How do Catholics define "poor"

[dean24us]

Hello! There have been many discussions as of late on CAF on our duty to help the poor. I don’t dispute that this is indeed a duty of all Catholics, but it begs the question: how do we define “poor”? Do we (Catholics) define poor in absolute terms (meaning that the same standard is used worldwide determine who or what constitutes “poor”) or a relative terms (meaning that the definition of poor is specific to a particular nation or region, based upon a person’s material possessions or income in relation to the other people in that area)?

I, for one, tend to take a more absolute approach to defining poor; I believe that “poor” should mean the same thing for someone in America as it does in sub-Saharan Africa. As such, I define helping the poor means ensuring that each person has access to things needed for survival, including: food, clean water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and a basic level of education (reading, writing, math, etc). However, I don’t believe that helping the poor means providing access to things not necessary for survival. This includes: household appliances, automobiles, consumer electronics (e.g., computers, cell phones, etc), guarantee of higher education, guarantee of a “good job”, and luxury items (new clothing, jewelry, etc). In short, I define “poor” as meaning people who don’t have the basic requirements for survival, not as someone who doesn’t have as much non-essential “stuff” as the people around them.

This might seem like a remedial question, but I think it is important one, as it directly affects who we have an obligation to help, how we vote, how we donate money, etc. For example, I have seen many Catholics recently say that they are voting for a particular candidate because he/she is more willing to help the poor, but I have a hard time accepting this due to the fact that (under my definition of poor) very few poor people actually exist in the United States. With that said, I have an open mind on this subject and am willing to change my opinion.

So, how do you define “poor”? Clearly, Jesus intended us to help the “absolute poor”, but is there any reason the believe that He intended us to help the “relative poor”? Also, is there some Church teaching on the subject that you know of which I wasn’t able to find?

God bless,
Dean

 

[Cristiano]

I was taught to look at the poor this way, if I can afford something and the other person cannot and I think that they should then they are poorer than I am. For example my father taught me the following and now I do the same with my son: when a young man goes out with his friends for ice cream, pizza or whatever his father gives him some extra money to cover the cost for a friend just in case the friend cannot afford it, the young man must realize that not everybody has the same privileges in life. I think that poverty is like pornography, you can recognize it when you see it even if you cannot describe it at this moment. I think that the true definition of poverty is only possible when we develop true compassion, whether it is intellectual or emotional.

 

[Dubay]

Poor can be a state of mind, dependence or financial.

For example you may own a small modest home , have a basic job and have a strong spirtual relationship with God. All this independent of Govt food stamps and welfare.

 

[Regina_Love]

I agree that we should only supply basic necessities to the poor. That is all one needs. The poor need to do their best to upgrade their standard of living, and to pursue training/opportunities for themselves & their children. They also have an obligation to get off the welfare rolls as soon as possible, so that others may be helped. Every one has something to offer society.

 

[Bezant]

Hello! There have been many discussions as of late on CAF on our duty to help the poor. I don’t dispute that this is indeed a duty of all Catholics, but it begs the question: how do we define “poor”? Do we (Catholics) define poor in absolute terms (meaning that the same standard is used worldwide determine who or what constitutes “poor”) or a relative terms (meaning that the definition of poor is specific to a particular nation or region, based upon a person’s material possessions or income in relation to the other people in that area)?

I, for one, tend to take a more absolute approach to defining poor; I believe that “poor” should mean the same thing for someone in America as it does in sub-Saharan Africa. As such, I define helping the poor means ensuring that each person has access to things needed for survival, including: food, clean water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and a basic level of education (reading, writing, math, etc). However, I don’t believe that helping the poor means providing access to things not necessary for survival. This includes: household appliances, automobiles, consumer electronics (e.g., computers, cell phones, etc), guarantee of higher education, guarantee of a “good job”, and luxury items (new clothing, jewelry, etc). In short, I define “poor” as meaning people who don’t have the basic requirements for survival, not as someone who doesn’t have as much non-essential “stuff” as the people around them.

