Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked.
—St. John Chrysostom
Marxist. Communist. Pauperist. Francis’s words on poverty and social justice, together with his frequent calls for concern for the needy, have drawn criticism and even accusations sometimes expressed, as we have seen, with harshness and sarcasm. How does Pope Francis feel about this? Why is the issue of poverty so central to his teachings? At the end of this journey through Pope Francis’s interventions in the first two years of his pontificate, we have asked some questions directly to him. What follows are his answers.
Your Holiness, is the most recent form of capitalism, the one we are living today, a somewhat irreversible system?
I would not know how to answer this question. I recognize that globalization has helped to lift many people out of poverty, but it has also condemned many others to die of hunger. True, in absolute terms global wealth has increased, but so have inequalities and new forms of poverty. What I have noticed is that this system sustains itself through a culture of waste, of which I have already spoken several times. Today, we are witnessing the emergence of a politics, a sociology, and even an attitude of waste. When at the core of the system humanity is replaced by money, and when money becomes an idol, men and women are reduced to mere instruments of a social and economic system characterized—better yet dominated—by profound imbalances. Thus, we discard whatever does not serve this logic; it is the same attitude that allows us to discard children and the elderly, and this attitude now affects the young as well. I was shocked to learn that there are many millions of young people under twenty-five in developed countries who are jobless. I call them the “neither-nor” generation, because they neither study nor work. They do not study because they are not given the opportunity to do so; they do not work because there are no jobs. But I would also like to draw attention to that aspect of the culture of waste that leads people to dispose of babies through abortion. I am astonished by the low birth rates here in Italy; this is how we lose our link to the future. Similarly, the culture of waste leads to a “hidden euthanasia” of the elderly, who are abandoned instead of being considered our memory, a link to our own past and a source of wisdom for our present. I often wonder what will be discarded next. We need to stop before it is too late. Let us stop this, please! Therefore, getting back to your question, I would say that we should not consider this state of things irreversible. Let us not resign to it. Let us try to build a society and an economy where people and their well-being, not money, are at the core.
Can a more ethical economic system—led by men and women who care about the common good—bring about change and a greater focus on social justice and the redistribution of wealth? Or is it also right to hypothesize a restructuring of the system?
First of all, we need to remember that there is need for more ethics in the economy, and there is need for more ethics in politics. Various heads of state and political leaders, whom I have met after my election as Bishop of Rome, have often talked to me about this. They told me that we, as religious leaders, should help them by giving them ethical instruction. True, pastors can make their pleas, but I am convinced that we need, as Benedict XVI recalled in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, men and women with their arms raised in prayer toward God, knowing that love and sharing, which creates genuine development, are not the fruit of our hands, but a gift to ask for. And, at the same time, I am convinced that there is a need for these men and women to commit themselves on every level—in society, in politics, in institutions, and in the economy—working for the common good. We can no longer wait to fix the structural causes of poverty, to cure our society from a disease that can only lead to new crises. Markets and financial speculation cannot enjoy absolute autonomy. Without a solution to the problems of the poor, we will not be able to find a solution for the world’s problems. We need programs, structures, and policies leading to a better allocation of resources, job creation, and the integral advancement of those who are excluded.
How important is it for Christians to recover a sense of care for creation and sustainable development? And how may we ensure that this is not confused with a certain environmentalist ideology that considers humanity the real threat for the well-being of our planet?
Even for the protection of creation we must overcome the culture of waste. Creation is the gift that God has given to humanity so it can be protected, cultivated, used for our livelihood, and handed over to future generations. The vocation to take care of someone or something is human, before being Christian, and affects all; we are called to care for creation, its beauty, and to respect all creatures of God and the environment in which we live. If we fail in this responsibility, if we do not take care of our brothers and sisters and of all creation, destruction will advance. Unfortunately, we must remember that every period of history has its own “Herods” who destroy, plot schemes of death, and disfigure the face of man and woman, destroying creation. Humanity has received as gift—as Romano Guardini pointed out—this “ignorance” and turned it into culture. But when humanity, instead of being custodian, considers itself to be the master, it becomes creator of a second “ignorance” and moves toward destruction. Consider nuclear weapons and the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a huge number of people. Consider also genetic manipulation, the manipulation of life, or gender theory that does not recognize the order of creation. Think about those who restore the tower of Babel and destroy creation. This attitude leads humanity to commit a new sin against God the Creator. The real protection of creation has nothing to do with ideologies that consider humanity an accident or a problem to be eliminated. God has placed men and women at the head of creation and has entrusted them with the earth. The design of God the Creator is inscribed in nature.
In your opinion, why do Pius XI’s strong and prophetic words, in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, against the international imperialism of money sound to many—even Catholics—exaggerated and radical today?
