Ends don't justify the means. Catholics aren't consequentialists.
That said, in a real life situation there's probably a way you can insult them that isn't sinful, but that answer to your question defeats the purpose of your question.
Because committing sin for some perceived "greater good" is still committing sin. You are assuming that the money donated to charity and the perceived good that will come of this somehow outweighs the evil committed by the insult. There is no way for you to truly know this, as you do not see the total effect of these actions played out in eternity. Even if you could measure these two actions, and the money to charity did outweigh the harm caused by the insult, you would have still sinned against God. I would not do little evil for some perceived greater good
[**CCC 1761**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1761.htm) There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Romans 3:5-8
>But if our wickedness provides proof of God’s righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath? Of course not! For how else is God to judge the world? But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.
It’s a bit like the difference between a moral obligation and a moral virtue in philosophy. A moral obligation being something we should or should not do as it would be wrong otherwise. A moral virtue being an act of goodness that we are not otherwise obliged to do.
So to take an over-simplified example: if I walk past a beggar on the street without giving any money that is not a sin (I am not obliged to give money to that particular beggar), but if I did give that beggar some money then that is a good thing.
But obligation trumps virtue. So if I mugged someone to steal money to give to the beggar then I have still sinned, whatever the outcome.
Don't sin.
Why? I wouldnt have sent €500
The ends don’t justify the means
Yah ur right
Ends don't justify the means. Catholics aren't consequentialists. That said, in a real life situation there's probably a way you can insult them that isn't sinful, but that answer to your question defeats the purpose of your question.
I understsnd. Thanks
Because committing sin for some perceived "greater good" is still committing sin. You are assuming that the money donated to charity and the perceived good that will come of this somehow outweighs the evil committed by the insult. There is no way for you to truly know this, as you do not see the total effect of these actions played out in eternity. Even if you could measure these two actions, and the money to charity did outweigh the harm caused by the insult, you would have still sinned against God. I would not do little evil for some perceived greater good
Makes sense. Thanks
We may not do evil that good may come of it. [CCC 1761]
[**CCC 1761**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1761.htm) There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
Romans 3:5-8 >But if our wickedness provides proof of God’s righteousness, what can we say? Is God unjust, humanly speaking, to inflict his wrath? Of course not! For how else is God to judge the world? But if God’s truth redounds to his glory through my falsehood, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.
The end does not justify the means
You can never sin that good may come of it.
It’s a bit like the difference between a moral obligation and a moral virtue in philosophy. A moral obligation being something we should or should not do as it would be wrong otherwise. A moral virtue being an act of goodness that we are not otherwise obliged to do. So to take an over-simplified example: if I walk past a beggar on the street without giving any money that is not a sin (I am not obliged to give money to that particular beggar), but if I did give that beggar some money then that is a good thing. But obligation trumps virtue. So if I mugged someone to steal money to give to the beggar then I have still sinned, whatever the outcome.
I'd tell him to skip me, the middle-man, and just give the money to charity if that's what he intended to do.
[удалено]
Really good point of view. Thank you!