This evening, I happened to notice a fundraiser which encouraged people to designate a Catholic parish whenever they make an Amazon purchase. While ostensibly helping the parish, this fundraising activity does not distinguish among products purchased and encourages the notion that Amazon is just a benign operator. While plenty of worthwhile materials can be purchased via Amazon, it also deals in highly immoral products.
When I entered “contraception” on Amazon, I found that people can choose from a variety of so-called “emergency contraceptives” to be shipped to their home. Perhaps best explained by Dr. Chris Kahlenborn’s excellent video (i.e., Plan B, Current Controversies, 2018), “emergency contraceptives” can operate in an abortifacient manner, even when there is careful screening for pregnancy and ovulation.
Amazon is certainly also a “convenient” way to obtain literature and videos best described as pornographic.
So What?
I believe that there would be quick agreement on the absurdity of parishes partnering with Planned Parenthood. Partnering with Amazon may seem different because it offers a wider variety of items/services.
While some use the term “material cooperation” as though it meant “cooperation that does not matter,” that is erroneous. In a 2005 letter, the late Elio Cardinal Sgreccia reviewed “The principle of licit cooperation in evil“:
The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter’s evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions – either by providing instruments or products – which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the ‘distance’ (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.
Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the ‘double effect’ or ‘indirect voluntary’ action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.
A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted.
Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so. (Pontifical Academy for Life, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses, 6/9/2005; “Grave Attacks on Human Life” summarizes how cooperation applies.)
Even if it were just considered remote mediate cooperation with a provider of abortifacients and pornography, what sort of overriding reason could possibly justify parishes partnering with Amazon? And what of scandal?
Whoever causes one of these little ones – who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (Matthew 18: 6, 7)
Conclusion
We are at risk from dismissive notions about “cooperation.” For our spiritual welfare, we take a page out of Nancy Reagan’s playbook and just say “NO.” We should say “NO” to any fundraising schemes that involve us in any type of cooperation with evil.
14 thoughts on ““Cooperation” and Parishes Partnering with Amazon”
Joe, if anything, the parishes should be looking for cooperation with smaller online or local businesses; one thrust of the Church is to advocate for the poor, the least of His brethren, and instead of just shrugging the shoulders and accepting that surmounting the Big Amazon is practically impossible, the “impossible” should be started, and harnessing smaller businesses with the Church helps should be the aim. Although not all involved in this may be guilty, the ones involved in spearheading, or worse if a leader approved a laity’s “neat idea” are the ones that need to hasten to the confessional. Thanks for addressing this gross lack of spiritual concern. God bless.
Hello Todd,
Thanks for your comments. My primary point was about the immorality of parishes “partnering” with Amazon and potentially sharing profits from such things as abortifacients/contraceptives and pornography (Of course, plenty of smaller vendors can also be involved with immoral products.) – parishes setting up situations where they may be accepting “ill gotten gain.”
God bless,
Joe
Amazon is clearly part of the opposition, and we are either going to be part of the problem or part of the solution. Any purchase we make from Amazon or any other “woke” capitalist is going to add to the problem. They have power because we give it to them. Amazon is on my personal boycott list. It’s the only way short of antitrust action that will help cut it down to size.
One comment mentioned that Amazon usually has the cheapest price, and I find that to be a defensible statement. However, we have to keep our priorities in order. Getting to heaven and helping others get to heaven is priority #1 for a Christian; getting the cheapest price is way far down on the list. Helping a company that is out to get Christians and other conservatives is not going to help people to get to heaven. If we have to pay a few extra dollars to help keep alternatives to Amazon in business, especially local merchants, isn’t that a small price to pay to promote choice in purchasing? Once Amazon eliminates its competition, it will be the “cheapest” of the single choice available– but it won’t be “cheap.”
Further, what I often wonder is why people need to buy so many things. I am truly puzzled at the number of cars in store parking lots, wondering what all those people need. I hardly need to buy anything other than food. Rarely do I need new clothes. We need to reduce our penchant for consumerism and ask ourselves the really hard question: do I really need this at all, much less purchase it from Amazon or another woke capitalist? I have found that doing without is a legitimate option in many cases– more than we like to admit.
Finally, note that my remarks have completely avoided highly nuanced theological debates and hair-splitting– what is common among Catholics today. We don’t need to have a doctorate in divinity to figure out all of this.
Thanks for your comments Andrew, which take this conversation in another direction.
Kyle,
Whether or not there is any culpability, “cooperation” is the applicable term.
“Formal” cooperation involves actually embracing the wrong intent of another. While “material” cooperation may be too easily dismissed as a “freebie,” it might be so “immediate” that a bad action can’t be completed without it. Obviously, it would then also be wrong.