Pius XI seems exaggerated only to those who feel struck by his words and hit where it hurts by his prophetic condemnations. But Pius XI was not exaggerating; he only told the truth after the economic and financial crisis of 1929, and, as a good mountaineer, he saw things as they were; he could look ahead. I am afraid that the only ones who are exaggerating are the ones who still feel called into question by Pius XI’s reproaches.
Are the paragraphs of Populorum Progressio, stating that private property is not an absolute right but is subject to the common good, and the claims of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, according to which the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance are the oppression of the poor and defrauding workers of their just wages, still valid today?
Not only are they still valid, but the more time goes on, the more I find that they have been proven by experience.
Because of some passages of the exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, a critic from the United States has accused you of being a Marxist. How does it feel to be considered a follower of Karl Marx?
As I have mentioned earlier, I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended by these comments. But Marxist ideology is wrong.
The sentence of Evangelii Gaudium that most struck a chord was the one about an economy that “kills.”
And yet, in the exhortation I did not say anything that is not already in the teachings of the social doctrine of the church. Also, I didn’t speak from a technical point of view. I simply tried to present a picture of what happens. The only specific reference was to the so-called “trickle-down” economic theories, according to which every economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably bring about greater equity and global inclusiveness. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would have flowed over and the poor would have benefited from it. Instead, what happens is that when the glass is full it mysteriously gets larger, and so nothing ever comes out of it for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I repeat, I do not speak as an economical expert, but according to the social doctrine of the church. And this does not mean that I am a Marxist. Perhaps whoever has made this comment does not know the social doctrine of the church and, apparently, does not even know Marxism all that well either.
Your words about the poor as the “flesh of Christ” and your emphasis on the fact that the care for the poor is at the heart of the Christian message, and not just a sociological fact, have touched a chord with many people. You have also spoken about this at Assisi, inviting all to worship the body of Christ in the Eucharist and to touch the flesh of Christ in disabled people. Are you bothered by the charges of “pauperism”?
Before Francis of Assisi, in the Middle Ages there were the “paupers,” as well as many pauperistic currents. Pauperism is a caricature of the gospel and of poverty itself. Instead, St. Francis helped us to discover the profound link between poverty and the ways of the gospel. Jesus says that we cannot serve two masters, God and wealth. Is this pauperism? Jesus tells us what the “protocol” is on which we will be judged, as written in chapter 25 of Matthew’s gospel: I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, I was naked and you helped me, clothed me, visited me, and took care of me. Every time we do this to our brother or sister, we do it to Jesus. Caring for our neighbor, the poor, those who suffer in body and spirit, those in need: this is the touchstone. Is it pauperism? No, it’s the gospel. Poverty protects us from idolatry, from self-sufficiency. Zacchaeus, after meeting Jesus’ merciful gaze, donated half of his possessions to the poor. The gospel message is for all; the gospel does not condemn the rich but the idolatry of wealth, that idolatry that makes us insensitive to the cry of the poor. Jesus said that before offering our gift at the altar we must reconcile ourselves with our brother and sister to be at peace with him. I believe that, by analogy, we can also extend this request to being at peace with our poor brothers and sisters.
You have stressed the continuity with the tradition of the church in its concern for the poor. To conclude, can you give us some more examples?
A month before the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII said: “The church reveals itself as it is and as it aspires to be, that is, everyone’s church, and particularly the church of the poor.” In the following years, the preferential option for the poor has emerged in the documents of the magisterium. Some might think of it as something new, but it is a concern that originates in the gospel and is documented in the early centuries of Christianity. If I repeated some passages from the homilies of the early fathers of the church—say, of the second or third century—about how we should treat the poor, there would certainly be someone saying that my homily is Marxist. “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor, but you are giving back what is theirs. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich.” These are St. Ambrose’s words, which Pope Paul VI cited in Populorum Progressio to affirm that private property does not constitute an absolute and unconditioned right for anyone and that, when others lack basic necessities, no one is justified in keeping for one’s exclusive use what is not needed. Saint John Chrysostom wrote: “Not sharing your goods with the poor means robbing them and depriving them of their life. What we possess is not ours, but theirs.” And further: Do you want to honor Christ’s body? Then do not scorn him in his nakedness, nor honor him here in the church with silken garments while neglecting him outside where he is cold and naked (Homily 50 on Matthew). He who said: This is my Body, also said: I was hungry and and you gave me no food.” As you can see, this concern for the poor is in the gospel, and it is within the tradition of the church. It is not an invention of communism, and we must not turn it into an ideology, as sometimes has happened in the course of history. The church’s invitation to overcome what I have called the “globalization of indifference” is far from any political interest and ideology. Animated only by Jesus’ words, the church wants to make its contribution to build a world where we look after one another and care for each other.