Poverty, Virtue, and Grace

Lord Acton held the conviction, expressed by Christian thinkers throughout history, that poverty is not a merely material problem, but a moral and spiritual problem as well:

Lord Acton correctly concluded that simply alleviating the material difficulties of the poor without addressing their spiritual and moral difficulties did not solve the problem of poverty, and in fact had a tendency to worsen it.

Before the creation of the welfare state, poverty relief was provided almost entirely by churches or other local religious associations. That the primary locus of charity should have been religious, and more specifically, Judeo-Christian, is not accidental. In the history of Christian charity one can see the truth of the Christian understanding of man in application: That man, created in the image and likeness of God, has a unique dignity before Him; that God has the power to transform and elevate man, making him a "new creation", and that Christian charity has by analogy a sacramental reality.¹

In his recent book The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky demonstrates that Americans shared Lord Acton's belief almost universally prior to the late nineteenth century. Olasky points out that almost all poverty relief was administered privately before the Great Depression. Olasky shows that relief was given with the understanding that it was temporary and contingent upon the recipient exhibiting demonstrable efforts at achieving independence, and that such relief was highly effective. These restrictions were placed upon recipients specifically to encourage habits of industry and self-reliance and to prevent "pauperization".² "Pauperism" was understood as a state of material dependence, characterized by lack of initiative, lassitude, and spiritual malaise.³ Most Americans believed that merely giving the poor relief without requiring efforts at self-improvement on their part encouraged them to habits of idleness and dissolution and ultimately to deeper dependence:

There has been a shift in attitudes regarding poverty and how best to serve the poor. Many people no longer see relief as a temporary phenomenon, but as an entitlement. The requirement that a person who sought assistance must justify his or her claim has largely been discarded, and with it the sense of an individual's responsibility for himself. This shift in attitudes is inconsistent with a Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person's dignity.

Historically, the problem of poverty has been seen as endemic to the fallen human condition, and therefore ineradicable. The Old Testament tells us "the poor will never cease out of the land,"⁵ and in the New Testament Jesus says "you always have the poor with you."⁶ Individual poor people may be helped out of poverty, but poverty remains. Only in this century did people begin to think of poverty as a problem that could be eliminated entirely.⁷ But the historical acceptance of the fact of poverty did not produce complacence or indifference. Rather, the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity place strict moral obligations on the wealthy to share with those who are in need. But these traditions have also always viewed human beings as individuals who are responsible for themselves and accountable to God and their fellow men. The practice of charity thus required that the needs of poor persons be balanced against their dignity and responsibility.

This charity had as its object not only helping the poor out of their material plight, but enabling them to become self-sufficient. The rationale behind this effort was explicitly moral. The relief organizations wished to "foster amongst the poor the habits of industry, providence, frugality, saving, and honest desire to rise in the world, and simple dependence on their own exertions."⁸ Churches were careful to distinguish between the "helpless" poor, such as the sick, the aged, and orphans, and the "able" poor, those able to support themselves but needing work. Those who were in the first class received aid with no strings attached, those in the second received aid, but were expected to reform their lives and become productive citizens.⁹

The churches' methodology and theology of charity in nineteenth century America is strikingly similar to that of the early Christian Church in the fourth century and following. In the fourth century, Christianity became, in stark contrast to it's earlier persecuted status, the religion favored by the Empire. This led to an explosion of growth in membership, and an accompanying explosion of philanthropy toward the Church. This philanthropic activity was unlike anything which had existed previously, both in scope and in character.¹⁰ The scale of giving to the Church was so vast that churchmen such as St. Augustine had the enviable problem of having more money than they needed to take care of the poor.¹¹

That wealthy individuals would give food and money to the poor was not unknown in pagan Rome, but these distributions were almost always politically motivated, and they were accompanied by much fanfare and publicity. In pagan Rome, when a wealthy man gave away money he would make sure that everyone knew he was doing it. In that way he would increase his prestige as a "great man."¹² Every great man also had his clients, men of lower socio-economic status who were dependent upon the patron for protection, assistance in obtaining government services, and frequently for sustenance. In turn the client owed the patron his services. These could range from attending him at the Forum to acting as courier to getting out the vote for his patron at election time. The client-patron relationship was hereditary: There was no escape from this subservient status.

Philanthropy in Christian Rome differed in that it no longer had the political aspects, because Christians were expected to remain anonymous. The Fathers took quite literally Christ's injunction not to "let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."¹³ St. Jerome castigated wealthy Christian women who went about distributing alms publicly, telling them not to become boastful in their charity.¹⁴ There was supposed to be no private philanthropy among Christians. All almsgiving was to be done through the Church. The wealthy were expected to give to the church, and the church officials responsible (deacons and archdeacons) would see to its proper distribution.¹⁵ The parishioners at a particular church at best would know that a particular wealthy man had made a donation, but no poor parishioner would know specifically from whom his relief had come. He would see his aid as coming from the Church, and not from a particular person.

