Expert: Michael Clark, Ph.D. - 7/8/2004

Question
Hello Michael Clark, Ph.D,


I understand that a Catholic can not at all participate in a likely mortal sin (i.e., abortion, a homosexual union, etc.); however, let us say a Catholic works at the local drug store where pornography and/or condoms are sold, and the Catholic is a clerk.  Is the Caholic clerk guilty of participating in this sin, although indirectly?  What if one refuses to sell theses items and files a lawsuit afterwards, since the clerk would most likely be fired?

I have heard that one can argue for a Catholic to sell these items, since: 1) it is the legal law; and, 2) the seller(clerk) is not the direct cause of the sin.  But, if this is so, why is there an exception here but not for other sins?

Also, could not one file a lawsuit, if one is fired, based on: 1) religious discrimination; 2)one's Civil Rights?

Thank you,



Paul

Answer
Paul.. that is an excellent question. Re: lawsuits, my sense is that the answer would depend on the locality of the place of employment. Re: the “success” of a lawsuit, I would think that in some cases, the wealth and power of the concerned parties might be an important factor, among others.

Re: the Church's position on just how directly or indirectly one may or may not be permitted to participate in acts defined as mortal sins, this is problematic because according to THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CATHOLICISM (Harper Collins, 1995) the very definition of a mortal sin has been under debate since the mid-1960's. What seems to still be agreed upon, however, is that a mortal sin must involve three things:

- grave matter
- sufficiently full knowledge
- full consent or freedom

This would appear to give quite a bit of leeway as to the interpretation of a mortal sin.

On a more practical note, I have heard of people quitting their jobs because of perceived conflicts between secular and church law. In such cases I think the matter comes down to a question of personal conscience--i.e. the person just cannot continue to work in an environment which advocates certain acts and policies deemed unethical.

To take your argument to the extreme case scenario, some would contend that in some way, even the street person “participates in corruption” by eating out of garbage cans (say, by fast food outlets) and panhandling from businesspersons. I don't mean to be disrespectful to these people, but the garbage that they eat comes out of all sorts of actions, or a chain or actions, which many would see as scandalously unethical. Of course, most street people likely don't have full or precise knowledge of the various sins that may have gone into the production of the garbage or small change. But if they've “dropped out of society” because they see society as being too corrupt, but then continue to eat the garbage produced by that corrupt society, are they really acting with integrity? Can this paradox be avoided? Is it a paradox?

If a person, for instance, “dropped out of society” because they were unable to participate in it for whatever reasons (e.g. if it was not so much a choice but a matter or survival), then that arguably would be a different matter altogether. I myself don't have any answer here nor pretend to know what God thinks on this. But I outline the issue to stimulate thought…