St.Bernhard of Clairvaux Mt 20,1-16

A lot could be said about St. Bernard. We could mention his influence on the reform of religious life and, by extension, the reform of the whole Church; we could mention his extensive theological work and the strengthening of Marian veneration in the faithful; we could also say his organizational skills, which he used well. We still draw on Bernard’s work today. At this moment, let’s look at one less critical, but now current area of his life: St. Bernard was a great peacemaker and appeaser of many hostile parties. Yet we know he supported one just war. And so we can remember how it is with tolerating a reasonable just war, or with tolerating evil in general. In these contexts, some people talk about the so-called choice of the lesser evil. You can’t talk like that. We can never vote for any evil, not even the “lesser”one. We can only tolerate and admit evil under certain circumstances.

These are the cases where 1) is the only option, and 2) to prevent even more evil or damage that would most certainly occur without this tolerance. This can be seen well in the example of side effects of drugs: Let’s imagine, for example, some fatal disease that can only be treated with a particular drug, after which a rash develops. We must tolerate this and accept the medicine; otherwise, death would occur as a result of the disease. And so it is also in other cases where we tolerate some evil. This is not a “choice of lesser evil (adverse effects) “. This is only an admission of these side effects.

In no case must it be a tolerance of personal sin as a conscious and voluntary violation of God’s commandment. Instead, it is a tolerance of mere external evils. One should always examine whether there is another third option so that evil does not have to be tolerated at all. It often exists, but it is not immediately obvious or may be uncomfortable. If it exists, it must be used.