On Pilgrimage: Giving the Addict His Due
Catholic Social Teaching, Catholic Worker, Economics — Posted by Miki Tracy on July 27, 2010 at 3:25 AM(“The mystery of poverty is that by sharing in it, making ourselves poor in giving to others, we increase our knowledge and belief in love.” -Dorothy Day)
Most of the fine china had been cleared from the white linen-clad dining table. The delicate silver was soaking in a hot soda bath, and the candles had been extinguished. Irish coffee filled the cups of the few guests who remained at the table long after the dinner had ended and all others had taken their leave for the evening.
The friendly banter that had threaded through family gossip and the myriad reasons that people lose their Catholic faith suddenly took an unexpected, and nearly disastrous, turn with a single comment:
“I never give money to beggars,” she exclaimed proudly, “I just know that if I do, they’ll go out and buy liquor, or worse, drugs. I give my money to charities that actually deserve it and will use it the way I think they should.”
Dolores, the woman who made this assertion, had earlier announced that she is the Biblical “go-to” in her parish, and that she is responsible for religious education of the same in her parish, yet, this statement prompted a very serious question: How does your attitude square with discipleship in Christ?
“…So, you honestly don’t think that you’re bearing false witness when you assume that someone you don’t even know is going to do something you don’t approve of with your dollar?”
“No. GOD gave me a brain; I know when I’m being fooled by a lazy user,” she said with a patronizing sneer.
“But, Dolores, Christ told us to give alms, and not to deny anyone who asks of us. He never said, ‘Make sure they’re worthy first.’”
“Yes, well Jesus didn’t live in our time. He didn’t know how bad the world would get! That’s why we’re given a brain, so we can figure it out on our own!”
“Dolores, He’s GOD; He lives outside of time and space. He knows.”
“Maybe so, but I still say it’s wrong to give cash to beggars and I won’t do it. If they need help, let them go to a shelter and ask for it. It’s not my responsibility.”
Sadly, this is an attitude that has been let to run rampant in our present society. We call ourselves Christians, we say that we are faithful to the Gospel, but are we really? And is this attitude even honest in light of the Divine Commission and Christ’s command to abide in Him?
For many centuries in the Church, beggars were considered ambassadors of GOD; it was an honour to share one’s wealth with a stranger who had nothing. Today, here in the United States, we consider ourselves to be a generous, GOD-fearing people, but is this truly the case? And whose responsibility is it, really, to care for the homeless, the diseased, the destitute and abandoned?
According to Christ, all of the nations will be judged not according to how many churches they build, or how reliable their organized social services are, but according to how–and even if–we as individuals answer the plight of the poor and disenfranchised when and where we find them.
“As you do to the least of these My brethren, so you do it unto Me.”
Drunks in the Gutters
“Words express, but examples persuade.” ~Pope Benedict XVI
By the time most people end up on the street, some pretty substantial things have taken place to disrupt their home life. It’s really not that easy to become homeless, unless one makes a deliberate, momentous choice to do so and, generally speaking, that just doesn’t happen except in rare cases of severe psychological disturbance. Home foreclosures, death of a parent, spouse, or child, psychiatric stress and/or personality disorders unrecognized and untreated, shunning by family, church group, or base community, physical, mental and emotional trauma–these are all catalysts that, left unattended, can and do lead to detachment from society. Generally speaking, however, becoming homeless is not a voluntary act, nor does it occur in a single moment.
Statistics tallied by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the National Institutes of Mental Health, and the National Coalition for the Homeless, assert that in the U.S. there are somewhere between 700,000 and 2,000,000 homeless people living on our streets at any given time (though some studies show a more alarming count at around 3.5 million–a full 1% of the U.S. populace).
Of these:
Upwards of 40% of the homeless population are children.
More than 107,000 of them are military veterans, although there are nearly 1.5 million veterans who are at risk. (And whilst only 8% of the general population can claim veteran status, nearly one-fifth (20%) of the entire homeless population are, in fact, veterans).
Upwards of 66% of the entire homeless demographic suffer with substance abuse, dependence, and/or mental illness.
It is very difficult to imagine that children, who have yet to develop the skills associated with competent self-care, and prior-service military personnel would “choose” to be out on the street. Whilst the numbers seem overwhelming, however, a day spent at any local homeless shelter or drop-in safe haven will adequately demonstrate that the statistics are, indeed, blisteringly accurate–and, most likely, conservative.
Self-medication: A Means to an End
“It is the crushed heart which is the soft heart, the tender heart.” ~ an OCD Sister to Dorothy Day
To say that the homeless are amongst the most vulnerable people in our society would be a rash understatement. Couple the unimaginable stress of day-to-day uncertainty with the fear, shame, loss of dignity, hunger, sleeplessness, and sporatic violence (over this past decade alone, acts of assault perpetrated by housed persons in the U.S. resulted in 244 known deaths of homeless people and 636 reported incidents of non-lethal violence), it is no wonder that people in the homeless demographic would turn to drugs and alcohol as a source for coping and solace.
Unfortunately, by the time a homeless person begins begging for coinage on the street to supplement their habit, they are almost without question already physiologically addicted to their substance of choice. This means that for that person, getting their next fix is very truly a matter of life and death. Withdrawal symptoms from psychoactive substances varies from flu-like symptoms and nightmares in the most tolerable end of the detox spectrum, to sensory hallucinations, profound confusion, psychosis, cardio-vascular accidents, gran mal seizures, stroke, and yes, death. An ugly, painful, protracted way to die that, more often than not, occurs without the benefit of any medical assistance or even a kind hand to hold onto.
As You Do To the Least of These
“Christian love is not philanthropy.” ~Father Stanley Jaki
So, is it true that such people do not deserve the change in our pockets? Have they really “chosen” the hell that they live? And if they went to a shelter for help, would they actually get the medical and social services that they need. Maybe. Maybe not. This still doesn’t address the fact that when a man stands in front of us with his head down and his hand out, we are faced with a choice to act, and perspective makes a world of difference in the choices we make.
Once again, as a Christian people, we are called to a different paradigm than that of the world. As such, are we acting as true disciples of Christ when we refuse a man a dollar and think to ourselves, “Let him go to the shelter?” What does the Church say?
