Value-driven service and spending

John Di Camillo writes that we have the obligation to avoid compromising our faith and values . . .

John Di Camillo

The Riverbend Bed & Breakfast in Canada denied a double bed to homosexual couples and offered them separate rooms, citing their objection to abetting immoral sexual practices. It was sued for discrimination. Courts could not grasp the distinction between sexual orientation and practice. The business was fined and had to close.

Jim and Mary O’Reilly, Roman Catholic owners of the Wildflower Inn in Vermont, were sued after their events manager inaccurately informed a lesbian couple that the inn would not host receptions for homosexual marriages. To comply with anti-discrimination laws, the inn’s actual practice was to disclose the owners’ opposition to same-sex marriage but not to deny service. Nonetheless, under the settlement, the O’Reillys must pay $30,000.

Many argue that business owners’ and consumers’ beliefs and values should have no impact on economic decisions because engaging in commercial activity entails a tacit prohibition on manifesting religious belief or moral values. Yet this position constitutes implicit acceptance of the belief in a moral exemption for commercial activity and the value of material goods over spiritual goods.

In his encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI instead reaffirms that economic activity “needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good” and therefore “must be structured and  governed in an ethical manner.” This is because “the economy needs [person-centered] ethics in order to function correctly.” We must acknowledge and participate in commerce as Christian witnesses, responding to Paul’s call “to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world” (Titus 2:12) while ever mindful of his warning not to be conformed to this world (see Rom 12:2).

The social responsibility of businesses entails stewardship of resources, respect for employees and consumers, and promotion of the common good through policies, services and products. Benedict’s encyclical confirms that the consumer likewise “has a specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in-hand with the social responsibility of the enterprise,” because “purchasing is always a moral — and not simply [an] economic — act.” In a free market system, the array of choices means I might purchase a comparable quality product at a comparable price from a different vendor; and if, with minimal inconvenience, I can patronize the one that better promotes human dignity, then I am morally impelled to do so.

The practical impact of purchasing decisions on the behavior of a large enterprise is negligible if taken alone. However,  as the Holy Father notes in Caritas in Veritate, “global interconnectedness has led to the emergence of a new political power, that of consumers and their associations.” Consumers working together can acquire the clout of an investor and challenge injustices in business — this is the power of a boycott. Life Decisions International, which researches and publishes The Boycott List, claims that 287 corporations have withdrawn funding from Planned Parenthood as a result of the coordinated efforts of pro-family people, causing estimated losses of over $40 million.

Alternatively, consumers can actively favor businesses. Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was a resounding success on Aug. 1. Over 650,000 confirmed RSVPs, showing strong support for the company’s CEO, Dan Cathy, who had affirmed the natural and biblical understanding of marriage. The company confirmed that it generated record sales that day, reflecting the constructive witness of consumers to good values while integrating multiple facets of human activity.

Given the relevance of morality to economic activity, is there an obligation to boycott every business that supports evil or to refuse every client who may abuse a service? An absolute yes or no would be reassuring but inaccurate. The clear imperative is never to do evil that good may come (as Paul tells us in his letter to the Romans), but cases of foreseen evil following from otherwise good or indifferent actions are more nebulous. The principle of material cooperation with evil provides helpful guidance but requires case-specific assessments about the moral distance of causal associations, the moral gravity of the evil, proportionate reasons, and other factors. Careful discretion and prayer must guide these practical judgments.

When it comes to business services and spending, we cannot participate in every good cause or prevent all possible evils. Yet each of us has the obligation to avoid compromising our faith and values, to object to unjust impositions of the civil law, to avoid misrepresentation and scandal, and to work ceaselessly to turn ourselves, our habits, our families, our work, our businesses, and our communities more toward the respect of a fruitful culture of life, recognizing and pruning away what is harmful as best we can.

John A. Di Camillo is a staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia.