OPTION FOR THE PooR 167
and tangentially will reference be made to some of the deeper develop
THE PREFERENTIAL
OPTION FOR THE pOOR
Source: Morality, Religion, and the Filipino: Essays in Honor of
Vitaliano R. Gorospe, S.J. Edited by Rene B. Javellana, S.J.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1994.
TwENTY-FivE YEARS Aco the phrase "the preferential option for the poor"
was nonexistent in the Church. Today it is more than a major theme in
the Church's self-understanding. Many have claimed it describes the es
sence of the Gospel, the kernel of God's salvatiop mediated through Jesus
Christ, and the central mission of the Church (Clarke 1988).1 But there are
those who seem to be threatened by this formula. It is not that the poor
should cease to be the concern of 'the Church as they have been from the
very beginning of the Christian movement. It is, rather, the partisan ring
to the phrase; it has become a slogan. Among the affluent, especially in
capitalistic nations where Christianity flourishes, the preferential option for
the poor always suggests some form of socialism and an activism among
the poor that morally or materially undermines the wealth of individuals.
It would be impossible in a brief space to explain convincingly the
rationale for the shift in Christian consciousness reflected in this formula.
This phrase is like the tip of an iceberg, the visible and controversial state-
. ment that caps a massive, submerged Christian self-awareness,- a new con
sciousness and vision that is responsive to our present-day world. For the
most part, then, I shall limit myself i_ n this essay to a direct exegesis of
the phrase itself, "the preferential option for the poor." Only indirectly
ROGER HAIGHT, S.J. is Professor of Systematic Theology at Weston School of Theology,
Boston, Massachusetts.
ments that have occurred over the past two centuries to give birth to the
movement represented by this phrase. I shall accomplish this direct analy
sis by responding to some fundamental and commonsense questions about
the option for the poor. These questions, I think, will both clarify a great
deal about the option for the poor and also raise still more questions. One
sign that an idea is fruitful is that it continually raic;es new questions.
The aim of this essay is not -to break new theological ground. This is
an essay in pastoral theology. My goal here is to communicate the mean
ing of the option for the poor. My remarks are not addressed to the poor,
for in their faith they know intuitively what this option means. It is rather
addressed to the "not so poor" in an effort to show that this slogan and
principle should not be seen as dark and threatening, but as an exciting
challenge that bestows on human freedom an exhilarating, creative, and
humane responsibility.
WHERE Dm THE PHRASE CoME FRoM?
Where the phrase comes from is not difficult to answer in general his
torical terms. As a framework for this brief history, I will characterize the
emergence of the phrase as a journey from the center of the Church to
the periphery, then from a point on the periphery back to the center and,
finally, from the center to the whole Church. Although this generalization
is quite abstract, it summarizes accurately what has happened in the
Roman Catholic C'l\urch on this issue in the past thirty years.
First, beginning with the center, in 1965 the Second Vatican Council, in
the document Gaudium et Spes, spoke on the role of the Church in the
modern world, and made two important and potentially revolutionary
demands. On the one hand, the universal Church should be open to the
modern world, the actual world of secular affairs in which we live. The
Church shovld understand itself in relation to that world. On the other
hand, each local church should enter into its particular social and cultural
context and become part of its indigenous life .
Then, second, in 1968, in the city of Medellin, in Colombia, the Latin
American Bishops Conference met and proceeded to follow the instruc
tions from the center. The documents from that synod described the mas
sive poverty in that southern continent, characterized this poverty as
"institutional violence," and committed the church in Latin America in a
special way to the amelioration of the lot of the poor, who comprise the
majority of the people of Latin America (Hennelly 1990, 89-119)_ This was
 UPTION
!68 SociAL JusrrcE l-Ul< !!-!1::. ruuK

the hi stori cally public and symbolic beginning of the movement of libera of the church in the United States used the concept as a foundational
tion theology in Latin America. Christian social ethical principle. The bishops culled the principle from the
Third, while the phrase "the preferential option for the poor" was not Scriptures and utilized it for grounding their general ethical norms and

used in the Medellfn documents, it sprang up almost immediately as a guiding their policy recommenda.tions for the U.S. economy (U.S. B ishops
statement of what was needed by the church in Latin America and as a 1986, 42).2 Needless to say, the bishops held that the p;inciple should guide
tksc ription of what actually had tak<m place at Medellln. Whether or not the ministerial activity of the Church as well.
he f irst used the phrase, I associate it with Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian
F:riest and theologian and acknowledged leader of the theology of libera
tton, whose whole theology finds its center in the response of the Gospel
WHo ARE THE PooR?
to !he poor. Due to the writings of Gutierrez and many others, the libera
tion theology of Latin America soon s;)read during th e 1970s to Asia and
to certain parts of Africa. It also reached Europe and North America At first sight, the qustion seems like an obvious one. We all know who
through translations and through church ministry directed to the poor. ln the poor are. But it is not so easy, ond ambiguity arises from several di
the United States a Black liberation theology developed at the same time rections all at once. On the one hand, poverty is a relative condition; the

as Latin American liberation theology, and feminist theology, in many wealthy in some societies and cultures appear poor by the standards of
respects, shares its basic formal logic.' .. those in others. On the othu hand, all human beings are victims of suf

