A
AngelaMarie
Guest
^^^^This is a good question and understanding of what I posted
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
A reason for it, hmm. Good question, actually.
First of all, though, you were saying that what I say could be in agreement with the flowchart above? I ask because I am visually impaired and find it difficult to interpret charts/graphs, so sincere question: Does my proposition seem to mesh with the chart provided above (I mean that remoteness and proportional gravity should be considered in some sense separately)?
I’d say that, in many cases, since the distance from the evil is so great, you are held less responsible for it, even if it is grave. I’d say that proportional gravity should be considered in relation to distance, if that makes sense. The further one is, the less the gravity is to be considered(?(.
First of all, though, you were saying that what I say could be in agreement with the flowchart above? I ask because I am visually impaired and find it difficult to interpret charts/graphs, so sincere question: Does my proposition seem to mesh with the chart provided above (I mean that remoteness and proportional gravity should be considered in some sense separately)?
I’d say that, in many cases, since the distance from the evil is so great, you are held less responsible for it, even if it is grave. I’d say that proportional gravity should be considered in relation to distance, if that makes sense. The further one is, the less the gravity is to be considered(?(.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Anyone else agree with the notion that the idea of remoteness/etc. isn’t even relevant because the money is now the company’s to do with what they wish? I still have reservations about this because, in many cases, you still know that money could or even is likely to go to causes you do not support.
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Or, perhaps better stated, proportional gravity may be considered in one’s prudential judgment as less and less of a factor as one’s (material) cooperation becomes more and more remote. Maybe?
Otherwise, why would Charity Mobile provide iPhones? Why would Catholic organizations such as EWTN make apps that work with iPhones? Why would the Pope be associated with a Twitter account? etc. etc. etc. Or, in these cases, is the salvation of souls considered proportionally grave as compared with potentially Catholics giving to companies where the money could be given to causes as grave as abortion? Still, is this not presuming that Catholics would have bought the iPhone in the first place in order to view these apps? So, then, the Church is still supporting the buying of iPhones by Catholics, unless this kind of thing is merely a concession. “If they buy them, even though they shouldn’t, at least they have access to our content on them.” However, they could also get this content via other sources such as websites, etc., right? The matter seems rather inconsistent to me… I’m still not really clear on this entire issue… So, I’m still needing help from folks understanding all this, please…
Otherwise, why would Charity Mobile provide iPhones? Why would Catholic organizations such as EWTN make apps that work with iPhones? Why would the Pope be associated with a Twitter account? etc. etc. etc. Or, in these cases, is the salvation of souls considered proportionally grave as compared with potentially Catholics giving to companies where the money could be given to causes as grave as abortion? Still, is this not presuming that Catholics would have bought the iPhone in the first place in order to view these apps? So, then, the Church is still supporting the buying of iPhones by Catholics, unless this kind of thing is merely a concession. “If they buy them, even though they shouldn’t, at least they have access to our content on them.” However, they could also get this content via other sources such as websites, etc., right? The matter seems rather inconsistent to me… I’m still not really clear on this entire issue… So, I’m still needing help from folks understanding all this, please…
blackforest
Well-known member
You’re getting some rather snippy answers, but at the core of them is that Catholic moral theology distinguishes between different forms of cooperation with evil. Owning an iPhone would be remote cooperation and therefore permissible by conscience. If you wrote a check to Planned Parenthood, that would be direct cooperation and sinful. If you shopped at Target, which allegedly has supported Planned Parenthood, that would be remote and more ambiguous. https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/7214/4916/4375/NCBC_EM_July2013.pdfCan someone please clarify this problem for me?
So in short, owning an iPhone is more of a personal choice dictated by your conscience. If your conscience sways you another way, then by all means avoid the iPhone. I do. But it’s only because I’m a grouchy Luddite and hate the bloody things . . . .
Last edited:
F
Flopfoot
Guest
We want remoteness and proportionate gravity to be considered together, not separately. If they were separate then we would need to be both remote and to have more good than harm if we wanted to buy the iPhone. But if we consider them together then we can use one to offset the other. Just clarifying our words, I think we are still on the same page here.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Here’s the part of the flowchart I meant which is different from the rest. Instead of asking these questions sequentially, like “are you remote? If yes, is it greater good than evil?” It asks them together on a sliding scale. I think another point they are trying to make is that this is not black and white - the “goodness” of having an iPhone for e.g. is a matter of opinion, the church can’t definitively say that iPhones are useless or something.
I guess part of the problem is I don’t really understand what remoteness means. Like I would assume it means many other people must be in the chain of co-operation for the evil to happen - the iPhone exec who supports the employee matching program, the employee who donates to the pro choice charity, the founder of that charity, the clinic, and the woman who gets the abortion. But does that mean the responsibility is diffused among all those people?
