← The Word on Fire Show - Catholic Faith and Culture
The Word on Fire Show - Catholic Faith and Culture
WOF 518: What Is the Christian Way of Caring for the Poor?
00:42:22
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:00]
A
Welcome back to the Word on Fire Show. I'm Matthew Patrick, senior director of the Word On Fire Institute and the host of the Word on Fire Show. Thank you for joining us. Pope Benedict XVI memorably summarized the work of the Catholic Church by identifying what he called her three essential marks one, worshiping, two, evangelizing and three, caring for the poor. In including care for the poor at the heart of the church's identity, Benedict was highlighting a fundamental truth of the faith that his successor, Pope Leo xiv, recently reaffirmed in his first apostolic exhortation, Delictae. That truth is that following Christ necessarily, necessarily entails working to protect and advance the authentic good of the least among us. It's not optional. Poverty, however, is not only a complex problem to address economically, not to mention sociologically, psychologically and culturally, it is also often caught up in political and ideological currents, both domestically and internationally, that run counter to a Catholic understanding of human dignity and the common good. So what then is the authentically Catholic way of caring for the poor? What does it mean to say that Catholicism has a preferential option for the poor? How, moreover, can the church coherently both advocate for reducing poverty on the one hand while praising and embracing voluntary poverty on the other? Here to shed light on these and related questions is Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop, welcome back to the studio.
- [01:39]
B
Thanks, Matt.
- [01:41]
A
So today we're talking about the distinctively Catholic understanding of what it means to care for the poor, especially in light of Pope Leo's recent his first his first apostolic exhortation, Delixite, which means on the love for the poor. But before we get into all that, what have you been up to recently?
- [01:58]
B
Well, as we record these words, I'm about to leave actually tomorrow for the USCCB meeting, which is our annual meeting in November in Baltimore. So we all get together and it's about a five day affair, if you count everything up, and committees meet. Yeah, because I'm still chair of the Laity Marriage, Youth and Family Life Committee. I'm going out as chair this year after three years, but I have one more meeting with that committee. I'm also on the Religious Liberty Committee for the usccb. And then we have a roundtable we're doing on Sunday about the mental health initiative, which I started when I was chair of the committee. Then the meeting proper begins Monday. We have a day of prayer, which is always good. The bishops really appreciate that. And then Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday is sort of the business side of the meeting. And those are long days. They go from usually 7:30am we all kind of wander around. There's Mass and then there are various breakfasts around. Different groups are hosting breakfast, and then you go pretty much till 5 or 6 at the meeting. So it's. But it's a good chance to see everybody. So we bishops get together a lot. You know, we. We do see each other a lot in the course of the year, and that's, you know, that's advantageous. So that's coming up.
- [03:08]
A
A lot of people wonder how fraternal are these events? I mean, is there really a lot of interaction among you all?
- [03:12]
B
Yeah, we have meals together, and then we have this day of prayer and we have Mass together. The business meeting is a little long. And look, I'm not the biggest fan of business meetings, you know, but. And they go from about nine to five. And. Yeah, it's. But. But then, you know, of course, in between at the breaks, the meals and everything, and we spend a lot of time on buses because you were bused over to the basilica for Mass. So there you sit with somebody. So actually, you do have a chance to get to know each other pretty well.
- [03:39]
A
Yeah. All right, well, let's now turn to today's topic, the Catholic understanding of what it means to care for the poor. So, as you know, Bishop Leo's predecessor, Pope Benedict xvi, notably described the Church as having three essential tasks, which he identifies as one, worshipping, two, evangelizing, and three, serving the poor. So, bishop, to get us started, explain to us the meaning of these three tasks for the church and how they're related to each other. Specifically, keeping this question in mind, are they hierarchically ordered? Are some tasks of the Church more important in some contexts rather than others?
