Daily Fix

Food, Not Religion:
The History of Charity

T. SHER SINGH

I’ve been following the goings-on in Vatican City these last few weeks religiously.

How could I not? The sheer theatre of it grabs you and simply won’t let you go … until the very last drop. It’s like watching the Olympics. Or the American elections. Or the 24/7 media coverage of a royal wedding or the academy awards.

You know it’s going to end. You know how it’s going to end.  But you remain glued to it, because it’s good theatre.

It’s never less than a Cecil B. DeMille production. A David Lean extravaganza. A Steven Spielberg presentation. Every little detail has been looked after. The Swiss guards are spit shining. The costumes have been de-mothballed. The cuff-links have been polished. Cameras have been placed behind every statue, each with a clear view but itself out of sight. The chimney has been installed … nothing beats the Hollywood-like attention to minutae.

Ever since Anthony Quinn spilled and spelled out the intimate details in “The Shoes of the Fisherman”, I have made sure I’ve had a front seat. I remember John Paul I’s ascension … followed, in quick succession, by his untimely death. Then, John Paul II’s crowning. And, of course, the latest Benedict.

It’s become the modern era’s Everyman play cycle. The Ram Lila re-enactment. The annual nativity play. The West’s own Kabuki performance.

This time around, I must say, I see it in a new light. Which is what good theatre does, doesn’t it? Like watching Hamlet for the nth time and that latest ahaa! moment …

I think I understand the Adam and Eve story now. No wonder it is so foundational to each of the Abrahamic religions, and therefore behind much of what is going on in the world today.

Here’s how I see the primal, archetypal story of the West now, having witnessed yet another Pope cycle:

God gave specific instructions to Adam and Eve when he gave them domain over Eden. Being human, they quickly found ways to break the rules. When caught, they blamed everyone else: Adam blamed it on Eve. Eve blamed it on the snake. The snake says, who, me? God says: Off you go, then ... you ingrates are incorrigible … you’re on your own from here on!  

And that’s how it’s been ever since. Rules … Broken … Mess.  

Let me explore the history of Charity, as an example. It’s a pillar that holds up the structure of each and every faith. And much, much more … it’s also like the iconic column that sits in the middle of St Peter’s Square. And, in addition, like the flagpole that declares to the world what you stand for.

To begin with, what exactly is Charity?

It helps to go back to the scriptures to find the correct import of the idea. My favourite is the line from the Bible:

We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  [Romans 15:1-2]

It’s not a complicated concept, nothing that is difficult to comprehend. Or practice.

We are enjoined to share our blessings with those who are less fortunate than us, with only one condition: that we do not do it to benefit ourselves.

Simple.

There’s no room for misinterpretation. No need for lawyers or pundits or rabbis to dissect the word, or to stretch its parameters.

So what have we, as a society, done to the wonderful idea that is meant to edify -- and I borrow a word used in the save verse in Romans -- both the giver and the receiver?

Edify. Uplift, that is.

Well. Here‘s what we’ve done. We’ve married the word 'charity' to tax breaks … deductions, write-offs, savings, or whatchmacallit. 

That is, if you give in charity, you get an instant benefit, reward, gratification. If you give money, you get a chunk of it back. If you give in kind, then you get to write-off its equivalent in value against your income, and therefore get to save on income tax. Or, you can offset it as a loss against excessive profits you’ve made elsewhere, in order to lower your tax bracket.

So, if you give $100, you privately, secretly get back $50 or $75 or whatever. Yet, you get to show the world that you are generous ... and how generous ... because you gave $100.

Show the world? 

Well, isn’t that what we have reduced Charity to?

We publish the name of the donor, as a reward to him. And he also gets to advertise the fact on his own, to impress his own circle with his magnanimity.

The advertisement is not happenchance. How it is done, where, when, how often, how big, etc., etc., is carefully negotiated and contracted and documented before hand.

“I will give you ten times as much if you’ll put my name in large and bold, even above your own name or that of your cause or project!”

That’s not the end of it.

Not only do we want to be praised and honoured for our charity, but now we want to be able to make money from it. So, the decision to give and the decision to give how much are directly tied to what dividends they will bring in return.

Thus, I’ll give you a million dollars if you will allow me to promote my products front and centre in your activities, so that I can rake in millions more in sales as a direct benefit from my “charity”.

I kid you not: the government too, including our tough-as-nail revenue agencies give these distortions the rubric of charity.

To the point that I know only of a handful of good souls who ever part with their money without first securing the guarantee that they will get a 'real' return for their money … soon, if not instantly.

Go ahead, try it out for yourself. Go to a multi-millionaire in your neighbourhood and ask for a donation for a community cause. The first question he’ll ask you is -- no, not the merits of your project -- but whether you have tax-deductible status!

