Preferential Option

Over at Against the Grain, Christopher has a long post about the concept and term "preferential option for the poor"

Catholics who are the least bit aquainted with the social doctrine of the Church have encountered the term "preferential option for the poor." According to Charles Curran, the phrase has its origins in the "liberation theology" espoused by radical Catholic theologians in Latin America (excerpt from Catholic Social Teaching Georgetown UP, 2002).

In an article for the U.S. Catholic (Why the preferential option for the poor is not optional, November 1997), Jack Jezreel chronicles the use of the phrase from a 1979 pastoral document by the Latin American Bishops, to the 1986 statement "Economic Justice for All", revisited in 1994's "Communities of Salt and Light", as well as pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II spoke of this preferential option on many occasions, preferring the term "preferential love for the poor" --

And they are discussing it at Mirror of Justice here and here

Comments

[Henry Patrick]

Didn't the Lord admonish that when we do a charitable deed we should say that we are unworthy servants doing what we are commanded to do.
There's something self-agrandizing about proclaiming one's identification with this "preferential option" slogan.

[al]

No doubt the formulation "preferential option" owes a lot to the closeted utopians and liberation theologians who substituted social justice for the work of salvation in history.

Nevertheless, the Church's condemnation of Economic Liberalism has been consistent and unrelenting.

[Terrence Berres]

The preferential option isn't a matter of preference nor is it an option.

Kudos to the person, or more likely committee, which produced the Church's procedure for choosing words and phrases which obscure the intended meaning. You can see their success from Vatican documents to your parish bulletin.

[Rich Leonardi]

Nevertheless, the Church's condemnation of Economic Liberalism has been consistent and unrelenting.

I'd say the Church's teaching is a bit more expansive than that:

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

[Rich Leonardi]

And while that 'preferential option' (I like John Paul's phraseology better) isn't optional, it isn't synonymous with the policy prescriptions issued by the U.S. Bishops' subcommittees either, as Newark Archbishop John J. Myers makes clear:

"For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, 'I do not care about the poor.' If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense."

[al]

Rich, I didn't say markets were condemned. I said "economic liberalism" is condemned, to wit:

"We must ask how this common treasury of the human race, the treasury of so many different cultures, can be built up over time, and we must ask how best to respect the proper relationship between economics and culture without destroying this greater human good for the sake of profit, in deference to the overwhelming power of one-sided market forces. It matters little, in fact, whether this kind of tyranny is imposed by Marxist totalitarianism or by Western liberalism.”(John Paul II, Memory and Identity, 84)

"In a world like the West, where money and wealth are the measure of all things, and where the model of the free market imposes its implacable laws on every aspect of life, authentic Catholic ethics now appears to many like an alien body from times long past, as a kind of meteority which is in opposition, not only to the concrete habits of life, but also to the way of thinking underlying them. Economic liberalism creates its exact counterpart, permissivism on the moral plane." (Cdl. Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report, 83)

[BillyHW]

What to make of this?

http://tinyurl.com/dg797

[Rich Leonardi]

al,

Most people loosely associate economic 'liberalism' in the continental sense of the word with any market-embracing economic system. Clearly, the Church does not make sweeping condemnations along those lines, and that's why I'm being precise.

As to John Paul's statement that it "matters little" whether it's Marxism or liberalism that's imposed, there's the slight problem of a pile of 100 million corpses left in the wake of one of those systems.

[ajb]

Reading through the new Compendium on the Church's Social Teaching, there's much for people of all political ideologies here in the West to agree with and much for all them to be convicted by.

Archbishop Myers' quote is interesting in that he makes a clear distinction between the absolute requirement to hold fast to the principle (concern for the poor) and the practical, nuts & bolts, political, legislative, social manifestation of that principle (which he states is a matter for prudential judgment).

This is exactly the distinction made by those of us who hold to the Church's teaching on life issues but are not convinced that any particular political, legislative or social manifestation of those teachings should be mandated.

[al]

Rick,
I'm being precise as well. The condemnation of economic liberalism is in principle--that justice must come to markets from without, as a result of rational deliberation about the justice of transactions with an eye towards the end--the universal destination of property, and the Common Good.

True, many juxatpose Capitalism with Socialism, and then perform apologetics for socialism, and are wrong for doing so.

Nevertheless, equally wrong is to dismiss the legitimate critiques about the outcome of "free-market" solutions. The answer to the cries of the poor and the third world is not to simply reassert the justice of the market. It is to get all to acknowledge the true Common Good

[Rich Leonardi]

This is exactly the distinction made by those of us who hold to the Church's teaching on life issues but are not convinced that any particular political, legislative or social manifestation of those teachings should be mandated.

But they are mandated, and therein lies your problem.

