What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.


What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Charity, Particularity, and Justice

One of the interesting dialectical pivot points in recent discussions we've had about employment discrimination is charity. At some point our Christian culture degenerated to the point where "charity" started to mean "acts which are nice to do but always optional". Another thing which seems to have come along for the ride is that charity has become more abstract: the notion seems to be that charity is a marketplace selection of opportunities from which we can arbitrarily choose what we want.

In the discussion on natural obligations employers have toward the men providing for families who work for them, this has manifested in two ways.

The first way has been to treat the contingent obligation an employer has to provide for the basic dignity and needs of employees, and in turn the loyalty and diligence that an employee owes to his employer, as optional: as things not required as a matter of reciprocal justice, but rather as gratuitous and completely optional gifts.

The second way this notion has manifested itself is in the idea that charity (and therefore justice) is fungible: that there is no particular charitable obligation of employer to employee in justice but rather that the employer's obligation is just to some abstract charity-in-general, an obligation (to the extent it is one at all: see the previous point) which can be discharged by giving to one of any number of charitable opportunities in a marketplace of opportunities.

Contra all this, it seems to me that while some acts of charity - indeed the best kind - are truly gratuitous, charity in general is not optional. In addition, many or perhaps even most obligations in charity arise in particular contexts; and particular obligations cannot be discharged by "giving at the office". They have to be discharged here, now, in the context and connected to the actual persons with respect to whom they arose.

In short, the notion that charity and justice can be sawed into two utterly distinct realms is a false notion. And it is the height of foolishness to base our moral understandings and public policies on falsity.

Comments (3)

I think this arises because most people think consent governs all things. The notion is thus that charity is noble, but such an obligation is only valid through the consent of the giver. It seems to me that the idea of consensual obligations is self-refuting. In my discussions with certain people, their notion of evil is my suggestion that they have positive obligations that transcend their own reason and will.

I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter. The kind of charity you describe (the kind that now governs) is not the manifestation of any "habit of being," but simply a habit, a display of good intentions that can be withdrawn at one's displeasure. And, as you say, it's no kind of charity that has much to do with a genuine obligation, that is, with Christian justice.

While charity is not optional, charity must always be carried out with a discerning eye. The Lord said do not cast your pearls before swine, and indeed many recipients of welfare services would quite comfortably fall into that category with respect to their use of charity and welfare. Do not forget either that when it comes to charity, Paul said that those who will not work, will not eat. Charity must always be reserved for those who show a willingness to contribute what they can back to society, and always excluded from those who would selfishly exploit charity to avoid contributing much or anything at all.

Post a comment

Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.