Dependence on charity

[Chancellare]

When we give alms to the poor and when we help others by being generous with our resources, we practice charity. In many cases we create expectations and dependence and in some cases promote mendicancy. Isn’t this making the rest of world worse off? What gives? Related to this issue are so called statistics used by economists. I have come accross various demographics linking Catholic countries having more poor people than non-Cathilic countries. Do we have a fact-based refutation to this?

 

[cheddarsox]

If, through charity, you keep people alive who otherwise would have starved, succumbed to disease through lack of medical care, or would have aborted their babies, you will end up with more poor people, because they didn’t die.

Keeping them alive and well doesn’t automatically translate into them finding good jobs and becoming self supporting.

 

[puzzleannie]

there are all kinds of acts of charity, beyond giving alms on a one-time basis to meet a critical need for food, shelter etc. The corporal works of mercy can also be excersized by contributing to or working for an agency–faith-based, other non-profit or government–who works for more permanent solutions to the conditions that lead to poverty for individuals or groups.

 

[puzzleannie]

Isn’t this making the rest of world worse off? ?

this question is rooted in the same fallacy used by “population experts” who claim that a large population in one country is a threat to a smaller population in a neighboring country or elsewhere in the world. The first most effective proponents of this argument were the Nazis who invaded their neighbors seeking “liebenstraum” or “room to live.” The fallacy assumes that of resources are directed to one group it automatically means less is available for other groups.

There is plenty of food and other resources on the planet for everyone. The problem lies when the relatively few afffluent persons and nations consume the lion’s share of those resources, wasting or throwing away most of them in the process, and when they obtain those resources by downright stealing them from poorer nations and persons, sometimes through UN agency, World Bank and other international organizations dedicated to promoting such theft and exploitation.

 

[manualman]

Ah, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Charity is much like catholicism in that people THINK it has been tried and found ineffective. In reality, it has been tried and found DIFFICULT and often abandoned for an easier route. Read the gospels again. Now ask this: Does Jesus say “When I was hungry, you organized and demanded a government food stamp program?” or “When I was naked, you voted for the guy who supports homeless shelters?”

No. Jesus required INDIVIDUALS to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. But in our rich, comfortable American lifestyle, we find it MUCH easier to pretend that charity is putting money in a basket and feel smug that we voted to have the government fix it all. When we actually obey Jesus and risk getting our own hands dirty and smelling some bad breath, we convey the love of Christ to the needy, not just material goods. When the personal contact of the giver is removed from the needy, the needy don’t receive what they need FAR more than the food and clothes. There’s no experience of love (which is the ORIGINAL definition of charity).

(WOW, I wish was as good at living it as writing about it.)

 

[gardenswithkids]

Related to this issue are so called statistics used by economists. I have come accross various demographics linking Catholic countries having more poor people than non-Cathilic countries. Do we have a fact-based refutation to this?

I haven’t seen such statistics, and I don’t know if we can refute it by economists’ standards.

Are you familiar with the story of St. Lawrence, who was a deacon and martyr of the third century? A high Roman official commanded St. Lawrence to surrender the treasures of the Church. St. Lawrence agreed to do this, but instead of the expected silver and gold, he presented the poor whom he had gathered and said, “These are the treasures of the Church.”

What is treasure? Economist measure wealth in terms of gold, silver, and money. They look at those who have very little and call them “poor”. In contrast, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta remarked on abortion, “It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

Many in my country (USA) have lots of material wealth, yet think they can’t “afford” more than two children. Contraception is the norm, and abortion is legal. Contrast that to some Catholic countries where may have less money, but more children. Who is really richer?

Those who push contraception and family planning often hold up misleading statistics as if more stuff makes a better life. It doesn’t. Some wish to rob the poor of the one treasure that they do have: their children.

So, it’s entirely possible that in Catholic countries where contraception is not practiced, economists find more “poverty”. Yet, if they considered children valuable, they would find such countries far “richer” than in countries where abortion and contraception are commonplace.

 

[manualman]

So, it’s entirely possible that in Catholic countries where contraception is not practiced, economists find more “poverty”. Yet, if they considered children valuable, they would find such countries far “richer” than in countries where abortion and contraception are commonplace.

add " , material wealth is everywhere, and families are so small as to not even replenish the population."

Poverty indeed. Good post!

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Self-sufficiency is a (secular) Western ideal, not a moral imperative… according to the Bible and the Catholic Church, it’s actually perfectly fine for some people to depend on the kindness of others for the goods needed for survival.

This kind of follows, logically, since we’re all called to give to the poor. If it’s ok to give to the poor, it’s also ok for the poor to receive what we give–even in some circumstances on a permanent basis. One example: several passages in the Bible refer to our duty to care for widows.

However, I think you make a good point. In my time living in a 3rd world nation, I came to see first hand how our charity does sometimes contribute to the endurance of their poverty. But we cannot ignore the needy just to make a point to the lazy. So I will continue to give.

 

[Chancellare]

I haven’t seen such statistics, and I don’t know if we can refute it by economists’ standards.

Are you familiar with the story of St. Lawrence, who was a deacon and martyr of the third century? A high Roman official commanded St. Lawrence to surrender the treasures of the Church. St. Lawrence agreed to do this, but instead of the expected silver and gold, he presented the poor whom he had gathered and said, “These are the treasures of the Church.”

What is treasure? Economist measure wealth in terms of gold, silver, and money. They look at those who have very little and call them “poor”. In contrast, Blessed Theresa of Calcutta remarked on abortion, “It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

Many in my country (USA) have lots of material wealth, yet think they can’t “afford” more than two children. Contraception is the norm, and abortion is legal. Contrast that to some Catholic countries where may have less money, but more children. Who is really richer?

