Peg Luksik

Once upon a time there was a young man and a young woman. The young man's life was controlled by a step-father who made decisions for him based on a fear of a predicted future evil. Each decision about the young man's growth and education and development was made through the lens of "limiting evil" that tomorrow might bring. The father made choices for his son that he knew were wrong, accepting and even selecting a "lesser evil" to avoid what he was afraid would be greater one later on.

As it turned out, his judgments about weighing greater and lesser evils were less than accurate, and he got the greater evil that he had most feared. We know his son. His name is Oedipus Rex.

The young woman was raised by a father who made decisions for her based on a trust in the providence of a loving God. Each decision about the young woman's growth and education and development was made through the lens of selecting righteousness.

This story has a different ending. Freed from the burden of judging between evils, this father opened himself and his daughter up to the blessings that flow from the righteousness he chose. We know his daughter, too. Her name is Saint Therese of Lisieux.

In every decision in our own lives, we have the chance to choose between these two philosophies. In most cases, the choice is simple and the results immediate.

But in the case of politics, the difference between thee two choices can seem less clear. We hear that candidate A is the lesser of the evils. We hear that a candidate presenting a clear moral option can't win, so we are wasting a vote.

In one U.S. Senate election in the early 1990's, two avidly pro-abortion candidates squared off. A third gentleman entered the race with a minor party, with the stated intention of giving those voters who desired to vote for righteousness an opportunity to do so. The third gentleman spent no money, and made no pretense that his candidacy was anything other than a place for a conscience vote.

The first of the two pro-abortion candidates appealed to the pro-life community as the lesser of the two evils confronting them. Many pro-lifers accepted that argument, and cast their vote for that first candidate, accepting and even selecting a "lesser evil" to avoid what they were afraid would be a greater one later on.

Others decided that voting for evil, greater or lesser, was not an option.

They voted for righteousness, even knowing that their candidate would not get victory.

By the narrowest of margins, the candidate who self-described as the lesser evil won the election. The pro-life community members who supported him publicly claimed credit for his victory.

Within two years of that election, Congress had changed hands and the "lesser-evil" candidate became a senior member of the majority party and a powerful committee chairman, who thwarted every piece of pro-life legislation that came before him. His opponent would have been a freshman office-holder in the minority party, with no real authority to direct or destroy legislation.

The predictions about the relative amount of evil that the two candidates represented were wrong, just like the predictions of Oedipus's step-father. Those who supported him wound up with the result they most feared.

Consider this. If the pro-life community members who claimed credit for the victory margin of that first candidate had instead voted for the candidate of righteousness, the results of the election would have changed. The winner would have been the candidate who had less ability to do harm - or the real lesser evil.

In the end, there really are only two options; choosing evil, for whatever reason and in whatever amount; and choosing righteousness. Choosing evil to limit evil is STILL choosing evil, and the results will reflect that direction. Only choosing righteousness opens the doors to God's blessing - and only God's blessing can truly limit evil.

TOP