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”?
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,
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
My understanding of “poor” from a Catholic perspective refers to a person who does not have the necessities of life AND/OR resources fitting for his station in life. We have a moral obligation to remedy that as best we can, and by the most proximate means that’s competent.
Now, that’s a principle, and what it means in practical terms is very difficult to precisely quantify, because situations, particularly one’s “station in life” can vary a lot.
For example, there is incredible poverty in Haiti. What are “necessities” in Haiti, given how poor the entire society is? Food in sufficient quantity and quality, obviously. Clothing sufficient for the tropics and enough changes in order to keep clean and modest, but that’s all. Medical care reasonable for Haiti, which is probably pretty basic by our standards. Housing that is perhaps not the best or even the middle, but adequate to keep out the rain, the sun and invaders. I have seen ads where, for $5,000 or so, one can finance the building of what would be a “dream house” for most people there. Three rooms large enough to sleep in, but not much more, concrete block walls, tin roof, concrete floor, and strong doors and windows. If transportation is needed for work, perhaps a bicycle. No shame in that in Haiti, particularly in rural areas where many cars can’t even go.
In the U.S., it would be different, but it would also be different from place to place in the U.S. I, for example, live in the Ozarks. Food is very inexpensive and can be obtained for little or nothing, depending on what you can do for yourself or who you know. Even without food stamps, people wouldn’t starve. Housing is easy to come by. It might not be the best, but I know of a small but entirely decent old country home in good repair that just rented for $300/month. Lots of places you can rent for $400. A luxury duplex is $750. You can often rent a “fixer-upper” for nothing at first, if you have skills and are willing to fix it up. All kinds of people, including doctors, bankers and lawyers wear jeans much of the time and many drive pickup trucks regardless of what they can afford. Factory workers wear jeans all the time. It is sometimes said here, not entirely as a joke, that the way you can tell a line worker from a millionaire is that the line worker’s pickup is newer. Everybody goes to the same schools. There is no “station in life” that demands very much. Extravagance is considered in poor taste, for the most part, particularly in the small towns. Employment is available to nearly anyone who can work and wants to. So, while many would fall into the category of “relatively poor”, their lives are not necessarily greatly different from people whose wealth is far greater than theirs. I am sure there are a lot of places in the U.S. that are the same. And in those places, truly “poor” would be a very straitened situation indeed, and remediation would not be terribly costly.
It would, I’m sure, be very different in, say, San Francisco or in any place that’s really expensive and where some neighborhoods are extremely dangerous to live in. In some places, jobs are hard to get. In city slum neighborhoods, I know food costs more than it does in the affluent suburbs; sometimes a lot more.
I don’t think there is a single “income” level that is appropriate for every person who, but for it, would be “poor”. Unfortunately, that’s something that is more difficult the farther removed from the individual the provider is. On the federal level, for instance, “welfare” to the truly poor that’s adequate might be one thing in one place and quite another in another place. Government doesn’t do a very good job of that and, because it’s big and cumbersome, tends to adopt “one size fits all” standards. To add to the problem, government tends to dispense its largesse politically. The current administration, for instance, has done essentially nothing for the truly poor and has done quite a bit to harm them. All of its programs are for the middle class, and it doesn’t do a very good job of doing that, as we are about to find out when Obamacare fully kicks in.
Very unfortunately, some people have made poor choices in their lives, like drug use, and it almost doesn’t matter what one does, one cannot remedy their situation. One can, however, largely remedy things for their children, which starts with taking them away from their parents.
So, while the principle I first mentioned is a “yardstick” of a sort, I don’t think it can be defined in monetary terms even in the U.S., let alone in a third world place like Haiti.
I doubt what I have said is of much help. Nevertheless, I am reasonably certain that the principle I first stated is the “Catholic position” about it.
I really like this idea. I am adopting it. I love finding ways to be secretly charitable without getting puffed up about it. This is awesome and it teaches children the value of charity and how charitable acts can be practiced. Thanks Cristiano! 
