How far do we go in opposing evil?

[kozlosap]

My question is not whether we should give money to gay CEOs just because we are gay. I have no problem with it if this is all that’s involved. My question arises because some gay CEOs might give their money to support gay causes and may, then, in some way, do harm to other people by supporting thier gay lifestyle, though I suppose that, even if the money wasn’t there to support said lifestyle, gay people would still be gay unless they came to rhe realization it was wrong…?

This thread has really devolved. That anyone would actually surmise that by purchasing Apple products you are letting Tim Cook have the ability to donate to the charity of his choice is beyond the pale.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That’s what I figured.

Still, my concern is what less direct effects my financial support ofa company like this might have down the line. As I stated in my first post, it is very likely that this CEO supports gay causes (I think I recall hearing that he did not long ago, in fact). He could very likely use the money from our/my purchases to support ehse causes (but, yes, as well as other worthy ones). Is it truly loving/charitable of me to keep supporting this company with such a possibility in mind? Is it properly charitable for any Catholic (or Christian) to do so? If not, why aren’t Catholics prohibited, or, at least, discouraged, from using products from this company? Or, is there something I’m missing? Is it still permissible for whatever reason(?) to purchase products from this company even with all this in mind? Is there any counterpoint to my arguments/observations above? Is there, indeed, any solid Church teaching on scenarios like this? Does God, in fact, not hold me responsible for what a CEO does with his money, even if a particular scenario is more likely (as in this case)? Still, does he permit us to patronize such companies as these?

These are great questions. There is an agenda but most people don’t see it. They only see that they should not be intolerant to a gay person. I don’t think God holds you personally responsible for the gay person’s agenda. Mainly I think, we need to be a good example to people who are lost. I don’t consider gay people to be evil, just on the wrong track. But once they get political power and cause people to agree with their agenda, things can go very wrong for society. So though I don’t have any answers for you, I do appreciate your questions.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Re:

#2 I am not gay but we have gay friends. We don’t discuss each other’s sex lives.

The catechism teaches us that the spiritual works of mercy are not optional, but grave responsibilities. One of them is admonishing (counseling) the sinner. It seems that you have the perfect opportunity to help your friends in this way. Homosexual behavior harms both those who practice it as well as society.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

As to your first point, not sure if I’m interpreting what you say correctly, but you seem to a) be sending a bit of a mixed message here, b) be problematizing the issue (possibly because you yourself think it problematic) or c) making simple factual statements. By this statement, do you mean, straight out, that, while we are not held responsible for what another does with our money, we are responsible for admonishing sinners generally in all areas of life (factual statement).

Yes, except that I would say that when you pay for something, the money is no longer yours. So, you are not responsible for what a sinner does with their money.

Or, do you mean that, while we are not responsible for how others use our money, we might not want to purchase products from a gay CEO in order to admonish him for his homosexuality/support of it (problematizing)? Or, are you suggesting that it is hard to resolve the issue of not bearing responsibility for another’s actions while, at hte same time, admonishing him for them (mixed messaging)?

I don’t think that refusing to do business with Apple would ever be considered as an admonition, unless it was very public and press worthy because of the impact to Apple; so I don’t mean number one. And I don’t mean the other option either. What I mean is that concerning doing business with an entity and or its leadership that publically support evil, it is our option to refuse to do business with them. It is rare that Catholic moral teaching would ever REQUIRE us to do business with anyone in particular instead of an alternative option.

As to your second point, yes, things can be inherently bad based on such things as the intention in doing them. However, for certain people, if they are strong enough, these things do not have ill-effects on them. That’s what I meant by “not bad for them”.

My suggestion is that the ability to resist evil is not a justification to possess it. If something is evil (opposite of good), we should separate ourselves from it unless we have a good reason not to do so. For example, a priest going into a brothel to attempt the conversion of prostitutes is intending to fulfill a responsibility to Christ. That would be OK. A priest visiting a brothel just because he likes the environment, even if he is not seriously tempted by prostitution, would not be a good thing.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This thread has really devolved. That anyone would actually surmise that by purchasing Apple products you are letting Tim Cook have the ability to donate to the charity of his choice is beyond the pale.

What do you mean by ‘beyond the pale’? It seems to me that such a concern is somewhat reasonable.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

“Fighting evil is a very noble activity when it must be done. But it is not our mission in life. Our job is to bring in more light.”

• Tzvi Freeman

This was written by a rabbi, but I believe it holds true for us Christians too.

This is beautiful and nits the nail on the head. We’re not here to right every wrong. Last I checked, God did not leave us in charge of anything or anyone but ourselves. Our job is to bring more light into the world by remaining faithful and holy.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

This thread has really devolved. That anyone would actually surmise that by purchasing Apple products you are letting Tim Cook have the ability to donate to the charity of his choice is beyond the pale.

I disagree. And, if you really take the time to think things out as I have, more deeply, beyond the surface level, and not in an emotionally-charged way, I feel that you will begin to question as I have.

People, generally, who, either by nature aren’t “deeper” thinkers or who are easily moved emotionally, often have such reactions to questions of this sort.

Please know that I’m not trying to be nasty or anything. I am merely advising those who have the above natural propensities to just take a step back when you have such a reaction and reconsider it.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I don’t consider gay people to be evil, just on the wrong track. But once they get political power and cause people to agree with their agenda, things can go very wrong for society.

to so much of this! Yes, I, too, believe that (most) gay folks are simply misguided, though there are also at least a few who are probably openly rebellious against religious views and the motives of their hearts are, perhaps, to be more greatly censured.