For the average Catholic, the Holy Writ alone is a gold mine for answering these questions, starting with Matthew 25. This entire chapter of scripture is devoted to the consequences of obedience, disobedience, faithfulness, faithlessness, and slacking off until final judgment. Verses 31 – 46 are particularly important because in this passage, Jesus explains to His disciples in fine detail what the last judgment will focus on: how did we treat our fellow man in light of Christ? “Feed Me, clothe Me, welcome Me, care for Me.” Nowhere, in this passage (or any other, for that matter) does Christ tell us that He is found only in the “worthy” poor. We are not told to ask for identification or references. We are never encouraged to get applications first. We are only told that, “as you do this to them, so you do it to Me.”
St. James takes this admonition a step further by declaring that the poor are exalted (Jas. 1: 9), that the only “true” religious observance is to care for the widows and orphans (2: 27), and that in oppressing the poor whilst honouring the rich, we show partiality and commit a sin against charity (2: 8-10)…which is, of course, more accurately a sin against Christ.
The way in which the Church understands and promulgates these passages is very clear: each and everyone of us has a personal responsibility to care for the poorest of the poor. To say or do otherwise is to make a mockery of Christ and put one’s own soul in immortal danger.
“Yes, well Jesus didn’t live in our time. He didn’t know how bad the world would get!”
The Truth About Catholic Stewardship
“You never give to the poor what is yours; you merely return to them what belongs to them. For what you have appropriated [for yourself] was given for the common use of everybody. The land was given [by GOD] for everybody, not just the rich.” ~St. Ambrose of Milan
There is no way of getting around it. For two solid millenia, the Catholic Church has not only embraced Christ’s command to care for the poor as a vehicle for sacramental union with Him, she has also espoused the virtues of voluntary poverty for all of her children. Bishops in the first four centuries of the Church not only held up the poor as blessed, but chastised anyone who would cause them suffering by greed and selfish pursuit:
“The bread that is in your box belongs to the hungry; the coat in your closet belongs to the naked; the shoes you do not wear belong to the barefoot; the money in your vault belongs to the destitute.” ~ St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, c. A.D. 370
“Give something, however small, to the one in need. For it is not small to the one who has nothing. Neither is it small to GOD, if we have given what we could.” ~St Gregory Naziansen, Bishop of Constantinople, late fourth century
Nothing is your own. You are a slave and what is yours belongs to the Lord. For a slave has no property that is truly his own; naked you were brought into this life.” ~Asterius, Bishop of Amasea, from “The Unjust Steward,” c. A.D. 400
In addition to the Church Fathers’ directives to the universal laity, nearly all of the consecrated religious foundations of the Church, from the Desert Fathers and the Order of St. Benedict, to that fire starter, St. Francis of Assisi in Italy and the equally incendiary Carmelite reforms of Spain’s own San Juan de la Cruz and Santa Teresa de Ávila, have demonstrated a clear, consistent devotion to the concept of voluntary poverty as a right way of living in the world, and an equally strong insistence that all of their superfluous wealth, whether in donations or personal property, should be dedicated to caring for the poor.
St. John Bosco, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Peter Maurin, and the Servant of GOD, Dorothy Day, to name just a few, have all stood with a mass cloud of witnesses, and have testified with their lives to the fact that if we are not taking care of the poor–without prejudice, judgment, or pride–then we are not fulfilling the Gospel mandate, and we are not being obedient to Christ.
Even in our own present day, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have emphatically reiterated the mind of the Church, that it is our sacred duty to come along side the poor as brothers and sisters in Christ, and to care for them as Christ (see: Solilicitudo Rei Socialis; The Ratzinger Report, etc.); even better, whilst noting that the heretical perversions of Liberation Theology and “Prosperity Doctrine” miss the entire point of the Gospel mandate–that in serving one another, especially those whom we have no natural affection for, we serve Christ Himself–they simultaneously hold up regular devotion to corporal and spiritual works of mercy as authentic Christian love in action. Whether or not we will answer this call to love, however, is another matter entirely.
Love is a Verb
“It is true that there is a thing crudely called charity, which means charity to the deserving poor, but charity to the deserving is not charity at all, but justice.” ~G.K. Chesterton, in Heretics
So, is it wrong to give a homeless person money, even of one “knows” that that person will spend it on alcohol or drugs instead of food, clothing, or shelter? Once again, the canon of Scripture is our first recourse:
“Give strong drink to him who is perishing,
and wine to those in bitter distress;
let them drink and forget their poverty,
and remember their misery no more.
Open your mouth for the mute,
for the rights of all who are left desolate.
Open your mouth, judging righteously,
maintain the rights of the poor and needy.” ~Proverbs 31: 6-9
“Make yourself beloved in the congregation; bow your head low to the great man. Incline your ear to the poor, and answer him peaceably and gently. Deliver him who is wronged from the hand of the wrongdoer; do not be fainthearted in judging a case. Be like a father to the orphans…you will then be like a son of the Most High, and He will love you more than does your own mother.” ~Sirach 4: 7-10
Heaping Coals on the Head of Misery
If we choose not to take scripture seriously for our own sakes, consider this point of simple logic, too: by refusing alms to someone that we consider (rightly or wrongly) to be unworthy, we actually risk compounding our own sin several fold:
1. By refusing alms to the stranger on the basis of our own imperfect knowledge and prejudices, we bear false witness against our neighbor. No one knows the heart of anyone but GOD who created them. And what if the mendicant before you really does hop on down to the liquor store to buy a bottle? So what? That person will answer to GOD for his own actions; we are called to be our brothers’ keepers, not their consciences.
2. In bearing false witness against another, and refusing them in their need, we also act scandalously, putting them in a near occasion of sin. We refuse him a dollar; very likely the twenty people he met before our shadow fell over his brow refused him, too. There’s only so much a despairing man can take. And, so, when the pain becomes unbearable, and the gnawing in his gut screams out for soothing, he robs another to take by force what we had the opportunity to just give him service–we have, as the Apostle Paul warned the Hebrews against, “neglected hospitality.”
3. We have violated the great commandment:
“You shall love the Lord your GOD with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind….[and] you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ~Matthew 22: 37-40
In assuming that another human being does not “deserve” to have the same necessities and comforts that we take for granted, we are, in effect, placing ourselves on a pedestal. If we say that any earthly good that has been entrusted to our stewardship may be held back from another because we believe that we deserve to keep it, we dishonour GOD. In fact, we make ourselves gods by denying another what we have in surplus, and we do so to our own detriment.
