Satish
In preparation for my Franciscan study group this weekend, I am reading, among other things, the first chapter of a book entitled St. Francis and the Foolishness of God.
The title of that chapter is The Conversion of Francis: Encounter with the Poor.
The chapter begins by recounting Francis’ encounter with a leper on the outskirts of Assisi. Francis was horrified by the disease of leprosy. But then God said to him, “all which you used to avoid will turn itself to great sweetness and exceeding joy.” Shortly thereafter, Francis met a leper on the road. He overcame his fear, got down from his horse, gave the leper alms, kissed his diseased hands, and was rewarded with just the sweetness and joy that God had promised him.
This event is a seminal moment of conversion in the life of the young Francis. Thereafter, he regularly ministered to the lepers, and to the poor in general. This regular exposure to the poor contributed deeply to his understanding of Jesus and the cross.
I read this chapter once, and was left with an uneasy feeling. Somehow, I felt the authors were missing something significant. I then read the other materials, and came back to the chapter to reread it. About halfway through (top of page 19), I came to rest upon this quote:
“Poverty is ugly and dehumanizing; it is an evil that must be eliminated.”
The quote, in context, refers to poverty in a third world sense. The chapter makes reference to El Salvador, and other such places.
But no matter the context, this is an astonishing quote to find in a work on St. Francis.
Poverty is one of the greatest Franciscan ideals. St. Clare clung stubbornly to a rule embracing “the privilege of poverty” her entire lifetime, finally to be rewarded on her deathbed with the approval of a Pope who had come for one last visit with her. Francis considered “lady poverty” his spouse, embracing the notion so fervently that he prohibited his brothers not only from possessing money, but from even touching it.
I feel compelled to add that their embrace of poverty was not just a spiritual one. They embraced poverty on the ground, giving away literally every possession they had. They sought out and embraced lives of material poverty as part and parcel to their calling.
I struggle, day by day, hour by hour, to find a way to properly embrace poverty within the context of my own journey. I can not do so as forcefully as Francis and Clare, but nonetheless, I must find a way to live out the spirit of poverty they so clearly embody.
Yet this book, and some of the other materials as well, argue that justice requires the elimination of poverty wherever it is encountered. The authors suggest that the proper response of a Franciscan to a person dwelling in poverty is to do everything they can to lift that person out of that situation.
I am trying to do everything I can to get to poverty.
But, when confronted with it, I am supposed to teach the person who already dwells where I wish to go, that they should reject the life I seek, and instead become more like the me I am attempting to leave behind.
I don’t see how I can embrace that message.
I haven’t gotten far enough yet to reach my own conclusion about what the interaction between Francis and the poor represents, but I do not think the quote above properly expresses where Francis stood. More reflection is required. There must be more to follow here.
But I do know that poverty is not evil.
The kind of poverty as found in Third World countries, I would submit, is evil because it is caused by the gross insensitivity and greed of power mongers (a.k.la dictators) who have only their own comfort and wealth as a goal. Their power hungry apetitie is only to amass more and more of a country’s wealth for a small group of elitists while leaving the powerless without the necessities of life . . . that is one of the seven capital sins ( seven manifestations of intrinsic evil)called greed.
The kind of poverty we Franciscans try to live is a simple lifestyle without unnecessary physical things as well as a spiritual detachment from all that is not God. That kind of povety frees me to be there for others, especially those most in need since it frees me from hording myself, for myself and from the belief that the universe and everything in it is MINE.
As Francis reminded us in his ADMONITIONS, the only thing we can claim as our own is our sinfulness. Anything more than that is an illusion.
I understand what Tim is saying. I also understand what Sister Agnes Marie is saying. I think you both are correct.
I think that in Tim’s case – and my own, as I make the journey toward profession – is that we are actively seeking poverty. Not just “I don’t have money/possessions, etc.,” but the “I am not looking to gain money/possessions, etc.” We are looking to distance ourselves from the need to possess things; to see that the things that come into our lives are tools given to us for our use. We are merely stewards, not owners. As a steward, then, I have no attachment to a particular tool. This is the hard part for me. I am attached to some of my things. Granted, I don’t have a lot and most of what I have was given to me. But I’m still attached to it. I need to remove the emotional need to have these things. As I empty myself of these “things,” I can then be filled with God. Only by emptying myself, by losing/loosing my grip on what I think I own, I can embrace fully what is truly a treasure – God’s grace.
