As Catholics we approach our moral and ethical decision making holding fast to some basic principles which help guide our conscience. Principles can be thought of as basic values or core beliefs.

The first moral principle is always “do good and avoid evil.” Everything else we say about morality is simply applying this basic “principle” in the light of our Christian faith to an issue at hand. In order to help us when facing difficult or confusing moral choices, the Church has long relied on some basic “tools” to sort through the confusing or competing values we may encounter. Often these “tools” are described as “principles” as well.

For example, we have the “Principle of Double Effect” and the “Principle of Toleration.” These try to provide a basic set of guidelines to help deal with complicated moral decisions. Each of these (and others like them) applies only to certain situations. (Like any tool, they are designed for a specific purpose.) And each of them helps do the same thing: keeps us from violating God’s moral law when the demands of that law may be less than clear to us.

By using tools like this we can find at least some clarity and with that clarity, some assurance as to which path is the best one to take, even if that path is still difficult. However, as is sometimes the case, a misunderstanding of these can end up causing big problems.

Such is the case with what is often called the “Principle of the Lesser Evil.” It is not uncommon for people to invoke this principle as a justification for making a moral decision which is at odds with Church teaching.

The thinking often goes like this: “I will choose something less evil and by so doing avoid committing a greater evil.” But there is a major problem: This does not describe a true Catholic principle for moral decision making. The fact that it is so often mentioned, even by Catholics, adds to the confusion.

There is certainly the possibility that we make a less than ideal choice in order to avoid what would be a worse choice, but we are never morally permitted to choose something we know is evil.

Because this phrase is such a part of our lexicon, it is easy to use it when we’re really invoking some aspect of one of the other legitimate “principles” already mentioned. This would be the case if by “choosing the lesser evil” we really mean having to tolerate some harm we can’t avoid as a result of a good choice we’ve made, or our inability to stop an evil without creating a greater evil in the process.

We can see in these cases why this phrase might be used.

If I choose to have a gangrenous limb removed to save my life, or find myself voting for a candidate who is less than ideal, I might refer to it as “choosing the lesser evil” — but these choices do not necessarily involve actually choosing evil, despite what we call it.

If, however, we invoke it attempting to justify something like lying in order to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or using contraception to avoid abortion, then we’ve subverted the first moral principle by a false moral principle. Such choices have nothing to do with Church teaching or any true Catholic principle.

The distinction must be clear — choosing evil is not permitted, even if I hope to accomplish something good through it.

Unfortunately, there have been, and continue to be, many voices proposing “the lesser evil” as a legitimate moral principle, essentially saying that it is ok to choose evil if something good comes from it. Nevertheless, the Church is clear that such thinking, as prevalent and popular as it is, doesn’t represent authentic Christian moral reasoning.

To truly choose the “good” I must also truly reject “evil” in all its forms.