There were several reasons for the Church's insistence on being the sole distributor of relief to the poor. The first is the Christian understanding of all men being equal in the sight of God. This equality is a result of our fallen nature and equal need for God's mercy as well as Christ's saving Grace. It is also a result of our vocation and eternal predestination to a life with God in heaven. We are all saved by Christ, and all brothers and sisters in Christ, therefore it would not be fitting for some to be beholden or subservient to others. Secondly, there was a conscious desire on the part of the Church to avoid the patron-client model. The patron-client relationship is, from a Christian perspective, clearly inferior to that of brothers in Christ. The third reason is the desire to avoid giving the rich benefactors any cause to lord their patronage over the rest of the Church. St. Jerome warned the rich to give quietly, "lest any man should boast."¹⁶

But the final reason that the Church insisted on being the sole distributor of relief is most important. The Church sees itself as the Body of Christ, the distributor of Christ's Grace on earth. Furthermore, Christ is the pre-existent Word of God, through whom all things were made. All good things come to us through Christ, who is, as St. Augustine says, our Supreme Good.¹⁷ If all good things come from Christ, and our spiritual relief comes through Christ, then it is only fitting, indeed, it is necessary, that our corporeal relief come from Christ's body on earth, that is, the Church. For we are creatures with both a body and a soul, and Christ came to save both.¹⁸ If it belongs to Christ to save us spiritually, then it belongs to Him to save our bodies, through His Body, the Church.

Churches in the United States and the early Church regarded poverty as both a material and a moral problem. The moral problem, as Lord Acton correctly stated, is one of raising and strengthening the moral resources of the poor. We have seen that material assistance was not given to the able-bodied without clear evidence of a purpose of moral amendment. This moral amendment was the cultivation of the virtues of self-sufficiency and industry. Self-sufficiency and industry have been regarded as essential virtues by Christians since Apostolic times. St. Paul decries busybodies who do no productive work and declares that "any one who will not work, let him not eat."¹⁹ St. Thomas Aquinas says that man has an obligation to support himself and his family,²⁰ and St. Thomas has been confirmed by modern papal teaching.²¹

These virtues of self-sufficiency and industry are inculcated in the same manner as other virtues. According to Aristotle, "moral virtue comes about by habit,"²² and we are habituated by being instructed and trained. Furthermore, it is a "state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well."²³ St. Thomas follows Aristotle in classifying virtue as a habit, but goes further, teaching that it "denotes a certain perfection of a power,"²⁴ and that it "belongs to a power of the soul."²⁵ Thus the inculcation of virtue is the perfection of the power of the soul. This perfection of the power of the soul is the function of Christ's Grace. We must be habituated in virtue, but it remains to Grace to perfect it.

We are perfected in virtue at the supernatural level by Christ's Grace. Christ's Grace transforms us by means of our relationship with Him, by entering into the Paschal mystery. As our relationship with Christ at the supernatural level transforms us, so too does our relationship with the other members of Christ's Body analogously transform us at the natural level. Therefore, just as the Christian's relationship with Christ is key to his supernatural redemption and reformation, the Christian's relationships with others are the key to his reformation at the natural level. Therefore the poor will only be transformed materially in a relationship with the body of Christ.

Lord Acton realized this intuitively when he said that the moral resources of the poor would be lifted up and strengthened "only by personal influence, sympathy, charity." This uplifting of the poor is effected by means of relationship between the members of the Body of Christ acting in persona Christi, working on the pivot or fulcrum, as it were, of the gratitude of the poor.

That the rich have a duty to alleviate the sufferings of the poor is well attested in Scripture and the Tradition. St. Thomas teaches, following St. Ambrose, that one has a duty to give out of any superfluous wealth to relieve the plight of the poor.²⁶ But the poor have a duty as well, that of Gratitude. St. Thomas teaches that Gratitude is a virtue, and that one to whom a kindness has been done has an obligation to reciprocate it. He says, following Aristotle, that "we should do a kindness in turn to one who has been kind to us."²⁷ If the poor who have received a kindness have a duty to turn around and "go do likewise," implied is the idea that they will be in a position to do a favor, which further implies that their circumstances will be remedied to some extent. Therefore the ability to "go and do likewise," necessitates that the poor will be reformed.

Now if God wills the end that the poor will be able to render favors, then He must will the means of this coming to be. The means of the reformation of the poor is the Grace of God, given through the mediation of the Body of Christ. The members of the Body minister to each other, and each to the other is an image and sign of Christ's Grace. The one giving to the poor is an image and sign of the healing, saving Christ. The poor who receive are an image and sign of the suffering, wounded Christ on the cross. Each party is acting in persona Christi, a microcosm of the drama of salvation. The poor receive at a natural level, but as St. Thomas teaches, Christian charity produces spiritual fruits.²⁸ The spiritual fruits grow up out of the relationship between the members of the Body of Christ modeling Christ for one another. This action of the members is sacramental by analogy. For a sacrament is a sign which effects that which it signifies. By acting in persona Christi , signifying the dual ministry of Christ as healer and sufferer, the poor and the rich can become Christ for one another, and thus the Church becomes the agency of real transformation.

Lord Acton saw that outside of a relationship with the Body of Christ, the poor had no real hope. In relationship, he saw that the poor could be "lifted up and strengthened". Within the Church, as the early Christians saw so well, relief of poverty could become a real act of redemption. The redeemed poor are able to "go and do likewise." Being redeemed they are able to act in the person of the healing Christ in turn, and initiate a new cycle of redemption. The poor thus become truly elevated, truly empowered, and both the impoverished and the affluent can fulfill their ultimate destiny of glorifying God.