Fourth, the phrase "the option for the poor" was debated on for ten fering in one form or another, and all stand naked and poor before God.

years in Latin America, for it was controversial. It seemed to divide the Therefore what could be a criterion for applying a preferential option for
a segment of people when all stand in need of the universal love of God
Church not only between rich and poor, but also between traditionalists
and the ministry of the Church?
and progressive Iiberationists. The climax of the debate was the next highly
To begin, we should realize that we are dealing here with groups of
politicized Latin American Bishops Conference held in Puebla, Mexico, in
people or classes of people. Therefore, by definition, the language is one
1979. That conference canonized the phrase, atong with an option for
of generalizations. The purpose of this discussion is not to define in exact
youth, as the official and public commitment o f the Church.
fashion who belongs to the group called 11the poor," but to give expres
Fifth, a number of events signal the journey back to the a:nter from the
sion to the way one experi2nces God in relation to the masses of people
periphery of this "option for the pJor." In December 1984, John Paul II spoke
to a group of cardinals and said: "I willingly take this opportunity to repeat who are materially poor.

and :?tress that the commitment to the poor constitutes a dominant motive The first meaning comes with the origin of the phrase-from Latin
of my pastoral action and the constant solicitude accompanying my daily America. The poor referred to in Latin America are the peasants or rural
senrice to the people of God. I have made and I do make that /option' my, poor, and the urban poor who crowd in and <round the major cities. They
own; I identify with it. And I feel that it could not be otherwise, since this is are those who are not just materially poor in the sense of "struggling"
the everlasting message of the Gospel" (John Paul II 1985, 501). There are and "making ends meet," but in the universal sense of being destitute.
many other indications of papal approval of the phrase, such as his recon Their actual day-to-day struggle is for survival, to continue to exist. And
ciliation with Leonardo Boff and the Brazilian bishops a number of years in Latin America these people in a way simply are the people, for they
ago. But the most solid document of the :ndorsement of liberation theol are statistically the vast majority, and ere highly visible.
ogy and this aspect of it is the Instruction on Christian Freedom and Libera From this historically defined meaning and referent of the term, a gen
groups
tion (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fai I h 1986). Although it eralization follows. "The poor" refers most fundamentally to those
who lack the fundame ntal needs for human life, namely, food,
fudged th e phrase a bit, calling it ''a love of preference for the poor," the or classes
and access to basic medical care. This is a solid
congregation obviously endorsed the gen era l thrust of the idea. clothing, shelter,
iological criterion or tion th<t cuts t h ro u gh every other
Six.th nnd laHtly, an indic.1lion of how the phrase "the preferential op sociob differentia
are threatened
tiori tor the poor" has now co m e back again from the center to become social classification. The poor are those whose very lives
by poverty. As Gustavo Gutierrez fre quently pu ts it, poverty means death.3
operative in all churches, now not as a slogan but as a principle, can be
dimens ion to the definiti on of the poor that is cru
seen in the church in the United States. In the highly publicized and But there is another
groups and classes that are the poor are not in
extraordinary pastoral letter titled Economic Justice for All, the hierarchy cial but less obvious. The
170 SociAL JusTICE
the situation they are because of fate. Of course, one could say it is the
destiny of any individual to be born poor; but we are speaking here of
the ongoing situation of groups of people. There are many different rea
sons for the continuing poverty of the poor, and they all come down to
.
the fact that this situation is caused by human freedom, by human wdl
ing or the lack of it. It does not have to b this way Since thi is a social
. :
condition of socially definable groups, 1t 1s a function of soctal systes
which are designed by human beings. In short, the poverty of the poor 1s
caused by other human beings, not indivi ually but collectively.
Because of this, the poor are also always described in social, psycho
logical, political, economic, and cultural terms beyond the physical or
biological. They are the oppressed; they are the marginal zed w o do not
. u
participate in the power and decision making that determme the1r destiny.
They are those who are left out, ignored, unattended, and bypassed. They
'
are those who are often hated and despised, and very often the victims of
violence. They are those who suffer in the hands of other human beings. The
dramatic case of the blacks of South Africa illustrates all of these features
about the poor. It may be that the ultiate dehumanizatin of poverty !s
not the physical. and material deprivation, but the negahon of people s
selfhood. The poor are considered worthless (Clarke 1988, 96).
WHO MAKES THE PREFERENTIAL OPTION FOR THE POOR?
When the Church makes a preferential option for the poor, it ay
