Articles

PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR

by Charles E. Curran

Solidarity from the Christian perspective involves solidarity with the poor. Contemporary Catholic social teaching considers this relationship to poor people in terms of a preferential option for the poor. In his rightly acclaimed book Option for the Poor, Donal Dorr uses this concept to describe the whole of Catholic social teaching, although he recognizes that the term itself came into common use only in the 1970s. From the very beginning Rerum novarum maintains, "Still when there is question of protecting the rights of individuals, the poor and helpless have a claim to special consideration."

     The term itself first appeared in Catholic social teaching in the encyclicals of John Paul lI. In Sollicitudo rei socialis he refers to "the option or love of preference for the poor." Such usage shows a hesitancy to adapt the concept of the preferential option for the poor and the need to modify it by equating it with love for the poor. Preferential option and preferential love are not exactly the same thing. In Centesimus annus John Paul II insists that the teaching of Rerum novarum "is an excellent testimony to the continuity within the church of the so-called 'preferential option for the poor,' an option which I defined as a 'special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity.'" In a defensive way, John Paul II wants to offer his own understanding of the preferential option and to exaggerate the continuity in Catholic social teaching by claiming the preferential option for the poor as something always present in Catholic social teaching.

     The U.S. bishops' economic pastoral regards the contemporary concept of the preferential option for the poor as having a basis in Scripture and the early church. This preferential option forms part of the biblical vision that guides economic life. In discussing the nations's priorities this pastoral letter asserts, "As individuals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make fundamental 'option for the poor.'" The bishops then discuss the question of the priorities of the nation on the basis of this option.

Origins of the Concept

Where does the phrase "option for the poor" come from, and what does it mean? The term arose in the context of liberation theology as developed originally in Latin America and then in other parts of the world. First a strong biblical base supports the option for the poor. Here too, one sees that the option for the poor is not just a synonym for love for the poor. God has a special care and predilection for poor people. The Psalms and all of the literature of the Hebrew Bible constantly maintain that God hears the cry of the poor people. God will protect poor people even though no one else seems to be concerned about them. God will defend the poor people against the rich. The God of the Hebrew Bible stands up for poor people even if human beings trample them in the dust. Nowhere does the Hebrew Bible say that God hears the cry of the rich or protects them in a special way.

     The preferential option for the poor also has strong Christolgical roots. Jesus was a victim who was unjustly put to death on the cross. Jesus therefore identifies with all victims of marginalization, poverty, and injustice. The kenotic theory maintains that Jesus came down from heaven and even stripped himself of his divinity to become one of us. Thus, Jesus chose to be one with the poor and the outcast. In the scene at the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke's Gospel, Jesus proclaims the good news to poor people and liberation to captives.

     Liberation theology's understanding of option for the poor not only has Scriptural and Christological roots, it also has very strong epistemological roots. Who is the best knower? Most of the western tradition and contemporary world of science and higher education have insisted that the ideal knower is neutral, objective, and value-free observer who will be convinced only by facts. Prejudice and bias are totally negative. Even in the practical order, we recognize the need and importance of impartiality. Judges are to be impartial. Above all, jurors must be impartial. A partial juror who knows the accused or one of the attorneys will be dismissed. In theory and in practice, the ideal human knower is an objective, neutral, value-free, impartial observer of the human scene.

     Liberation theologians of all stripes strongly criticize such an epistemological understanding. We all bring our experience and our prejudices with us. A generation ago, history was thought to be an objective science that dealt only with historical facts. Today, however, we are conscious of the fact that history is written by the victors. If Native Americans were still the majority in this country, we would not be teaching that Columbus discovered America in 1492.

     A moment's reflection indicates that no one can claim to be impartial, objective, neutral, and value-free. We all bring our own backgrounds and baggage with us. White males in this country claimed to be objective with a universal and all-embracing horizon. For a long time, however, they could not admit the humanity of black Americans. For the greater part of its existence, our country did not give woman the right to vote.

     Liberation theology's option for the poor is intimately connected with theological method. The primacy of praxis in liberation theology maintains that truth is obtained through reflection on liberating praxis. Theological truth is not primarily derived from speculation and library research but from reflection on liberating praxis. The option for the poor also is the first step for theological method. Thus, liberation theology's method differs considerably from the traditional theological method of Christian and Catholic social ethics.

     There can be no doubt that Catholic social teaching has learned the option for the poor from liberation theology. Yet the Vatican also has been critical of some aspects of liberation theology, such as too heavy a reliance on Marxism and politicization of faith brought about by a loss of transcendence and future eschatology. The second of two documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 1980's was less critical of liberation theology than the first. Liberation theologians have disputed these criticisms from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There have been not only theological tensions between the Vatican and liberation theology but also suspicion and criticism about what liberationists were doing in practice, especially in South America. The myriad details of these tensions lie beyond the scope of this volume, however.

     Everyone recognizes a great difference, however, between the method of Catholic social teaching and the method of liberation theology. By its very nature, Catholic social teaching employs a more universal approach addressed to a general worldwide audience, including all people of good will (or, in the case of the U.S. bishops, a particular country). The more theoretical approach and universalist perspective of Catholic social teaching differ greatly from the praxis approach and more particular perspective of liberation theology. Catholic social teaching also does not put as much emphasis on social change from the bottom up, with poor people as the barriers of social transformation. Again, the more universal approach will consider all the agents involved in social change. Despite the manifest differences and even tensions between the two approaches, even many liberation theologians regard these differences and tensions as complementary and helpful rather than opposed.

     The pastoral letter on the economy implicitly recognizes the complementarity between the theoretical and universal approach of the document itself and a more practical grassroots approach with poor people being the agents of social transformation. In 1970 the U.S. bishops launched their Campaign for Human Development, which strongly supports community organizations that bring neighborhood groups together to improve their conditions and work for social justice on a local level. These organizations are ecumenical and interreligious, so they lack the spiritual and theological aspects of the base Christian communities involved in liberation theology. The pastoral letter maintained, "Our experience with the Campaign for Human Development confirms our judgement about the validity of self help and empowerment of the poor." Consequently, a methodology that emphasizes more theoretical and universal aspects can be compatible with more praxis-oriented approach.

Charles E. Curran, a Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, is Elizabeth Scurlock University Professor of Human Values at Southern Methodist University. Curran, who has served as president of three national scholarly societies of theology and ethics, has written extensively in the field of moral theology, including The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis. His book Catholic Social Teaching, 1891-Present was published in March 2002.

This is an excerpt from Catholic Social Teaching,1891-Present, Charles E. Curan, (ISBN 0-87840-881-9, $19.95), reprinted by permission, Georgetown University Press. No portion may be duplicated in print, or by another means without written permission from Georgetown University Press, 3240 Prospect St. NW, Washington, DC 20007, Gupress@georgetown.edu. The book may be ordered online at www.press.georgetown.edu or by calling 1-800-537-5487.