Not So Sweet Charity

Charity as a concept has become a bit of a head-scratcher for me. Many groups and organisations establish themselves as charities in order to raise money for the causes to which they are devoted. I understand that much. I understand that the word charity emerged from a Latin translation of the Greek word agapé, which in Christian teaching meant unlimited kindness to others. The central concept of charity is generosity. It is about giving to those in need. It is meant to be about sacrifice in the interest of others, and it is not meant to be limited in how far it reaches and how far it is willing to go. Every person is entitled to give as much money or time as they wish to the charity of their choice. In modern times, it is often harder to spark people’s interest then it was in the time of the New Testament. One thing that people respond to when it comes to reaching into their pockets is a big name or a big stunt. Whether it’s Reese Witherspoon promoting cute bracelets for UNIFEM, popstars like Amy Winehouse raising money and awareness for AIDS in Africa at Nelson Mandela’s 90th Birthday concert, or former WAG and generally useless party girl Danielle Lloyd raising money for a breast cancer charity on celebrity Gladiators, people like to think they are getting something for their money, or at least that someone with a lot is giving something to make their contribution seem even more valuable. Whatever way you look at it, charity is a good way to put celebrities to work for their limelight.

The point of this observation on modern celebrities and charity is that today, I was reading the Irish Examiner and something I read really annoyed me. As part of a new Irish reality TV show Fáilte Towers, a number of ‘celebrities’ are to act as hotel chambermaids in order to raise money for charity. One of the participants is Irish glamour model, Claire Tully. Claire became famous for being the first Irish glamour model to bare her breasts on page 3 of the Irish Sun last year. She chose the Marie Keating Foundation as her charity as her mother had suffered from breast cancer and che wanted to raise awareness, yet she was rejected by them. She then moved onto Breast Cancer Ireland who also rejected her efforts. She has now settled on the National Breast Cancer Research Institute Centre in Galway as her charity for the show, and the centre will be the recipient of a guaranteed minimum €5,500 from the model.

Lillian McGovern of the Marie Keating Foundation turned down Claire’s offer because apparently it would be ‘mercenary’ to say they ‘will take any money from anybody who will raise it.’ That’s funny, I thought that was what charities do, not mercenaries. Since when has the battle with breast cancer come so far that a charitable organisation dedicated to raising funds and awareness can afford to turn down thousands of euro and publicity based on their personal feelings on the person offering to raise the money? Personally, I was apalled that they decided to reject the money.

When you consider that Amy Winehouse, a woman who has very publically used drugs raises money and awareness for AIDS charities and a model famous for getting her (fake) boobs out and dating a footballer went on Gladiators to raise money for a breast cancer charity, why are breast cancer charities in Ireland turning down money raised by a topless model based on her lifestyle. Why does the background of the person willing to raise money for a charity even need to come into question? If charity is supposed to be unlimited, then why do the charities devoted to these causes feel they are in a position to turn down money being offered to them. I think at the core of it, the issue or cause at stake gets forgotten in the interest of preserving the image of the charity. If we look at what charity is supposed to be all about, there really is no room for such snobbery when it comes to helping a good cause.