What’s Right With the World
“Stretch forth your hand to the poor,
so that your blessing may be complete.
Give graciously to all the living,
and withhold not kindness from the dead.
Do not fail those who weep,
but mourn with those who mourn.
Do not shrink from visiting the sick man,
because of such deeds you will be loved.
In all that you do, remember the end of your life,
and then you will never sin.” ~Sirach 7: 32-36
In his essay, What’s Right With the World, G.K. Chesterton notes that it is the world itself that is right in this life. It’s “everything else” that is wrong–most maddeningly so our own wrong thinking with regard to our rightful place here.
Take a good look at the world around you, and then tell yourself that you do not possess enough. If you can do that without feeling even the slightest twinge of guilt or silliness, then you are most assuredly insane. But if you can do this, if you can contemplate the birches and the stars and the seas in their true light, and recognize your own insignificant smallness in the midst of our Majesty’s Creation, then you must also acknowledge that GOD has made the earth so extraordinarily, superfluously bountiful that it cannot possibly be possessed by anyone. And if you can admit that much, then you can also admit that giving away the change in your pocket to the stranger who asks it of you, without hesitation, is not a violation of morals, but a common sense imitation of GOD towards His Creation; He gives freely, and lavishly, without counting the cost, in spite of the fact that not one of us “deserves” it. So we, too, must give freely and lavishly to those who ask of us, even if they are the addict on the street. In doing so we prove our faith in Providence by making the world more beautiful as it should be. That, after all, is what the coming of the Kingdom of Christ is really all about–creating a new, beautiful society within the shell of the old. +
PDF 
About Miki Tracy
Miki Tracy is co-foundress of the Gilbert House Catholic Worker Community in west-central Wisconsin and has a life-long love of the agrarian tradition that is rooted in the great religious foundations of the Church, particularly the importance of artistry, self-sufficiency, community service, compassionate care and services to the poor, the disabled, and the oldest and youngest members of society.
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
42 Comments
Interesting question. It’s been suggested by someone at catholicfundamentalism.com that we should always have a can of shoe polish, an applicator, and a rag with us. When a beggar approaches, we can show him/her how to shine shoes, and have him start with ours, paying a dollar or so and leaving the material for his/her own small business with someone who now has a chance to be independent.
My policy is to give freely so as to not be attached to my material goods. Having the money that I gave him/her, it is now up to the person I gave the money to use it for his/her own good. I did my part by providing the charity and then I trust the Holy Ghost to inspire the person to use the money for food, shelter, or transportation instead of wasting the money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, or pornography.
Dr. Eric’s philosophy is an interesting one: “I (do) my part by providing the charity and then I trust the Holy Ghost to inspire the person to use the money for food, shelter, or transportation instead of wasting the money on drugs, alcohol, gambling, or pornography.”
I would be curious to know whether Dr. Eric would agree with the following two remarks made my more than one Christian of my acquaintance:
“We pay no attention to any notion of refraining from intimacy so as to space or delay pregnancy; we are intimate whenever we please, and take whatever God sends. We have six children with a seventh on the way. We don’t have enough money to pay rent and utilites and for food, so we live in my in-law’s basement. Still bill collectors hammer us day and night.”
and
“I live in a tough neighborhood, but I believe God will provide. I don’t have a lock on my front or back door, nor on my window, nor do I have any anti-theft devices on my car. I have had sixteen break-ins, have had eight TVs stolen, 4 CD players, and have had my car stolen four times. The insurance pays for everything, though.”
Dear Marion,
This is problematic for the simple reason that there is an assumption made. First, the assumption that giving money blindly to the destitute is equivalent or at least similar to unlocking one’s back door, in other words, should we give $5 to the man laying by the steps of the subway, the probability is he will misuse the money we provide him and thus our action is imprudent. But what is truly imprudent is – without evidence – assume he will misuse the money given to him.
Regarding NFP, I suppose there is a point there but I fail to see it. Would you say that the material is subordinate to the immaterial or vice versa?
Your last example falls flat. Do you have statistics about how many beggars use the money given to them by pedestrians on drugs, alcohol, or mischief or are you using private judgment? I don’t know of any time in human history when the destitute haven’t been accused of misusing alms, yet Christ doesn’t seem to make the distinction you are making.
Thank you, Mr. Aleman, for your reply.
I recounted the two situations, hoping to explore the thought processes of other Christians on these matters, and to have my own explored in turn.
I believe “private judgement” is a God-given gift that I am to exercise on behalf of my own spiritual and material welfare, as well as on behalf of my neighbor whose ability to exercise sound judgement on their own behalf may be impaired by illness or addiction.
That his ability to exercise sound judgement on his behalf may be impaired doesn’t mean that my neighbor is not still a child of God, or worthy of my love, compassion, and concern. He is worthy of all those things. It’s just that he may not be worthy of being the one to “call the shots” in the way that a person with all their faculties is.
If I don’t allow the impaired one to “call the shots”, and simply walk away, I don’t believe am not off the hook. I believe I must at least offer assistance in some other way, either to him directly or to a program set up to assist people like him.
Sign me,
Once took a gun away from my drunk-off-his-a$$ alcoholic even though he really, really wanted to keep it.
And hopelessly in love with my recovering alcoholic husband until the day I die, and thanks be to God for AA and Al-Anon.
I do not enter into crack houses (I wouldn’t even know where to find one) and hand out fifty dollar bills, which seems to be what I am being accused of doing. I have given money to people who have asked of me in the cathedral or on its grounds. I am well acquainted with the virtue of prudence. Your two examples are not cases where prudence is used.
The couple should live like brother and sister as the Fathers have written when couples have more children than they can take care of.
The person should move out of the city and to a nice rural area. There are plenty of jobs, lower cost of living, and cheaper housing.
Dr. Eric wrote, “I do not enter into crack houses (I wouldn’t even know where to find one) and hand out fifty dollar bills, which seems to be what I am being accused of doing.”
My good sir, it is not my intention to accuse anyone of anything. Alas, the limits of communicating via ASCII alone! My personality is direct, challenging, questioning. Can’t help it, and don’t mean anything by it. I am eager to learn and to take example, and the way I do that is by challenging and questioning.