Those who push contraception and family planning often hold up misleading statistics as if more stuff makes a better life. It doesn’t. Some wish to rob the poor of the one treasure that they do have: their children.

So, it’s entirely possible that in Catholic countries where contraception is not practiced, economists find more “poverty”. Yet, if they considered children valuable, they would find such countries far “richer” than in countries where abortion and contraception are commonplace.

The issue starts with the economy of poverty in 3rd world countries. Secular planners argue that having more people to feed due to irresponsible parenthood takes away the food from those who are supposed to be fed. If the fallacy that NFP or the whole Catholic morality for that matter results in poor population management is properly explained, the debate could have been different. This is the argumanet that NGOs like USAID are using to promote contraceptives in the 3rd world countries. They should have shifted their strategy more on how to manage an economic model of having more people with potential of creating wealth instead of consuming meager resources in poverty alleviation. But this is more easily said in a forum like this than done in the economic planning in the hinterlands.

 

[boppaid]

Ah, that’s the rub, isn’t it? Charity is much like catholicism in that people THINK it has been tried and found ineffective. In reality, it has been tried and found DIFFICULT and often abandoned for an easier route. Read the gospels again. Now ask this: Does Jesus say “When I was hungry, you organized and demanded a government food stamp program?” or “When I was naked, you voted for the guy who supports homeless shelters?”

No. Jesus required INDIVIDUALS to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. But in our rich, comfortable American lifestyle, we find it MUCH easier to pretend that charity is putting money in a basket and feel smug that we voted to have the government fix it all. When we actually obey Jesus and risk getting our own hands dirty and smelling some bad breath, we convey the love of Christ to the needy, not just material goods. When the personal contact of the giver is removed from the needy, the needy don’t receive what they need FAR more than the food and clothes. There’s no experience of love (which is the ORIGINAL definition of charity).

(WOW, I wish was as good at living it as writing about it.)

Wow. What a GREAT post! I agree with you. I’d like to add, though, that it is STILL important to encourage your government (by voting and using every other means of encouragement like petitions, etc.) to provide for the poor as well. Remember, we have so many poor in our country alone that individuals can’t do it alone. Especially when there are so many selfish individuals out there not doing anything. In fact, I would go so far as to say that when we vote for someone who has terrible social welfare programs, we are hurting the poor ourselves. We are responsible. We cannot vote down proposals to help them, and then say “Oh, it’s so sad that there are so many homeless.” YKWIM? But great post! Thanks!

 

[boppaid]

Many in my country (USA) have lots of material wealth, yet think they can’t “afford” more than two children. Contraception is the norm, and abortion is legal. Contrast that to some Catholic countries where may have less money, but more children. Who is really richer?
.

Honestly I don’t know. I used to think I knew, but now I’m not sure. Is it better to have the amount of children you can afford, so that they are safe, happy, healthy? I know of through a friend a large family who were so poor that they couldn’t afford health care. Their daughter needed some sort of expensive medical treatment that they couldn’t afford. She’s no longer with us now.

I’m not advocating abc (although I personally agree with its use), but I’m suggesting that careful family planning is crucial in a society that requires money to survive. Gone are the days when the more children you had, the more prosperous you were with workers for your family farm. (Well, not necessarily 'gone" but rare.) Today, the more children you have, the less money you have to adequately feed, clothe and take care of them. NFP is a great too for the devoted couple who doesn’t believe in ABC to do this.

 

[gardenswithkids]

The issue starts with the economy of poverty in 3rd world countries. Secular planners argue that having more people to feed due to irresponsible parenthood takes away the food from those who are supposed to be fed.

This sounds like they want to eliminate poverty by eliminating the children of the poor. They want to feed the hungry as long as there aren’t* too many* hungry people. Somehow they have come to believe that only some hungry people (first or second children) are suppose to be fed, while other hungry people (third child, fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eighth, nineth, tenth and beyond) aren’t suppose to even exist.

They probably believe that there’s only so much money or food or whatever and we divide it by the number of people. Simple math 12/4=3. They think the number of things being divided in the equation stays the same and that as we increase the number we divide by, the total each person get will go down.

Then there’s Jesus. When He fed the crowds the loaves and fish, He didn’t divide–He mulitiplied. Now that may have been a miracle, but I think it points to a great truth that when we give everything we have to Jesus, just as the little boy who shared his loaves and fish, then Jesus can mulitiply the little that we did give.

Farming techniques and mechanization changed food production dramatically in the USA. We get more food from an acre than previously thought. Basically, the notion that there’s only so much food to divide is a false premise. Money may not grow on trees, but food does.

I will add, that you might want to read some books or articles by Peter Kreeft. He is a philosophy professor and presents well thought out arguments against secular thinking. In his book, How To Win the Culture War, he speaks about the “secret weapon” in fighting the culture war: saints. Saints live the Gospel in ways that both inspire and challenge others to do the same. We all are called to be saints.

They should have shifted their strategy more on how to manage an economic model of having more people with potential of creating wealth instead of consuming meager resources in poverty alleviation. But this is more easily said in a forum like this than done in the economic planning in the hinterlands.

Everything is much easier said than done. And now I need to go take care of my own children instead of trying to solve the world’s problem on a computer screen. A wise woman taught me that charity begins at home.

 

[Chancellare]

Everything is much easier said than done. And now I need to go take care of my own children instead of trying to solve the world’s problem on a computer screen. A wise woman taught me that charity begins at home.

Yes I agree that it is better to light one little candle than to simply curse the darkness. On the other hand, if I apply this regularly, say to a bum on the street, he will start to depend on my goodness and I created a dependency on his part. Anybody with a better option of helping that does not create dependency?