Cooperating With Mortal Sin

[dairygirl4u2c]

1. is remote material cooperation with grave evil, if that grave evil is a mortal sin, also a mortal sin, or just a lesser sin?

2. is it a mortal sin, to assist a person to have an abortion like taking them to the doctor etc?

not sure there's an officialteaching on this. that's more what i'm curious about.
not necessarly the debate about it, though that might be good too.

[Groo the Wanderer]

yes and yes

CCC 1868

Edited August 16, 2009 by Groo the Wanderer

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not sure it's the same degree of culpability, though, from that passage.

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers.

i guess, if it were man made law, obviously, they'd have the same culpability for hte most part. eg, accomplices are generally liable to the same extent the actual perpetrator is. eg, getaway drivers etc.
but.

Edited August 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

not sure this answers it, but it's an interesting piece, and helps break things down at any rate.
[url="http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm"]http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm[/url]

[quote]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.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 question11.

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 omitted12.

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.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

so i would have to say in my hypo of driving someone to the clinic, that they did not intend for the abortion to occur.
only intended to drive them there? if that argument can be made successfully, that is.

cause if they intended it to occur, it's obvioulsly formal and immediate etc anyway.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's a hypo:
a wife says she's going to abort any more kids that the couple has.
is the husband under a duty not to engage in relations with her? or is he to exercise his general (though understood it's not absolute anyway) duty to engage in relations, and leave the culpability to the wife?
if he does engage, and it's wrong, what's his degree of culpability?

Edited August 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like a lot of the rules and theory, are a lot like man made law -- it's absolute in the obvious cases, and merely gives guidance and ways of arguing, for the lesser situations.

[Groo the Wanderer]

quit getting into the legalism of it or ye risk becoming a Pharisee


do what is right. if you properly form your conscience, you will be more in tune with God's will and can more easily discern right and wrong.

personally i think you know the answers to these already :wink:



if you really wanna, dig into natural law, divine law, and moral law....that may help ya

Edited August 17, 2009 by Groo the Wanderer