And a DIY abortion does not automatically and always kill the woman. Honestly, analogies don’t matter. The Bishop is formally cooperating in grave evil, which constitutes as mortal sin (usual conditions apply) and gives great scandal.
I think that the above argument is a non sequitur. If you would compare giving liquor to an alcoholic brother or sister with giving needles to a drug addict, your argument would make more sense. It wouldn’t matter whether a loved one was drunk or spaced out on drugs, of course I’d drive him/her home. But, to make it easier & safer for them to engage in their habit…no, I believe that is wrong.
)& is in the end stages of cirrhosis. It is an ugly, horrific disease, so…no, I would never have bought him a drink. There are so many other ways to help an addict. It’s a shame that Catholic Charities thinks that this is an answer. It isn’t.However, an abortion ALWAYS kills a baby.
Yes, I agree, abortion always kills a child and harms the woman both physically and mentally. To cooperate in this is gravely wrong.
Yes and no. The drunk knows you’re not going to make him drive home so he’s going to get drunk and call you. Perhaps if he had to be responsible for himself he’d stop getting drunk.
I think the problem is that its not a “simple fact” but rather a point of debate. Several theological journals have debated the question of needle exchange as formal v. material cooperation.
Your argument is going to be lost on pro-choice-voting Catholics. In addition to the war on birth control, adultery, etc, they also feel we have lost the war on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriage. There is no reason to follow Church teaching on anything, as long as you mask your evil deeds as compassionate.
But analogies clarify logic, as we see not just where the analogy is valid, but where it is not. For example, I guess reading this thread most also agree that designated driver programs and safe ride programs are evil.
It’s already been addressed in the thread, and the answer is no.
I read the thread and I do not think it has been addressed. After all, both programs assist an addicted person to get high and do so safely. It seems a more apt analogy than condemns which have been declared intrinsically evil.
Negative. Supplying a safe ride home is not the same as giving someone a needle. It is more like giving a beggar food, who then turns around and uses the saved money (because he didn’t have to pay for the food) on drugs or alcohol. You did not give him the means to get high/drunk, you gave him a basic need. A safe ride home is no different.
A clean needle is not “the means to get high.” An addict needs money to get high, first and foremost. Secondly, since they are exchanging a dirty needle for a clean one then they clearly already have a needle to inject the drugs with.
Being too impaired to drive means that you have used alcohol to the point of impairment which is a sin.
And there’s no gray area in needing a ride. Too much drinking to drive = drunk = sin.
Euthanasia is a whole other argument. Usually those issues fall under debate of the law of double effect rather than cooperation with evil.
Sure. They may be using the needle for some other purpose.
Give me a break!Source please. That doesn’t sound correct…at all. The point of impairment is a very low threshold. I need something from the Church that clearly states where that point is that equals sinful drunkenness. It only takes one drink to be impaired:
If you are arguing that even one drink is mortal a sin, then you are not making a Catholic argument.
If you are giving someone a needle to inject themselves with a harmful drug (potentially causing their death through overdose), I see it as very similar to euthanasia.
Again, analogies help clarify these issues, both when they work and when they fail. My wife pointed out that to her the biggest difference is that you give the drunk a ride, not so he can get schnockered, but rather to keep others who are innocent safe from the consequences of his actions.