This may be a good moment to pause. Why am I talking about charity, when I began with the papal election?

Let me explain.

I want to start with saying that I am deeply impressed by what the conclave of cardinals have done this time around. They have indeed selected a true successor to the two John Pauls and corrected the anomaly created by Benedict. 

By all reports, the man who now calls himself Francis is a good man, humble and devoted to the true spirit of his vocation.

The choice of his new, public name was a personal one, made by him alone, and therefore speaks volumes.

It harks back not only to St Francis of Assisi -  the man who has embodied the true message of Jesus more than any other in Christian history -- but also to Francis Xavier, the founder of the extraordinary Jesuit Order that the new Pope has belonged to during all of his priestly life.

As a Christian and a Catholic, both are good role models to emulate.

This turn of events bodes well for the Catholic church. The papal reign of Francis I promises better days for its flock.

Having said that in all sincerity, I now want to invite you to step back and look at the larger picture.

For a cue, I turn to the days immediately following John Paul II’s death. I was asked by a Canadian television network to give my thoughts on his life-work. It was no secret then that I had been a guest of the Vatican during its week-long launch of its Millennium celebrations, and I had attended several events where he had addressed the issues that interested me.

I remember I said to the reporter how taken I had been with the Pope’s holiness, his devotion and his commitment, his sincerity and his compassion, and that I thought he was a good man. And a blessing for his Church.

And what do you think has been his contribution to the world at large, asked the interviewer.

Despite all the promise I saw in him, I said, I was disappointed.

Why, asked the interviewer.

Because everything the Church does in the world, even its charitable projects amongst the poor and the homeless, is tied to its primary agenda of proselytising. Nothing they do, not even the choice of who they decide to help, is free of strings attached: if their work generates converts, then they assist and work hard in doing so, but if there is no promise of such a reward of winning converts, the do-gooders flee, regardless of the severity of the need they leave behind.

And worse, I said. Once they convert these poor and vulnerable people, they abandon them.

Give me some examples, said the interviewer.

How much time do you have, I asked. The First Nations of Canada and the US, including the Inuit in the north, are victims of criminal neglect. So are the aboriginal tribes of Australia, for example. The blacks -- all descendants of slaves -- in the West who still struggle for parity. The poorest regions of the world today are where Christian missionaries have been preying -- yes, preying, not praying -- the longest.

Pope John Paul II, I added, had held so much promise that things would change …but they didn’t. The “same old” has continued under him.

My words were not received happily by Church leaders, but they did not respond. What could they say? Their devotion comes from this misguided notion that, a) their faith is the only pure and acceptable one; and b) that their salvation lies in their ’jihad’ to convert others by all means available -- which includes military force, fraud and even criminality.

Don’t take my word … read history.                

And you’ll find there is no history within any Christian church, leave alone just the Catholics, of helping the poor while observing the biblical stricture that it is “not to please ourselves”.  In other words, Christian charity is doled out solely to those who are identified as potential Christians. And only as long as it is needed as bait, and not a minute longer after the fish have been reeled in.

Thus Charity in the religious realm too has been prostituted.

And I see no change in sight, even with the arrival of Francis I on the scene.

The omens are not good.

The media has latched on to the idea of the new Pope tying himself to the legacy of Francis of Assisi. But everyone -- the media, the Church, even the new Pope himself -- is presenting that legacy as the mission to build the number of members of the church.

NUMBERS.

That’s why, they say, Francis I has been selected and elected. He’ll help with the numbers. Yes, they say, he connects well with the poor … therefore, they’ll come back to the church!

Well, Francis I is only being true to his mandate. Being a Jesuit, he has lived the Order’s mission all his life … which is to spread Christianity. Everything else, even charity, is therefore seen as a tool, not an end in itself.

The fact that Francis of Assisi is an inspiration doesn’t help because his message too has been bent out of shape.

“Build my church!” spoke the vision of Jesus to Francis, as goes the legend.

[Coincidentally, they are the exact words written a thousand years before, applying to Peter!]

The "church” of course, is the community, the sangat.

The Jesuits and much of the Christian world reads it as the institution. The Religion.

I thought Francis of Assisi wanted to get Christians to become Jesus-like ... centred around "Love thy neighbour" ... and not go back to becoming like the pharisees Jesus had chided.

Religion has turned into a numbers game now, little to do with the “meek [who] shall inherit the earth”.

Hence the crown and the throne, the pomp and the grandeur.

The Muslims are in the game now. So are the Jews and the Hindus and the Buddhists. Seeing them all, some Sikhs too think it is all about PR.

Sure, PR -- public relations -- is important.

But is it all about PR, is the big question.

Is charity a mere PR tool? That's it?
    
  
March 15, 2013

read other articles in Daily Fix