Like what if the phone I was buying was so expensive that the fraction of its price that went to abortions was enough to pay for ten abortions? Even sharing that responsibility with others through being remote would not be enough to make me responsible for less than one whole abortion right?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Here’s the part of the flowchart I meant which is different from the rest. Instead of asking these questions sequentially, like “are you remote? If yes, is it greater good than evil?” It asks them together on a sliding scale. I think another point they are trying to make is that this is not black and white - the “goodness” of having an iPhone for e.g. is a matter of opinion, the church can’t definitively say that iPhones are useless or something.
I guess part of the problem is I don’t really understand what remoteness means. Like I would assume it means many other people must be in the chain of co-operation for the evil to happen - the iPhone exec who supports the employee matching program, the employee who donates to the pro choice charity, the founder of that charity, the clinic, and the woman who gets the abortion. But does that mean the responsibility is diffused among all those people?
Like what if the phone I was buying was so expensive that the fraction of its price that went to abortions was enough to pay for ten abortions? Even sharing that responsibility with others through being remote would not be enough to make me responsible for less than one whole abortion right?
F
Flopfoot
Guest
Though, could a phone that expensive be so useful that the goodness of having it outweighs the badness of paying for an abortion?
These questions are just hypothetical, because phones aren’t that expensive and only a tiny fraction of the cost goes to charities.
Also an economic question. If poor women didn’t have charities to help them pay for abortions, couldn’t the clinics lower their prices and kill the same number of children anyway?
These questions are just hypothetical, because phones aren’t that expensive and only a tiny fraction of the cost goes to charities.
Also an economic question. If poor women didn’t have charities to help them pay for abortions, couldn’t the clinics lower their prices and kill the same number of children anyway?
A
Annie
Guest
I think you have to consider remoteness.
Formal cooperation is the intention of cooperating, material cooperation is being in the chain of supply.
So remote formal cooperation might be using one of those Amazon set-ups where a portion of the money you spend goes to the charity/site you enter Amazon through. (Bloggers make money this way.)
Going to the PP site and using their Amazon button to make your purchases so that Amazon will send PP a portion of what you spend would be, I think, remote formal cooperation.
So formal cooperation doesn’t enter a pro-life person’s purchase of an iphone.
The material cooperation is remote, too, because we are handing Apple money not for them to give to PP, but for a different reason altogether.
That is what makes the material cooperation remote.
Formal cooperation is the intention of cooperating, material cooperation is being in the chain of supply.
So remote formal cooperation might be using one of those Amazon set-ups where a portion of the money you spend goes to the charity/site you enter Amazon through. (Bloggers make money this way.)
Going to the PP site and using their Amazon button to make your purchases so that Amazon will send PP a portion of what you spend would be, I think, remote formal cooperation.
So formal cooperation doesn’t enter a pro-life person’s purchase of an iphone.
The material cooperation is remote, too, because we are handing Apple money not for them to give to PP, but for a different reason altogether.
That is what makes the material cooperation remote.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
Careful here. You could probably argue that we shouldn’t support a church/organisation who has such a bad track record with sexual sins against children.Point taken, but my concern is pri8marily with very grave matter such as abortion or other sexual sins
I think most of us are analytical enough to differentiate between the evil acts and the main body. No different than any secular organisation.
Since when has apple been involved in giving to ‘abortion clinics’ anyways?
M
MysticMissMisty
Guest
Thanks to all who have helped out here.
Yeah, I think I was having difficulty communicating exactly what I was thinking. I think considering them together on a sliding scale is what I was originally thinking, but, then, I thought that maybe the proportional gravity issue remained constant regardless of the remoteness.
So, it would seem that my original idea was closer to corect than the one I ginned up later and got all concerned about…
Yeah, I think I was having difficulty communicating exactly what I was thinking. I think considering them together on a sliding scale is what I was originally thinking, but, then, I thought that maybe the proportional gravity issue remained constant regardless of the remoteness.
So, it would seem that my original idea was closer to corect than the one I ginned up later and got all concerned about…
L
lilypadrees
Guest
If as Catholics, we allowed the opposing beliefs and views of every business owner to dictate everything we buy and do, we wouldn’t be able to do much or to associate with many people.
I don’t feel the need to justify why I own the products I have whether it is an Apple product or something from the local grocery. Once it’s mine, the only thing I have to do is use it for its intended purpose.
I leave the hearts and minds of those who sold me the products to God.
I don’t feel the need to justify why I own the products I have whether it is an Apple product or something from the local grocery. Once it’s mine, the only thing I have to do is use it for its intended purpose.
I leave the hearts and minds of those who sold me the products to God.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Look, if you’re that bothered by it, don’t purchase anything from companies that support things you don’t.
D
Dhc8_Type
Guest
Do you fly on Boeing or Air Bus airplanes? Hint if you use air travel including the pope you do. Both give plenty to causes Catholics and Lutherans might not agree with.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.