Obligation to Charity

[Pete_1]

Is the argument below valid, and in accordance with Church teachings?

As Christains obliged to reduce ourself to minimal quality of life (only food and water) in order to meet the needs of the poor.

Here is an argument in favor of the above position:

Singer’s principle
If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it

1.)We can prevent disease and death in third world countries by donating the majority of our earnings to charity and subsisting on minimal food and water.

2.) Loss of quality of life is less significant than a child dying of disease in a third world country.

Therefore we must donate all possible earnings to charity, subsiding only on minimal food and water.

Is this argument valid? Is it Catholic?

 

[MonkeyTape]

Is the argument below valid, and in accordance with Church teachings?

Here is an argument in favor of the above position:

1.)We can prevent disease and death in third world countries by donating the majority of our earnings to charity and subsisting on minimal food and water.

2.) Loss of quality of life is less significant than a child dying of disease in a third world country.

Therefore we must donate all possible earnings to charity, subsiding only on minimal food and water.

Is this argument valid? Is it Catholic?

A simple answer, perhaps too simple, is that this has never been taught or demonstrated by the Church and therefore is probably not accurate. In Mark 14 Jesus even accepted perfume while those with Him objected.
It could have been sold for more than three hundred days' wages and the money given to the poor." They were infuriated with her. Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.So I am guessing it is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Pete_1]

A simple answer, perhaps too simple, is that this has never been taught or demonstrated by the Church and therefore is probably not accurate. In Mark 14 Jesus even accepted perfume while those with Him objected.

It could have been sold for more than three hundred days' wages and the money given to the poor." They were infuriated with her. Jesus said, "Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me.So I am guessing it is not Catholic teaching.

Jesus is more valuble than the poor so the principle can be reconciled with the passage in this case.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is
1.)We can prevent disease and death in third world countries by donating the majority of our earnings to charity and subsisting on minimal food and water.

2.) Loss of quality of life is less significant than a child dying of disease in a third world country.

Therefore we must donate all possible earnings to charity, subsiding only on minimal food and water.

Is this argument valid? Is it Catholic?

it is valid only to the extent that you can prove donating money it will actually benefit that third world child. Since most of the money donated, at least by the gubmint (which is what “we” usually means in this context) is scarfed up by the corrupt leaders of said third world countries, the probability of that happening is slim at best.

the Church position would focus less on what “we” should do and more on what “I” should do.

 

[Pete_1]

it is valid only to the extent that you can prove donating money it will actually benefit that third world child. Since most of the money donated, at least by the gubmint (which is what “we” usually means in this context) is scarfed up by the corrupt leaders of said third world countries, the probability of that happening is slim at best.

the Church position would focus less on what “we” should do and more on what “I” should do.

If It is valid, this means we are never allowed a luxury (once in a while), as long as their is great suffering in the world.

Do you still believe it is valid, what is the Church’s stance?

 

[davidv]

If It is valid, this means we are never allowed a luxury (once in a while), as long as their is great suffering in the world.

Do you still believe it is valid, what is the Church’s stance?

ISTM that in relation to this topic the Church teaches that we are to love God and love our neighbor. I have not seen any teaching that indicates that were are live as if we are in abject poverity. Any suggestion to does goes beyond anything the Church teaches and beyond any biblical instruction.

From Luke 12:48

…Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required…

does not imply that must not have much - only that were are to share it willingly.

 

[MonkeyTape]

Jesus is more valuble than the poor so the principle can be reconciled with the passage in this case.

He does not seem to say this, however. He just makes a blanket statement that the poor will be with us always. If He was to teach us that we are to subsist in a minimal way then He would have done likewise Himself. Yet we never see Him having to scrimp for pennies to buy bread for Him and His disciples. Also, in the parable of the Prodigal Son the father is portrayed in a very positive light and we know he was wealthy.

In the same way one can become immobilized by fear of sinning, which may be where you are heading here, one can hurt themselves and their family through giving too much away. Care for yourself and your family first.

