Sixty pages on a single case! Did casuistry in its heyday ever go to such an extreme? Perhaps not, but even at its most particular, traditional casuistry aimed at more than the solution of individual moral dilemmas: its inquiries were to raise general issues and its solutions were to exemplify general principles. And so it is here. Although a verdict on EC furnishes no implicit general rule and no automatic decisions for kindred cases, the considerations that have proved relevant in this instance may prove relevant in countless others.

These considerations exhibit little overlap with the ones Grisez listed in chapter 2. In order to resolve quandaries such as EC's, recall, he suggested, “how Jesus identifies with those in need, and the consequences for those who do not succor him in the poor.” Yet our examination of Matthew 25:31 – 46, and of how and with whom Jesus identifies himself, has established nothing more than special concern for the needy, and this we have assumed from the start. “Bear in mind the universal destination of goods,” Grisez further advised, then “apply the Golden Rule”; but the universal destination of goods establishes no preference and the Golden Rule concerns self and others, not nearest versus neediest. We therefore need a new list of checkpoints to replace Grisez's.

The considerations which figure most prominently in the preceding chapters' discussion of EC would figure prominently in any of countless comparable cases pitting the near against the needy, with endless variations of nearness and necessity.