“I was born poor, I have lived poor, I wish to die poor”
...Pope St. Pius X
In
keeping with his vision of a Church “of the poor and for
the poor”
Pope Francis met with and suspended the Bishop of
Limburg, Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst last week. The
bishop had been in the news for the better part of a
month due to costly renovations of his residence
totaling upwards of forty million dollars. The German
Bishops’ Conference is currently conducting an
investigation into the affair and no punishment will be
permanently set until that time. However, Vatican
observers are predicting that if the Bishop is found
guilty, he will not be reinstated as the Bishop of
Limburg. This episode is noteworthy, as Tebartz-van Elst
was previously appointed by Pope Benedict to allegedly,
“combat ‘progressive’ tendencies in the German church.”
Capitalizing on the Pope’s emphasis on the poor,
auxiliary
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Francisco, in an
October 21st article in America Magazine,
suggested that poverty was an equivalent moral issue to
abortion. He stated:
If the Catholic Church is truly to be a “church for the
poor” in the United States, it must elevate the issue of
poverty to the very top of its political agenda,
establishing poverty alongside abortion as the
pre-eminent moral issues the Catholic community pursues
at this moment in our nation’s history.
In addition, Bishop McElroy also implied that opposition
to certain progressive government welfare programs and
tax policies is a sin:
…choices by citizens or public officials that
systematically, and therefore unjustly, decrease
governmental financial support for the poor clearly
reject core Catholic teachings on poverty and economic
justice. Policy decisions that reduce development
assistance to the poorest countries reject core Catholic
teachings. Tax policies that increase rather than
decrease inequalities reject core Catholic teachings.
Along these same lines, Bishop Robert Lynch of St.
Petersburg, Florida lashed out at Pro-Life groups in
August, equating the issue of abortion to the issue of
“food aid” as well as immigration and the death penalty:
I am convinced that many so called Pro-Life groups are
not really pro-life but merely anti-abortion. We heard
nothing from the heavy hitters in the prolife movement
in the last week when Florida last night executed a man
on death row for 34 years having been diagnosed as a
severe schizophrenic. Which personality did the state
execute? Many priests grow weary of continual calls to
action for legislative support for abortion and
contraception related issues but nothing for immigration
reform, food aid, and capital punishment.
Also, just this month Dr. Candida Moss, Professor of New
Testament Studies at Notre Dame University,
argued on The O’Reilly Factor that Jesus was
a socialist. As evidence of this premise she cited
examples of Jesus and his followers giving away “free
health care” as well as Jesus’ “insistence that the
wealthy give away their possessions.”
It goes without saying that few Catholics, Traditional
or otherwise, would look kindly on a bishop spending
forty million dollars to upgrade his residence.
Similarly, few Catholics would deny that we have an
obligation to assist those in genuine material need. To
do so would be to deny the very teachings of Christ
Himself regarding the corporal works of mercy. However,
with all of the recent focus and elevation of poverty as
the premiere issue in the Church, we would do well to
remember that the mission of the Church is not to
eliminate poverty on earth, but to save souls. Christ
Himself told us that the former mission is impossible:
“The poor you will have with you always”;
while the latter mission is essential.
We also should remember that the Communists, especially
in Latin American democracies, have historically
exploited the problem of poverty. Fundamental Marxist
tactics have always involved stirring up anger at the
injustice of poverty and directing it towards the
affluent ruling classes. The infiltrating Communists
then foment a class-war with the intention of
overthrowing the existing government, promising a
worker’s paradise to those who assist in the effort. As
we have seen, however, once the Communists seize power,
they have no need of their former impoverished workers.
They then live just as their former affluent rulers did,
except with poverty further expanded instead of
eradicated.
In implementing their ideology over the last century,
Communists have unfortunately found friends in
idealistic Catholic priests who, inspired by the
Communist’s false affection for the poor, have developed
an entire “liberation theology” around the issue. Even
assuming the best of intentions on their part, these
priests have often served as unwitting facilitators of
Communist propaganda. For “Liberation Theology”
caricatures true Catholicism, transforming it into a
mere religious arm of Marxism.
This Marxist “god” of poverty should be examined even
more closely in the United States. In this country,
those considered below the “poverty line” and worthy of
assistance by the government, often have a higher
standard of living than the middle class and even the
“rich” in some third world countries. According to a
U.S. Census Report released in September, the
following was true of American households in “poverty”
in 2011: 97.8% had refrigerators, 96.6% had gas or
electric stoves,
96.1% had televisions, 93.2% had microwaves, 83% had
some sort of DVR, 80.9% had cell phones along with their
landline phones, and 58.2% had computers.
With these statistics in mind, can we, as Catholics,
truly argue that these “impoverished” individuals are
entitled to the same victim status as aborted children?
Similarly, can we say that failure to support government
welfare programs for these people is the moral
equivalent of supporting pro-abortion politicians?
In addition to poverty, the virtue of humility has been
focused on recently to a great degree. The message has
been clear that humility and poverty are intertwined.
The idea has been put forward that, to be a truly humble
churchman, one must eschew everything of value to the
point of refusing the natural accoutrements of one's
office; even to the point of refusing those things
donated and sacrificed for that office by Catholics over
the span of two millennia.
In contrast to this narrative, I’d like to propose a
different Catholic view of humility and poverty. I’d
like to do so by telling a story. There once was a boy
who grew up as the son of a postman. He was very poor
and one of eight children. Knowing that his parents had
no money to afford new shoes, he carried his own shoes
on his back during long commutes to and from school to
save them from wear. This boy would later become a
simple country priest before eventually being elected
pope over his own protests. Afterwards he would be
embarrassed by the pomp of the papal court. “Look how
they have dressed me up,” he would say in tears to an
old friend. To another, “It is a penance to be forced to
accept all these practices. They lead me around
surrounded by soldiers like Jesus when he was seized in
Gethsemane.”
Yet accept them as penances he did. He knew that all of
this pomp was not for him, but for the office of
Christ’s vicar to which the faithful longed to show
their generosity and adulation. For by honoring Christ’s
vicar they honored Christ Himself. In this same vein, he
spared no expense on his Divine Lord as he encouraged
giving Him only what was most beautiful in art,
architecture, and music.
Though very generous to the poor, at one time filling
the Apostolic Palace with refugees from an earthquake,
poverty was not the focus of his pontificate. Instead
his focus was the eradication of error from the Church
as well as purity of doctrine and worship. For he knew
these things were essential to the Church’s mission of
saving souls and must always take priority. Nevertheless
he lived such an interior life of poverty and humility,
it inspired him to write the words, “I was born poor, I
have lived poor, I wish to die poor” on his last will
and testament. This great man was Pope St. Pius X.
|