- [04:13]
B
Yeah, I've found that observation of Ratzinger so clarifying. And I forget when I came across it, but I've used it ever since. I used it the day of my installation here as bishop. I said, the Church does three things, and I want those three things to happen in my diocese. So you say it worships God. So think of the whole liturgical life of the Church, the life of prayer, of contemplation, of the Mass. All of that's under the rubric of we worship God. Right. We also, secondly, evangelize. Think here now of all the teaching, all the preaching work of the church, catechesis. Think of from kindergarten through graduate school, our dedication to teaching in its various forms. All that's under the aegis of evangelization. And then finally, we serve the poor and the poor, defined here not just as the economically poor, but I think anyone who's in need. The church is of service. And I just think it's very helpful clarifying to see those three basic headings, because I can't think of anything the church does that doesn't fit under one of those three. They're interrelated to be sure. They're mutually implicative, I would say, okay, so the worship of God, of course, leads to service of the poor, and service of the poor leads to the praise of God. That's a basic intuition of the liturgical movement. People go back in early 20th century, both in Europe and here, that what we do on the streets on behalf of the poor leads to the altar and vice versa is a basic intuition. Evangelization, of course, leads to the worship of God. You're evangelizing Jesus Christ and calling people to make him the Lord of their lives. Evangelization leads to service of the poor because Jesus said those who. Not just those who say, Lord, Lord, but those who serve my brothers and sisters, so that each one leads to the other. They're like the three legs of a stool. Right. With just two, the stool will fall over, but the three will stabilize it. And I think that's actually a useful analogy, too, that the life of the church becomes unstable if we do just one or just two. All three of those have got to be in place.
- [06:19]
A
Does that also apply to the lives of individual Christians? For example, is it coherent for one of the faithful to say, well, I'm a liturgical guy, I'm a worship guy, or I'm an evangelizer, or I'm the social justice guy? You're saying that we have to be all three at the same time.
- [06:36]
B
Yeah. Although we have natural differences and natural predilections. And I think that's okay. Like, I can say much of my priesthood and time as bishop, too, has been devoted to evangelization. That's something I think I was good at. A teacher, a preacher, a writer. Okay. Other people I know, they're really good at, you know, ministering in the streets to the. For the poor. Good. Some people are just naturally given to the altar and to prayer and to contemplation. Fine. You know, so I think you'd follow your natural gifts. Think of those clarifications in the Pauline letters. You know, like those who know how to speak well, they should speak. Those that serve the poor, well, they should serve the poor. But the church as a whole does all three. And I think that's the role of, let's say a bishop or the Pope universally, is to make sure Those three tasks are being fulfilled. It's something I think about a lot, actually, as a bishop of this diocese. Are all three of those things happening? I don't maybe personally have to do all three at the same level of intensity, but I've got to guarantee that they are being done right by someone. That's a pastor's job. So it's just a clarifying principle.
- [07:49]
A
In addressing all Christians. In d', Alexite, Pope Leo writes, charity is not optional but a requirement of true worship given the foundation. Help us explain what he's arguing about.
- [08:03]
B
What's charity willing? The good of the other, and what is that? But it's the very nature of God. God is love. Right? And so the liturgy, which orders me to God and brings me into conformity with God, ipso facto conforms me to charity, you know, so again, one leading to the other, one conducing naturally to the other. If you say, I'm worshiping God on a regular basis, but I don't care at all about the poor, I'm not a person of charity at all, well, then you're not worshiping the true God. That's in August. Palestinian insight that goes right back to the Bible, of course, that you become what you worship. What bothered Augustine about ancient Rome was the gods they honored. As he lays them out, he said, look at these people. They're full of hatred, violence, and jealousy and warfare. So if you're honoring them, you're worshiping them, you're gonna become like them. The idea is to become, like he says, the true God, the God of forgiveness, compassion, love, et cetera. So that's why charity and worship are so connected.
- [09:05]
A
So turn to the actual question of poverty itself. One of the challenges of understanding what Christians are called to do in response to poverty is that the Church simultaneously sees poverty both as a harmful condition that we are called to mitigate in the world, and also in a different form, as a positive good that we are called to embrace, including some in the Church who are actually called to voluntarily give up their private property entirely. So let's start then, Bishop, with the Church's view of poverty as a negative condition. You already hinted towards this, but does the Church only see economic or material poverty as a problem?
