Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
On #GivingTuesday, avoid benevolent harm
On #GivingTuesday, avoid benevolent harm
Nov 16, 2025 7:23 AM

Everyone is familiar with Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Now in its seventh year, #GivingTuesday has also e a permanent and popular fixture in the post-Thanksgiving landscape.

#GivingTuesday occurs on the Tuesday immediately after Thanksgiving. On this special day people are encouraged to donate their money toward charitable causes. The official website for #GivingTuesday states that it “is a global day of giving fueled by the power of social media and collaboration.” #GivingTuesday has been astonishingly successful. Last year it generated 21.7 billion social media impressions and more than $300 million in donations.

As charitable organizations solicit donations under the #GivingTuesday banner, potential donors should carefully consider who they are giving to. In addition to concerns about the organization’s financial integrity, donors must gauge whether their charity of choice is unintentionally harming their intended beneficiaries. Indeed, some organizations unwittingly inflict benevolent harm. This tragic e happens more often than people realize and can be especially true of efforts that seek to serve those in material poverty.

How can one’s charity actually undermine the causes or people they mean to champion? When serving the material poor, there are numerous ways charitable giving can go wrong. Creating unhealthy dependencies or an entitlement mentalities are one way. Undermining people’s dignity can be yet another.

The next logical question then is this: how can we avoid benevolent harm? A first step would be to understand the true meaning of charity. The Latin root word of “charity” is caritas, or love, the greatest of the theological virtues. St. Thomas Aquinas provides us a simple but helpful definition of love: “To will the good of the other” (Summa Theologica, II-II, art. 26, q. 6).

When charity is defined as “willing the good of the other,” it ought to necessitate that more reflection and thought be given towards the practical effects of one’s charitable acts. To will the good of the other goes far beyond a sugar high feeling after a donate button is pressed, with no thought given to whether that donation truly empowers someone. Caritas goes beyond a check-list mentality of doing an obligatory “good deed for the day.” No, true charity, true love seeks to affirm the dignity of people, enables them to utilize their God-given talents, and equips people to stand on their own two feet.

Here are three questions to consider when giving to a charitable organization. Does that organization’s efforts:

1.) Affirm or undermine people’s dignity? Everyone, being made in the Image of God (Gen. 1:26-7), enjoys intrinsic worth and is worthy of respect. Furthermore, people’s appropriate sense of pride and self-respect ought to be affirmed as much as possible. When we constantly place ourselves or the charities we support in the position of giver and continually relegate the material poor to the position of mere receivers, we undermine their dignity and self-worth. Instead, organizations should seek to partner with the material poor and be led by their vision and dreams.

How materially poor people are displayed in organizations’ marketing pieces can also serve to affirm or undermine people’s dignity. Charities that throw around photos of children with flies in their eyes or display people rummaging around in trash probably aren’t all that concerned about people’s dignity. Look for charities whose municates needs but simultaneously show people as proud, dignified, and possessing talents they can employ if only given a chance.

2.) Promote or discourage work? Contrary to popular belief, work is a gift given to us long before the fall (Gen. 2:15). We are made to work. Any charitable organization that intentionally or unintentionally discourages able-bodied people from working and providing for themselves and their families errs greatly. Make sure the charities you support don’t unintentionally develop dependency or entitlement within people they work with.

Look for organizations that seek to start businesses or enable people to start businesses themselves. It is enterprises, both large and small, that provide jobs, enable people to utilize their God-given talents, and provide the foundation for economic flourishing.

3.) Possess an exit strategy? Some charitable organizations seem to have institutional longevity as their main goal when they should in fact be working themselves out of the job. For example, munity development organization should have a date by which they want munity they have been working in to be self-sustaining. Once that is achieved, the organization should leave the area as quickly as possible.

Ask organizations if they have an exit strategy. Do they seek to build up a charitable empire? Or does the organization strive to reach certain goals that allow people to stand on their own two feet?