“Cooperation” is a notion that hasn’t been getting sufficient attention. Please see the Pontifical Academy for Life’s “Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses” (6/9/2005) as it does an infinitely better job discussing “cooperation.,”
You strike gold in bringing up Catholics in health care, as there is an incredible need for conscience protections! You also strike gold in bringing up Catholics pressured by employers to act immorally. While I was just touching upon fundraisers, there are all sorts of issues that come up each day for Catholics in various apostolates. It may be difficult for our bishops and clergy to understand how frequently Catholics need to stand up for Truth!
God bless,
Joe
Joe, whereas I appreciate and applaud your position, I do think it a bit overly scrupulous. A case can be made that folks, including moi, will use Amazon anyway, so being able to support a parish while doing so has merit.
Dwill, your point certainly has merit; my own primary point was about the morality of parishes “partnering” with Amazon and potentially sharing profits from such things as abortifacients and pornography. Individuals making morally innocent purchases and designating some proceeds to a parish seems quite different than parishes setting up situations where they may be accepting “ill gotten gain.”
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Just for clarification….
My primary point was about the inappropriateness of parishes “partnering” with Amazon and potentially sharing profits from such things as abortifacients and pornography.
While it would be fabulous to have always upright alternatives to Amazon for all our INNOCENT purchases, that may not be the case. We can always apply what the Church has to say about “cooperation” in our own purchases.
I apologize for being redundant, but my primary point is the inappropriateness of parishes “partnering” with Amazon and potentially sharing profits from such things as abortifacients and pornography.
Thanks.
Yes Mirage, you are absolutely correct regarding the DIFFICULTY in avoiding any and all cooperation with evil. As I said to Kyle, we MUST always avoid “formal” cooperation with evil, as well as any “material” cooperation which is immediate and involves a serious attack on human life. We need our bishops and pastors to get on board in assisting and not inadvertently giving out free passes by “partnering.”
Kyle,
I have not read Rod Dreher’s “The Benedict Option” and so am just sticking to what the Church proclaims as I understand it. Church teaching has such vital implications for how we live our lives, witnessing to the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of the transmission of human life.
You are absolutely correct regarding the DIFFICULTY in avoiding any and all cooperation with evil. That being said, we MUST still always avoid “formal” cooperation with evil, as well as any “material” cooperation which is immediate and involves a serious attack on human life. And that obviously does not mean that other cooperation gets a free pass!
Sadly, there seems to be great misunderstanding – even among those whose responsibility is to know better – about “cooperation” and a tendency to just dismiss it. I think that can give a particularly poor witness to future generations.
God bless,
Joe
Hi Joe, thanks for the response. I don’t think the joint fundraiser with Amazon is formal or material cooperation. The church is not intentionally trying to help Amazon sell the items that go against Catholic teachings. And I don’t think it’s material cooperation either because this fundraiser doesn’t help amazon sell items on the Catholic impermissible list – unless of course Catholics are buying them which would be a separate issue.
At some point, there has to be personal responsibility for one’s own choices. It would be difficult to find a job in the healthcare field where an employer doesn’t do something that you find immoral occasionally – precisely because there are a myriad of situations and personal opinions on what is moral. Or I personally would find it incredibly difficult to find an employer that doesn’t indirectly support things I disagree with. All of my employers have had charitable giving matching programs, which means it is almost a certainty that they are matching someone’s gift to planned parenthood. Am I culpable in that by working for that company? I don’t think so. If we extend this idea further, are we both culpable in child abuse by our support of the Catholic church? I am far more concerned about my culpability in child abuse by being Catholic than I am by buying something from Amazon – at least Amazon isn’t lying about what they’re selling.
I found this to be an interesting article. I just personally thinks it goes too far in trying to assign culpability for actions down a long chain of events. And it seem like a big stretch even by the standards of the Catholic church quoted in the article, which is probably why that parish is partnering with Amazon.
Our children’s school does Target and Amazon, both of which my husband has ask that we boycott along with many other companies that he says are on the “dark side”. I have tried many times not to purchase from Amazon but they always end up with the best price. The list of NO’s is quite extensive and includes all the major shopping stores. It’s a very difficult to find stores locations or online stores that are on the “YES” list. So what do we do? I always feel quilt after purchases, feeling I need to hide bags and boxes so that there no arguments 🙁
Are you a fan of the Benedict option? Completely withdrawing from society seems to be the only way to accomplish these goals if an activity such as buying from Amazon is considered to be over the line in terms of cooperation with evil. (And I really, really dislike Amazon)
It seems like at some point, you can’t avoid this type of cooperation with evil if you’re going to remain an active participant in society. And Jesus doesn’t appear to have supported withdrawal given his ministry and outreach to those who were not living within His laws. If you’re not supportive of the Benedict option, how do we move forward in society while avoiding every company or organization that does something against Catholic rules? I think that would rule out almost all of them including the government which is legitimately impossible to ignore.