CATHOLICS DO NOT CHOOSE THE LESSER EVIL - WE CHOOSE THE GREATER GOOD

 Rev. Deogratias O. Ekisa, S.T.D

April 14, 2026

I have been thinking of many of my friends in recent days, especially in light of the tensions that have emerged between President Trump and the Holy Father, as well as the broader pattern of his administration’s divergence from the Church’s teaching on several important moral and social questions. His direct attack on the Holy Father, particularly on Divine Mercy Sunday, must create real heartache for those striving to be faithful Catholics while, in good conscience, supporting the President.

The Church gives us a tool to address this kind of tension in her teaching on cooperation in evil (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1868; St. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73–74).

First, the distinction between formal and material cooperation:

Formal cooperation occurs when one shares in the intention of the wrongdoing. For example, if one supports a candidate precisely because he advances policies that unjustly harm migrants or disregard the dignity of human life, one would be intending the evil itself. This is always morally wrong.

Material cooperation, by contrast, occurs when one does not share the wrongful intention, but one’s action—such as voting or other political support—still contributes in some way to the outcome. This cooperation is further distinguished:

•      Immediate material cooperation: where one’s action is directly involved in the wrongful act itself. This is ordinarily not morally permissible.

•      Mediate material cooperation: where one’s action contributes more indirectly. This can be morally permissible under certain conditions.

In the case of voting, the Church generally understands that this is often a form of mediate material cooperation. One may licitly vote for a candidate with morally problematic positions—whether the current President or his opponent—if, and only if, there are proportionately serious reasons (cf. USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, no. 34).

At this point, an important clarification is needed. We often hear the phrase “choosing the lesser evil” in political life. Strictly speaking, this is imprecise and can be misleading. We should never choose evil at all—whether lesser or greater—for to will evil, even in a limited way, is always sinful.

Rather, we choose the greater good available to us, however limited, while tolerating an unintended evil effect. In other words, the moral object of the act remains the good that is chosen (for example, the protection of unborn life or the defense of vulnerable persons), while the accompanying evils are not willed but permitted under certain conditions. This is precisely why the distinction between formal and material cooperation matters: it safeguards us from ever intending evil, even in morally complex situations.

However—and this is crucial—the permission to engage in mediate material cooperation does not extend to endorsing, justifying, or becoming indifferent to the evils tolerated.

At this point, two further principles become important: proportionality and scandal

•      Proportionate reason: The good sought must be sufficiently weighty to justify tolerating the unintended evils. This requires ongoing discernment, especially as circumstances evolve.

•      Avoidance of scandal: “Scandal” in the theological sense refers to leading others into error or sin (cf. Catechism, 2284–2287). When a Catholic appears to defend or excuse what is objectively wrong—whether unjust treatment of migrants, disregard for the poor, demeaning rhetoric, or actions that undermine the unity of the Church—this can cause confusion about the moral law and weaken the Church’s witness.

This is where the present moment becomes particularly significant.

One may have voted, in good conscience, for reasons judged proportionately serious. That can fall within legitimate mediate material cooperation. But if one begins to defend or rationalize actions that are clearly wrong—such as attacks on the Holy Father or statements that distort the Church’s teaching—one risks moving, perhaps gradually and unintentionally, toward a kind of implicit formal cooperation, or at least into scandal.

The Church calls us to something more demanding and more freeing: moral clarity without partisanship. We are called to affirm what is good, resist what is wrong, and refuse to allow political allegiance to override moral truth—never calling evil good, even when we have tolerated it for the sake of a greater good.

Approaching the situation in this way helps resolve the apparent tension between a past decision to support a candidate and a present need to reject certain of his actions. One can acknowledge having made a prudential judgment in good conscience, while also recognizing that fidelity to Christ and His Church now requires a renewed and explicit distancing from actions and policies that cannot be reconciled with the Gospel.

Our consciences must remain living and responsive to truth. As the Church teaches, conscience is not a justification for doing what we prefer, but a judgment to be continually formed in accord with the moral law (cf. Catechism, 1783–1785).

I offer these reflections in a spirit of respect and fraternity, not to deepen divisions, but to shed light on a difficult situation. These are not easy questions, but they are an opportunity to witness—to ourselves and to others—that our ultimate loyalty is not to any political figure, but to Christ; not to any party, but to the truth; and not to political power, but to the dignity of every human person.

Let us continue to pray for our leaders, for the Church, and for one another, that we may act always with truth, charity, and a well-formed conscience.  We must never choose the lesser evil; let us always choose the greater good, however limited, and refuse to call evil good.