Stanek weekend question: Should Chick-fil-A cater to abortion clinics?

On August 2 pro-life abolitionist Caleb Head, a member of Abolish Human Abortion, observed a Chick-fil-A catering truck making a delivery to Houston Women’s Clinic. According to Head, this abortion mill is the busiest in Houston and 4th busiest in the country….

AHA initiated phone calls and online activism to admonish this Chick-fil-A, located at 3101 West Holcombe Avenue, to repent and never do this again.

Head’s father, Pastor Scott Head, wrote a letter to CFA Holcombe’s owner, Juli Salvagio, who responded:

Our restaurant was simply fulfilling a catering request. Our goal is to serve great food with genuine hospitality to all guests. We have no political or social agenda.

[T]he ruthless killing of babies by abortion is not a political or social matter, it is a barbaric practice that all decent people ought to be concerned about.

You represent a company that has a particular learning and reputation toward Christian ethics, whether you are a Christian or not. Your company, though you are an independent owner, still represents the founder’s ethic. Knowing other independent franchise owners personally, I know they are free to do as they wish, but wise owners also support the general business and brand perception. Chick-fil-A will surely suffer, and your business in particular, if you stand by and give Nazi-esque answers when confronted about supporting abortionists like Rosenfeld’s HWC.If you remember, the Nazis who serviced the holocaust perpetrators also said “we are simply fulfilling a business order.” Yet these same businesses (like BASF, who supplied Zyklon B to gas Jews, for example) were held responsible by courts for war crimes.

In this video Caleb shows a clip of the original confrontation with the Chick-fil-A delivery person, who it turns out was manager Robert L.

In the video Caleb refutes complaints he has received from Christians, such as that we are instructed in Proverbs 25:21 to give our enemies food and water if they are hungry and thirsty, pointing out abortionist Bernard Rosenfeld and his staff are by no means starving or dying of thirst.

What do you think Chick-fil-A should have done when getting the catering call from an abortion clinic? How far should Christian and/or pro-life-owned companies go to avoid complicity with abortion?

For that matter, how far should we as individual pro-lifers go to avoid aiding and abetting abortion?

Coincidentally, here’s video via Life Dynamics of a different caterer who turned around and left when he realized he was delivering to the Houston Planned Parenthood.

This isn’t the same thing as the baker who was asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

In that case, the baker was being asked to essentially be part of their ceremony, blessing their event with a cake. In this case, CFA is simply providing lunch to individuals who are engaged in evil behavior.

They may seem the same to simple minds. But they are very different.

Good on CFA for serving these baby killers.

I must cite this in full for those who wish to follow the Catholic stance on cooperation with evil. CFA incurs no sin in delivering to the abortion murder mill, assuming interiorily the decision is made in accordance with the principles delineated below. However, we are all free to go beyond these parameters in avoidance of evil complicity, but not compelled to do so. We must be careful not to judge negatively those who choose not to go further in their avoidance of evil complicity.

Immediately the distinction between material cooperation and formal cooperation must be considered.

We are morally obligated never to give formal cooperation with an evil act, but under certain circumstances material cooperation with an immoral act may be tolerated.

MATERIAL COOPERATION IS ASSISTING IN ANOTHER'S WRONGDOING WITHOUT APPROVING IT. THE HELP GIVEN ASSISTS A PERSON TO PERFORM THE SINFUL ACTION, ALTHOUGH OF ITSELF THE HELP IS NOT WRONG. To provide necessary information to a thief, because one is forced to, would be material co-operation. Material cooperation with another person's evil action is allowed provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

SUCH COLLABORATION IS LICIT BECAUSE THE COOPERATOR DOES NOT INTERNALLY APPROVE OF THE SIN OF ANOTHER, NOR DOES HE OR SHE APPROVE OF THE SINFUL USE TO WHICH THE ASSISTANCE IS PUT BY THE OTHER.

The following principles are standard in resolving this complex moral issue:

Two kinds of material cooperation are to be distinguished: immediate and mediate.

In immediate material cooperation, one person actually does something morally wrong with another person. Thus if a surgeon and an assistant are both enganged in actually aborting a fetus, the cooperation of the assistant is immediate.

IMMEDIATE MATERIAL COOPERATION IN THE SINFUL ACT OF ANOTHER IS ALWAYS WRONG. It is pointless to say that a person who is not under duress performs a criminal action without intending to do so.

Mediate material cooperation is concurring in the wrong action of another, but not in such a way that one actually performs the act with the other.

While doing something that is in itself good or indifferent, a person rather gives an occasion to another's sin, or contributes something by way of assistance.

The morality of mediate material cooperation is to be judged on the principle of 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 cooperation) and the NEED FOR SUFFICIENT REASON TO PERMIT THE EVIL EFFECT.

FORMAL COOPERATION is the deliberate concurrence in another person's sinful action.

The cooperation is formal and always sinful if, besides giving external help of whatever kind, one interiorly wants the evil action to be performed.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/TAXES.TXT

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.