Nevertheless, equally wrong is to dismiss the legitimate critiques about the outcome of "free-market" solutions. The answer to the cries of the poor and the third world is not to simply reassert the justice of the market. It is to get all to acknowledge the true Common Good.

Agreed.

[al]

And on the moral equivalence between Marxism and Liberalism, that's a glib dismissal Rich, but I think you get the point.

Marxism, after all, undergirds not only Communism proper, but socialism as well, which the Church has condemned in principle, for its assault on private property, and indeed, the nature of the human person.

The moral equivalence, then, that he assigns is not easily palmed off (particularly from one who lived under communism), and therefore constitutes a serious critique which deserves to be treated as such.

If not, its equally possible to attribute to Economic Liberalism the starvation and famine which plague many areas of the world today, under the aspect of exxagerated property rights and Calvinistic belief in the "rewards" to which hard work entitles us in the first world. None of which gets us much closer to seeing the Holy Father's philosophical point.

[ajb]

Rich: I'm suggesting that it's the Church's "mandating" of specific policital solutions that's wrong and the "problem".

If the Church thinks she must say "argue all you want about 'changing hearts and minds' but we MUST criminalize abortion or euthanasia in the meantime", then she ought to say "argue all you want about international debt relief, trade policy, tax cuts, but we MUST redistribute wealth immediately from the developed to the developing world to eradicate poverty, malnutrition and famine in the meantime."

The Church says we don't have to do anything in particular about the poor starving Third World kids, we just can't "not care" about them. But She doesn't say that we don't have to do anything in particular about the poor fetuses, as long as we "care" about them.

While various teachings stand in relation to each other, the relationship between a teaching and the political manifestation of that teaching should be consistent across all teachings. The Church wants to have it to both ways.

[al]

AJB,
I disagree. I think both sets of teachings are propounded with the same force, and that some social justice injunctions are indicated at the level of sin.

[Rich Leonardi]

If not, its equally possible to attribute to Economic Liberalism the starvation and famine which plague many areas of the world today, under the aspect of exxagerated property rights and Calvinistic belief in the "rewards" to which hard work entitles us in the first world.

No, it isn't. 'Liberalism' does none of the things you list; Marxism did. The historical connection is clear and, more importantly, direct. But let's agree to disagree on this one. In the main, we are simpatico.

While various teachings stand in relation to each other, the relationship between a teaching and the political manifestation of that teaching should be consistent across all teachings. The Church wants to have it to both ways.

They stand in relation for a reason. Addressing the needs of the poor is something which must allow for maximum creativity. Witness the great variety of the approaches of saints to the problem in the Church's history.

Now, if someone started murdering the poor at the rate of 1.2 million per year, it would demand, in addition to that variety, a binding obligation on the part of the faithful to take decisive political action to stop it post haste.

[al]

Rich,
Liberalism did do those things, because it suggested/suggests to people that they are at liberty to deal with their surfeit as they see fit, ie. without reference to the universal destination of property.

The problem is, just as Marxism and socialism assail human dignity most fundamentally by reconcieving man in materialist and collectivist terms, Liberalism assails human dignity by encouraging him to abdicate his role in bringing about the Common Good, through obedience and subsidiary exercise of justice. Its premised on a false notion of Man's liberty as an image of Gods, as properly instanced, or expressed in a choice between alternatives (good and evil, this and that), one arising from Voluntarism, with Ockham

[ajb]

Rich:

With all due respect, when you say "Addressing the needs of the poor is something which must allow for maximum creativity", that's an assertion, not a fact (and it's something I happen to agree with).

Actually, diarrhea kills an estimated 1.9 million children per year worldwide and is largely preventable with improvments in sanitation, water supply and hygiene. The money it would take to eradicate that problem would amount to a rounding error in our budget and/or GDP. Are those lives no less valuable?

[Rich Leonardi]

With all due respect, when you say "Addressing the needs of the poor is something which must allow for maximum creativity", that's an assertion, not a fact (and it's something I happen to agree with).

No, it isn't. It's the way the Church handles the issue. See Church teaching on subsidiarity.

And the red herring about diarrhea is so absurd it's unworthy of a response.

[Rich Leonardi]

al,

If we're going to add further layers of indirect abstraction to the comparison, we might as well say that original sin causes all of this.

While that would be true, it's taking us further away from the direct consequences of the the application of specific ideologies and policies.

[ajb]

Rich, I hate to break this to you, but just because you say something doesn't make it so.

So the Church says "addressing the needs of the poor requires maximum creativity". Fine. But WHY does "addressing the needs of the poor require maximum creativity"? Because the Church says so.

So the Church says "addressing the needs of the unborn forbids any creativity that doesn't include criminalization". Fine. But WHY does addressing the needs of the unborn forbid any creativity that doesn't include criminalization? Because the Church says so.

What a compelling, insightful apologetic for the Church's positions.

