What is my Material Cooperation with Evil if I buy from Starbucks?

[suscipe725]

I was just wondering how remote my material cooperation with evil was if I buy from a store that supports Planned Parenthood? Can’t I use the principle of double-effect to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks, or does the good that come from buying the coffee not outweigh the bad effect of indirectly giving money to Planned Parenthood? Or am I really in any way giving money to Planned Parenthood? Thanks

 

[Lisa44]

Please provide supporting documents, I was not aware they gave money to p.p. thanks.

 

[passer_by]

I was just wondering how remote my material cooperation with evil was if I buy from a store that supports Planned Parenthood? Can’t I use the principle of double-effect to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks, or does the good that come from buying the coffee not outweigh the bad effect of indirectly giving money to Planned Parenthood? Or am I really in any way giving money to Planned Parenthood? Thanks

I think you will find this helpful

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/

From the article, it seems that since your case is one of mediate material co-operation, the principle of double effect is the way to go. It does however state that “The presence of a proportionate reason is not sufficient to allow what is called material co-operation”. So I am not sure if you can say the good in satisfying your hunger/coffee desire outweighs the evil permitted as a defense.

So under double effect, the only reason you will be able to grab a coffee from Star Bucks seems to be if ‘there is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect’. I am not sure a normal thirst or desire for coffee would qualify as ‘grave reason’.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

But Starbucks has such good Strawberries and Creme smoothies!

But technically you could do this with any corporation. If I buy minutes for my phone, buy something from Target or Best Buy or Wal-Mart or any corporation, then technically I am supporting a corporation that supports planned parenthood. At least indirectly. Because even if it doesn’t directly support planned parenthood, it most likely supports the Democratic Party at least a little, which supports planned parenthood, which supports abortion. In our modern day society with so many people and businesses supporting abortion somehow, it has to be nearly impossible to not cooperate with evil somehow. I mean, even God tolerates evil on this earth. You can’t escape this world until death.

 

[Lisa44]

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002455480_starbucks29m.html

“But Starbucks spokeswoman Lara Wyss said decisions about sponsoring gay-pride events and other causes are made at the store or regional level, not the corporate level. And while Starbucks matches employee contributions to charities such as Planned Parenthood, Wyss said, it doesn’t make outright corporate contributions to such groups.”

If anyone has more recent information please post it.

 

[passer_by]

But Starbucks has such good Strawberries and Creme smoothies!

But technically you could do this with any corporation. If I buy minutes for my phone, buy something from Target or Best Buy or Wal-Mart or any corporation, then technically I am supporting a corporation that supports planned parenthood. At least indirectly. Because even if it doesn’t directly support planned parenthood, it most likely supports the Democratic Party at least a little, which supports planned parenthood, which supports abortion. In our modern day society with so many people and businesses supporting abortion somehow, it has to be nearly impossible to not cooperate with evil somehow. I mean, even God tolerates evil on this earth. You can’t escape this world until death.

I am not sure that saying that there is no way to avoid co-operating with Evil is grounds for Material co-operation.

One will still have to use the Principle of Double Effect. In most cases, it will be ok for you to buy from these stores in cases where ‘there is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect’.

 

[passer_by]

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002455480_starbucks29m.html

“But Starbucks spokeswoman Lara Wyss said decisions about sponsoring gay-pride events and other causes are made at the store or regional level, not the corporate level. And while Starbucks matches employee contributions to charities such as Planned Parenthood, Wyss said, it doesn’t make outright corporate contributions to such groups.”

If anyone has more recent information please post it.

Yea, I am not really sure if Star Bucks is a PP supporter either. Perhaps the ones in the posters local area are known to support it. But I think we can just discuss this issue by renaming Star Bucks to company X perhaps and it will still be an interesting Theological discussion.

 

[suscipe725]

Here’s a list of the companies that currently match donations to Planned Parenthood. I had heard that Starbucks used to be on this. But actually, they aren’t. But wouldn’t be surprised if they sponsored other principles and causes that are contrary to our faith. Thanks!

plannedparenthood.org/ppcw/files/ColumbiaWillamette/Matching_gifts_companies_list.pdf

 

[Equites_Christi]

does the good that come from buying the coffee not outweigh the bad effect of indirectly giving money to Planned Parenthood?

Not an answer to your issue, but a comment:

IF Starbucks supported Planned Parenthood, would you really have to ask yourself if the “good” of buying coffee was justification for giving them money?

 

[passer_by]

Not an answer to your issue, but a comment:

IF Starbucks supported Planned Parenthood, would you really have to ask yourself if the “good” of buying coffee was justification for giving them money?

The answer appears to be a ‘Yes’.

In this case, since the good of buying coffee in most cases is not a grave reason for permitting evil, then it would be immoral to materially co-operate.

But if it was a pharmaceutical company and you needed the medication for an example, I think that would be grace reason to materially co-operate.

 

[Tenofovir]

I was just wondering how remote my material cooperation with evil was if I buy from a store that supports Planned Parenthood? Can’t I use the principle of double-effect to buy a cup of coffee from Starbucks, or does the good that come from buying the coffee not outweigh the bad effect of indirectly giving money to Planned Parenthood? Or am I really in any way giving money to Planned Parenthood? Thanks

Then you should surely also boycott Hollywood. Hollywood promotes certain lifestyles - such as promiscuity, violence, disrespect for authority, nihilism, cynicism, materialsm (such as consumerism), etc. Comments?

 

[passer_by]

Then you should surely also boycott Hollywood. Hollywood promotes certain lifestyles - such as promiscuity, violence, disrespect for authority, nihilism, cynicism, materialsm (such as consumerism), etc. Comments?

I think that is a good question.