I can’t accuse anyone of anything for I am a useless servant. I worked as a volunteer for Mitch Snyder in DC back in the 80s, and have handed out lots of cash to a lot of guys over the years. Still and all, I’ve done not enough, not enough.
I have a homeless brother (I mean, a biological son of my two parents, because all the homeless are our brothers and sisters) who is in a church-sponsored rehab / work program. It’s free. The family is so happy. We would have paid for him to go into rehab, but he had to want it for himself. Finally, he did want it when he hit bottom, and when he did, this was how he wanted to do it. Praise be to the Lord.
(I don’t mean anything by telling you this; I’m just telling you.)
Dr. Eric also wrote, “I am well acquainted with the virtue of prudence.” Excellent! I wasn’t sure the extent to which the exercise of this virtue was a priority; now I have a clearer picture. Thank you!
“The couple should live like brother and sister as the Fathers have written when couples have more children than they can take care of.
“The person should move out of the city and to a nice rural area. There are plenty of jobs, lower cost of living, and cheaper housing.”
I like those answers, and agree with them. Prudence, indeed. As Charlotte Bronte wrote, “I mentally shake hands with you for your answer.”
Thank you. I know I sound like a pain in the derriere, but I will learn a lot, and will do a great deal more, I hope, for our folks on the street.
P.S. Apologize for my mistake: in the middle of the above, I wrote about how we may assist: “. . . alcoholics and drug addicts, and they can be cured.” Alcoholics and drug addicts will never be “cured” in the sense that they ever will be free to use alcohol responsibly, as those who have never been addicts are. Perhaps instead of “cured”, it would have been better for me to have said “healed,” in the sense that gradually the deleterious physical and psychological effects produced by their substance abuse may be reversed and improved. Thank you.
Al-Anon is a program for people who are bothered by someone else’s drinking or drug use – often, a spouse, a child, a sibling – someone close to us. “Living with an active alcoholic after awhile became too much for us, and we became irritable and unreasonable without realizing it” (from Al-Anon program literature.) Members of Al-Anon are encouraged to “detach with love” from their alcoholic family member, to stop enabling them to continue in their addiction by giving them money for booze or drugs, making excuses for them, by covering up for them, or by bailing them out of jail, and instead to turn that family member over to their own Higher Power (God) to look after them.
“You are not your alcoholic’s Higher Power. Their Higher Power is their Higher Power.” (From the program literature)
Alcoholism is a predictable and progressive disease, and like any progressive disease it has stages. Only physicians and other medical professionals can diagnose these stages within any given patient, but laypeople initmately familiar with the disease can make a reasonably fair assessment on the ground, too. It’s possible for a layman with intimate experience of the disease to spot someone in the throes of alcoholism or drug addiction.
Alcoholism and drug addiction are unlike other diseases such as cancer or Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis. There can come a moment for alcoholics and drug addicts in which they might say, “Enough! I need to get my life back on track. I need to get help!” and, once they do so, help will be available by God’s providence through the human agency of programs for recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, and they can be cured. But for many forms of cancer, Parkinsons, or M.S., however much help the sufferer may seek, whatever regimen they may follow, their condition will never improve and they will succumb. But the alcoholic who has not yet reached the end stages of the disease can still turn his life around, if he has the moment. If too many people are taking pity on him by handing him cash, this moment may never arrive for the alcoholic living on the street.
But then again, we don’t want the alcoholic living on the street to suffer an alcoholic-withdrawal seizure that leaves him (even more) permanently impaired or dead.
For their homelessness and their sickness, the alcoholic living on the street truly needs our assistance. For their addiction, the alcoholic or drug addict needs to make changes – changes only the addict can make – with God’s help, of course, and with ours. But only he or she can make them. There are certain things we might do or say, thinking to be helpful, that only delay the arrival of that moment, that epiphany in the life of the addict.
I live in Newark, NJ.
There is a man who lives near my apartment who collects almost $1,000 a month from the VA (disability for bi-polar disorder). His rent is $500 a month. Invariably he is out of money by the second week of the month and goes into the streets to “lobby” (as he calls it).
Over the last three years I have helped him numerous times to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and unpaid rent, as well as food and transportation. I even help him find small jobs doing autobody repair (his old career). Yet he still “lobbies” me for straight cash.
He will come around to my place two or three times a week asking for $20 each time, even on consecutive days. If I offer $5 or $10 instead he becomes indignant, arguing that he needs $20 to “be comfortable” and that if I were a true Christian I would give it to him. If I dare refuse any money, and offer food instead, he becomes enraged, sometimes unhunged, and says terrible things to me.
I do not think he has a drug problem. Sometimes he will visit me just to talk and, he admits, fight off loneliness. My pleasure to do so. But his monetary demands are just not possible for me, and I honestly believe that bending to them does him more harm than good.
What would you do, Miki, in my place? Am I sinning by not giving $20 to this man every day?
Thanks for the thought-provoking piece.
You are absolutely not sinning in this case, John. One of my best friends (and the mother of my god-daughter) was bipolar–a condition that not only eventually cost her her life, but made her impossible to deal with at times. People who suffer from bipolar disoder (not all, but many) often struggle with overbearing behaviour toward family and friends, especially when they’re cycling. This can be hell for those who are members of their support systems….It’s not fair to you that your neighbor be abusive to you when you say no, and you not only have every right to establish some strong boundaries with this friend, but for both of your sakes, you need to. When we have people with similar habits come to our house, Mary Alice and I are both very clear: we will pay bills, and we will take someone grocery shopping, as we have funds available, for someone we know has problems with misusing money, but we will not give them cash. We also sit down with a person, after the first time they have a “nasty-poo tantrum” and explain to them in very clear terms what behaviours we will not accept. When someone looses control and starts calling us names, we either walk away or ask them to leave the house. Second time, we ban them from the house for a week. Third time, we ban them from the house for six months. Period….We actually have a young man now (totally different situation) who took us seriously when we banned him from the house–he took himself to counselling and is working on learning to control his reactions….As my housemate says, “If they act like a child, treat them like a child.” Timeouts are a good deterrent, especially in instances when you’re faced with someone who’s out of control emotionally and not being reasonable. Whatever you do, establish your boundaries and stand firm. It’s an awesome thing that you have been so loving toward your neighbor, but that doesn’t mean that you’re obligated to be a doormat!
As it happens, I have worked with homeless folks, folks with mental illness, and convicted felons at various stages of my life. I also live and work in what passes for inner city around here. That’s my creds.
