Girl Scouts And Planned Parenthood

[Tony]

 for whatever it's worth..the girl scouts deny any relationship with planned parenthood. http://www.girlscouts.org/gs_central/mpmf/faqs.asp#1

[NotreDame]

Ex: they are turning away from actual scouting and camping. Replacing that active stuff with a leadership "curriculum," workbook, etc.

 

And what's funny is that the best leadership "curriculum" today (in business schools, corporate america, the military) is based around outdoor activities... like scouting and camping.
 

[Semper Catholic]

At least the Girl Scouts aren't letting boys in. My Camp Fire Girls now have boys.

The Boy Scouts outlawed gays originally because of lawsuits because of pedophile scout masters.

They would have been better outlawing pedophiles.

[Norseman82]

Of course, if you want a reason to not buy Girl Scout cookies, it's because they sell them so close to Lent.....

[PhuturePriest]

They would have been better outlawing pedophiles.

 

I think they had a knee-jerk reaction. As far as I am aware, psychologists have been led to believe that pedophilia isn't generally specific to the gender of the victim. I might be wrong, but that is my impression.

[Kateri89]

I won't buy Girl Scout cookies for this very reason.  Also because they are far too expensive.  However, if I'm not mistaken, Keebler makes surprisingly good Samoas knock-offs and they are delicious! The only other kinds of Girl Scout cookies I liked anyway were Tagalongs.  I don't think mint and chocolate should be mixed (hence thin mints) and I can't even remember the other kinds of cookies they sell.  But really, boycotting Girl Scouts and their cookies isn't really a sacrifice as it is a wonderful weight loss opportunity :)

[Tony]

Of course, if you want a reason to not buy Girl Scout cookies, it's because they sell them so close to Lent.....

 

I sometimes put them in the freezer until Easter.
 

[Cherie]

Their link to Planned Parenthood has been known for many years; I wonder why it's only this year that it's become a "big deal" and a national boycott has been called for?

[CrossCuT]

It's in the catechism. Sending money to Planned Parenthood is direct cooperation with evil. However, buying a product from a company is not direct cooperation with evil, because you are buying their product and cannot control where they put their money. It's not a sin to buy cookies from the Girl Scouts, or coffee from Starbucks (Which also supports Planned Parenthood). If you don't believe me, there are many theologians around who can verify.

 

Does this apply to healthcare too?  :rabbit:  :spike:  :bananarap:  :paperbag:  :disguise:

[KnightofChrist]

[...] However, buying a product from a company is not direct cooperation with evil, because you are buying their product and cannot control where they put their money. It's not a sin to buy cookies from the Girl Scouts, or coffee from Starbucks (Which also supports Planned Parenthood). If you don't believe me, there are many theologians around who can verify.

 
That is true on condition, or on the principle of double effect. Without sufficient reason to buy the cookies, a good example would be starvation, then even mediate material cooperation could be immoral.
 

Mediate material co-operation is concurring in the wrong action of another, but not in such a way that one actually performs the act with the other or agrees with the evil intention of 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 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.

Source: Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John Hardon

 

Does this apply to healthcare too?  :rabbit:  :spike:  :bananarap:  :paperbag:  :disguise:

 

The same princple applies here, but here is a more in depth explanation from a faithful Catholic insurance provider.

 

Principles of Formal and Material Cooperation

We cooperate with others in the world in order to achieve or preserve important goods, or in order to diminish or avoid worse evils or harms. According to Catholic moral teaching, it is for these basic reasons that we may legitimately cooperate in a limited way with others who do what we would consider to be wrong, depending on the type of cooperation. If this were not the case, great good that should be done would be neglected, and greater harms that should be avoided would continue. In this context, cooperation in moral wrong can be defined as “any physical or moral assistance knowingly given by an organization to the commission of a morally objectionable act principally performed by another (the principal agent).” The cooperator may or may not be morally culpable or blameworthy, depending on the type of cooperation.
 
To intend the wrongdoing of others is called formal cooperation. As applied to Catholic health care organizations, formal cooperation in evil occurs when the organization freely and directly participates in the objectionable action of another agent and/or shares in the object of that agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when the organization denies intending the wrongdoing of the principal agent, but participates in the action directly and in such a way that it could not be done without this participation. Catholic organizations are not permitted to engage in either implicit formal or formal cooperation in evil.
 
Formal cooperation is to be distinguished from material cooperation, principally in the matter of intention. As applied to Catholic health care, material cooperation occurs when the Catholic organization does not intend the immoral object of the principal agent’s act, yet is involved in circumstances that materially contribute to the immoral action in some causal way. Whether material cooperation would be permissible depends on further distinctions, following below.
 