Bit OT for this particular post, but I thought I, too, needed to give my :twocents: on the issue.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Yes, except that I would say that when you pay for something, the money is no longer yours. So, you are not responsible for what a sinner does with their money.

I don’t think that refusing to do business with Apple would ever be considered as an admonition, unless it was very public and press worthy because of the impact to Apple; so I don’t mean number one. And I don’t mean the other option either. What I mean is that concerning doing business with an entity and or its leadership that publically support evil, it is our option to refuse to do business with them. It is rare that Catholic moral teaching would ever REQUIRE us to do business with anyone in particular instead of an alternative option.

My suggestion is that the ability to resist evil is not a justification to possess it. If something is evil (opposite of good), we should separate ourselves from it unless we have a good reason not to do so. For example, a priest going into a brothel to attempt the conversion of prostitutes is intending to fulfill a responsibility to Christ. That would be OK. A priest visiting a brothel just because he likes the environment, even if he is not seriously tempted by prostitution, would not be a good thing.

When you say that I bear no personal responsibility for how money is spent when it is out of my hands, are you implying that, because of this, there is no obligation on me to, say, not do business with a gay CEO who might (even probably might) give to a pro-gay organization? So, then, you’re saying that my giving money to this CEO, at hte time that I give it, even if he might give to a pro-gay entity, is too indirect a connection for God to hold me personally responsible? (Again, I thought I heard somewhere that the Church has done some serious thought over the years on how direct a connection we have to sin, and I’d actually be curious to hear insights from thsoe who have done some delving into this issue themselves.)

As to evil being evil, of course a priest shouldn’t go into a brothel “just because he likes the atmosphere”. After all, why would he like the atmosphere other than that it was a sinful one? In this example you use, his liking of the atmosphere is, in itself, a sin and, thus, going into a brothel is just a manifestation of it.

 

[dedo]

The catechism teaches us that the spiritual works of mercy are not optional, but grave responsibilities. One of them is admonishing (counseling) the sinner. It seems that you have the perfect opportunity to help your friends in this way. Homosexual behavior harms both those who practice it as well as society.

The Bible teaches us that your first and second responsibilities are to minister to the poor and to stay unspotted from the world.

Now some people believe their ministry is to focus on other people’s imperfections at the expense of the two most important items.

In the Bible, these people were called Pharisees.

Jesus spoke very harshly to this crowd.

 

[Secret_Square]

I would suggest you read Romans 14, in which St. Paul addresses similar questions raised by the early Christians regarding whether or not they should eat meat purchased at public markets because it often included “leftovers” from pagan animal sacrifices. Some Christians felt they were committing a sin if they ate such meat, others did not.

St. Paul’s response, in a nutshell, was that there was no moral obligation to avoid eating this kind of meat, and either course of action (abstaining from sacrificed meat or consuming it) was fine, as long as it was done in the right spirit, and with respect for the convictions of others who felt differently. (Bear in mind that he was NOT talking about actual participation in pagan sacrifices or feasts, but about eating leftover meat that was being sold at a meat market.)

If you avoided meat because you truly felt it was wrong and that was a sacrifice you were willing to make for Jesus, great – but don’t assume that the meat eaters are bad Christians and going to hell. Likewise, if you see nothing wrong with eating this meat, that’s OK too, but don’t go out of your way to deride people who think otherwise as ignorant – or worse yet, flaunt your meat-eating in front of them in a way that would scandalize them.

So, if you choose to avoid products made by companies with immoral corporate policies, etc. that’s fine if you want to do it, but it is NOT a moral obligation binding on all Catholics. It is an option which you are free to choose or not. The bottom line is whether or not it benefits your spiritual life and your relationship with God.

 

[agnes_therese]

Salvete, omnes!

How far are we required to go in opposing evil? How much sacrifice are we required to make? I ask these questions in the light of the following examples.

1. Many people believe that, in many factor farms, animals are treated inhumanely which is, as I understand it, considered evil by the Catholic Church. In this case, how far are we to go in opposing this evil? Are we required to research as carefully as we can every farm from which our meat comes to be as certain as we can that the animals are treated humanely? If not to this extent, to what extent are we obligated to go in this case? Should we, indeed, abstain from meat in this country altogether because of the potential (and widespread?) inhumanity to animals? Is it a mortal (or venial?) sin not to go to any lengths of this sort?
2. A CEO ofa major company has declared himself proudly and openly homosexual. Are we required not or no longer to use products put out by this company because a) we are supporting a CEO whose lifestyle is morally wrong, b) this CEO will likely give to organizations supporting “gay rights”, c) these organizations will likely aid folks whom, without proper funding, they may not have previously had the opportunity to aid, d) this could be considered unloving to those who would benefit from such organizations ifw e patronize a company who supports them just for our own benefit. Am I completely off the mark, here?
3. We purchase a song digitally which may not have the best lyrics only because a) we like the beat of it and/or b) it reminds us, say, of a school dance we really enjoyed or c) something else along these lines. Should we not have bought this song not only because of the lyrics but also because it lends financial support to the artist who produced it and might encourage him/her to do more like this and potentially lead to the downfall of others because of the lyrics?

In none of these cases are we in direct support of any of the sin involved, yet, we are still somewhat in association with it.

Do I understand that the Church has indeed worked out some of these issues and I would be curious about what she has to say concerning them generally and concerning the specific situations. Also, curious about your own takes on these issues.

How far are we obligated to go in either of these cases and how much in danger of mortal/venial sin are we if ew don’t?

I’m wondering how you propose to find products that are not produced by sinners. Because certainly, being openly homosexual is not the only sin out there; nor is inhumane treatment of animals.