- [09:39]
B
No. I think we have to understand poverty in a very broad way. The poor are those who stand in some need, in some basic way, whose humanity is not being realized fully because of this lack of this poverty. In that sense, poverty is entirely negative, and the Church stands against it and fights it. And I would construe it broadly, though, beyond just economic poverty. But some lack someone's poor intellectually. They haven't been able to benefit from the treasures of a Church's wisdom. Those who are poor in relationship, they have no friends. Right. So I think in all those ways, the Church has to identify where the poor are, where human beings are not being permitted fully to express their humanity. I used to tell my students at the seminary when I was teaching and when I was rector, when you get to wherever you're assigned, one of your first instincts should be, where are the poor? Here Cardinal George taught me that because he was an omi abla de Mary Immaculate, and one of their mottos was to evangelize the poor. That's what their task was. So he taught me that is wherever you go. And I've done it here in this diocese. Where are the poor? Where are those most in need? That's where the Church should go. But I construe it broadly, not just economic poverty.
- [10:59]
A
Absolutely. So Pope Francis and now Pope Leo oftentimes referred to the poor as the marginalized or those on the margins. Say a little bit, Bishop, about why it's a moral problem for the Church to have people on the margins.
- [11:13]
B
You know, that's good. Using an economic example, as I read the Church's social teaching, the Church likes the market economy. It doesn't like socialist options. That's very clear from Leo XIII on. They don't like socialism, much less communism. So the Church is against that. Church likes the market economy. Now, the market economy, properly circumscribed, both legally and morally, all that. But see, the purpose now, this John Paul II is really good on this, is to bring as many people as you can creatively into the life of the market so that they can benefit from it, they can enter into it in an entrepreneurial spirit, they can grow wealthy from it, lift themselves up out of poverty. So in. In that sense, moving them from the margins of the market. And see, that's a very interesting thing. Are there people who, for a variety of reasons, aren't able fully to participate in the market? Yeah. Now, is the solution some form of socialism? The Church says no. A better solution is contrive ways to bring them from the margins to the center so they can really participate in the life of a free society? I would recommend to politicians that's a better way to think about it. Not simply redistributing the wealth to those that don't have it, but rather inviting into the dynamism of the market, which calls upon our freedom, calls upon our imagination, our creativity, our courage. It calls forth various virtues, but for various reasons, people are on the margins of it, not in the heart of it. How do we get them from there to here? See, and I like that language there. And that's true then of other aspects of life. Let's say you're on the margins of the aesthetic life of a culture that for whatever reason, you're not able to benefit from the beauty of the arts and of music and literature and everything. Well, what's keeping you at the margins? Lack of education, lack of opportunity. So let's find a way to get you from the margins to the center. I like very much in John Paul ii. He's against the sort of socialist idea of there's this one pie and it just gets divided up a certain way. No, the pie can grow. Actually. Wealth can increase if it's creatively invested in the market. And so getting more and more people to the center is not exhausting the resources of the market. It's a way of expanding the wealth available there. That's Catholic social teaching.
- [13:43]
A
Bishop, say a little bit about the principle or principles that adjudicate the movement from the margin to the center. Because as you know, the language of the marginalized, the language of those not in the center can also be used to say, for example, oh, well, those who have gender dysphoria are on the margins, therefore we should affirm their association with the opposite sex.
- [14:06]
B
No, see, it's a different context there. So that economic example wouldn't work there. If someone's in a sinful state. No, I don't want to affirm that. What I want to do is actually bring someone into the center of a properly functioning humanity. I want to try draw them into the fullness of life. And so in that sense, sure, to draw someone from the margins, whether, I mean, there are a variety of reasons for that, but to try to draw them to the point where they can more fully engage their humanity as God wants, that's what we want to do. But you know what? Go back to the economic for a second because I remember go way back. Jack Kemp, it's a name from the past. Old people remember him. He was actually quarterback for the Buffalo Bills for a while. And then Jack Kemp became a politician. He was a Republican, but they used to call him like a bleeding heart conservative because what he wanted, he cared very deeply about poverty. But his idea was not just redistributing wealth, but it was creating these enterprise zones within cities that people would make Targeted very intelligent investments whose purpose was to draw business back into certain parts of the city where people had fled, to increase the tax base, to drive out gang bangers and so on, and draw in people that will creatively contribute to the economy. Good. That to me, is a very healthy example of a drawing someone from the margin to the center. But see the Church, look, the glory of God is a human being fully alive. What we want are human beings fully alive. And the marginalized are those who are not able fully to participate. So let's find ways to get them there.
- [15:43]
A
As you say, the human being fully alive. Properly. Properly defined.
- [15:47]
B
Yeah, right. Your full humanity as God intends it. And that's the Church's task.
