No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Christian Love for the Poor: Almsgiving and the “Preferential Option”
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
Abstract
This article examines the understanding of Christian love for the poor as portrayed by Thomas Aquinas and Gustavo Gutiérrez. It intends (1) to reveal the misunderstandings underlying some current criticisms of both charity and the preferential option, (2) to clarify the real differences between these positions, and (3) to identify areas in which our understanding of the preferential option might be advanced through more conceptual elaboration. The article argues that Thomistic charity is not private, superfluous, and acceptable as a substitute for justice. It also maintains that the preferential option is not a replacement for charity or a distortion of agapē that eliminates love of enemies. The major difference between Thomistic charity and the preferential option is the latter's assumption of modern “historical consciousness.” The fundamental ethical task awaiting advocates of the preferential option is a systematic explication of the connection between solidarity and the order of love. The fundamental theological task is to account for the relation of God to nature as well as to history.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The College Theology Society 1994
References
1 See Puebla, , The Final Document, nos. 1134-52, in Eagleson, John and Scharper, Philip, eds., Puebla and Beyond (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979), 264–66.Google Scholar
2 See Boff, Leonardo, St. Francis: A Model for Human Liberation, trans. Diercksmeier, John W. (New York: Crossroad, 1984), chap. 2;Google Scholar for a similar criticism of charity, see also Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Contribution of Religion to Social Work (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), 6 and also 18–24.Google Scholar
3 See Maguire, Daniel, “The Primacy of Justice in Moral Theology,” Horizons 10 (1983): 72–85;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Levi, Werner, From Alms to Liberation: The Catholic Church, the Theologians, Poverty, and Politics (New York: Praeger, 1989).Google Scholar
4 See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” Origins 14 (1984): IV, no. 8, p. 197; IX, no. 7, p. 201.Google Scholar On love of enemies, see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Origins 15 (04 17, 1986): nos. 68 and 77.Google Scholar See also Burtchaell, James T. C.S.C., “How Authentically Christian Is Liberation Theology?” The Review of Politics 50 (Spring 1988): 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Burtchaell argues that in liberation theology the poor “are to be given preferential treatment and assurances without any regard for their moral status, either before or after the kingdom comes. The poor are favored for no other reason than that they are poor” (269). See also Graham, Gordon, The Idea of Christian Charity: A Critique of Some Contemporary Conceptions (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 116–22.Google Scholar
5 There are of course significant differences among liberation theologians; Gutiérrez has been chosen on grounds of relative clarity, persuasiveness, and representativeness.
6 All references to Thomas will be provided in the text and, unless otherwise noted, will be taken from the Summa Theologiae. The translation used is St.Aquinas, Thomas, Suwtna Theologiae, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 3 vols. (New York: Benziger, 1947).Google Scholar Latin references will be to Quinatis, Sancti Thomas, Summa Theologiae (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1963).Google Scholar
7 See Fein, Helen, Imperial Crime and Punishment: The Massacre at Jallianwalla Bagh and British Judgment, 1919-1920 (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1977), chap. 1, esp. 18–19.Google Scholar
8 Aquinas, Thomas, On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summa contra Gentiles; Book Two: Creation, trans. Anderson, James F. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1955), 57,2, p. 169.Google ScholarThomas, cites Aristotle, , De Anima, II, 1 (413a8).Google Scholar
9 See Tawney's, R. H. discussion of “the new medicine for poverty” in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1962), 259–73.Google Scholar
10 See, e.g., Coolidge, Calvin, “Discriminating Benevolence” in Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (New York: Scribner's, 1926), 69–72.Google Scholar
11 Regarding the importance of this doctrine for the question of the distinctiveness of Christian ethics, see Aubert, J. M., “La spécificité de la morale chrétienne selon saint Thomas,” Le Supplément 92 (1970): 55–73.Google Scholar
12 The classic modern theological formulation of opposition is found in Nygren, Anders, Agape and Eros, trans. Watson, Philip S. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 86–91.Google Scholar In the conclusion of this discussion of the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard (Mt 20:1-16), Nygren argues that neighbor-love “invalidates” the order of justice (90). For a concise analysis of love and justice in contemporary theological ethics, see Outka, Gene, Agape: An Ethical Analysis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 75–92.Google Scholar
