Posted by The WORD in other words (2019) by Fr Dionisio Miranda SVD — University of San Carlos, Cebu City
Baptism of the Lord – C
It took some time, but eventually the message broke through. Filipinos support the government‘s war against drugs, but dissent strongly with the means taken in its name. One cannot make others feel safe through threats nor can one affirm life finally with death.
Was this the conclusion of traditional common sense or the undeniable protest of conscience? Or is one merely the equivalent of the other?
Our contemporary experience forces us to ask probing questions about our vital morality. Basic to being human is the perception of equal respect and treatment, of rendering to the neighbor what we would demand for ourselves. Even the child learns soon enough that human coexistence presupposes doing the good and avoiding evil.
The moral confusion with the drug war is not about doing the good but how to pursue that good, which was perverted into doing evil to achieve the good. Perhaps a quick refresher on making moral choices can help clarify.
Between two good choices one is free in principle to choose either, since both are equally good. Between a good and a better choice that freedom of choice remains: strictly speaking one is not obligated to the better, the good being good enough. Granted, this minimalist option is far from virtuous, but despite its imperfection, is definitely not evil.
When one is faced with two equally bad choices but is forced to choose at least one, moral theology offers some guidelines for this dilemma of the doubly bad effect. To preserve the integrity of conscience one must never purposely will evil so that good may result. To mitigate the bad result one may employ proportionality — choosing the lesser of the two evils. Further. the bad effect must at least be concurrent to the action taken, to ensure that evil number 1 is not the direct cause of evil number 2. (In the classical view of “indirect voluntary” one acquiesces to the bad choice reluctantly, “under protest,” as it were.)
Between a good and a bad choice there should be no ambivalence; one may never choose evil over the good, period. But that is precisely what the war against drugs was forcing many to do, immorally: to short-circuit the rule of law and choose EJK purportedly to root out the evils of addiction. But by what logic can doing evil with evil result in good? Even experience demonstrates that a cycle of evil cannot be broken with evil itself. Like the vicious cycle of vendetta, evil can only beget evil never good; somewhere this cycle must be interrupted or better, broken.
That is where our readings take on relevance: one must fight evil with good: one must secure justice with righteousness; one must counter violence with non-violence; one cannot break the law and still appeal to its rule.
That is what Jesus did: he accepted the brunt of evil so that it would end and die with Him. Central to baptism is the renunciation of Satan and all his ways; only thus can we validate our choice to call God Father.
Are we ready today to renew those vows and so become, like Jesus, the beloved children of the Father?