Unfortunately, you rely on proof-texts and juvenile exegesis to justify destroying human lives. You have substituted pity – the most profoundly destructive human emotion – for Charity. Yes, these people are where they are because of choices they have made, and you would strip away the vestiges of humanity they have left by denying them that fact!
Here’s how to handle panhandling: when they say “I’m hungry”, offer to meet them at the convenience store and buy them food. When they say, “I need a bus ticket”, offer to meet them at the bus station to buy them one. When they say “I need work”, offer them work. No, they can’t handle “a job”, but maybe they can handle a bit of yard work. Give them some dignity. Give them some humanity.
Or, give them a bit of money and feel good about yourself.
I think you’ve missed the point.
First, two truisms: Substance addiction isn’t broken by medical intervention, and giving money to poor people isn’t “destroying lives”.
Second, how is quoting Proverbs or Jesus verbatim “juvenile proof-texting”? The people of God have been giving to the poor since Deuteronomy (24:18-22) regardless of merit.
Isn’t it juvenile to demand that panhandlers account to you the money you give them? Isn’t that God’s business?
As for the rich in the present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share. – 1 Timothy 6:17, 18
Thank you, Patrick!
Yes, Ken, you absolutely have missed the point. My creds: I worked in nursing for fifteen years, was a mental health advocate for six years, and have lived in community in various Catholic Worker houses for the past thirteen–including some in large cities. If that experience makes me “juvenile” in my exegesis, so be it. I am not saying, however, just hand over you wallet to the homeless. On the contrary. If one is ask for food, busfare, shelter, medical attention, then most definitely! Answer their plea for what the request. My point, however, is that it is *wrong* to just assume that someone asking for cash is an addict looking for a fix, and that it equally wrong to deny that request because of one’s personal prejudice. Even should the person actually be an addict, there is actually nothing immoral about answering their request in the affirmative.
Theodore Dalrymple , a physician and psychiatrist, in Romancing the Optiates, states that the only addictions which require medical supervision are alcoholism and benzodiazepine addictions. Giving to someone whom we know will spend the money on furthering his/her addiction is not a kindness; it may make us feel good but helping the person to conquer his/her addiction is the better way.
SHARON, i have no idea who Dr. Dalrymple is, what his actual expertise is, or where he got his information, but I can tell you that it is patently false that “only” alcohol and benzos are physiologically addictive. Were that true, heroine (which is an opiate) would not be such a predictable killer. I can steer you in the direction of some studies from Johns Hopkins, the CDC and the WHO that all refute your psychiatrist’s alleged posits as soon as I get to an actual computer.
I have struggled a lot with the notion of whether or not I could be facilitating sin by giving money to beggars and what that means about what I should be doing. I came to the same conclusion, that I cannot judge, I cannot make assumptions. My responsibility is to give regardless.
But at the same time, I don’t just have the obligation to give. Being my brother’s keeper may not mean being his conscience, but am I really being my brother’s keeper if I am not at least trying to maximize the good and minimize the the potential ill of my gift?
The conclusion that I have come to is to give food. I keep food in my car – I don’t live in a pedestrian environment – and give it to every beggar I see. I find that my money goes farther – since I can buy in quantity – I always have something to give, and I am filling a real need. It’s not perfect, and it can’t be the end of my corporal acts of mercy, but it seems to be a better solution than just giving cash.
It may not be perfect, but it certainly is awesome! Would that more people in the wo were as thoughtful as you are!
We have a duty to offer them something. We do not have a duty to give what they ask.
For instance, a much kinder thing than offering money or even food to a homeless person is offering work. (A man who approached me after services in Rockford, IL named Darwin, after asking for money for food, then asked for prayers to find a job. He said he’d been in jail several times and no one wanted to hire him.) If they do work, they are starting to re-enter society. You may be able to help them find more work. If they refuse work without a good reason, you can tell them in good conscience that I’m offering you the best that I can. You need do no more at the present. (St. Paul advocated tough love—if you aren’t willing to work, you should do without eating.) Making the offer again in the future in great charity. Far greater, than just giving them something quickly and rushing on.
(I was talking to a guy at the YMCA about one man he worked with who was quite wealthy. The man repeatedly offered work to a man who was losing his house due to alcoholism. He even offered to send someone to pick him up for work. The man simply did not want to work. Unfortunately, he had a wife and child. I’m not sure what the right thing to do for the wife and child is. Urge them to leave?)
If, however, one is lazy and in a hurry (mea culpa), then one should help in all cases where one does not know enough special circumstances to determine that no help ought be given (which implies one knows a lot more than us hurried people are likely to know). So, in practice, it means give — preferrably food.
The use of Proverbs struck me as a travesty. The mother isn’t telling the king to doll out stimulants. She’s describing things the king shouldn’t do—lest he fail in his job.
Unfortunately, Daniel, for most of the chronically homeless, work is no longer an option; they are, in many instances, too ill and too out of it to be able to follow through, even if they want to. Your alcoholic man is a perfect example. I’m sorry, but I think it’s absolutely pathetic (and unintentionally [I hope] mean-spirited), to assume that someone “doesn’t want” to do a thing whilst in the same breath it is admitted that they are, in fact, too ill to do so. And no layman has any business urging the break up of another’s home life.
I don’t know why the use of Proverbs would strike you so distastefully; Christ Himself borrowed from them often, and in many cases in which the Queen Mother probably did not intend them, just as He did with the Book of Sirach. Solomon was righteous, we are called to righteousness; how better to learn than to follow the counsels that, according to the Masoretes and the Magisterium, are useful for all of the faithful, not just a king.
Daniel, how many people do you know who have easy access to give away jobs? This idea might be fine for you and your collegues, but I have no such resources to offer, nor do I know many others who do….
I don’t know the man in question. However, someone thought him fit enough to work and urged him repeatedly to take work. At that point, I think the man had gone above and beyond the calls not just of justice, but of charity. The man in question was not yet homeless—but about to become so. St. Paul indicates that we do not owe such a person anything more — except prayer at that point.
As to those who cannot work, even if they have brought it on themselves, we need to keep them from starving. And unless we have invested some time in them, we cannot distinguish the cases. That was my point. If we aren’t willing to invest time, we have to assume real need—not just sloth.
