M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
To me, this would make more sense, but, if I’m wrong in this, who am I to question Church teaching…? Then, we may want to start throwing out our iPhones and anything else of the sort…
- Status
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Not to mention that the Church needs to do something similar…certainly if it is going against its own teaching…
A
Annie
Guest
There is a difference between literally giving a company money and exchanging your money for a product of comparable value.
For example, I go to a Catholic shop run by a parish or monastery/convent and buy something. I haven’t given them the money because the entire arrangement is that I will receive something of comparable value.
However, there is often a place to donate to the organization running the shop, and that is money I do give, in that I do not hand over the money with the idea I will get something of comparable value in exchange.
What we exchange like that means we can each use what we got in exchange however we want. The iPad belongs to you to use as you wish, to smash or to inveigh against Apple, and the money belongs to Apple to burn or to give to whatever organization they please.
The fact that they received the money in a fair exchange from you means you are completely removed from their decision to use it for whatever they decide.
For example, I go to a Catholic shop run by a parish or monastery/convent and buy something. I haven’t given them the money because the entire arrangement is that I will receive something of comparable value.
However, there is often a place to donate to the organization running the shop, and that is money I do give, in that I do not hand over the money with the idea I will get something of comparable value in exchange.
What we exchange like that means we can each use what we got in exchange however we want. The iPad belongs to you to use as you wish, to smash or to inveigh against Apple, and the money belongs to Apple to burn or to give to whatever organization they please.
The fact that they received the money in a fair exchange from you means you are completely removed from their decision to use it for whatever they decide.
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
Not at all. The OP already clarified in the original post that there are other options which do not materially contribute to evil.
The question was about a very particular case: ie: should Catholics buy Iphones? Extending the hypothetical “no” to mean that Catholics should not buy anything is a non-sequitur.
1
1ke
Guest
Apple’s profits do not go to provide abortions.
P
PetraG
Guest
This is what St. Paul said in clarification of an earlier comment he had made about associating with the immoral:
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.” 1 Cor. 5:9-13
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. “Purge the evil person from your midst.” 1 Cor. 5:9-13
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, Misty, these things are all considered together. We’ve already covered that above.
This falls into prudential judgment because of its extremely remote (and tenuous) connection. Apple does NOT provide abortions. Its profits do NOT go to paying for abortions.
You buy an Apple product. Apple pays its employees and other bills. Somewhere way down the line, Apple has money from net income that it gives to its charitable foundation. That charitable foundation has people who make some decisions about where to spend the money they were given, and it may or may not include charities that have an affiliation with abortion.
That is very remote from the transaction of purchasing an Apple product.
This falls into prudential judgment because of its extremely remote (and tenuous) connection. Apple does NOT provide abortions. Its profits do NOT go to paying for abortions.
You buy an Apple product. Apple pays its employees and other bills. Somewhere way down the line, Apple has money from net income that it gives to its charitable foundation. That charitable foundation has people who make some decisions about where to spend the money they were given, and it may or may not include charities that have an affiliation with abortion.
That is very remote from the transaction of purchasing an Apple product.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
In order to avoid all remote cooperation one would have to live in a cave or cabin you built by hand, use no electricity (unless you could forge the metal to make your own wind generator), weave your own clothes from hemp or wool that you spun yourself.
Every business, every company, somehow does something with someone who is a sinner.
Every business, every company, somehow does something with someone who is a sinner.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Misty, describe how Apple supports abortion.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
And Charity Mobile simply re-sells the services of the large underlying carriers. These carriers all have empolyee match, charitable giving, health care that provides contraception and abortions, recognize employees as married if they are in a same-sex marriage. Not only all of the communications carriers, but, also your electric company, your city government, etc.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
SO, am I understanding this correctly:
One must consider, first, the degree of remoteness of the cooperation with evil. Then, one must consider the gravity of the evil as proportional to the gravity of the good resulting from this cooperation. Even if the gravity of the evil outweighs the gravity of the good (as in the case of specifically buying an iPhone), if the remoteness is, according to prudential judgement, sufficient, one may pay less regard to the proportional gravity clause or even disregard it altogether? SO, the closer one gets to cooperation with evil, the more seriously becomes the consideration of the proportional gravity clause? Again, do I understand this correctly?
I was originally worried because I thought that a) remoteness and b) proportional gravity wee to be considered as utterly distinct and separate, so that, no matter how remote one was from the evil, if the gravity of the evil outweighed the gravity of the good gotten by cooperation , even the remotest of cooperation with that evil was not morally licit.