- [15:51]
A
So the causes of poverty, of course, are extremely complex, especially when we get global poverty, poverty into the mix as well. However, Pope Leo and Pope Francis before him have pointed to what they call social sin or structural sin as a kind of constant underlying cause of all forms of poverty. And they add inequality as well. So, Bishop, we typically think of sin as highly individualized in the sense that it's individuals freely choosing to violate the will of God. How can we understand the category of social or structural sin in relationship to sin defined individually?
- [16:23]
B
Right. Only in an analogical sense. So we're using it very. In a highly analogical manner. So it's like personal sin, because the only real sin is someone that is sin committed by a freely acting human being or angel. Right. In that sense, you can't really talk about an institution sinning or about a political organization sinning. But are there certain elements within a system or within a business or within a culture that are contributing to the sinful behavior of individuals? Yeah, in that measure, since it might be construed as a cause of sin, we can say it's a sinful structure. So I have no trouble with that. John Paul II used that language a lot, but I would use it in a highly analogical way, like Thomas Aquinas always talks about. Health is used of the body. But I can speak of a symptom, something that's a sign of health. I can say, well, that's a healthy symptom you have there, or a healthy sign. So in a similar way here, an institution can contribute to sin and thereby be seen as kind of a structural sin.
- [17:26]
A
So if confession is the antidote to individual sin, sort of analogically, what's the antidote to structural sin?
- [17:33]
B
Well, it would be, I guess, a deep attention to the ways in which certain cultures, structures, societies, institutions are contributing to sin. And I Think people should be aware of that, and then, okay, can I take steps to ameliorate that? But, you know, institutions don't go to confession, so it's only individuals that go to confession. But I think you can, by analogy, say there are certain things that are contributing to one thing I become aware of, especially, gosh, with young people today. Think of the prevalence of pornography, which has so many negative consequences. Well, that's part of a kind of structural sin. It's in the body politic. It's in the culture. Think of the way the Internet as a totality is affecting all of us, you know, in many positive ways. I mean, I use the Internet, but it affects us in negative ways too. Think of just the mean girls culture or mean boys too, I suppose. How much meanness is involved in the Internet? Well, that's made possible by certain dynamics within the Internet culture. In that sense, we can talk about structural sanity.
- [18:40]
A
That's really, really helpful examples. So we'll soon turn to how the Church also views some forms of poverty as valuable. But, Bishop, there's an additional complexity related to poverty as a negative condition that I think it's important to explore, namely that the Church seems to recognize what we call a soteriological or salvific utility to serving the poor, which is a positive good. And I want you to respond to a few quotes from Pope Leo here. So he writes, for example, the attention to the poor, rather than a mere social requirement, is a condition for salvation. He also states that the Fathers of the Church, again quoting the Pope here, recognized in the poor a privileged way to reach God. And one final quote, he says, while it is true that the rich care for the poor, the opposite is no less true, meaning the poor care for the rich. So, Bishop, help us understand what this all means. If serving the poor is both necessary for salvation and a privileged way of encountering God, then how do we square that with the Church's work to mitigate poverty?
- [19:38]
B
Right, we're not going to romanticize poverty. We want to get rid of poverty. When I construe it in that negative way as something keeping me from being fully alive, I want to get rid of that. So there's no romanticism like, oh, let's keep, keep the poor around. But in our fallen world, it's certainly the case that one of the privileged ways that we express love is by caring for the poor. So that's what the Popes mean there. And that goes way back to the Bible. Obviously, the Church Fathers is all over the place that the poor are a gift to us in that sense that they give us an opportunity to express our love. So it's in the very act of lifting people out of poverty, I lift myself out of poverty, a kind of spiritual poverty. Maybe I told the story before, but it's another Cardinal George one, you know, when he was addressing a group of Chicago donors, big donors, and they were under a tent at Mundelein Seminary, and he said to them, well, the poor need you to keep out of poverty. Remember, you need the poor to keep out of hell.
- [20:38]
A
Wow.
- [20:39]
B
Which is not what you'd usually say to butter up donors. But that was Cardinal Giorgio, but he's making that point that, okay, rich people need the poor because the poor give them an opportunity to express their love. So, you know, in his fallen world, that's a way that we find mutuality between the rich and the poor.
- [20:59]
A
Well, we have the examples in the Gospel, of course, very clear warnings about ignoring the poor and how that can directly lead to damnation.
