Donating To The Als Association, Reconsidered…

[Seven77]

 There have been a lot of well-meaning people objecting to the wildly popular ice bucket challenge, not just because it is a waste of water, nor because it's kind of dumb--- you don't have to dump ice cold water on your head to donate money to charity. Among Catholics, the main objection is that the ALS Association which receives donations as a result of the challenge, engages in embryonic stem cell research. That's a valid concern to be sure but I think people are really going about the wrong way in voicing that. I mean, some people are saying that there are other charities that only use adult stem cells, and that there are other charities that you can donate to. This is true. The John Paul I I research Institute, I forget the full name, funds research for finding a cure for ALS, which is, by the way, a degenerative muscle disease that affects many adults. That's great. I really support that. But my problem is that the ALS Association does a lot more for people with ALS than the John Paul II Institute is capable of. If the John Paul II Institute funded research exclusively for the cure of ALS, if they offered support groups for families, financial assistance for wheelchairs, speech equipment, home modifications, and for providing all around improvement for the quality of life for people with ALS, then by all means donate to that organization. The fact is, they don't. But the ALS Association does. I think that sheds a new perspective on things.

 

 I don't think it's immoral to support the ALS Association, provided that I send a letter asking them to stop funding embryonic stem cell research and requesting that my money goes to adult stem cell research or other resources. God knows, I did my part and I humbly ask him to watch over my money.  I think that's the proper response we should have. And of course we need to support the John Paul II Institute as well. I'm just saying, let's be a little more empathetic and give our criticisms more critical thought…

 

 What do you all think?

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

I do prefer donating to the JP2 Institute. Giving to the ALS Association would be remote mediate cooperation with sin (I'm not fully sure on this, it could be worse). I have been told that we aren't obligated to boycott, but I also know Emeritus Pope Benedict said that we should (maybe that we must, but I'll presume it is for the rest of this post) avoid these situations unless there is no reasonable alternative. I've also been told that these situations don't constitute a mortal sin. The fact that they do more good than the JP2 institute is a valid point, but I'm unsure of that alone makes supporting them moral. Another thing I'd like pointing out is that it's impossible to avoid all instances of remote material cooperation and so I've been told we should choose to boycott the companies we find to be the worse -- again I don't know if this is the best path to follow. If that is the correct way to handle this then you could decide that the ALS Association isn't bad enough to warrent boycotting and instead choose to boycott other organizations.

You propose the option of requesting that they don't put any of your money towards embroyonic stem cell research. This would definitely lessen your cooperation, provided that they actually listened (I have heard that they would, but I don't have any proof). I'm not sure of this would be fully moral.

I know I didn't really answer your question,I was just trying to provide some different things to think about.

[Seven77]

I do prefer donating to the JP2 Institute. Giving to the ALS Association would be remote mediate cooperation with sin (I'm not fully sure on this, it could be worse). I have been told that we aren't obligated to boycott, but I also know Emeritus Pope Benedict said that we should (maybe that we must, but I'll presume it is for the rest of this post) avoid these situations unless there is no reasonable alternative. I've also been told that these situations don't constitute a mortal sin. The fact that they do more good than the JP2 institute is a valid point, but I'm unsure of that alone makes supporting them moral. Another thing I'd like pointing out is that it's impossible to avoid all instances of remote material cooperation and so I've been told we should choose to boycott the companies we find to be the worse -- again I don't know if this is the best path to follow. If that is the correct way to handle this then you could decide that the ALS Association isn't bad enough to warrent boycotting and instead choose to boycott other organizations.

You propose the option of requesting that they don't put any of your money towards embroyonic stem cell research. This would definitely lessen your cooperation, provided that they actually listened (I have heard that they would, but I don't have any proof). I'm not sure of this would be fully moral.

I know I didn't really answer your question,I was just trying to provide some different things to think about.

 

I think there is a valid proportionate reason for supporting the ALS Association, namely, saving life and improving the quality of it. So, if it is remote material cooperation, it is morally permissible remote material cooperation. If the JP2 Institute  were a viable alternative to  the ALS Association, then it would be unnecessary to donate to  the ALS Association.