And there's no red herring with the diarrhea-death rate issue. You're the one that raised the tired old body-count argument.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Two problems with the "preferential option for the poor":

1. It's fundamentally a materialistic construct. Materialism, in this sense, does not mean a love of wealth but using economic status as the fundamental criterion for evaluating people and policies (as opposed to character, values, talents, etc.)

In the Mosaic Law, God decrees that those who judge in his name favor neither the rich nor the poor, but to favor justice.

2. Those who advocate such a "preferential option" tend to view the poor not as human beings created in God's name -- with God-given talents and freedom -- but as puppy dogs who are incapable of doing anything for themselves. Do such advocates do anything to encourage the poor to develop and use those talents, as well as their freedom, or do they just manipulate them for their own political and social agendas?

Remember, the vast majority of poor people (including my grandparents) who came to this nation -- and who still come -- from throughout the world come precisely because of the fact that the "economic liberalism" that Al condemns (by hiding behind the church) enabled millions to escape poverty and oppression. If the Vatican condemns "economic liberalism," it does so because it has historically viewed anything it cannot control with suspicion. Power and control, not freedom in Christ, are the Vatican's true goals. In fact, they're Rome's idols.

And if the late JPII truly said that "it matters little, in fact, whether this kind of tyranny is imposed by Marxist totalitarianism or by Western liberalism," then he truly was an ignorant fool -- not only because of the millions more killed under Communism, but also because Communism allowed for no means to hold isolated, self-benighted leaders accountable.

Come to think of it, that last characteristic describes the Catholic episcopacy, doesn't it?

[Boniface McInnes]

"the tired old body-count argument"

Telling. Very telling.

We always let our own prejudices slip out if we are not careful, don't we? We let our gaurd down and declare obliquely where our loyalties lie.

[Andrea Harris]

"Actually, diarrhea kills an estimated 1.9 million children per year worldwide and is largely preventable with improvments in sanitation, water supply and hygiene. The money it would take to eradicate that problem would amount to a rounding error in our budget and/or GDP. Are those lives no less valuable?"

ajb, if money were all that was needed to solve this problem then it would have been solved ages ago.

[David]

JPII links Mary's Magnificat and the preferential option for the poor in his encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

"The Church's love of preference for the poor is wonderfully inscribed in Mary's Magnificat. The God of the Covenant, celebrated in the exultation of her spirit by the Virgin of Nazareth, is also he who "has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly, ...filled the hungry with good things, sent the rich away empty, ...scattered the proud-hearted...and his mercy is from age to age on those who fear him." Mary is deeply imbued with the spirit of the "poor of Yahweh," who in the prayer of the Psalms awaited from God their salvation, placing all their trust in him (cf. Pss. 25; 31; 35; 55). Mary truly proclaims the coming of the "Messiah of the poor" (cf. Is. 11:4; 61:1). Drawing from Mary's heart, from the depth of her faith expressed in the words of the Magnificat, the Church renews ever more effectively in herself the awareness that the truth about God who saves, the truth about God who is the source of every gift, cannot be separated from the manifestation of his love of preference for the poor and humble, that love which, celebrated in the Magnificat, is later expressed in the words and works of Jesus.

The Church is thus aware-and at the present time this awareness is particularly vivid-not only that these two elements of the message contained in the Magnificat cannot be separated, but also that there is a duty to safeguard carefully the importance of "the poor" and of "the option in favor of the poor" in the word of the living God. These are matters and questions intimately connected with the Christian meaning of freedom and liberation."

http://tinyurl.com/atjl5

[David]

Here's another text from JPII about the preferential option (found in paragraph 49 of Novo Millennio Ineunte:

"49. Beginning with intra-ecclesial communion, charity of its nature opens out into a service that is universal; it inspires in us a commitment to practical and concrete love for every human being. This too is an aspect which must clearly mark the Christian life, the Church's whole activity and her pastoral planning. The century and the millennium now beginning will need to see, and hopefully with still greater clarity, to what length of dedication the Christian community can go in charity towards the poorest. If we have truly started out anew from the contemplation of Christ, we must learn to see him especially in the faces of those with whom he himself wished to be identified: "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me" (Mt 25:35-37). This Gospel text is not a simple invitation to charity: it is a page of Christology which sheds a ray of light on the mystery of Christ. By these words, no less than by the orthodoxy of her doctrine, the Church measures her fidelity as the Bride of Christ.

