we should first in prudence obtain proof of an allegation before we act upon it, Judie Brown has a link to a website that lists questionable companies, I have not seen WW but that does not mean they are not there
there is a difference between material cooperation–working in an abortion clinic, and remote cooperation–working in a hospital where abortions are done in another department, or for a company that actually performs or enables abortions, for instance a doctor’s group practice that also runs an abortion clinic elsewhere in town (a huge profit-generator according to ads I have seen in some of their professional literature). the first is definitely condemned by the Church and one would be excommunicated, IMO so would the second be, but I don’t think the Church language actually states that–I would hope to be corrected.
and a more remote connection–such as working for Walgreens, which as a pharmacy does provide drugs that among other things may cause abortion. In the photo or cosmetic dept. of course you are not cooperating at all, and even if you work in the pharmacy are not in charge of what the patient does with that drug, but that is an area where the individual Christian might want to take a stand, but still would not be required by the Church to quit his job.
then farther removed is buying goods or services from a company like McDonalds or KMart that has nothing to do with procuring abortions, but does contribute out if its surplus earnings to all kinds of charities, including PP, whose activities are questionable or immoral. The company is not doing the evil, and their execs probably think they are contributing to someone who is doing some good with it. The customer, or even the investor, in such a company who has no say so about that policy does not have an absolute moral obligation imposed by the Church to end that relationship.
Where the line is drawn here, once we move beyond material cooperation, is up to the individual Christian.
It is always a mortal sin to directly or materially cooperate in abortion and it seems the bishops have finally come out with a direct statement that taxpayer supported abortions are wrong and that Catholics cannot cooperate in that manner. The fall short of advising Catholics to withhold taxes if these various laws touching on this are passed, but there is no doubt there language is strongly addressed to Catholic legislators who actively promote and pass these laws.
follow the link given below to WW, then to the lose for good their sharing campaign, they support organizations that directly address hunger and food accessibility issues here and abroad.
and then link further to the international organization they support, Action Against Hunger. you can investigate the third to see if besides the direct initiatives to end hunger this organization also supports projects that might be provided BC and abortion services to the same clientele as receive the food and other support. I believe it is the contention of those who claim “WW supports abortion” that because they support this organization, who might possibly also be directing some donations to questionable activities, that on that basis the Christian should boycott WW.
That would be a very remote cooperation, even if it is true. It is up to the person making the claim to prove it is true. If I give you money for food and you use it for drugs, that is not my moral failing, and if I give your country or organization money to feed the poor and help them become self-sufficient, and you spend some of it for another purpose, that also is not my moral failing, it is out of my control, and it is not the failing of the person who gave me the money in the first place.
