Last week Pope Leo XIV released an apostolic exhortation, addressed to all Christians, “On love for the poor.” Its Latin title, “Dilexi Te,” is taken from the opening phrase of the document, and means “I have loved you”; it’s a quote from Rev 3:9. Leo makes clear that the context, reaching back into the prior verse, is “I know your works…You have limited strength, and yet you have kept my word… they will know that I have loved you.”
Leo is a very clear and easy-to-understand writer, and he’s laid out a thorough but readable discourse on the responsibilities of Christians to the poor, at both an individual level and a societal level. He has backed it up with Scriptural arguments as well as arguments from the historical writings and practices of religious communities and of individual saints.
I read the document through carefully, and I came away thinking that the document benefits from three separate readings, each attentive to the answer of a different question:
- What should I believe about the poor?
- What should I, as an individual, do for people who are experiencing poverty?
- What should groups, institutions, the Church, and governments do with their collective power and resources to address the needs of the poor?
These aren’t three separate sections of the document, but rather are themes interleaved through it.
+ + +
Let’s look at some pull quotes on the subject of the first theme: What to believe about the poor, and by extension, how to speak about the poor.
There exists a preferential option for the poor:
“[W]e can also speak theologically of a preferential option on the part of God for the poor…. This “preference” never indicates exclusivity or discrimination towards other groups, which would be impossible for God. It is meant to emphasize God’s actions, which are moved by compassion toward the poverty and weakness of all humanity. Wanting to inaugurate a kingdom of justice, fraternity and solidarity, God has a special place in his heart for those who are discriminated against and oppressed, and he asks us, his Church, to make a decisive and radical choice in favor of the weakest.”
What we legally possess does not belong just to ourselves (the principle of the universal destination of goods):
“‘In their use of things people should regard the external goods they lawfully possess as not just their own but common to others as well, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as themselves. Therefore, everyone has the right to possess a sufficient amount of the earth’s goods for themselves and their family… Persons in extreme necessity are entitled to take what they need from the riches of others… By its nature, private property has a social dimension that is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods. Whenever the social aspect is forgotten, ownership can often become the object of greed and a source of serious disorder.’ This conviction was reiterated by Saint Paul VI in his Encyclical Populorum Progressio. There we read that no one can feel authorized to ‘appropriate surplus goods solely for his [or her] own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.’”
People are not problems, but brothers and sisters:
[Pope Francis] said: “Every human being is a child of God! He or she bears the image of Christ! We ourselves need to see, and then to enable others to see, that migrants and refugees [and by extension, ‘all those living in the existential peripheries’] do not only represent a problem to be solved, but are brothers and sisters to be welcomed, respected and loved.”
We must believe in the dignity of every human person, and feel in response to the knowledge that some are denied that dignity:
“There is no shortage of theories attempting to justify the present state of affairs or to explain that economic thinking requires us to wait for invisible market forces to resolve everything. Nevertheless, the dignity of every human person must be respected today, not tomorrow, and the extreme poverty of all those to whom this dignity is denied should constantly weigh upon our consciences.”
Love everyone, enemies included:
“Christian love breaks down every barrier, brings close those who were distant, unites strangers, and reconciles enemies…. Love is above all a way of looking at life and a way of living it. A Church that sets no limits to love, that knows no enemies to fight but only men and women to love, is the Church that the world needs today.”
A major theme is that we must not think of the well-off as superior to the poor in any way.
Do not regard the poor paternistically, but as fellow human beings equally possessed of dignity and autonomy, and capable of creativity and self-determination—as well as teaching the not-poor:
“[C]onsider marginalized communities as subjects capable of creating their own culture, rather than as objects of charity on the part of others. This means that such communities have the right to embrace the Gospel and to celebrate and communicate their faith in accord with the values present within their own cultures. Their experience of poverty gives them the ability to recognize aspects of reality that others cannot see; for this reason, society needs to listen to them.”
In fact hearing poor is a way of hearing Jesus. Respecting the poor means believing they have something to offer the rest of society, not just that society has something to help them:
“The same Jesus who tells us, “The poor you will always have with you” (Mt26:11), also promises the disciples: “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20). We likewise think of his saying: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). This is not a matter of mere human kindness but a revelation: contact with those who are lowly and powerless is a fundamental way of encountering the Lord of history. In the poor, he continues to speak to us.”
Another quote on similar lines:
“[T]he poorest are not only objects of our compassion, but teachers of the Gospel. It is not a question of ‘bringing’ God to them, but of encountering him among them. All of these examples teach us that serving the poor is not a gesture to be made ‘from above,’ but an encounter between equals, where Christ is revealed and adored.”
And again, reminding us that people develop behaviors that are adaptive to their circumstances, and to see this adaptation we need to understand the circumstances:
“Growing up in precarious circumstances, learning to survive in the most adverse conditions, trusting in God with the assurance that no one else takes them seriously, and helping one another in the darkest moments, the poor have learned many things that they keep hidden in their hearts. Those of us who have not had similar experiences of living this way certainly have much to gain from the source of wisdom that is the experience of the poor. Only by relating our complaints to their sufferings and privations can we experience a reproof that can challenge us to simplify our lives.”
There is no one in need of whom we can say “They do not deserve our help”:
“[Other Scripture] texts call for respect — if not also love — even for one’s enemy: ‘When you come upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back. When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free” (Ex 23:4-5). Here the intrinsic value of respect for others is expressly stated: anyone in need, even an enemy, always deserves our assistance.’”
The idea of “the poor” actually has broad application, because one person may be poor in one area of life but rich in another.
“In fact, there are many forms of poverty: the poverty of those who lack material means of subsistence, the poverty of those who are socially marginalized and lack the means to give voice to their dignity and abilities, moral and spiritual poverty, cultural poverty, the poverty of those who find themselves in a condition of personal or social weakness or fragility, the poverty of those who have no rights, no space, no freedom.”
This last really struck me: moral and spiritual poverty is a condition that can and often does coexist with material riches, good health, and social status.
Which means that we must still maintain a certain concern for people who appear to have all social and economic advantages, yet are morally stunted; those who seem incapable of spiritual growth or responding to their many blessings with any flowering of virtue are also poor, in a way, and deserve our consideration as God’s poor in that dimension.
This might be the toughest lesson to learn of all. Can we really believe in the common humanity we share with, well, the “worst” people, the ones with no regard for others? Believe that they deserve help? It’s hard to do but also hard to deny that it’s the logical conclusion here.
bearing blog 