. These images are supposedly destroyed and are viewed only by the screening technician, but are a gross immodesty and are open to easy abuse, and to the promotion of sins against purity, especially when children are concerned. Can they not be considered as a defiling of the body, which is the temple of the Holy Ghost? Also, there is a potential health danger, namely that of unprotected exposure to radiation, the long term consequences of which are as yet unknown.
Clearly it would be a grievous sin against modesty and purity to directly will that such images be taken, for themselves. However, this is not the case. They are willed for another reason, namely to guarantee security in airports or public places. Consequently, it is a case of the indirect voluntary, and the morality will depend upon the application of the principles of the indirect voluntary.
In order for something undesirable to be willed indirectly, in order to attain another and desired goal, it is first required that the undesired effect be not evil in itself, but either good or indifferent. It is furthermore required that the good effect not come directly from the bad effect, and that there be a proportionate reason to justify the permission for the bad effect, which must be all the more weighty as the negative effect is more serious.
The fact of making a body scan is, like a medical examination, in itself indifferent. The morality or otherwise comes from the reason why it is done. The good effect is the exclusion of explosives, which is necessary for airport security. The bad effect is the immodesty of the images and the violation of a person’s privacy. The good effect comes directly from the image itself and not from the bad effect, that is not from the immodesty itself nor from the violation of privacy, although these are of course inseparable from the taking of such images. They are an accidental and unavoidable part of this procedure.
Consequently, the question of morality comes down to the question as to whether there is a proportionate reason. The civil authorities feel that there is, given the danger of airplane explosion or of terrorist action. However, in making such a judgment they do not consider the value of the virtue of modesty and of personal privacy, nor the fundamental importance of the virtue of purity, which such immodesty directly threatens. Having no appreciation for such things, they choose this means because it is quick and easy. Objectively, they are certainly wrong. The danger is very low, and the traditional ways of searching and detecting explosives and other devices have worked for years and still work.
Given the lack of proportionate reason, the traveler would have to refuse such a whole body scan, if he had the choice. He does have a choice, but the only choice that he will be given is what is now called the “enhanced pat-down”, which involves a touching with the palm of the hand, instead of the back as previously, and an intimate touching of the private parts (by a person of the same sex), that were previously avoided. This is an even worse infringement against modesty and privacy and could even be an occasion to sins against purity. It would seem to be a greater evil than the whole body scan, so that one would not be justified in opting for it.
Of course, the traveler does have the choice. He can chose not to travel by airplane or go to such a public place, and it seems that if he has no just reason to travel or to go to such a public place then he ought not to do so. In such a case there would not be a proportionate reason to justify the evil and undesired effect.
However, most airplane travelers fly for a good reason, whether related to work, or important responsibilities, or even to take a well-needed vacation. Any of these reasons to fly would be a proportionate reason to allow oneself to be subjected to such a whole body scan, and one’s family, if truly there were no alternative. The traveler is not responsible for the immodesty. However, attendance at a ball game could hardly be considered a sufficiently good reason to accept such a scan.
In addition, to the whole body scan, now airplane travelers must be ready and willing for the enhanced pat-downs that are being performed on a random basis. This can be very upsetting, particularly since it is said that women wearing skirts have for this very reason been singled out for an enhanced patdown. A person who refuses will not be allowed to board. Consequently, this also is only indirectly voluntary. In choosing to board the airplane, one must be ready for such an eventuality. Can one consent to it? Again, it is a question of the indirect voluntary. Provided that one has a good and just reason to board the airplane, one can consent to this invasion of privacy. It could be a far removed occasion of sin, but certainly not a proximate one. Since it is permitted to place oneself in a remote occasion of sin (but never a proximate one), for a proportionately grave reason, it is consequently moral for the passenger to accept this, even though he knows that it is not really necessary for airport security.
Some women ask whether it would be better to wear pants for a flight, afraid of being subjected to the possibility of a random enhanced pat-down. If the wearing of the pants were not directly willed in itself, but rather indirectly, in order to avoid a greater evil, namely the enhanced pat-down, then it would be permissible. However, given that she could still be chosen for the enhanced pat-down in any case, and that the wearing of pants for a woman is in itself immodest, as well as a bad example for others, and, at least in appearance, and much more voluntary than the pat-down itself, it seems that the wearing of pants is actually the greater evil and to be more carefully avoided than the enhanced pat-down (except, perhaps, for some women who are particular sensitive about this). Consequently, in general it would in general be false reasoning for a woman who has to fly to wear pants for this reason.
However, a Catholic could not morally seek employment with a screening organization (such as the Transportation Safety Administration) that performs either the whole body scans or the enhanced pat-downs. It would be directly and actively participating in immodest actions that are not proportionate to the danger, that demean the human body, and would be a proximate occasion of sins against purity.
It is our duty to object to these unduly immodest and demeaning procedures, that make a mockery of the sacredness of the human body, as being out of all proportion to the danger of explosives, which in any case can be discovered by other means. These objections, however, ought to be made to legislators and officials responsible for such policies, rather than to the simple employees charged with putting them into practice, and who must follow established protocols. If when we have to fly, we must accept these procedures as one more, and disgusting, cross, a sign of a world entirely secular, without modesty or purity of any kind, let us never accept them as normal or as anything less than an insult.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.