Like It or Not, We are Still "Cooperating" with the Heinous Sins of Planned Parenthood

Jill Stanek has provocatively asked: "was it throwing babies under the bus to politically compromise on PP defunding? Was it evil? Were pro-lifers suckered – again?" Hmmm....

In 2005, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life wrote to the president of Children of God for Life. In that letter, he recalled "the principles assumed in classical moral doctrine with regard to the problem of cooperation in evil [9], a problem which arises every time that a moral agent perceives the existence of a link between his own acts and a morally evil action carried out by others." Like it or not, each and every taxpayer is still "cooperating" with Planned Parenthood and its heinous crimes against humanity and sins against God.

• "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 in the intention, it is a case of material cooperation."

To be exact, we are materially cooperating with Planned Parenthood...

• "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.

People who are opposed to Planned Parenthood funding continue mediate, material cooperation, via their tax dollars...

• "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 [10]. 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 [11].


• "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 [12].


• "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."

While they came in the context of discussing "the use of 'biological material' of illicit origin, these words from the Vatican's 2008's Dignitas Personae would also seem to have applicability to our own, unwanted cooperation with Planned Parenthood:

• "When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.[57] Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles."

Oh, and with regard to Jill Stanek's questions, I'd say Yes, Yes, and Yes.

What do you think?