B
Beryllos
Guest
I am reminded of some good words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
It’s another question whether it constitutes an injustice (as a misappropriation of donations for the poor). When you donate food, you might hope it goes to the poorest, but it may end up going to anyone who qualifies for assistance. If your landlady qualifies, then your donation was not misappropriated; in a way, it just arrived at her pantry by an unexpected shorter route
. I suppose it would be unjust if others in the community are going hungry because the landlady is receiving food assistance, but even so, the guilt would not be upon her unless it was her intention to abuse or defraud the system (but anyway we should not assume or even speculate on this “without sufficient foundation,” as the above CCC says).
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty …] of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…
Based on what the Original Poster has written, there is no clear evidence that the landlady intended to steal. It is plausible that she thought the food donation came from the church for her. We do not know the landlady’s thoughts or motives, so unless there is further evidence to the contrary, we should assume she meant well.2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…
It’s another question whether it constitutes an injustice (as a misappropriation of donations for the poor). When you donate food, you might hope it goes to the poorest, but it may end up going to anyone who qualifies for assistance. If your landlady qualifies, then your donation was not misappropriated; in a way, it just arrived at her pantry by an unexpected shorter route