Again, which view is correct here?
One must consider, first, the degree of remoteness of the cooperation with evil. Then, one must consider the gravity of the evil as proportional to the gravity of the good resulting from this cooperation. Even if the gravity of the evil outweighs the gravity of the good (as in the case of specifically buying an iPhone), if the remoteness is, according to prudential judgement, sufficient, one may pay less regard to the proportional gravity clause or even disregard it altogether? SO, the closer one gets to cooperation with evil, the more seriously becomes the consideration of the proportional gravity clause? Again, do I understand this correctly?
I was originally worried because I thought that a) remoteness and b) proportional gravity wee to be considered as utterly distinct and separate, so that, no matter how remote one was from the evil, if the gravity of the evil outweighed the gravity of the good gotten by cooperation , even the remotest of cooperation with that evil was not morally licit.
Again, which view is correct here?
B
boldlygo
Guest
I think I understand where you’re coming from, but I can’t answer your specific question because I don’t have an I-phone or any other kind of cell phone - I have no need for one.
My wife and I try very hard not to buy goods that are produced in China because China actively oppresses Christianity, and promotes abortion far beyond the level seen here…we’d like an air fryer, but we won’t buy one until we find one not made in China [no luck so far…].
I needed a new mouse for my computer…looked all over trying to find one not made in China…ended up buying the cheapest one I could find, so the contribution to evil would be minimized…
I don’t like having to compromise in this way, but sometimes there’s no choice…if I use the mouse and computer to promote good, maybe the net result will be positive…
My wife and I try very hard not to buy goods that are produced in China because China actively oppresses Christianity, and promotes abortion far beyond the level seen here…we’d like an air fryer, but we won’t buy one until we find one not made in China [no luck so far…].
I needed a new mouse for my computer…looked all over trying to find one not made in China…ended up buying the cheapest one I could find, so the contribution to evil would be minimized…
I don’t like having to compromise in this way, but sometimes there’s no choice…if I use the mouse and computer to promote good, maybe the net result will be positive…
Last edited:
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
I still have forty posts to read in this thread so may be repeating someone else. But in your position I would look at it this way; I will take this questionable company’s product and use it to glorify God and His Church.
F
Flopfoot
Guest
Its still an important question because when you have an iPhone that has worn out or broken, if you don’t want to lose the apps you’ve bought, you need to get a new iPhone
C
CelticWarlord
Guest
Thankfully I don’t own any such mobile devices so never have to face that problem.
If the justification is it is just a phone, it is not enough.
Iphone are not “just” a phone and can be used for others reasons.
If you just need a phone, others compagnies sell phones too!
C
Cruciferi
Guest
It’s good enough justification for me!
It’s a reliable phone and quite useful. If you want to use a bag phone, well, that’s your choice. :man_shrugging:t2:
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
I don’t think remoteness and proportionate gravity are to be taken separately.
One is really remote from an action a company or individual takes with money they have received from you in a reasonable exchange.
Once we make that exchange, the money is theirs, and the item is yours. They can use the money as they decide, and you are no more morally responsible than they are if you use your phone to look at porn.
One is really remote from an action a company or individual takes with money they have received from you in a reasonable exchange.
Once we make that exchange, the money is theirs, and the item is yours. They can use the money as they decide, and you are no more morally responsible than they are if you use your phone to look at porn.
F
Flopfoot
Guest
People selling things can also be guilty of co-operation with evil just like people buying things are. For e.g. I’ve read that if you work in a chemist that sells condoms it’s ok because you’re just doing your job, but it probably wouldn’t be ok if you were the owner of the chemist who decides what to stock in there.
We know that formal/material and proximal/remote are to be taken separately - if your co-operation is formal then it doesn’t matter how remote you are. Can you give us a reason for why you think that it’s different for proportionate gravity? (I suspect you are right, but I have nothing to back it up except the end of that flowchart I looked at before)
We know that formal/material and proximal/remote are to be taken separately - if your co-operation is formal then it doesn’t matter how remote you are. Can you give us a reason for why you think that it’s different for proportionate gravity? (I suspect you are right, but I have nothing to back it up except the end of that flowchart I looked at before)
A
AngelaMarie
Guest
I don’t have time but you are asking about the difference between material co-operation vs formal co-operation with evil
The situation you give is an example of material co-operation
www.catholic.com
The situation you give is an example of material co-operation
Material and Formal Cooperation with Evil
It’s certainly laudable, if possible, to avoid patronizing businesses that contribute to Planned Parenthood (PP), support same-sex “marriage,” and promote other...
- Status