- [21:06]
B
Right, right. And so. Right. You're properly laying out the path between a kind of romanticizing of poverty and, you know, and the other. So that's the way the church fathers have situated it.
- [21:18]
A
So let's now look more closely at voluntary poverty in particular and its value. So in addition to seeing moral and spiritual value in serving the poor, Pope Leo, and he's just describing the Church's position here, also recognizes great value in embracing poverty itself. So a few more quotes I'd like to get your reaction to. He writes, for example, praising the mendicant orders in the Church that take vows of poverty. Quote, voluntary poverty, far from being misery, is a path of freedom and communion. And he says they, meaning the mendicant orders, teach us that the Church is a light when she strips herself of everything, and that holiness passes through a humble heart devoted to the least among us. So, Bishop, help us to understand Leo's observation about the goodness of voluntary poverty and why the Church, in addition to serving the poor, should also be poor, which is a great theme in Francis as well.
- [22:06]
B
Pope Francis. Right. But again, it's not to romanticize it as though I'm just gonna rush into abjection because I have a kind of masochistic imagination. The language there is detachment. I want to be detached from the goods of the world so as to allow greater love to flow through me, to allow grace to flow through me. So a voluntary detachment from wealth, pleasure, power and honor have long been seen as a prerequisite for a real engagement with the life of the Spirit. And if you want to become closer to God, you want God's grace to flow through you, the path of detachment is essential. So that's what's going on there. Not like a romantic embrace of poverty or I'm going to purposely run into a dehumanizing state of life. It's the opposite that you want to be fully alive, and that's a way to do it. So it's detachment language.
- [22:59]
A
Now, this is connected also to the criticism which sometimes you hear within the church itself, is, why are we spending this money on building cathedrals? Why are we spending this money on Gregory? Or why have we spent this money in the past?
- [23:11]
B
Stay with that. Because we don't just serve the poor. So it's the three things the Church does. And see, there's the danger now is when you look at those, the tripartite arrangement is that people get so excited about one or the other. That's what we're all about. You know, I'm so into the liturgy. That's what all the. Or I'm so into evangelization, or. And I think this is much more common and certainly in my lifetime, I'm so into service to the poor. That's what the Church is all about. And I kind of look askance at, well, these liturgical, you know, fuss budgets and, you know, evangelization, all your books and ideas. Oh, come on. Doesn't it really come. Come down to. No, it doesn't really come down to any of the three. It's all of the three. You might be more inclined to one or the other, and that's fine, but we gotta resist that. It's a bad temptation in the life of the church. And it's a reductionism, a dangerous reductionism. Certainly in my lifetime, I think it's been more on, if you wanna put it this way, the left side of that equation, the hyper privileging of care for the poor, as though the others don't really matter. They all matter. And in the great figures in the life of the Church, they're all present. You know, a good example is this biography came out, what, five, 10 years ago of St. Francis, written by a Dominican, interestingly, and it was based on, like, this latest research done into Francis. And, you know, much about that we know about Francis is from, like, legends and so on, but he found documentary evidence, you know, like real, clear historical evidence. And what we really know about him was he was very concerned about altar linens and about tabernacles. Yeah. So the great Francis, you know, the great Lover of the poor. Terrific. And we all know that part. But do we also know he was very interested in the liturgy and in the beauty of the Mass. And then like within the next generation of Anthony of Padua, it becomes a great preacher and teacher of the church. Bonaventure, within what two generations of. Francis is one of the leading intellectuals in the church. So the Franciscans, with that kind of root in poverty, but evangelization and liturgy, that's a healthy sign of life in the church, I guess.
- [25:29]
A
We said also in Dorothy Day as well, right?
- [25:32]
B
She's a good example, Very good example. And I have a picture of Dorothy Day on my desk. No one loved the poor more than Dorothy Day. No one served the poor more assiduously than Dorothy day in the 20th century. She's the great apostle of the poor. And she loved the Mass and she loved benediction and she loved retreats, always going on a retreat. Loved the rosary, loved praying on her knees. Good, that's a healthy church. And I think that's true of all the really great saints.
- [26:05]
A
What do you think about the argument that beauty, beautiful art, beautiful architecture, beautiful liturgies, that's also a service to the poor?
