Is it true that some social problem can take precedence over poverty?

[fakename]

I argue on analogy with the saints:

The saints sacrificed their health when they had something virtuous to do that would interfere with their bodily felicity.

But by double effect, they performed that action.

So society, which is likened to a person, should sacrifice its lowest members (the poor) who are like a body ( with all the latter’s caprices and passions) in favor of virtue or soul, which is like the gov. or Church (but which one is more like soul or virtue)?

True?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I suppose it’s true. It reminds me of the political thing where some people try and justify voting pro-abortion because universal health care as a more important issue as abortion. Or something like that. Another example: Is it better to have the Church persecuted and many people rich and healthy, or the Church healthy and many people poor and sick? I’d take option B, since the Church would provide for the poor and sick people physically and spiritually. i mean, what difference does it make if you live to be 10000 years old if you don’t die in a state of grace?