This might seem like a remedial question, but I think it is important one, as it directly affects who we have an obligation to help, how we vote, how we donate money, etc. For example, I have seen many Catholics recently say that they are voting for a particular candidate because he/she is more willing to help the poor, but I have a hard time accepting this due to the fact that (under my definition of poor) very few poor people actually exist in the United States. With that said, I have an open mind on this subject and am willing to change my opinion.

So, how do you define “poor”? Clearly, Jesus intended us to help the “absolute poor”, but is there any reason the believe that He intended us to help the “relative poor”? Also, is there some Church teaching on the subject that you know of which I wasn’t able to find?

God bless,
Dean

I’d describe poor much like you, but I’d also consider consider the security of those essentials. For example, the bad circumstances (slow economy, drought, injury) that will set back a middle-class family for a few months, might ruin families living hand to mouth, because a middle-class family probably has a nest egg to fall back on.

The Church, as far as I’m aware hasn’t defined “poverty.” While having a definition of “poverty” might be informative for charitable people, I don’t think a definition is necessary at all when it comes to giving charity. God intends us to help anyone in need – whether that need is material, physical, emotional, or spiritual.

 

[ringil]

One element of material poverty would be a lack of consistent access to food, water, safe shelter, education, quality healthcare, or means to provide these elements in a family context.

Another element of poverty relates to an individual’s disenfranchisement within a larger social structure preventing a say in their environment and a means to improve their life situation- especially within a generational context.

 

[houseofsaul]

Most of these posts amaze me especially reading them on a Christian forum.

Do you all really believe all Folks are entitled to is food and shelter, but only in the least of terms.

Here’s a cave, (shelter met) there’s a creek over there (here is water met) maybe a hunting knife (food met) cause you are in the woods, so catch it yourself.

I pray my heart never becomes that hardened.

 

[Bezant]

I agree that we should only supply basic necessities to the poor. That is all one needs. The poor need to do their best to upgrade their standard of living, and to pursue training/opportunities for themselves & their children. They also have an obligation to get off the welfare rolls as soon as possible, so that others may be helped. Every one has something to offer society.

Put yourself in a poor man’s shoes. Who defines what are “basic necessities”?

If I’m poor and it’s my responsibility to be upwardly mobile, the least you and society can do is make sure that I have what’s considered a “fair” shot at mobility. But what’s considered “fair” affects our consideration of “basic necessities,” because even though food, water, education and a roof might be all anyone needs, I’m still starting from a disadvantaged position and a limited definition of “basic necessities” might not be enough to help me succeed, try as I might.

 

[Cristiano]

Most of these posts amaze me especially reading them on a Christian forum.

Do you all really believe all Folks are entitled to is food and shelter, but only in the least of terms.

Here’s a cave, (shelter met) there’s a creek over there (here is water met) maybe a hunting knife (food met) cause you are in the woods, so catch it yourself.

I pray my heart never becomes that hardened.

I think that Christians have the right take because we are not entitled to anything, saying the opposite is to say that God as an obligation toward us. As Christians we have an obligation toward the poor but that still does not mean that they are entitled to receive from us. If I give to one poor and I do not give to another, that does not mean that the second one has the right to complain abut things, it only means that the first one should be grateful to God.

You must remember that God did not ask the farmer to give part of the harvest to the widows but not to harvest part of the field so that the widows could go and gather the food by themselves.

I would agree with you if you were to say that self professed Christians would use this argument to avoid their God given obligation. However, God did not go too much into the details of the how to give.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I define poor as being at the poverty level according to the U.S. census data.

 

[ringil]

Most of these posts amaze me especially reading them on a Christian forum.

Do you all really believe all Folks are entitled to is food and shelter, but only in the least of terms.

Here’s a cave, (shelter met) there’s a creek over there (here is water met) maybe a hunting knife (food met) cause you are in the woods, so catch it yourself.

I pray my heart never becomes that hardened.

I hope you aren’t referring to my post. I’m a freakin’ social worker and helping the poor is a passion of mine.

The sad fact is that millions of individuals in the US do lack the basics- millions.

 

[Bezant]

Most of these posts amaze me especially reading them on a Christian forum.

Do you all really believe all Folks are entitled to is food and shelter, but only in the least of terms.