- [26:13]
B
Of course. Yes. And that's a good example. And is one of my heroes, Reynold Hillenbrand, I don't talk about him as much as I should. He was my predecessor as rector at Mundelein back in the 1940s and he formed a whole generation of Chicago priests. He was involved in the liturgical movement. He was connected to people like Godfrey Diekman and Virgil Michael, these figures, you know. But one of his lines, because he drank deeply from the wells of the liturgical movement, was the poor need beauty as much as they need food and drink. And I think obviously literalize that. But it's onto something really important. I think of I just got back from France and the great cathedrals, yes, they were financed by wealthy and high ranking people, but they were largely built by very ordinary people who loved them with all their heart and didn't think somehow that was a waste of time and a waste of money. On the contrary. So that's the variegated life of the church.
- [27:13]
A
Let's now turn more practically to how the church should seek to care for the poor. In the wake of Vatican ii, many ecclesial documents began recognizing that the Church has what they describe as a preferential option for the poor. A preferential option for the poor. Pope Francis often appealed to the preferential option. And we also see it in Pope Leo frequently as well. So Bishop, what does that mean? To have a preferential option for the poor, both sort of theologically and in practice?
- [27:39]
B
I think just means all things being equal. If I'm looking out at the world saying, whom should I help here? Well, all things being equal, I should help someone that's in greater need. I think that's all it means. It's very simple but important. I should prefer serving someone who's in greater need. Now I can always parse that in different ways and all that, but generally speaking, and all things being equal, prefer someone who is in greater need.
- [28:05]
A
So one critique that's come from within theological circles at least, is that the preferential option for the poor, if it's not very carefully defined, can be a violation of the holiness code in Leviticus, which. This is Leviticus 19, that says, show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your neighbor justly.
- [28:24]
B
Yeah, of course, that's a different context though, isn't it? I mean, so let's say you're a judge and you're trying to adjudicate a case and you say, well, here's a very wealthy person, here's a poor person. It doesn't mean, now as I make this juridical decision, I'm going to prefer the poor person. I don't think it means that. I think there I would stay with Leviticus and I make no distinction between persons and all of that. But I think it just means if I'm looking at those who are in need and I have an option now to serve, I'm going to serve preferentially the one in greater need. So I think it's a somewhat different moral context. Sure.
- [28:55]
A
Connected to that point. In caring for the poor, do we have a distinctive obligation to care for those who are closest to us? Or do the poor sort of as a category all have an equal moral claim?
- [29:05]
B
Well, there's our famous ordo amoris. I think we knocked our sneak it in there. No, but fair enough. That goes back to Augustine, Pope Leo's great spiritual father, as an Augustinian, reiterated by Aquinas. And as I said, I think some months ago, to me it really should be kind of non controversial. The ordo amoris is not addressing the subjective side of love, which is to say, well, shouldn't I have equal love for everyone? Well, yeah, in principle and subjectively speaking. But the objective side of love, if love means willing the good of the other, well, there's only so much good that I have control over that I can actively will. So you're a married man with kids and the whole neighborhood's on fire, your house is on fire. You're not going to run down the street and help the neighbor. You're going to first help your own kids and your wife. I have zero quarrel with that. And then when you can, then you help others. And that's all Augustine means, I think, is given the limitations of energy and time and resources, there's a kind of ordering of the way we love. So I think of a father of a family, loves his wife and his kids first. It doesn't mean subjectively speaking, now he's lacking love for other people. No, no, I love the whole world, but I only have so much to give at any one time. And so there has to be a kind of ordering of that. That's I think, all Augustine and Aquinas mean, which strikes me as just sort of commonsensical.
- [30:33]
A
Can we also add to that sort of the principle of efficacy? In this sense, we're called to love the other. We're called to love those who have needs and we should do so in a way that is most helpful to them. And of course, we have a greater capacity to do that with those we're closest to. Is that playing to it all?
- [30:50]
B
I think so, yeah. That makes sense to me. The helpful distinction is the subjective and objective side of love. If it means not just a feeling that I have or an intentionality I have, it's willing the good of the other. Well, how do you portion out the good that you have? Because we don't all have infinite. If I had infinite good, infinite access to resources, well, heck, yeah, I try to help everyone all over the world, but I don't. And so there has to be a kind of ordering of love.
- [31:18]
A
Asking the question with the angle of public policy, does the church advocate for a specific policy for addressing poverty or is that left up to prudential judgment?