The way I see it, the output of Hollywood is not always completely morally offensive. They do at times end up making a movie which can be considered a good (like Passion of Christ, Ben-Hur, Ten commandments for an example). Mind you, its becoming very very rare. So in this case, by funding Hollywood, it is not clear that there is an immediate connection to something necessarily moral evil. Making movies is not an intrinsically moral evil. Hollywood is in the business of making movies but they are not always bad movies. We would therefore not be promoting any evil but a morally neutral act which is dependent on what Hollywood does with it. Therefore effect of evil that could take place through such an action (funding Hollywood) cannot be reasonably decided by us before the product is made.

Someone could argue however that we are at a stage where Hollywood’s output is always morally offensive. In such a case, since we should be boycotting from seeing morally offensive movies anyway, we will automatically withdraw from any material co-operation .

But, in the case of someone matching or donating a percentage of funds for abortion or specifically paying a director money knowing that he wants to make a morally offensive film from it, then moral evil is clearly permitted by our actions and hence our material co-operation would be immoral.

 

[Bookcat]

I am responding in general here…I see the Starbucks thing was addressed above with others stating that they do not support PP.​

It is important to note that while there can be various evils (and cooperations) that one ought to avoid --one also ought not scruple over this sort of question either.

Which I think can easily happen among faithful Christians in this area (not saying they are ‘scrupulous’ here…even one with a well formed non-scrupulous conscience can still scruple at times).

 

[Tenofovir]

I think that is a good question.

The way I see it, the output of Hollywood is not always completely morally offensive. They do at times end up making a movie which can be considered a good (like Passion of Christ, Ben-Hur, Ten commandments for an example). Mind you, its becoming very very rare.

These are either old films or they’re not strictly made by Hollywood. The Passion of The Christ was certainly more of a privately funded film and is not a project Hollywood would take on nowadays.

Henryk Sienkiewicz after all received a Nobel Prize in literature for Quo Vadis too, back in a time when religious themes were not taboo. Times have changed since then.
It’s even a book which is in the public domain:
www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2853
while it’s doubtful if Mickey Mouse ever will make it to public domain because of some of the immorality of Hollywood and culture of greed.

What do you think about Hollywood Accounting?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Should one support businesses which not only make movies promoting various aspects of immoral behaviour, while attacking religious themed films (look how Mel Gibson is being treated) and to top it all off many of these businesses cook the books too to avoid paying fair dues to others or the government. What do you think?

The music industry of course often promotes immoral behaviour too. We have rap videos showing mostly nude women gyrating and thrusting their pelvises, we have videos promoting promiscuity and in some cases even blasphemy (Madonna etc). We have dubious lyrics which often promote sex or narcissism above other things.

 

[passer_by]

These are either old films or they’re not strictly made by Hollywood. The Passion of The Christ was certainly more of a privately funded film and is not a project Hollywood would take on nowadays.

Henryk Sienkiewicz after all received a Nobel Prize in literature for Quo Vadis too, back in a time when religious themes were not taboo. Times have changed since then.

What do you think about Hollywood Accounting?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Should one support businesses which not only make movies promoting various aspects of immoral behaviour, while attacking religious themed films (look how Mel Gibson is being treated) and to top it all off many of these businesses cook the books too to avoid paying fair dues to others or the government. What do you think?

The music industry of course often promotes immoral behaviour too. We have rap videos showing mostly nude women gyrating and thrusting their pelvises, we have videos promoting promiscuity and in some cases even blasphemy (Madonna etc). We have dubious lyrics which often promote sex or narcissism above other things.

First I must state that I am not an expert on Hollywood.

But as I said before, we have two possibilities

1. Hollywood/Music Industry produces some good media and some bad media

In this case, our material co-operation is ok if we are solely paying for the good media. We are only supporting the making of the media which is not intrinsically immoral at all.

1. Hollywood/Music Industry produces only bad media

In this case we simply avoid all the bad media anyway. So in this way, we do not give any material co-operation. In such a case, one could even argue that material co-operation is immoral since these companies ONLY make bad media.

As for the accounting stuff, it seems like it would also fall under “Some” category rather than “ONLY”.

 

[Bookcat]

I am responding in general here…I see the Starbucks thing was addressed above with others stating that they do not support PP.​

It is important to note that while there can be various evils (and cooperations) that one ought to avoid --one also ought not scruple over this sort of question either.

Which I think can easily happen among faithful Christians in this area (not saying they are ‘scrupulous’ here…even one with a well formed non-scrupulous conscience can still scruple at times).

 

[passer_by]

I am not sure your analysis is accurate. It says regarding Material Co-operation in the following

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34788

that

‘‘The morality of mediate material co-operation is to be judged on the principle of the double effect. In applying this principle, there are four basic norms to be observed. Among these norms is the obligation not to intend the evil effect (as would really be intended in immediate material co-operation) and the need for sufficient reason to permit the evil effect. The presence of a proportionate reason is not sufficient to allow what is called material co-operation.’’

 

[Bookcat]

I am responding in general here…I see the Starbucks thing was addressed above with others stating that they do not support PP.​

It is important to note that while there can be various evils (and cooperations) that one ought to avoid --one also ought not scruple over this sort of question either.

Which I think can easily happen among faithful Christians in this area (not saying they are ‘scrupulous’ here…even one with a well formed non-scrupulous conscience can still scruple at times).

 

[passer_by]

It is important to note that while there can be various evils (and cooperations) that one ought to avoid --one also ought not scruple over this sort of question either.

Which I think can easily happen among faithful Christians in this area (not saying they are ‘scrupulous’ here…even one with a well formed non-scrupulous conscience can still scruple at times).

So you do think we are being scrupulous here now eh