Your use of Proverbs ignores all the other passages in Proverbs that talk about how awful abuse of alcohol is. I cannot see how given that context, one can take it as advocating that we help people do what is tremendously harmful.
Thank you very much, all of you, for your comments. I appreciate each and every one of them! And, Joey, as usual, you make me watchful….
Gregory, after a brief conversation with Richard yesterday, I tried to think of the best way in which to answer what you seem to be most objectionable to–namely, the idea that we might have any business picking and choosing who is “worthy” when one is begging for coin, so as to prevent a near occasion of sin in another’s experience (which, just allow me to say, I believe this is an act of presumption against hope). And then it occurred to me that I have the perfect response right here at my finger tips….
“Dear Mr. Chesterton,
“While I certainly believe in charity for the underprivileged, I must insist that there be conditions attached to the gifts we give. Otherwise, how can I know these presents won’t be abused?
Signed, Philanthropist”
“Dear Philanthropist,
“To give any present worth calling a present is to give power; to give power is to give liberty; to give liberty is to give potential sin. If I give the most decorous and pious present, it passes beyond my power merely because I have given it. If I give a man a Bible, he may read it in order to justify polygamy. Many men have read the Bible (the Mormons, for instance) only to justify polygamy. If I give a man a cup of cocoa (which I feel sure I should never do), he might gain from that cup of cocoa exactly the amount of nourishment and vigour which he needed to commit a murder. Many men, I feel sure (though I have no statistics to hand) have committed murder under the immediate invigoration of cocoa. If I give a man a church, he may hold a Black Mass in it. If I give a man an altar(which seems improbable)he may use it for human sacrifice. And if this is the logic even of those cases in which the gift is something commonly accounted blameless and correct, the case is overwhelmingly strong as regards the ordinary gifts that people of the world give to each other. If it is possible that money or drink can be misused by our social inferiors, it is quite certain that books and furniture and works of art can be misused and are misused by our equals.
“Your friend,
“G.K. Chesterton”
(from Illustrated London News, 08.Dec.1906)
There, I think that about covers it. Well, except for one thing: I do not personally believe that any of the homeless are my social inferiors. Quite the contrary, it is my understanding from both the Holy Writ and the teachings of the Early Fathers (not to mention Mother Teresa) that these people–these “least” ones–have been set apart by GOD and consecrated for *our* salvation. As such, they are in fact the great souls that we will meet in the beatific vision (Cf. Luke 14: 15-24, etc.). One more reason not to refuse them. I’m just saying.
I have no objections to this whatsoever. I have never advocated refusing the homeless what they need. And I’ve never given myself over to language that would imply I am judging who is “worthy” and who is not. If all I had was your presentation of my comments to go on, I’d argue against me too! So enough with the straw man.
Anyways, my main concern was that we should focus on the assisting them in the totality of their situation, and not merely giving them money (regardless of what they use it for.) That’s all.
“There, I think that about covers it. Well, except for one thing: I do not personally believe that any of the homeless are my social inferiors.”
–Am I in some way implying that they are inferior to me? Have I not demonstrated even one ounce of good faith enough to show you that we’re on the same side here? To show you that statements such as these are not necessary?
“One more reason not to refuse them. I’m just saying.”
–How is this not a loaded statement? It’s almost as if you’re saying, ‘Hey Greg, have you stopped hating the homeless yet?’
I’m trying to bring this dialog to a peaceful close, as I thought we had actually agreed here. I thought that perhaps you and I were merely disagreeing on semantics, and that we were on the same page at the end of the day, but I just don’t understand where you think I’m coming from here. I’m on your side!
Gregory, if I have misjudged your words, I apologise. But I’ve now gone back and re-read them, and come away with the same conclusion–no rhetorical fallacy intended.
I never said that you claimed that the homeless are inferior to us; I was only making a clarification in light of G.K.’s editorial, not anything that you said. So why are you taking it personally? You’re not the only person reading this conversation, Gregory, to be certain, hence the reason to be clear from the outset. My apologies for having confused you; I thought the context was quite clear.
As to this: “my main concern was that we should focus on the assisting them in the totality of their situation, and not merely giving them money (regardless of what they use it for.)”
Let me just borrow from another conversation that I have had elsewhere on this same subject:
Q. “Long term the homeless need more than a meal and a place to flop…What is best to go about that [the respondant believing that there is a way to end chronic homelessness]?”
A. “You *don’t*. By the time many people have been out on the street for any length of time (and these are the majority), there is all too often nothing that can be done but feed them, and offer them clean clothing, a shower, a bus transfer, a new backpack, and a clean, safe space to rest. In truth, most of the chronically homeless feel safer and more balanced living an untethered existence on the street because what they have experienced in ‘civilized’ society has just been too traumatic and injurious to chance going back to. Warehousing in state hospitals, rape, viscous beatings in jail by the very people who incarcerate them, war veterans who have seen the worst humanity can dish out come home to delusional ambivalence, children who have watched their mothers being pimped out and abused, or worse, killed….Then there are those for whom the haze of a self-imposed chemical lobotomy is so much more preferable to the pain of daily life–and for whom the cessation of such consumption means a painful, agonizing death. The *only* viable ‘solution’ is the one that Christ gave us, and people should really stop trying to outwit Him. We’ve seen how all of the corporate ‘solutions’ have failed….”
Spectacular piece. Thank you and may God bless you, Miki.
Having visited a homeless shelter and soup kitchen, I was amazed by the number of kids and even families that sought help. Truly not what I expected. I’d had it drilled into my head that the homeless were only homeless because they choose such a life. Well, I received my education. My mom always said, “I give to the beggars. I don’t police what they do with the money. My job is to give, not to govern.”
I must thank Miki for writing this article and to all of you that have responded. Articles and comments like these are very important. Finding common ground and even airing disagreements openly will help us come together, build new alliances, and find solutions for the poor and destitute in the 21st century. I hope and pray The Distributist Review will be instrumental in this regard.
Thank you Miki, Gregory, David, and Kelly!
“And Jesus will answer them, “Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!”
Nice article Miki. After being faced with numerous requests for money while working in Camden, my husband, and I, finally decided that he would give to anyone who asked. Sometimes he gave food or bus tickets but usually money. Our belief is that when our final judgement comes, we don’t want Jesus telling us we neglected him. If the person who asks for the money goes and uses it illegally, then he or she will have to answer for that. (Check the rule of St. Benedict on this same sentiment.) Buy giving a handout of whatever type, perhaps coupled with, “Do you know they offer a free meal at the Cathedral down the street?” we are doing exactly what Christ asks of us. By withholding assistance, we are no better than the rich man who walked by Lazarus day after day. I’ll take my chances on giving too much rather than not enough.
