At the end of the year it is common to have a host of charities come knocking at one's mailbox or email address, seeking donations in support of their cause. Some of these are very beneficial, others can be little more than scams with very little going to the people they are purporting to help. At such times it is important to remember what the giving of charity should be about. The real purpose of charity is to see that a person doesn't need charity, or only needs it for a short period of time. Too often this principle is violated, especially so by the largess of governments who seem to prefer to foster dependency as a way of legitimizing their continued power. When was the last time a governmental program was cancelled because it was no longer needed?
Thursday, January 6, 2022
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading this short reflection, I find myself considering a couple of questions:
ReplyDelete1) What about those who are permanently disabled? There are those who, through no fault of their own, will never be able to "learn to fish", so to speak.
2) What is the distinction between charity of the donation sort, and the virtue of charity, or agape love?
3) What is the proper role of government in realizing our obligation to care for the poor and needy?
On the government question, besides outright corruption, I think some of the issues here stem from different levels of government responding to the wrong level of need. The principle of subsidiarity suggests that local needs are best taken care of by local institutions, with higher level institutions stepping in when they are incapable (or unwilling) to do so. Which leads me to another question:
4) How much of the government largess issue is due to individuals and local institutions insufficiently providing for local needs?