Cooperation with Evil
A good Christian friend of mine asked me for advice today. She wanted to know, essentially, whether some actions she planned would be sinful. This immediately brought to mind the Catholic idea of cooperation with evil. This teaching is truly a blessing the Church has given us to help us with the murkier bits of morality.
The idea (vastly simplified) is that there are two kinds of cooperation with evil. The first is called Formal, and it is always sinful. An example would be performing or procuring an abortion. The second kind of cooperation is called Material, and it can be broken into two subgroups, Remote and Proximate. (There are more distinctions not mentioned here.) The first, Remote Material cooperation is not sinful when committed in the presence of proportionate reasons, while the second, Proximate Material cooperation is sinful. An example of Proximate Material cooperation might involve someone driving a mother to an abortuary, even if the driver is against the abortion. The abortion wouldn't have happened without his assistance. He sins. An example of Remote Material cooperation would be when a parent uses a vaccine based on aborted babies. If there is no alternative to the tainted vaccine, the parent may use the vaccine without sin since his use is remote to the evil and by using it he prevents harm to his children or to others. But he must use alternatives if available (and thereby have no cooperation with evil), and he should work to make alternatives available and to stop the practice all together. (Via letters to pharmaceutical companies or via the law, for example.)
The Church has given us a very helpful method for thinking about these sticky situations. For a good description of the various types of cooperation with evil, read this article on Catholic Herald.
Comments
You can always be counted on to know where to find the answers.
Posted by: Gloria Nafziger | May 3, 2006 8:05 AM
Lisa:
Thank you for your advice. I gather my question would fall into the remote material cooperation as the grant did not actually provide for abortions but for pregnancy prevention. The money goes to an organization that does do these things, though, so it's still a little dicey. I would rather NO money go to them for anything but I do like the other things the Women's Foundation has funded. My conscience tells me I should probably go elsewhere as this issue will undoubtedly come up again. I like to be involved in civic organizations but it's been my experience they tend to lean left. Anyway, thank you for your help.
Posted by: Betsy Cuthbertson | May 3, 2006 1:30 PM
First off: Aw, Mom, you're making me blush! :->
Betsy: I would say that your involvement in the group wouldn't be Remote Material cooperation, but Proximate because your intention in joining the group would be to raise funds for their charities, one of which is an organization whose reason for existence is contraception and abortion. "Pregnancy prevention" doesn't mean teaching abstinence. It means handing out condoms, the "morning after" pill and birth control pills, which sometimes allow pregnancy, then kill the baby. If you don't believe that contraception is an evil, which many people don't, consider that money is fungible. Money donated to a contraceptive project frees up money for abortion activities.
The other issue is, even if it were Remote cooperation rather than Proximate, some good must be achieved that can't be achieved in other ways in order to morally take the action. Joining the group in question isn't the only way you can fund the charities you do like.
So, my take on it would be that joining an organization whose purpose is to raise funds for charities that include Planned Parenthood would be Proximate Material Cooperation (assuming you disagreed with the funding of Planned Parenthood, else it would be Formal Cooperation.) According to the Church, Proximate Material Cooperation is always immoral. I think your conscience is leading you the right way.
Posted by: Lisa Roberts | May 3, 2006 5:24 PM