As to the third world poverty…I think that this poverty, forced upon people because of leaders/dictators attachment to things/money is different. This difference – and it is a big difference, I think – is that these people aren’t seeking poverty but having it forced upon them. That’s what makes it evil. I know that my path is poverty, but I cannot force that decision on someone else. This kind of poverty doesn’t lift us up, it tears down. This kind of poverty brings fear, not release.
It is mostly an aside to the meat of the conversation, but I would note that the type of greed being described by Sister is not confined to the third world.
The bailouts our government has recently engaged in at the expense of everyday taxpayers are a product of the exact same type of greed that we decry in the third world.
Whatever compulsion we feel to help the poor can be easily fulfilled right here in our nation, and even our own communities.
Unfulfilled need is present just about everywhere you look, and it is likely to increase greatly in the short term.
Tim’s commentary is a very good one and is, I think, full of fertile seeds for thought about what may be good and what may be bad (evil) about what we call “poverty”. I think that contributing to the complexity of the discussion of these thoughts is the fact that the word “poverty” itself has varied meanings and connotations depending on its use, context and so on.
It may also be helpful to point out that the book referred to, St. Francis and the Foolishness of God, is not particularly “Franciscan” per se. I am not at all sure that St. Francis himself would go along with much of the thrust and the conclusions of the book. While one of its four authors is a Franciscan friar who presumably has had some input into this collaborative effort, the book clearly departs in significant ways from examining essentially Franciscan concepts of poverty as they would apply to our individual, personal journeys. It delves to a large extent into what I would call civil (or secular, I suppose) social justice concepts and viewpoints that, while not always incompatible with a Franciscan approach, are often moving in a different direction from what the Franciscan might.
When this book was chosen for use in this Franciscan study group, it was apparent that it featured some controversial thoughts and proposed actions that might deviate significantly from the thoughts and desired activities of those of us Franciscans participating and of Franciscans, in general. (This, I believe, is largely why the companion materials were chosen for use in our study – the encyclical, two solidly Franciscan books and the SFO Rule). So it was anticipated that an important part of the study group’s desired spiritual growth in examining and discussing the book would come from trying to understand these “foreign” or controversial ideas while defining and clarifying corresponding Franciscan views.
It is interesting to note that the book professes to be attempting an “ecumenical experiment” in its approach and that it acknowledges a “first world” view in its authorship and apparently its values.
So, I have a few personal thoughts to add on Tim’s questioning “Is poverty evil?”.
Certainly, I think from a worldly perspective poverty, taken narrowly as the lack of material goods to live a simple “good life” (with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education for life, freedom and so on) is always a bad thing (evil). This poverty is almost always essentially involuntary and anyone experiencing it involuntarily would tell us that from a worldly standpoint it is evil.
But also certainly, from a Christian (Franciscan) perspective poverty, taken narrowly as the deliberate effort to open our hearts and lives to our Crucified Savior by avoiding having possessions to the greatest extent possible, by avoiding any attachments to possessions (or anything which isn’t Jesus), by sharing our selves and any possessions we do have control or influence over for the benefit of others, is always a good thing (not at all evil).
So the poverty that Tim and all Franciscans seek (without our judging here the appropriate degree to which it is carried out) is always, I think, unequivocally good, clearly not evil.
Another thought: With a spiritual transformation, can some of the involuntary poverty mentioned above become good? Can that poverty or some portion of it become beneficial suffering and actually become a solidarity with the suffering Christ (taking up our crosses daily) leading to a closeness and love of Jesus in this world and possibly a union with Him forever in the hereafter? I believe the answer to these questions is a resounding “Yes!” And, therefore, using poverty in this way is also good – very good, I believe!
For me there are many other questions begging to be asked, especially about the worldly versus the Franciscan approach in dealing with involuntary poverty and even what really constitutes poverty in terms of genuine needs for the (undefined) good life. Perhaps we can pursue these over time.
Finally, I hope these thoughts bring some small illumination to the question on the nature of poverty. And, certainly, I would appreciate Tim and others assisting me in refining and expanding on some of these ideas. Come, Holy Spirit.
[...] post continues the discussion from Is Poverty Evil? Please reference both that post and its comments to place this post in [...]
[...] I asked the question “Is Poverty Evil?”, I think I was attempting to change the focus from the situation, to the [...]