[Lilllabettt]

if you send money to the ALS Association, restrict the use of your funds. Research is a small part of what they do.  One thing they do is help ALS patients retrofit their homes for wheelchairs, get them vans, etc.  You can enclose your check in a letter explaining specifically what you want your money to be spent on.  Or you can write the name of the specific program in the memo section of the check, if it fits. If the ALS Association spends your donation in any other way than you intended, that constitutes a misappropriation of funds; something that could cause them to lose their 501c3 tax exempt status if it came to the attention of the IRS. 

[Ice_nine]

couldn't they just divert some funds though? Say you donate 100 dollars, and they are 100 dollars short funding a research project. If you stipulated that you don't want your money being used for embryonic stem cell research or something, couldn't they just move some of their other money to that project even though "your" 100 dollars cannot be used?

[Seven77]

couldn't they just divert some funds though? Say you donate 100 dollars, and they are 100 dollars short funding a research project. If you stipulated that you don't want your money being used for embryonic stem cell research or something, couldn't they just move some of their other money to that project even though "your" 100 dollars cannot be used?

 

Even if they did that, I think you would be morally permitted to donate to the ALS Association (provided you include your stipulation). 

[Lilllabettt]

couldn't they just divert some funds though? Say you donate 100 dollars, and they are 100 dollars short funding a research project. If you stipulated that you don't want your money being used for embryonic stem cell research or something, couldn't they just move some of their other money to that project even though "your" 100 dollars cannot be used?

 

 

That would be possible as long as the "other money" they are moving is unrestricted.

Large donations, grants, etc. are very rarely unrestricted in the word of non profit finance.

Now -- Individuals who send small checks don't usually restrict their donation. In my experience few people realize they can. So their money could be spent on embryonic stem cell research or on cookies for a staff meeting. Which not to knock cookies, good staff meetings need good cookies. But people who would be irritated by the thought of a non-profit buying cookies with their donation need to restrict their donation. 

 

I actually don't know what makes up the lions share of the ALS Association's capital structure - but based on what they do my hunch is -- up until the ice bucket thing at least --- they probably rely mostly on sizeable grants and donations.

 

p.s. don't make your restriction negative, make it positive. Instead of saying "I don't want it spent this way" say "I want it spent this way and only this way." Pick the program you want to fund. 

[Seven77]

That would be possible as long as the "other money" they are moving is unrestricted.

Large donations, grants, etc. are very rarely unrestricted in the word of non profit finance.

Now -- Individuals who send small checks don't usually restrict their donation. In my experience few people realize they can. So their money could be spent on embryonic stem cell research or on cookies for a staff meeting. Which not to knock cookies, good staff meetings need good cookies. But people who would be irritated by the thought of a non-profit buying cookies with their donation need to restrict their donation. 

 

I actually don't know what makes up the lions share of the ALS Association's capital structure - but based on what they do my hunch is -- up until the ice bucket thing at least --- they probably rely mostly on sizeable grants and donations.

 

p.s. don't make your restriction negative, make it positive. Instead of saying "I don't want it spent this way" say "I want it spent this way and only this way." Pick the program you want to fund. 

 

 

You deserve some cookies for the great staff meetings that take place in your brain.

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

I think there is a valid proportionate reason for supporting the ALS Association, namely, saving life and improving the quality of it. So, if it is remote material cooperation, it is morally permissible remote material cooperation. If the JP2 Institute were a viable alternative to the ALS Association, then it would be unnecessary to donate to the ALS Association.

You definitely gave a point here. Honestly, your OP was already changing my mind; I was just posting all of my thoughts.

Anyway, even if it was still remote material cooperation -- you have a great argument for why it wouldn't be and I'm not trying to refute it -- , I don't know if it would be a big deal. I have been told not to worry about things I found harder to justify and that we have no obligation to boycott.

[superblue]

 Stop giving money and start giving oneself to those in need. There is enough government funding as it is for these things, and enough fat cats with deep pockets looking for tax breaks to donate to them and enough simpletons out n the world to do a stunt so everyone can say ha ha ha awww that is sooo cute it's for such a good cause.  ( insert fart noise or vomit noise after each video ).

 

What we don't give enough of is our time of ourselves to those in need.

 

We are just too busy for what ever reason or too afraid.