To Starbuck or Not To Starbuck?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanteAlighieri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanteAlighieri

Guest
This thread is inspired by the Starbucks/Joni Mitchell thread in the Popular Media forum – a conversation which is going in several directions other than the one that I think is most worthwhile: determining whether a faithful Catholic coffee junkie ought to find somewhere else to get his double tall non-fat two-Splenda latte.

NOTE: This thread is intended as a discussion of the principles of remote/proximate and formal/material cooperation with evil. Personal opinions are counterproductive to this discussion. Also, the question deliberately presupposes a Catholic perspective, so please bear that in mind.

My first entry follows soon…

Peace,
Dante
 
I searched Jimmy Akin’s blog high and wide for something relevant, but he hasn’t gotten to this topic as yet. The best I can do is to borrow from his post “Selling Bad Stuff”, in which he applies the principles of cooperation with evil.

First, let’s look at the morality of Starbuck’s actions:
  1. It is not inherently evil to sell records.
  2. It is a formal cooperation in evil to sell records that slander the Church (or anyone, for that matter) because one supports the slander.
  3. It is material cooperation with evil to sell such records despite the slander.
  4. It is proximate cooperation with evil if one directly participates in, assists, or enables the production of such records.
  5. It is remote cooperation with evil if one sells the records.
  6. If one has proportionate reason, remote material cooperation with evil may be permissible.
QUESTION: Given that Starbucks is trying to launch its own record label, and that Joni Mitchell is only the second artist to sign on, does Starbucks have proportionate reason to sell her album despite its attack on the Church?

Now, let’s look at the morality of patronizing Starbucks:
  1. It is not inherently evil to buy coffee at a coffee shop.
  2. It could be construed as formal cooperation with evil to patronize Starbucks because one supports the slander in the records it sells.
  3. It could be construed as material cooperation with evil to patronize Starbucks despite the slander.
  4. Buying coffee at Starbucks does not constitute proximate cooperation with regard to the slander on Joni Mitchell’s CD, as well as the evil of selling such a record.
  5. Buying coffee at Starbucks appears to be a very remote cooperation with the evil of slandering the Church, and (as long as one is not buying or promoting the record), fairly remote to the evil of selling it.
  6. If one has proportionate reason, remote material cooperation with evil may be permissible.
  7. The more remote one’s cooperation is, the less proportionate one’s reason need be.
QUESTIONS:

a. Is one’s cooperation with the evil of selling slanderous records merely remote as long as one is not buying or promoting the record?

b. Is one’s cooperation sufficiently remote in this case as to permit one to continue patronizing Starbucks?

OVERALL ISSUE: Given the evil of slandering the Church, does a faithful Catholic have a moral obligation to boycott Starbucks?

Peace,
Dante
 
And another issue arises:

Starbucks has a policy of matching employee contributions to charities – including Planned Parenthood. I can find no indication that it does so because it supports Planned Parenthood; it appears that the company merely wishes to support its employees by supporting their causes.

Given this:
  1. Starbucks’ contribution is material, not formal, cooperation with evil.
  2. Buying Starbucks coffee despite these donations appears to be material, not formal.
QUESTIONS:

a. Is one’s cooperation with evil in this case proximate, and therefore unacceptable?

b. If it is remote cooperation, does one have insufficiently proportionate reason to continue patronizing Starbucks?

Peace,
Dante
 
Amazon.com sells questionable material, too, just about all big retailers do.

This would seem to be a similar situation. Buy buying other products at a store or online that offers questionable or unquestionably offensive material, is this proximate formal cooperation?

No.

One could spend one’s day researching which parent company owns who, and which of them donate to PP or the like, and trying to avoid them.

The only exception would be buying from a site, store or company who’s primary role is to sell questionable material. A perhaps absurd example if that if one bought something from the KKK store, because you wanted to have a Halloween ghost costume.
 
China supports and in fact demands abortions. China is very un-cooperative with the Christian Churches. China exploits its citizens. Do you buy anything made in China?

Buying a daily cup of coffee at Starbuck’s is ridiculous enough without somehow thinking your Catholic three bucks plus is going to effect them one way or another. Consider a daily three bucks plus for every day of your life till you retire or die of old age. If one just banked half of that there would be a tidy sum in the bank when you retired. That’s motivation for boycotting Starbucks!
 
Thanks for the replies, guys, but I’m hoping to start a discussion about the questions I posted in the context of remote vs. proximate and material vs. formal cooperation.

That said, you both make interesting points.

Peace,
Dante
 
You would only be supporting Joni Mitchell’s anti-Catholic slander if you bought her CD.

The fact that Starbuck’s record label is/has signed her to produce revenue has nothing or little to do with coffee drinks.
(This answers the question you asked.)

That said, Starbuck’s is too expensive. I can buy a pound of very good coffee beans (Kona) for the cost of 5 or 6 cups of Starbuck’s products, and I do not buy pure Kona coffee.

If you’re in a dilemma, don’t buy (on the grounds of your premise, sorry for the pun), and put the proceeds in the collection envelope on Sunday. Buy a decent coffee machine, whole beans, and make your own brew. I could make it for you in about 6 minutes, care to donate to my parish?😃
 
To Starbuck.

I think the signing of Joni Mitchell may be a sign of their liberal slant and taste in bad music, but I don’t think it is evidence of an anti-Catholic stance by the company.

There are a lot of reasons not to frequent Starbucks - price, supporting a locally owned coffeehouse, etc. Their selling the CD of an aging, increasingly irrellevant hippy isn’t reason enough for me.

I don’t go to Starbucks exclusively, but they are conveniently located, there are a gazillion of them, and their drinks are generally consistent.

For anyone interested in reading about their charitable giving and other community involvement, here is a link to their Fiscal 2006 Corporate Social Responsibility Report.
 
Good points.

Any thoughts on the Planned Parenthood issue?

Peace,
Dante
 
DanteAlighieri said:
Good points.

Any thoughts on the Planned Parenthood issue?

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
I don’t really see it as an issue. I read their Social Responsibility report and googled it to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Planned Parenthood isn’t in it. As you mentioned in post #3, perhaps their “support” is due to corporate matches of employee charitable giving. I don’t hold a company accountable for their employee’s choices of charity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top