Immediate material cooperation occurs when the organization provides for, contributes to or participates in specific circumstances that are essential to, or are an essential condition for, the principal agent to carry out a specific objectionable action. Directive n. 70 of the Ethical and Religious Directives specifically forbids Catholic health care organizations from engaging in immediate material cooperation in acts judged by the Church to be intrinsically immoral, “such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and direct sterilization.” These actions are considered “intrinsically immoral” inasmuch as they are evaluated to be essentially not good for the human person, regardless of circumstances or personal intentions. But under Church teaching, their gravity is not considered equal—e.g., direct killing of innocent human life is worse or more grave than direct sterilization, even though Church teaching evaluates both as intrinsically immoral. This matter of gravity is important for determining whether there is a proportionate enough reason to justify mediate material cooperation under the circumstances.
 
Mediate material cooperation occurs when the Catholic organization provides for, contributes to or participates in circumstances that are not essential to a principal agent’s specific wrongful action. Proximate mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is directly ordered to the act. An example would be leasing space to an independent, self-insured family practice group, which in the course of practice writes some contraceptive prescriptions, but where the Catholic lessor neither condones such activity nor contributes anything essential to a contraceptive act itself. Remote mediate material cooperation makes a causal contribution to the principal agent’s act, which is indirectly ordered to the act. An example would be a Catholic hospital informally affiliating with a family practice group for some medical education and for preferred partner status. Some physicians in the group engage in some contraceptive practices in their own facility or at other facilities. The Catholic party does not contribute anything essential to that activity, but the physician practice indirectly benefits from the affiliation through increased patient volume, which in turn indirectly contributes to the writing of more contraceptive prescriptions.
 
Whether a particular form of mediate material cooperation can be properly characterized as “proximate” or “remote” is not always self-evident, and often depends on one’s understanding of the facts, or from which perspective one is examining the case. This is why ethical decisions on these matters ought not to be made in a vacuum or in isolation from multiple perspectives. Either form of mediate material cooperation may be permissible for the Catholic organization under certain conditions:

• when there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation (increasing access to morally appropriate services for the poor and underserved, decreasing infant mortality, stewardship of limited resources, and securing Catholic health care presence in the community, are just a few examples of serious reasons why an organization might want to consider cooperating with another provider, and which may very well justify the cooperation);
• the moral distance of the cooperator must be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing (for example, mediate material cooperation in contraceptive counseling would not require as great a moral or causal distance as mediate material cooperation in direct sterilizations);
• proximate mediate material cooperation requires a more serious reason for cooperation than remote mediate material cooperation (i.e., a causal contribution that is directly ordered to an objectionable act requires greater justification than a causal contribution that is indirectly ordered to an objectionable act); and
• the danger of scandal must be sufficiently avoided. According to the Ethical and Religious Directives, n. 71: “The possibility of scandal must be considered when applying the principles governing cooperation. Cooperation, which in all other respects is morally licit, may need to be refused because of the scandal that might be caused. Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices. The diocesan bishop has final responsibility for assessing and addressing issues of scandal, considering not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.”

[Nihil Obstat]

Their link to Planned Parenthood has been known for many years; I wonder why it's only this year that it's become a "big deal" and a national boycott has been called for?

I dunno, I've seen this thread approximately a million times over the years I've been here. Always the same discussion.

[add]

http://cookiecott.com/

[add]

Why Should You Be Concerned?

Girl Scouts USA (GSUSA) recently promoted pro-abortion politicians, Senator Wendy Davis and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, as women to be honored for their accomplishments in 2013. Many other pro-life concerns exist about the Girl Scout organization including:

• GSUSA, with over 2 million girl members, maintains relationships with many pro-abortion advocacy groups.
• Girl Scouts’ curriculum for girls, sold and promoted by every local Girl Scout council, recommends pro-abortion role models/organizations such as Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton, Amnesty International, Population Council, ACLU, National Organization For Women (NOW) and others.
• GSUSA and local Girl Scout councils connect girls to resources promoting abortion rights and inappropriate sexual content via official Girl Scout social media accounts.
• Across the country, local Girl Scout councils honor and promote abortion rights advocates and pro-abortion politicians; suggest girls work with organizations that fight for abortion on demand; and invite girls to attend events related to abortion rights advocacy and other controversial issues.
• GSUSA is the largest member organization of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), making up one-third of its 10 million members worldwide and paying approximately 1.5 million dollars annually to WAGGGS based on the number of registered GSUSA members.
• WAGGGS, which states that "anyone who is a Girl Guide or Girl Scout is automatically a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts," aggressively promotes youth reproductive/abortion and sexual rights, specifically on behalf of its 10 million members.

 

[NotreDame]

mmm... cookies.