 

[Pete_1]

He does not seem to say this, however. He just makes a blanket statement that the poor will be with us always

He says this:
For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.

It seems to imply that he is more valuble than the poor.

 

[ribozyme]

He says this:
For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.

It seems to imply that he is more valuble than the poor.

Singer himself acknowledges that he breaks the principle.

However, instead, let’s use 20% of after tax income instead of all of your income.

What would be the objections be to that? I doubt most people who complain about government taxes are willing to give that amount.

 

[josephdavid]

He says this:
For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always.

It seems to imply that he is more valuble than the poor.

But did He say to not worry about the poor even though they would always be with us?

 

[Pete_1]

Singer himself acknowledges that he breaks the principle.

However, instead, let’s use 20% of after tax income instead of all of your income.

What would be the objections be to that? I doubt most people who complain about government taxes are willing to give that amount.

Singer breaks his principle on what grounds? That his argument is invalid?

 

[1ke]

Um… Peter Singer is a nutcase who thinks parents should have 30 days after the birth of their child to determine if they want to keep it or kill it.

There is NOTHING Christian, logical, or ethical about Peter Singer.

 

[Pete_1]

Um… Peter Singer is a nutcase who thinks parents should have 30 days after the birth of their child to determine if they want to keep it or kill it.

There is NOTHING Christian, logical, or ethical about Peter Singer.

I know Peter Singer advocates things that we as Catholics would consider immoral but surely this is not grounds for rejecting all of Singer’s arguments.

If the Church says Singer’s Principle is wrong then fine, but so far no one has been able to tell me the Church’s stance on the issue.

 

[davidv]

I know Peter Singer advocates things that we as Catholics would consider immoral but surely this is not grounds for rejecting all of Singer’s arguments.

If the Church says Singer’s Principle is wrong then fine, but so far no one has been able to tell me the Church’s stance on the issue.

Do these references in the CCC provide what you want?

Almsgiving
as a form of penance, 1434, 1438
in the New Law, 1969
as works of charity and mercy, 2447, 2462

 

[Pete_1]

Do these references in the CCC provide what you want?

Not really, I am looking for the Church’s stance on the idea that one must give the majority of ones earning to charity, as a matter of justice.

Thanks for your help though.

 

[davidv]

Not really, I am looking for the Church’s stance on the idea that one must give the majority of ones earning to charity, as a matter of justice.

Thanks for your help though.

Given that the references don’t support this idea, is it possible that “it” is not Church teaching? And the teachings in the refences are what is true.

 

[Pete_1]

Given that the references don’t support this idea, is it possible that “it” is not Church teaching? And the teachings in the refences are what is true.

Good point, if that is the case then what reason does the Church give for rejecting Singer’s principle as false?

 

[davidv]

Good point, if that is the case then what reason does the Church give for rejecting Singer’s principle as false?

It seems to me Singer’s principle can be rejected out-of-hand based on his premise of “…without sacrificing anything…” Fulfilling the “Royal Law” (love God and neighbor) requires sacrifice.

 

[Pete_1]

It seems to me Singer’s principle can be rejected out-of-hand based on his premise of “…without sacrificing anything…” Fulfilling the “Royal Law” (love God and neighbor) requires sacrifice.

Could you please clarify?

My understanding of singers (strong) principle is that one should give all of ones earnings to charity apart from the money that is absolutley necessary for ones survival/health, as people in great need (e.g the dying) require the money more than oneself.

 

[davidv]

Could you please clarify?

My understanding of singers (strong) principle is that one should give all of ones earnings to charity apart from the money that is absolutley necessary for ones survival/health, as people in great need (e.g the dying) require the money more than oneself.

How do you get that understanding from the statement in the OP? How could giving away everything except that which was needed for basic survival, not be considered sacrificing? ISTM that Singer would limit the giving to that which would not be sacrificing.