- [31:29]
B
Yeah, that's an important distinction. I think that government should be concerned for the poor. Yes. That all Christians should be concerned for the poor. Yes. Now how do you do that? People of goodwill differ. I'll put it in simple terms. When I was coming of age, you've got a more left wing approach to it, which is kind of distributionist. So let's distribute more goods to the poor. Let's redirect wealth from one part of the economy to another. You got a right wing approach that says, no, it's better if we kind of grow the economy and increase the availability of wealth. All right, that's an argument we can have about economics, the principle remains, yes, everyone's obliged to care for the poor. If I'm embracing an economic policy in the spirit of I don't care about the poor, I just want to make as much money as I can, well, that's an irresponsible moral position. But people of goodwill can disagree about the means to the end. And I think we fall into traps when we fudge that distinction. And it's happened a lot in my lifetime. If someone was advocating, let's say, a more conservative economic policy, they were often accused of indifference to the poor. When people from that perspective would say, no, no, I'm advocating helping the poor in a much more creative and permanent way. Again, go back to someone like Jack Kemp or a better known figure like Ronald Reagan, when debates were being held 40 some years ago about Reaganomics, that was sort of the context of that debate. Now, speaking as a chur churchmen, I say we must be dedicated to helping the poor. Now I can have them my private opinions as a political observer about what's the best way to do that. The church should not descend so much into those details and say, well, here's the particular economic policy that you ought to be embracing. I think we should leave that to people who are more expert in that area. But we should be insistent, even in a prophetic way, about the goal. You know, that's the right distinction.
- [33:33]
A
So is it fair to say within the realm of prudential judgment, as it specifically applies to the question of poverty, it's possible to be mistaken but not immoral.
- [33:41]
B
Yeah, sure, right. Let's say I've advocated a more Reaganomics approach. And then I say, well, no, no, the more I thought about that, I see the real limitations of that and the flaws and it needs to be complemented by okay, or I completely changed my mind. Look at like a Michael Novak's good example. Again, I'm dating myself, but I remember Michael Novak, who began his career as a very strong liberal Catholic, liberal kind of common will Catholic, and then undergoes a major conversion at all levels and including his economic policy. And he writes this famous book called the Spirit of Democratic Capitalism where he argues that, no, the best way to help the poor is through a vibrant market economy. Okay, he underwent a major conversion. He was a Catholic the whole time. I'm sure young Michael Novak, old Michael Novak both said, yeah, we need to care for the poor. Old Michael Novak said, I think I found a better way to do it than young Michael Novak had. Okay, fair enough, fair enough. You can't fall into a indifference to the poor, then that's a morally retrograde attitude. But sure, you can keep your mind open and your prudential judgment always kind of frisky and alive and attentive.
- [34:53]
A
And these distinctions are so important for establishing the contours for civil divorce.
- [34:58]
B
No, and I'm glad you're pressing it, because I think they get fudged a lot. And that's where a lot of our confusion comes from and why our conversations devolve into shouting matches, because they're often talking past each other, that basically we're agreeing, but we're just, we're fudging the distinctions and it's making the thing unclear.
- [35:16]
A
And accusations of vice, when in fact it's just a disagreement on about means strategies. So this is another question that oftentimes comes up in this context. It requires some clarity. So Pope Leo certainly reaffirms the right to private property, but in the document also reaffirms the universal destination of goods. So say a little bit about what that means and how it relates to private property.
- [35:39]
B
It's a very important distinction, and it goes, of course, back to the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, but it's articulated by Aquinas himself, which is because everything in the world is created by God, it's ultimately owned by God. Think of Psalm 50 that, you know, I own all of this. I own all the beasts in the field. They all belong to me, you know, so we are stewards of them, we are borrowing them, if you want, and using them, you know, ultimately for God's purpose, which is why there's a legitimate ground for private property. And the Church defends it, as you say, but it's not absolute. The ownership of property can be private. But Aquinas says the use of our private property must be governed first and foremost by the common good. And that's how you get statements like Leo xiii. You know, that after the demands of necessity and propriety have been met in your life, everything else you own belongs to the poor, which is deeply challenging, but it's coming up out of that universal destination of goods idea. Now, now, when you say that dear Pope Francis said that and was right away accused of Marxism, and I said it's not Marxism, that's Thomism. Marxism has its own particular flavor. And it's not that the universal destination of goods is grounded in a doctrine of creation and of God's ultimate ownership of reality. So I don't own it. Therefore, I have an obligation in whatever I own privately my private property, I have an obligation to the common good.