13 E.g., Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, no. 49: “The wage-earner is not to receive as alms what is his due in justice. And let no one attempt with trifling charitable donations to exempt himself from the great duties imposed by justice” (in The Church and the Reconstruction of the Modern World: The Social Encyclicals of Pius XI, ed. McLaughlin, Terence P. C.S.B., [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957], 386).Google Scholar
14 Tierney, Brian, Medieval Poor Law: A Sketch of Canonical Theory and Its Application in England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959), 37.Google Scholar
15 Augustine, , De Trin., XIV, 7.Google Scholar On the medieval theological background to Thomas's position, see Lottin, O., “La nature du devoir de l'aumône,” Psychologie et morale aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles, vol. 2 (Louvain: Abbey of Mont César, 1949), 299–313.Google Scholar
16 For further analysis of Thomas's account of charity, justice, and almsgiving, see Spicq, C. O.P., “L'aumône: obligation de justice ou de charité? Saint Thomas, Summ. th. 2a 2ae, Q. 32 a.5” in Mélanges Mandonnet, ed. Mandonnet, Pierre O.P., (Paris: J. Vrin, 1930) 1: 246–51;Google Scholar and Bouvier, Leon, Le précepte de l'aumône chez saint Thomas d'Aquin (Montréal: Studia Collegii Maximi Immaculatae Conceptionis, 1935).Google Scholar
17 The influence of individualism and the liberal notion of private property can be traced within papal social teaching itself. Given the connection between notions of legitimate private property and the demands of charity, and justice, it comes as no surprise to discover that the nearly absolute right of private property found in Leo XIII's Rerum novarum was attended by a much more private notion of charity than what one encounters in the Summa. In Rerum novarum Leo supported both the obligation of “right use” of private property and the duties of charity” under conditions of either superfluity or extreme need (no. 22), yet his incorporation of the modern labor-based theory of the origin of private property (nos. 8-9) did not, in my judgment, provide a congenial backing for these older norms because its voluntarist notion of property implied absolute freedom of disposal. Subsequent social doctrine gradually recovered the social obligation of property ownership and thereby re-established a more demanding notion of charity, i.e., one which constituted under certain conditions a strict claim of justice. Recall, to cite one well-known example, the words of Paul VI's Populorum progressio: “Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities” (Paul VI, Populorum progressio, no. 23 in The Gospel of Peace and Justice: Catholic Social Teaching since Pope John, ed. Gremillion, Joseph [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1976], 394).Google Scholar
18 See Mollat, Michael, The Poor in the Middle Ages: An Essay in Social History, trans. Goldhammer, Arthur (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), chap. 8.Google Scholar
19 See Tierney, , Medieval Poor Law, 44–67.Google Scholar
20 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, The Power of the Poor in History: Selected Writings, trans. Barr, Robert R. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983), 193.Google Scholar
21 See Gutiérrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation, fifteenth anniversary ed., ed. and trans. Sister Inda, Caridad and Eagleson, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988), 6.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., xxviii.
23 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent, trans. O'Connell, Matthew J. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987), xiii.Google ScholarGraham, Pace, Idea of Christian Charity, 116–17.Google Scholar
24 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 55.Google Scholar
25 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, “Church of the Poor” in Born of the Poor: The Latin American Church since Medellín (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), 18.Google Scholar
26 Outka, , Agape, 11.Google Scholar
27 Sigmund, Pace Paul, Liberation Theology at the Crossroads: Democracy or Revolution? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 105–06.Google Scholar
28 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 44;Google Scholar italics in original. Gutiérrez's interpretation of this parable is problematic in some ways. First, the author of Luke does not indicate that the Samaritan was actively seeking someone to help, only that he happened to come across the man on his journey. Second, the “neighbor” in this parable is not the victim (whom Gutiérrez likens to the poor) but the Samaritan, who acts as “neighbor” in the story. Third, the parable is provided by Jesus to display a settled disposition of neighbor-love on the part of the Samaritan, and does not speak to the issue of how the character (“the world”) of the agent changes when he encounters “the other.”