Here’s a cave, (shelter met) there’s a creek over there (here is water met) maybe a hunting knife (food met) cause you are in the woods, so catch it yourself.

I pray my heart never becomes that hardened.

Out of all the posts here I think only Regina’s Love’s had a tone like that, and I’m sure she meant well.

It’s just that the poverty is shameful thing to talk about whether you’re poor or not. Therefore when people do talk about it, there’s a tendency to disassociate – emotionally, but also in our language; we talk about “the poor” and “the impoverished” in third-person terms instead of thinking, “God forbid, what if I was in that situation as well?”

 

[Cristiano]

Out of all the posts here I think only Regina’s Love’s had a tone like that, and I’m sure she meant well…

I agree with you. She started to say that we need to provide for all the basic needs. To me seeking anything above the basic needs shows some level of materialistic attachment, that probably we all have but that it is also above the poverty line. She was very to the point with her statement but I did not read anything wrong or unchristian with it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I disagree with the OP. Yes, you can give a man healthcare, food, shelter, and basic education and keep him alive. But in today’s society unless you give him a chance at education that goes beyond reading and writing he will always need you to provide him with food and shelter.

 

[dean24us]

Another element of poverty relates to an individual’s disenfranchisement within a larger social structure preventing a say in their environment and a means to improve their life situation- especially within a generational context.

Thanks for the reply. I’m curious: what do you mean by “means to improve their life situation”?

God bless,
Dean

 

[Cristiano]

I disagree with the OP. Yes, you can give a man healthcare, food, shelter, and basic education and keep him alive. But in today’s society unless you give him a chance at education that goes beyond reading and writing he will always need you to provide him with food and shelter.

I think that here you are not disagreeing with the OP, you are simply saying the your definition of basic education includes several factors. I know of people that cannot write a complete sentence without any errors and they make a decent living.

 

[ringil]

Thanks for the reply. I’m curious: what do you mean by “means to improve their life situation”?

God bless,
Dean

I would relate this to realistic prospects to pursue self-betterment. Maslow would call this the quest towards “self-actualization”. But it’s not the most concrete, and definable type of idea but is an important element, at least to me.

 

[dean24us]

I disagree with the OP. Yes, you can give a man healthcare, food, shelter, and basic education and keep him alive. But in today’s society unless you give him a chance at education that goes beyond reading and writing he will always need you to provide him with food and shelter.

Thanks for the response! When you say to give him a chance at education, is this something that is not being given already? I received my education in public school in an geographic area that was generally low income (i.e. pretty bad schools, in the grand scheme of things), worked my way through a two-year technical school, and (several years later) finished a B.S. once I was financially stable. As best as I can tell, everyone in the U.S. has an opportunity to do the same. Do you believe that this is being withheld from some?

God bless,
Dean

 

[Dubay]

I always remember a great homily I heard a few years back,

To give is bibical and about our God, To take is simply about Robin hood.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Thanks for the response! When you say to give him a chance at education, is this something that is not being given already? I received my education in public school in an geographic area that was generally low income (i.e. pretty bad schools, in the grand scheme of things), worked my way through a two-year technical school, and (several years later) finished a B.S. once I was financially stable. As best as I can tell, everyone in the U.S. has an opportunity to do the same. Do you believe that this is being withheld from some?

God bless,
Dean

Yes. Definitely yes. Not many compared to the people who just don’t take advantage of opportunities, but some. And this tends to happen in two areas. One is the inner city areas where kids are born poor, are dealing with too many adult problems to be able to go to school and learn, and who are faced with violence either from peers or at home should they take school seriously. Once these kids drop out or graduate with their “educations” there is little left for them. And there’s a good chance that at this point they have kids themselves.

The other place that this tends to happen is in low income, rural drug communities. I’m not talking about the nice small town with lots of farmers, I’m talking about the towns built around meth production. They suffer many of the same problems as the inner city.

Of course there’s always the remote chance that a kid could rise above all of this, but very few do. And the ones that do usually managed because they had a special talent or intellect and a teacher or another adult made it their mission to guide them personally. Let’s face it, these circumstances often start people in a hole that they cannot crawl out of at 18, and the cycle of drugs, violence, homelessness, lack of education, poverty, etc just continues.