David, how are general judgments the same as judgments on individual persons? To judge a particular homeless man as being a drug addict is wrong, especially when I don’t really know if he is or not.
But to claim that some drug users are homeless or that some homeless persons use drugs, is not a judgment that is wrong to make. Otherwise we could never really asses the situation as a whole (homelessness) in order to help those in that situation.
I agree that we cannot refuse someone just because we think they are lying. That would be wrong and contrary to our Christian vocation.
I agree. My statement was that you cannot refuse to give money to any homeless just because some are drug users. In reading your last two comments, I think we basically agree with each other on this point. We are to give charitably (which means with love), but not simply blindly. The answer is not to simply and blindly throw money at the situation. That’s what our government does and we’ve seen how well that works. Our Christian mission is to help those in need. There are many ways to do this, but it does require an accurate assessment of the situation.
Agreed! And on a side note I must apologize to everyone reading this for the disorganization in these comments.. I only now have noticed that there is a “reply” button, so I’ve continuously been commenting on the article to respond to other comments.
1. My statement that I’ve never read about Jesus giving money to the poor was not meant to be an argument that we should only do the things that Jesus literally did. I was saying that as Christians, we should never in any way believe that it is enough to throw money at this kind of injustice and consider ourselves good Christians. I’m not against giving money to a beggar; I’m against believing this is the kind of action that in itself claims one to Christianity. The Good Samaritan didn’t just throw money at a problem. He took in the beaten man and cared for him.
2. You seem to be assuming you know what the situation is for all homeless individuals who use, because you assume that none of them are freely choosing to use (save for their first time.) Could not just one homeless person be possibly choosing freely to do drugs at any given point after having started using? We do not know, but we do know that if one has some freedom in their choice and they know it is wrong (regardless of whether it is mortal or venial, we ought not lead someone to sin), we would in fact be enabling them to sin by giving them the means and the near occasion to choose.
3. My example of Chicago was only An example. The general point is that one should not mis-construe your article (unless this is your intention, which I didn’t think it was) as meaning that we can throw money at the homeless and hope for the best. Through my Chicago example, I would hope that it would seem obvious that the man under the rural overpass is not excluded. But what good does money do him if he’s stuck under an overpass? Why not find out what he really needs? A ride perhaps? A meal? An opportunity?
You seem to be taking my Chicago example as something that I believe to be the only case possible when dealing with homeless individuals. It’s only one example out of many in which one might find other ways to help the homeless besides just giving them money.
With regards to my statement about selling drugs, I’m not making a sociological judgment on the population of homeless persons, nor on the type of people who sell drugs. I’m making a moral judgment that we should not enable harmful drug markets by giving money to users to utilize those markets. In doing so, we help expand and stimulate those harmful markets. Everyone, whether rich or poor, has a natural right (and ought to have the civil right) to the programs that help one to recovery (and subsequently for the opportunity to end the situations that dispose one to using drugs.)
Perhaps I was mistaken in my comment, but I’m not trying to advocate denying someone the substance that their body has grown a need for in order to function. I believe it does little good however, to merely stop at this point, without addressing what we ought to do in addition to this, like helping the homeless get back on their feet, regarding both the drug addiction and the situations that cause one to seek relief through drugs and alcohol.
Never did I present myself as someone who has an ill-will to the homeless, so I hope this is not something you assume. I don’t appreciate misplaced sarcasm, and I have never accepted any excuses from any L.A. County prosecutors nor discriminatory prejudices and stereotypes. I hope I am correct in assuming that at the end of the day, you and I are on the same side here. We both want to challenge Christians to their vocation as it applies to solidarity with the homeless.
We cannot make a judgment on any individual person, but I think that it is safe to say that there are some homeless folks who are really just looking for money to buy drugs. By maintaining an attitude of just giving money to the homeless, we perpetuate that reality, as we are not discriminating who gets money and who doesn’t, because as you say, we really don’t know who is going to just buy drugs and who is not.
What happens if several years down the road, that once homeless individual is now selling drugs on the street, rather than looking to buy, and your son or daughter is a block away walking to school, or shopping or going to get a bite to eat?
I’ve never read in the Bible that Jesus gave money to the poor and destitute. I don’t think it fully shows the homeless love to merely give them money, as if my $1 will in any way be a solution for them. And if I give them a dollar, I may be putting them into a near occasion of sin to purchase drugs or alcohol, just as I am putting them near sin if I don’t.
Instead, walk into the fast food joint or sandwich shop just down the street, and buy them a sandwich and a drink. Ask them about their day. Tell them where they can get help. If they need bus fare, help them get to where they need to go. In Chicago our buses and trains take transit cards, that are easy to purchase anywhere. It is just as loving to give them the bus pass in your wallet (which only has a few dollars left on it, I can buy another one) as it is to give them money.
Gregory, happily enough, your argument contains three fatal flaws:
1. By your own logic, if we are to take your posits at face value, the only things that we should ever do for the poor are heal their diseases, raise them from the dead, and forgive their sins before sending them on their merry way for, in fact, these are the only things we ever actually witness Jesus doing in the Gospels. It is the Apostles who do the feeding, the ministering, the visitations, etc.
2. There is no sin for one who is physiologically dependent on a substance to use that substance (or others like it) to alleviate the wrenched sickness, and possible death or (often worse) permanent disability, that comes with forced abstinence without the necessary precautions. The only sin was in beginning to abuse in the first place, and even then, the ordinary conditions of mortal sin—full knowledge, deliberate intent, and serious matter—must all be present in tandem for culpability to attach. What is a sin, however, is to deliberately deny the alleviation of suffering of another because of a personal prejudice.
3. You may happen to live in a city where buses and trains stop five times on every block and there is a deli on every corner. Unfortunately, not everyone is so fortunate. And, considering that Chicago is only one city amongst thousands, it is quite a novel trick to assume that they are all the same, with such easily accessible conveniences. This still doesn’t do anything to help the exhausted man standing out under a rural overpass with a sign that reads, “Going Nowhere.”