The answer to these three questions will go a long way in helping you determine organizations that are worthy of your support. So on this #GivingTuesday, don’t just give. Consider the practical results of your charity. Study the charities you give to and most of all, will the good of the other.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Redistribution and the Sacred Right of Property
“Scandinavian economies are some of the most market-oriented on the planet” says economist Scott Sumner, who adds “Denmark is the most market-oriented country on earth.” This peculiar claim is even more curious considering that it is based on the Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Economic Freedom. On the Heritage Index, which ranks countries based on ponents of economic freedom, the United es in at #10, lumped in with the “mostly free” countries. All of the Scandinavian countries are lower on...
Acton Commentary: Representation without Taxation?
“No taxation without representation” was a slogan taken up and popularized by this nation’s Founders, and this idea became an important animating principle of the American Revolution. But this was also an era where landowners had the primary responsibilities in civic life; theirs was the land that was taxed and so theirs too should be the rights to vote and be represented. Thus went the logic. But the question that faces us now, nearly two and a half centuries later,...
Diversity Welcome, But Only within Very Strict Parameters
Gallaudet University is a unique institution. Founded in 1864 in Washington, DC to meet the educational needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing, the school currently serves just under 2000 students in various capacities. As one might imagine, it is a munity, aware that they educate a group of people who have often been victims of discrimination. The school asserts: Gallaudet University as an institution embraces diversity… A university has an obligation to be a place where all views can be...
The Campaign for Leviathan
The Obama Administration’s requirement for many religious institutions to provide contraception may be a relatively new policy. But as Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen explains, the “origin of the mandate lies in an impulse that can be dated back to the beginnings of the modern era and the rise of the state.” At a recent conference in which I participated at the Georgetown Law Center, a number of speakers and participants described the HHS mandate as the necessary requirement...
Are Protectionism and Patriotism Incompatible Principles?
This morning at Ethika Politika, I argue that “acting primarily for the sake of national interest in international affairs runs contrary to a nation’s highest ideals.” In particular, I draw on the thought of Vladimir Solovyov, who argued that, morally speaking, national interest alone cannot be the supreme standard of international action since the highest aspirations of each nation (e.g. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”) are claimed to be universal goods. I would here like to explore his...
No Bullies in Schools — Unless It’s the Government
Laurel Broten, the Education Minister of Ontario, stated on Oct. 10 that the “province’s publicly funded Catholic schools may not teach students that abortion is wrong because such teaching amounts to ‘misogyny,’ which is prohibited in schools under a controversial anti-bullying law.” Ontario enacted Bill 13 in June and it casts a wide net against bullying in schools. It is under this law that Broten has declared that Catholic schools may not teach that abortion is wrong. Broten noted, Bill...
America’s Top Diplomat: Rich People Don’t Contribute to Economic Growth
“There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the [economic] growth of their own countries.” If such a statement were made by an activist at an Occupy Wall Street rally, most adults would chuckle and mend the budding young Marxist take a course in economics. But what do we do when the claim is made by Hillary Clinton at an event hosted by a former U.S. president and in front of an audience of global leaders?...
What is Subsidiarity?
What is Catholic Church’s teaching on the size of government? And what is the principle of subsidiarity? Our friends at CatholicVote.org have put together a brief video to help answer these questions. ...
Scoring the Vice Presidential Debate
From a purely political standpoint last night’s Vice Presidential Debate was probably a victory for both candidates. Vice President Joe Biden fired up his base with his aggressive and somewhat dismissive behavior towards Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan of course did nothing to hurt Romney and showed he is prepared to be president in an emergency. Ultimately, the Vice Presidential Debate matters little to nothing in terms of e, and that’s why these two were probably in a better position to...
U.S. Catholic Bishops Correct Biden’s Debate Inaccuracies
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement regarding remarks made by Vice-President Biden during last night’s debate. According to the debate transcript from the Washington Post, Biden stated, With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved