doing evil so good may come?

i’m a little confused by this.

can you give me some examples of what would constitute doing evil so good may come? i hear about it a lot but it seems vague to me

besides aborting a baby to save a mother’s life

I see 9/11 as an act of rousing and calling the Gods (yes, plural). There *are *many Gods, but only ONE God Most High.

A cop planting evidence on a guilty suspect.

I beat my wife – so she will cook my favorite meal…

Breaking away from the Church and forming a splinter group (= schism) in response to real, perceived, or exaggerated abuses. :slight_smile:

For law to break the law is lawlessness.

Abortion is never ok…and its never ok to willingly and deliberately do evil in the hope of being rewarded with good

Embezzling money to pay for a kid’s college tuition?

Lying to give an alibi for someone you think is innocent (but can’t truthfully give an alibi for).

Intentionally setting up a terrible coworker to take the blame for a failure at work.

Voting for an abortion booster because his immigration policy stance is better than the pro-life guy. (one issue kills a million a year, the other not so much!)

You get the pattern.

Bombing a civilian population to end a war, or to put an end to terrorist attacks.

Is this April Fools Day? A lot of strange answers!

How about torturing someone, so I can get to know him better.

I totally agree with you, and so does the Catechism, but:


Okay, I’ll be serious now.

Torturing someone to try to stop a terrorist plot.

Pretending to worship a pagan god in order to destroy his followers.

(This example is given by Bishop Challoner in his footnotes criticizing Jehu’s actions in 2 Kings.)

I think a perfect example in history of doing evil so good may come is reflected in two
Men: Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco. They both did reach good ends through evil means. How they ended is a good way to see why you should not use evil to reach good.

Guantanamo Bay.

I think Franco was significantly better than Pinochet, but then I’m a complete outsider. :smiley:

Also, more :popcorn:

You may as well say Pinochet was significantly better than Hitler.

Evil is evil. A greater evil done by someone else does not lessen the evil done by another.

Well, there are degrees of evil, and even levels of punishment for them.

But I think Franco - at least at some points in his career - did try to create a “Catholic republic” along the lines of Catholic social teaching. However, he did this at an abominably high price - over the corpses of his opponents, and by collaboration (however tacit) with Hitler. We can’t really say the same of Pinochet.

And frankly, I don’t get the idolatry for either Franco or Salazar in some Internet circles. Were they better than Stalin? Sure. But I wouldn’t call them “saviours”. :stuck_out_tongue:

And does mass murder square with Catholic Social teaching?

Ends do not justify the means. The fact that he tried to create a ‘Catholic republic’, does not in any way lessen his crimes. Using evil to try to create a ‘Catholic republic’ is in itself quite despicable as this evil was done in our name, unlike Pinochet’s evil which was done in his own name. You could argue that the fact that Franco did it ‘in our name’ makes it even worse.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit