18 Responses to “Sprinting Away from Planned Parenthood”

1. 1 Paul Mar 14th, 2007 at 12:08 am

   Thanks for the heads up, Doc. I’ve had Sprint wireless for 6+ years and my first reaction was, “you’ve got to be kidding!” Unfortunately, its worse than you think. Look here:
   http://www.workingassetswireless.com/ and click on “causes.” There you’ll find NARAL, Americans United for Separation of Church & State, a gay & lesbian group and many many more. Of course, Sprint is the network for them all.

   Bye, bye Sprint.

2. 2 Mrs. JSP Mar 14th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

   All the major phone companies support Planned Parenthood, the gay/lesbian movement, & porn. Look into Sienna - they don’t support these things and they give a portion of the money from your bill to the charity of your choice. They recently started wireless communications, but we’ve had them for long distance for several years. They are available in some areas for your local provider too.

3. 3 Iosephus Mar 14th, 2007 at 4:27 pm

   So there’s really no morally sound wireless provider out there now? Are we not to have cell phones? I mean, heck, I never wanted to have a cell phone in the first place - but are we really to jettison them because the companies support bad things?

   How many other companies, whose products we use everyday, are like that? Won’t we find almost all them involved, in one way or another, in things we disapprove of?

4. 4 Raindear Mar 14th, 2007 at 4:54 pm

   Seems like remote, material cooperation, i.e. not sinful, but that still does not make one feel warm and fuzzy about it.

5. 5 Iosephus Mar 14th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

   Okay, right, this seems like the kind of principle we’d need to look at - I don’t have a clue about moral theology, though. Do we give up on Sprint or no?

6. 6 Tobias Petrus Mar 15th, 2007 at 12:18 am

   I know a Catholic who worked a diaper company where the company donated to Planned Parenthood, or some similar pro-death outfit. He told them, look, even apart from morality, you’re trying to kill your customers!

7. 7 Raindear Mar 15th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

   I really don’t think you are obliged. Formal cooperation, like encouraging someone to sin, is always wrong. Material cooperation, like selling someone a gun, is not always wrong. Where human life is concerned, there are more strict principles, but this still seems to be the non-sinful kind of cooperation: material, indirect, and remote.

   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.
   From the

8. 8 Raindear Mar 15th, 2007 at 12:03 pm

   Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize html tags are not enabled.

   That was from the Pontifical Academy for Life:

   http://www.academiavita.org/template.jsp?sez=Documenti&pag=testo/vacc/vacc&lang=english

9. 9 anonymous Mar 15th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

   Aren’t these comments about the kind of cooperation involved missing the real point? I believe Dr. Asinorum & future wife want to express to their cell phone provider, through their business (or lack thereof) that they disagree with Sprint’s stand. It is important for the pro-life community to demonstrate that it will not sit idly by while support for “Planned Parenthood” becomes a societal “given.”

10. 10 Raindear Mar 16th, 2007 at 7:20 am

    Anonymous,

    It is important to take public stand for your convictions, but I doubt there are any better options among phone companies. I am actually a Verizon user - they have a diversity plug on their website. As I implied in my first comment, I agree that it is upsetting that a phone company supports Planned Parenthood, even if consumers are not responsible. However, I was addressing the question of moral culpability, assuming that you need the use of a phone and all the phone companies support offensive causes.

11. 11 the very same anonymous Mar 16th, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Yes, but, that was precisely my point in taking a stand: “all the phone companies” do not NEED to have associations with immoral causes/associations. As far as I can comprehend (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) there is no necessary association between wireless communication and baby-killing. If enough customers COMPLAIN that funds (read: profits) from their sky-high wireless bills are being diverted toward “charities” that these same customers will not support, the wireless companies will have to respond. Write them a letter, perhaps. After all, no matter how loony their politics and their morals, they are in the wireless business for the profits.
    Saying “Woe is us, our age, it is corrupt! Alack! Bring back the fair 12th century!” is unproductive and silly. Our consumer society (that some here so decry) has many benefits for the expression of private opinions like these. “Voting with one’s pocketbook” is, in this case, a lovely opportunity–and a moral obligation, since it is an opportunity.

12. 12 Raindear Mar 16th, 2007 at 9:43 am

    If only it were so simple. As many philosophers have pointed out, democratic systems only function well when the people are virtuous and it is false optimism to believe that we have even a virtuous majority. I live in a small town in Virginia, where the majority of citizens are probably pro-life conservatives. However, our votes count for nothing in the state elections, because we rest in the shadow of the more densely populated, liberal cities of northern Virginia. The protests of a handful of scrupulous pro-lifers holds little sway in this country.

    When money determines public morality - pocketbook voting as you call it - these difficulties arise.