29 Aquinas, Thomas, On Charity, trans. Kendzierski, Lottie H. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1984), 70.Google Scholar
30 See Augustine, , De Doctr. Christ., I, 28.Google Scholar
31 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, xxxi.Google Scholar
32 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 169.Google Scholar
33 See Duquoc, Christian, Libération et progressisme: Une dialogue théologique entre l'Amérique latine et l'Europe (Paris: Cerf, 1987), chap. 3.Google Scholar
34 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, “Faith as Freedom: Solidarity with the Alienated and Confidence in the Future” in Living with Change, Experience, Faith, ed. Eigo, Francis A. (Villanova, PA: Villanova University Press, 1976), 25.Google Scholar It might be noted in passing that John Paul II is closer to the liberation theologians than to Thomas on the possibilities of and need for social change for the common good. The second instruction, to cite another common affirmation between the Vatican and the liberationists, maintains that poverty is “an evil from which mankind must be freed as completely as possible” [Origins 15: 723Google Scholar).
35 Brooke, Christopher, The Structure of Medieval Society (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), 18.Google Scholar
36 Gutiérrez, , “Church of the Poor,” 22.Google Scholar
37 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, 164.Google Scholar
38 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 37.Google Scholar
39 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, 155.Google Scholar
40 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 46.Google Scholar
41 Ibid., 20f.
42 Pace both Sigmund, , Liberation Theology at the Crossroads, 189Google Scholar, and Novak, Michael, Freedom with Justice: Catholic Social Thought and Liberation Institutions (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984), 184–85.Google Scholar
43 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 105.Google Scholar
44 Ibid., 203.
45 Ibid., 53.
46 Gutiérrez, , “Church of the Poor,” 17.Google Scholar
47 Gutiérrez, Gustavo, We Drink from Our Own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People, trans. O'Connell, Matthew J. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1984), 125.Google Scholar
48 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, 118.Google Scholar
49 Gutiérrez, , “Church of the Poor,” 16–17.Google Scholar Italics in original.
50 Cormie, Lee, “Option for the Poor and Oppressed,” Toronto Journal of Theology 7 (Spring 1991): 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51 Gutiérrez, , “Church of the Poor,” 18.Google Scholar
52 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, xxv.Google Scholar
53 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 34.Google Scholar
54 Gutiérrez, , We Drink from Our Own Wells, 124.Google Scholar
55 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 34.Google Scholar
56 Ibid., 21-22.
57 Gutiérrez, , “Church of the Poor,” 20.Google Scholar
58 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, 102.Google Scholar
59 Ibid., 89.
60 Ibid., 98.
61 Ibid., 101; also Gutiérrez, Power of the Poor. “In the Bible, creation is not a stage prior to the work of salvation; it is the first salvific activity” (32).
62 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, 90.Google Scholar
63 Ibid., 81.
64 Ibid., 87. See esp. chap. 10, “Encountering God in History.”
65 Ibid., xxvi.
66 Gutiérrez, , Power of the Poor, 203;Google Scholar my emphasis. Commenting on biblical revelation he writes, “Hence, for the Bible, there is no authentic worship of God without solidarity with the poor” (Ibid., 51). This kind of claim would be better understood if Gutiérrez had provided a systematically explicated account of “solidarity.”
67 Toner, Jules, The Experience of Love (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1968), 80.Google Scholar
68 A further development of these lines of criticism can be found in my “Proper and Improper Partiality and the Preferential Option for the Poor,” Theological Studies 54 (1993): 242–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 See, among others, Augustine, , De Doctr. Christ., I, 28;Google ScholarCalvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 8;Google Scholar Joseph Butler, Fifteen Sermons, Sermon XII; John Henry Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, Sermon 5. Current discussion in theological ethics of the ordering of charity is found in Post, Stephen G., Spheres of Love: Toward a New Ethics of the Family (Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1994);Google Scholar and Pope, Stephen J., The Evolution of Altruism and the Ordering of Love (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994).Google Scholar A helpful philosophical treatment of moral priorities is provided by Goodin, Robert E. in Protecting the Vulnerable: A Reanalysis of Our Social Responsibilities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985).Google Scholar
70 The ecological criticism of liberation theology as anthropocentric applies to the preferential option as well. See McDonagh, Enda, “Liberation and New Creation: A Theological Conversation” in Church and Politics in Latin America, ed. Keogh, Dermot (New York: St. Martin's, 1990), 118–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71 Gutiérrez, , Theology of Liberation, xxxii.Google Scholar
72 Ibid.