Financial Support

[Catholic]

I was offered an internship by a company, but am concerned about two things. 1.) A financial donation to Planned Parenthood was made by another company that has the same parent company. However, the donation was made in or around 1988, and I have no information on whether subsequent donations were made by any of the companies since then. 2.) The parent company regularly makes large donations to a well known umbrella charity group that funds, among many other things, groups linked to artificial family planning and possibly abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Would it be immoral to accept the position?

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This is an important issue but I have little advice. I hate to see it disappear. There may well be someone here who has some insight.

CDL

 

[otm]

Catholic:

I was offered an internship by a company, but am concerned about two things. 1.) A financial donation to Planned Parenthood was made by another company that has the same parent company. However, the donation was made in or around 1988, and I have no information on whether subsequent donations were made by any of the companies since then. 2.) The parent company regularly makes large donations to a well known umbrella charity group that funds, among many other things, groups linked to artificial family planning and possibly abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Would it be immoral to accept the position?

Moral theologians would generally consider that too remote to be an issue to you. It is not an issue you have any control over; there is no cooperation on your part.

 

[Catholic]

Another question I have is that the company makes engines for military jets for the U.S. and other countries. I realize that these products are not intrinsically evil, but they seem controversial. Nonetheless, I would not be associated with this division of the company. Any comments would be helpful.

 

[whit]

Catholic:

Another question I have is that the company makes engines for military jets for the U.S. and other countries. I realize that these products are not intrinsically evil, but they seem controversial. Nonetheless, I would not be associated with this division of the company. Any comments would be helpful.

You are entirely too scrupulous in your thinking. Ask yourself what would you do if you were a counter person at a local McDonalds and a SINNER came in and ordered a Happy Meal from you?

Accept the positon and do a good job for them for the glory of God. And bring your bible in with you and put it on your desk and maybe you can evangelize someone on your coffee break or lunch while your at it.

God bless and pax et bonum
Whit, sfo

 

[otm]

Catholic:

Another question I have is that the company makes engines for military jets for the U.S. and other countries. I realize that these products are not intrinsically evil, but they seem controversial. Nonetheless, I would not be associated with this division of the company. Any comments would be helpful.

Considering that the church supports a just war theory, it is hard to see how this could be an issue; in addition, I would suspect they make jet engines for a number of planes besides military.

Again, remote and a non issue.

 

[otm]

Let me phrase the question a different way: Suppose you were offered a job by an indiviudal who was openly having an affair; would you refuse the job?

 

[marcadam]

otm:

Moral theologians would generally consider that too remote to be an issue to you. It is not an issue you have any control over; there is no cooperation on your part.

Dingdingding! Here is an introduction to the concept of cooperation with sin. In short, this would be considered remore material cooperation with an unjust actor, which carries no moral weight whatsoever.

Happy (job) hunting!

 

[Steven_Merten]

Catholic:

Another question I have is that the company makes engines for military jets for the U.S. and other countries. I realize that these products are not intrinsically evil, but they seem controversial. Nonetheless, I would not be associated with this division of the company. Any comments would be helpful.

Hello Catholic,

There are companies which produce the hand guns, assault rifles and axes that the Swiss Guard use to protect the Vatican. In the mid 1980’s a Swiss Guard murdered two innocenet people at the Vatican. Should the companies who produced weapons for the Swiss Guard feel some sort of guilt for wrong doing? These weapons can be used for good or evil. One has to remember the good that weapons in the hands of the Swiss Guard has done over the centuries.

One has to remember the good that U.S. aircraft weapons have done to protect the world. Especially starting at WWII where, had Hitler won the war, the Vatican and the Church would have been eventually eniolated.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Catholic:

Would it be immoral to accept the position?

Arguing the principle of double effect takes a lot of work. I usually only do this if the discussion goes that deep.

To answer your question in a simple way: I would not accept the position. Why? Because money talks. Right now money is saying that abortion is acceptable. And I disagree that the murder of unborn children is acceptable.

 

[otm]

Ani Ibi:

Arguing the principle of double effect takes a lot of work. I usually only do this if the discussion goes that deep.

To answer your question in a simple way: I would not accept the position. Why? Because money talks. Right now money is saying that abortion is acceptable. And I disagree that the murder of unborn children is acceptable.

The difficulty is that if you were to scratch the Fortune 1000, you could easily find that most are contributing to, or involved in, something that somehow is morally reprehensible.

actually, it is not the principle of double effect at play in this question, but the issue of remote material cooperation.

Remote material cooperation means that the actor is so far removed from the immoral act (here, contribution at some point to an abortion related group) that the actor (the OP looking for a job) has no moral guilt of complicity in, or participating in, the act of contribution.

Double effect would imply that the actor was making a contribution (that is, actually writing a check, or telling the company where the actor’s money should be distributed) and that the actor intended the money to be used for good, but evil occured unintentionally. Herein, the actor is making no act which could have any intended effect, as they are not making any contribution.