13. 13 Clara Mar 16th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    I don’t think there’s an obvious open-and-shut answer as to whether or not the Doctor and I would be morally culpable for continuing to use Sprint. But I’m dubious about this “all companies are equally bad” argument. Are they really? A plug for diversity on the website is not nearly so bad as unveiling a new program to help enable customers to conveniently give money to kill babies. So far as I know other companies don’t have anything quite equivalent.

    It seems to me that some prudential considerations would need to be applied here. If all phone companies were equally bad in this way, and a cell phone was somehow essential to my livelihood, then fine, perhaps I’m justified in continuing to get the service. But I don’t think that’s the case. You’re right, Raindear, that we can’t transform our society into a virtuous one through little things like our choice of phone company. But it seems to me equally fallacious to use that as an excuse not to worry about it at all. If lots of people leave Sprint out of disgust over their new program, it won’t rock the country to its roots, but it may make Sprint (or other companies considering similar programs) take pause. That would be only a small gain in the grand scheme of things, but it would still be a good thing.

14. 14 Mrs JSP Mar 18th, 2007 at 6:52 am

    Um…again. There are ALTERNATIVES. Check into Sienna. If wireless, local, &/or long-distance is available through them in your area, why not support their efforts to combat the immoral big companies. It may not be the best rates you can find, but it shouldn’t break you….they weren’t unreasonable. Put your money where your mouth is.

15. 15 Mrs JSP Mar 18th, 2007 at 6:57 am

    Did I mention Sienna Communications is a Catholic company?

    Here is the website:
    http://www.siennacommunications.com/

    from the home page:

    Most communications providers support causes and agendas contrary to Catholic values and the Culture of Life, but Sienna pays a percentage of your monthly bill to the Catholic or Pro-Life charity of your choice. Best of all, Sienna offers the benefits of the major providers, so you won’t have to compromise on services or values!

    Sienna supports over 2,000 Catholic and Pro-Life charities. You can join us in helping any one of them simply by using one or all of our everyday services. Call Sienna toll-free at 1-877-474-3662, or e-mail us at info@sienna-group.com. We love to do business with like-minded people!

    Did I get through to you yet that there is a viable alternative????

16. 16 Doctor Asinorum Mar 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Oh, please; do you really think this Sienna company has built-out a multi-billion dollar cell network? Obviously it is just a MVNO that is reselling GSM service from either AT&T (formerly Cingular) or T-mobile (the two GSM providers in the US). Indeed, that is what the Planned Parenthood Wireless is as well. If you look at their coverage map you can see that it is probably AT&T. In other words, you aren’t doing anything terribly useful buying from Sienna—it would make more sense just to buy direct from AT&T and contribute the price delta directly to a Catholic charity.

17. 17 Raindear Mar 19th, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Clara,

    I am probably being overly cynical about the moral stance of major phone companies. However, I think many large corporations support anti-life organizations, not on account of peculiar malice, but because they feel obliged to placate minorities of every flavor. Sprint certainly deserves particular censure for its very public support of Planned Parenthood, but many other commonly patronized merchants are also known to support Planned Parenthood(e.g. Starbucks, Circuit City, Lowes, Whole Foods, and Wachovia).

    With regard to moral culpability, I may be underestimating the importance of passive cooperation, particularly in this case of blatant support, but it does seem unreasonable that consumers should have to keep track of all the organizations and causes that vendors fund, even supposing that would not eliminate the greater percentage of major corporations as acceptable service providers. In most cases, I would think it commendable - not obligatory - to forbear patronage.

    In any case, this is a rather somber matter for a joyous day. Buona festa everyone!

18. 18 Clara Mar 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am

    Raindear, I’m quite sympathetic to all you say. Researching every company you patronize, and withdrawing support from the ones that give money to bad causes, would be exhausting and probably paralyzing, since almost every large company is likely to have some unsavory connections. I certainly don’t think it’s obligatory, and I could never take seriously the endless array of boycotts that the Social Activist types in college were periodically trying to push on us. (For example, one year ND’s Center for Social Concerns made a big push to get us to boycott Taco Bell in support of the poor migrant aliens who picked their tomatoes — I guess the argument was that Taco Bell should voluntarily pay more for the tomatoes in hope that the vendors would decide to give the extra to the laborers… needless to say, this all seemed utterly ridiculous to me. More recently, lot of the grad students in my program seem to have the idea that buying Coke is immoral, so Pepsi products dominate their social events. I’ve avoided asking for the justification; I expect the ensuing conversation would just be awkward.)

    In this case, though, we just thought the offense was particularly egregious, and provided that there IS a better (though not perfect) option out there, we figured it would be worthwhile to switch. I mean, giving the occasional handout to a Gay/Lesbian support group is one thing, but actually starting a Planned Parenthood Wireless program is pretty revolting. Nonetheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to say, for example, that having a Sprint plan is positively sinful.

Leave a Reply