- [37:13]
A
It's a moral view grounded on a metaphysical fact. It's just the case that we don't own things ultimately, right.
- [37:20]
B
And because the older you get, the more you realize that, you know, when you're a young person, oh, I got this for the. I own that. But you realize I don't own any of it. It's all going to pass away and these things wear out, and now they're gone. And I was in this house, and now that's gone. But that's life, you know? And so the very even essence of it leads to a detachment, which then should lead to a care for the common good.
- [37:45]
A
So finally, Bishop, speaking as an evangelist, in what ways do you think we can use the church's teachings on how we care for the poor to win souls for Christ?
- [37:55]
B
John Paul II said that. I mean, he thought the church's social teaching was key to the new evangelization. I think that's dead, right? To evangelize, to share the good news about Jesus, to draw people into his life in the church. Well, one of the most attractive lures to people is the church's care for the poor. You know, I was just doing some work on this. You know, Stephen Bullivant, he's done some stuff with us in Word on Fire, has done great research on disaffiliation. People have left the church. But he asked them an intriguing question, which is, but is there something you remember even though you've left the church, something you still remember that intrigues you or draws you back? Back. And one of the answers is the churches care for the poor. They remember that. They remember a commitment to justice that we have, like Catholic Relief Services that's caring for the poor all over the world, every diocese, you know, Catholic Charities and various things. So there's no question his evangelical power go back to the early church fathers, no question that they recognize people were drawn to the church by our. Our moral lives, especially our care for the weak and the vulnerable and the poor. Okay, that has evangelical power for sure. Now, I would always want to add. It's still very useful, more than useful, necessary to give articulate expression to that. So, yes, it's good to care for the poor. Yes, I find that attractive. But where's that coming from? It's coming from my commitment to Jesus Christ, who's the son of God, who is a trinity of three persons, which means his very nature is to love and all of that. It's coming out of that metaphysical conviction. So again, you can't just Reduce it to care for the poor. Care for the poor leads to evangelization, which leads to worship, which leads to care for the poor, et cetera. Right.
- [39:53]
A
Well now, Bishop, it's time for our listener question. Today we have Alfred from Spain asking for clarification on how God being in a non competitive relationship with human beings applies to his mission as an evangelist.
- [40:07]
B
Okay.
- [40:09]
A
Hi, Bishop Baron, this is Alfred from Spain. You've often mentioned that God has a non competitive existence with us and that this is a key concept. While I understand theology, it sometimes makes me feel like maybe my existence or my mission, as in a puzzle in this world doesn't matter as much. Could you please elaborate on how my mission fits into that perspective and how we can find meaning in it? Thank you.
- [40:34]
B
Yeah, thank you for that question. I think really the opposite. You know that because God's not competitive with us, that means he delights in our participation in his providence. So he's not competing with us for the same position on the same field that he's enabling us. He enables us to be his instruments in the world. He wants us to be participating in his causality. So it's an invitation to love and to mission. I think God's non competitive transcendence. If you were competing with me, well, then I better not do too much because, I mean, God's supposed to do all of it, right? I am nothing. It's all God. No, the glory of God's a human being fully alive. So the more you embrace your mission, the more God delights. And that's how he's non competitive with you.
- [41:22]
A
I think that was the spirit of the question is, if God's not competitive, shouldn't he be doing all the work? Something along those lines, yeah.
- [41:29]
B
No, he delights in letting us participate in his work.
- [41:31]
A
Well, thank you so much, Alfred, for reaching out to us. If you'd like to ask Bishop Barron a question for a future Word on Fire show episode, please visit askbishopbarron.com Again, that's askbishopbarron.com we always love to hear from you. Well, thank you as always, Bishop. Delightful conversation.
- [41:47]
B
Yeah, thank you.
- [41:48]
A
That does it for us today. Thanks for joining us on the Word on Fire Show. If you're interested in learning more about how Word on Fire can help you grow closer to Christ, become a better evangelist with and for others, and work for the common good, consider joining the Word on Fire Institute. Check us out at institute.WordPress.org that's institute.WordPress.org See you next time.
- [42:16]
B
It.