I am afraid I disagree with much of what you wrote.
You are factually correct, but what is only a possible use is of no interest when compared to what is the **intended **use.
I don’t question the fact that it has been identified as a strip club and I don’t question your moral assessment of it; however, you seem to be making the presumption that anyone and everyone involved with the joint is committing a mortal sin; mortal sins can be committed anywhere and everywhere.
You have correctly assessed my position. The bartender serving drinks, the plumber who fixes a leaky faucet, everyone involved in keeping the place a going concern is committing a mortal. Why, because they are contributing to the sin of others.
Undoubtedly there is more opportunity and certainly a great deal of encouragement to commit one in the strip club. **But to make a presumption that anyone and everyone entering is going to do so goes farther, I think, than the Church will; the Church usually stops at “occasion of sin”. **
I believe this is an incorrect assessment of the church teaching. Let’s look at a snippet from the Catechism.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58
The bolding for emphasis is mine.
I recommend reading this whole section on Moral Conscience. Here is a link. It will not take long. It will make it clear that your position as stated above is incomplete. I think once you understand this section, you may revise some of your statements. Also please take a look at “Proliferation of Sin” which explains how we sin by cooperating in the sin of others.
This is the area that is leading you and I to draw different conclusions.
The bottom line is that this is certainly more obvious a source of sin than the other examples I gave, but all of the other examples are sources of mortal sin too. We seem, however, to focus much more on sexual sins than we do other sins; does that make them less sinfull, or less mortal, because they are not sexual sins?
I would describe the examples you gave as, at best, remote occasions of sin for some. However, a strip club is inherently sinful as it is opposed to human dignity and exploits the “dancers” for selfish reasons. Patrons of the club, sin even if they do not look at the strippers or experience lust, because their patronage support the exploitation of people.
As for the issue of sexual sins… Well, yes, I concede that these seem to get a good deal of attention. They even got the attend of the Blessed Virgin Mary who said at Fatima that more people will go to Hell for the Sins of the flesh than for any other sin.
The issue is that remote as opposed to proximate is the basis for the answer. I applaude those who stopped the abortion clinic, but to answer the OP’s question, unless he can get everyone on board, that isn’t going to happen here, and unless he gets some significant support as opposed to going it alone, he may accomplish nothing positive. By moral law he is too remote to be responsible and may sell the electrical supplies. By civil law, if he has contracted to sell and refuses now to do so, he may be liable for at a minimum, any additional costs of supplies, lost contract time, and any further monetary damages either the developer of future owner can show.
It seems to me you are saying that unless he can stop it from being built, he should go ahead and help build it. I disagree. Being able to prevent public sin is different than cooperating with it.
Your comment about the construction trade in Kansas doing the “right moral thing” seems to equate with an opinion that if the OP sells the electrical parts, he is doing moral wrong; however, that is not what Moral Theology holds. It might be better to say the folks in Kansas did a better moral thing.
Again, I disagree with your conclusions. Please take a look at the sections I referenced in the catechism. I would be very interested in the viewpoints of others.
And thank you for keeping this a civil and respectful discussion.