If you are asked for food, wonderful! If you are asked for something to drink, or clothing, or a ride to the next town over, then fantastic. Now, with all due respect, Gregory, I have to give you another piece of bad news: homeless people on the whole, do not deal drugs, no matter what the L.A. County prosecutor tells you—and since he’s just trying to gentrify a posh piece of real estate by clearing out the poor, I wouldn’t believe anything that he has to say. But who would trust them? Drug dealers are generally expected to turn a profit, not imbibe it and, for the record, I can think of only two homeless people that I have ever known who actually dealt drugs to maintain their habits. Oddly enough, many homeless people actually have jobs, at least part time, and would never even think of dealing.
But do you want to hear something really frightening? I’ve met countless, dozens of little old grandma-type ladies who are selling every narcotic and opiate under the sun out of their cute, powder-pink living rooms with the doilies on the sofa backs. In fact, I once had an elderly woman as a patient (I used to work in nursing) who had to be sedated because she was hysterical over the thought that the “neighborhood hooligans” would break into her house whilst she was in the hospital and steal her precious stash.
The stereotype that all homeless addicts are out to do wrong is just as heinous a calumniation as any other, and one that does not belong in any serious discussion. Better still, though, do you recall that nice little statistic that I quoted above regarding the large chunk of homeless who have chemical dependency issues and mental illness? Get this: only 15% of all violent crimes are committed by people who suffering from a serious mental illness. That means that 85% of all violent crimes are perpetrated by people who are perfectly functional, mentally. So the idea that the homeless are trouble incarnate out to steal our dogs, mug our grandmas, and corrupt our children is just patently false on its face….as is every other monstrous caricature used to marginalize them.
Your argument about the sin being when they first became addicted, not now that they are just trying to stay alive might be true for alcohol. I’m not convinced, but I’ll accept that for now for the sake of argument.
However, for illegal drugs, as another pointed out, it is a sin against one’s neighbor to purchase and use drugs. First, because, one is aiding an industry that enslaves people and uses a great deal of violence—and so one becomes an active, although not fully willing partner in a grave evil. Second, and related to the first, because one is willingly breaking a just law. I don’t think one can say that just because the consequences of not taking the drug are quite severe, there is no sin. There is a grave sin. The sufferings that will be caused without the commission of the sin only reduce the amount of culpability. They do not eliminate it.
Well then, you should tell that to the folks at Hazelton Rehabilitation, Daniel. I’m sure they’ll be happy to know that they’ve had it wrong for all these many years.
I have no idea how many sweaty, shaking heads you’ve held over the lou, or how many you’ve sat with whilst they die, but I and those who still take care of such people in their end state will tell you that there are worse sins than being addicted to a substance.
And, once again, in order for it to be a grave sin, Daniel, one must have adequate knowledge of the matter, and intent to violate one’s conscience of the same, for a person to be held culpable. Perfect example: I once took care of a twenty-something year-old girl who had been using cocaine and meth since she was twelve–when her brother first shot her up so that he could sell her to one of his friends for sex. Was she really culpable? No. Same is true for children of addicts, who see what goes on in their homes and are raised to believe that such behaviour is “normal.”
One assumes alot (and all too often, wrongly) when one begins attaching personal moral expectations to strangers.
I think that you are blurring the line between sin and culpability. Sin is sin. Intention, including addiction, cannot make a sinful act not sinful (although intention can only make a non-sinful act sinful). However, intention makes *all* the difference when it comes to culpability. Ignorance, intention, addiction, compulsion, all of these can decrease our culpability for the sin, even to no culpability, to the point where it is not our sin.
I think this is an important distinction to keep. It allows us to show appropriate mercy without requiring us to ignore sin.
As a last point – a bit of a nit-picky one – grave sin is grave by its nature. Knowledge and intent are what make grave sins mortal sins. I can still commit a grave sin without knowledge and without intent.
Ignore sin?
Our duty is to take no account of other people’s sinfulness, but to celebrate with them the forgiveness of all sins and share with them the love of Christ – who we know takes no account of our sins.
We have to NOT judge other people’s sinfulness (which is easy), but do the difficult thing, which is to see Jesus in them.
Accounting sin before giving is a great way to ignore the essential humanity of other people. It turns the impulse to mercy, a holy thing, into an occasion to degrade someone.
All the better if you have nothing to go on but their sign that reads ‘Hungry’. You can read whatever sordid morality tale you want into that man’s life – some of you, I think that’s the devil in your ear, telling you the homeless don’t deserve your ‘pity’.
You misread me completely. I’m not talking about judging anyone .. not before, during or after showing mercy. My point is wholly about the nature of sin and culpability, that those things which may decrease our culpability cannot make a good or a neutral out of an ill, only decrease our guilt for them.
We do a great disservice to our fellow sinners – regardless of whether they are beggars or not – when we say that sin is not sin. True compassion offers understanding for culpability, but speaks truth about the reality of sin.
Whether intended or not, a lot of the comments on this thread read like they are saying that the sins of the homeless are not actually sins because of their circumstances, and therefore concern about abetting someone else’s sin is baseless. But we do not need to excuse sin in order to show mercy, and that is my point. We can recognize those in need as fellow sinners and do our best to try to make sure our charity does not end up aiding their sin without “judging” them .. and more importantly, without withholding charity.
Presumably hazelton Rehab isn’t buying any illegal drugs, but allowing the use of things like methadone, which are acquired via channels which do not fuel the international drug trade. If they were buying heroin on the street, they would not be in business very long.
The analysis of the sin against charity and the breaking of a just law simply doesn’t apply in that case.
And wineinthewater is certainly correct that the distinction between sin and culpability is critical.
You say that we cannot make a judgment on any individual person, but that also applies to general judgments on particular classes of people. It may be true that some homeless eventually end up selling drugs, but that does not justify refusing to give money to any.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that handing over money is not the only way to help those in need. I have given city bus tickets to those who have asked for money for the fare, and handed over my burger to those who have asked for money for food. Doing this fulfills their stated need. I also agree that it is good to direct them to a charity that exists to help them.
However, there are times where we are asked simply for spare change, or when we do not have the bus ticket they say they want the money to buy. We cannot refuse simply because we THINK they are lying or will use that money unwisely. To do that is to attempt to judge the hearts of others, which we are not capable of doing and, biblically speaking, are forbidden to do.