Certainly we need to remember that no one can be excluded from our love, since "through his Incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every person".35 Yet, as the unequivocal words of the Gospel remind us, there is a special presence of Christ in the poor, and this requires the Church to make a preferential option for them. This option is a testimony to the nature of God's love, to his providence and mercy; and in some way history is still filled with the seeds of the Kingdom of God which Jesus himself sowed during his earthly life whenever he responded to those who came to him with their spiritual and material needs." (my emphasis)

http://tinyurl.com/36a24

[David]

And this from then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):

"Love of preference for the poor

68. In its various forms - material deprivation, unjust oppression, physical and psy chological illnesses, and finally death - human misery is the obvious sign of the natural condition of weakness in which man finds himself since original sin and the sign of his need for salvation. Hence it drew the compassion of Christ the Saviour to take it upon himself (102) and to be identified with the least of his brethren (cf. Mt 25:40, 45). Hence also those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a love of preference on the part ef the Church, which since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members has not ceased to work for their relief, defence and liberation. She has done this through numberless works of charity which remain always and everywhere indispensable.(103) In addition, through her social doctrine which she strives to apply, she has sought to promote structural changes in society so as to secure conditions of life worthy of the human person. By detachment from riches, which makes possible sharing and opens the gate of the Kingdom,(104) the disciples of Jesus bear witness through love for the poor and unfortunate to the love of the Father himself manifested in the Saviour. This love comes from God and goes to God. The disciples of Christ have always recognized in the gifts placed on the altar a gift offered to God himself.

In loving the poor, the Church also witnesses to man's dignity. She clearly affirms that man is worth more for what he is than for what he has. She bears witness to the fact that this dignity cannot be destroyed, whatever the situation of poverty, scorn, rejection or powerlessness to which a human being has been reduced. She shows her solidarity with those who do not count in a society by which they are rejected spiritually and sometimes even physically. She is particularly drawn with maternal affection toward those children who, through human wickedness, will never be brought forth from the womb to the light of day, as also for the elderly, alone and abandoned. The special option for the poor, far from being a sign of particularism or sectarianism, manifests the universality of the Church's being and mission. This option excludes no one. This is the reason why the Church cannot express this option by means of reductive sociological and ideological categories which would make this preference a partisan choice and a source of conflict."

http://tinyurl.com/5rd94

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

David, words are just that. How do these pretty words help the poor realize that they have been blessed by God with talents and freedom? How do they help the Church do more than treat them as puppy dogs, as I mentioned earlier? How does the Church inspire the poor to think of themselves as blessed as I described in the first question?

Or is the "preferential option for the poor" merely another means to foist guilt on those Catholics who are not poor in economic terms?

I have little faith in the pretty words of Popes. They are easy to compile. It's easy to support the "poor" in the abstract. But what does the Church do with the poor in its midst -- especially when those poor have been abused by priests who were enabled and protected by episcopal superiors?

Sorry, David, but until the Church from Rome on down decides to get serious about addressing the very legitimate needs of these "poor," Rome's pretty words have no use than to decorate toilet paper.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

David, words are just that. How do these pretty words help the poor realize that they have been blessed by God with talents and freedom? How do they help the Church do more than treat them as puppy dogs, as I mentioned earlier? How does the Church inspire the poor to think of themselves as blessed as I described in the first question?

Or is the "preferential option for the poor" merely another means to foist guilt on those Catholics who are not poor in economic terms?

I have little faith in the pretty words of Popes. They are easy to compile. It's easy to support the "poor" in the abstract. But what does the Church do with the poor in its midst -- especially when those poor have been abused by priests who were enabled and protected by episcopal superiors?

Sorry, David, but until the Church from Rome on down decides to get serious about addressing the very legitimate needs of these "poor," Rome's pretty words have no use than to decorate toilet paper.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Forgive me for the double post. It was unintentional.

[David]

Hey Joe,

Two points:

(1) The Church isn't just the Pope, the bishops, and the Curia.

In spite of all the undoubtedly bad things that have gone on and are unfortunately still going on, huge numbers of people who are part of the Church are doing great work with the poor. Because the hierarchy fails some people some of the time, that doesn't imply that the Church fails all the people all of the time.

(2) I think JPII's words do not exempt him or anyone else in the Church from their responsibility to care for the poor.

By these words, no less than by the orthodoxy of her doctrine, the Church measures her fidelity as the Bride of Christ.

That is quite a standard! I think it's a correct and profoundly challenging one. For Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and laypeople. All of us, you and me included. I'm more worried about how well I live up to it, than I am about how well anyone else does.

Does that make sense?

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

David, I'm well aware that the Church isn't just Rome and the episcopacy; I just wish Rome and the episcopacy knew that. I also realize that the mistakes and sins of leadership do not absolve those under their "authority." My complaint is not only with the episcopacy's professional hypocracy, but with the way the Church as a whole views the poor as incapable of doing anything for themselves, as somehow "not in line" when God handed out talents and freedom when He made humanity in His free, talented image, and not encouraging them to embrace that freedom and develop those talents. It's a condescending view that typifies the episcopacy's condescending view toward life -- and represents the episcopacy's desire for pervasive power and control.