appear as being selective and divisive among its members, thus causmg
resentment. In fact the word preferential is in itself controversial. Many
reject the validity of any preference by the Church, while others sr:e pref
erence as a watering down of the option. For advocates of the optwn for
the poor, the word preferential is a pleonasm. It is redndant and only
serves to weaken what should be simply an absolute ophon for the poor.
It seems to have been added to placate the rich: "The Church loves you
too, but the poor need the Church more."
. .
My response to this question and solution to this issues rs so s1mple 1t
.
may appear as some sort of sleight-of-hand. As far as I can see the op
tion of the Church for the poor is the option of the whole Church, of ev ry
member of the Church. The Church is proposing that all make an option
for the poor, not as an option against the rich but; precisely, and even
especially, as an option of the rich for the poor.
This may need some clarification. First of all it is vry difficult t gt
a neighbor. In order to appreciate the inner authority of this option, one
.
language that will convince people that the Church 1s not an mshtuhon
OPTioN FOR rnE PooR 171
of hierarchy and priests. But when the Church is conceived as it should
be ,as the people of God, as made up of groups who assemble and relate
to God through Jesus of Nazareth, it will be seen that the option for the
poor is much deeper than a decision of a leadership class relative to the
members of a group. It is, rather, the ideal of the group itself. Nor is he
object of this option limited to poor Catholics or poor Christians. It is for
the poor as such. Moreover, it is not an option based on an assumption
that the poor are virtuous or morally worthy of such attention, but sim
ply on the fact that they are poor. The option for the poor intends no
discriminating moral judgment among peoples.
,
Is this option then an option against anyone? Yes and no. This is in
one respect implicitly an option for justice in their regard, because the sit
ation of the poor is intrinsically unjust as defined. As such, it is an
option against injustice. Hence, in its primary aim, this option is not against
anyone. What it intends to negate is the negative situation that is pov
erty. However, an option for justice and for the overturning of injustice
will go against the interests of those who either perpetuate the injustice
or benefit by it. Therefore the option for the poor is against no one
personally because the language unfolds on an objective social level.
Social issues should not be immediately personalized. But concretely the
working out of the option for the poor will undermine the material inter
ests, although not necessarily the moral interests, of those who personally
benefit from an unjust situation.
WHAT ARE THE GROUNDS FOR THIS OPTION FOR THE PooR?
This question could be the most crucial of all, for it relates to the query
about how a phrase that is so historically recent has spread so far so fast
and commands such authority. How can this option for the poor be so
important when the Church appears to have been ignorant of it until a
mere twenty-five years ago? The response to this question is essential be
cause without some intelligibility in rdntion to the core of Christifln faith
what is spoken by the Church will bear no inner authority.
There are a number of ways of explaining the inner logic of the option
for the poor. For example, most simply and profoundly, the option is no
more than a modern version on the social level of the Christian axiom
that love of God entails love of neighbor, where the neighbor is someone
different from ourselves, and one for whom we must make ourselves the
must not view it as an entirely new phenomenon, but as a fitting inter-
172 SoCIAL }USTICE
pretation in our day of something fundamental to the human condition
and to Christian revelation. I wi ll briefly outline three approaches to the
inner meaning and authority of this principle: the ethical, the scriptural,
and the theological.
First, relative to the ethical grounding of the preferential opion for the
poor, I suppose a recognition of human solidarity. As human beings we
are not simply a group of individuals; we are all in existence together (!s
__
a race. This ontological oneness of humanity is passing in our era into a
factual and empirical interdependence. We all influence each other within
each society as well as within the global framework.
In this context, when one confronts the situation and lot of the poor,
one cannot but have what Edward Schillebeeckx calls a negative experi
ence of contrast (Schillebeeckx 1968, 153-54). Such an experience, which I
consider to be the basis of all ethics, is a kind of intuitive, reflex reaction
th a t .a ce rta i n negative situation should not be. A negative experience of
contrast is an immediate response to a situation and a judgment that is
wrong and even an outrage. This is a recognition that human beings
should not be allowed to suffer so much so needlessly, and that the situ
ation of the poor amounts to massive innocent suffering. But this reaction
can only be had to the extent that one has a higher positive ideal of the
way things should be. Without this one would not be able to recognize
the negative situation as negative. Also, a negative experience of contrast
is always accompanied by a desire to resist the negativity'. to negate the
negation. And, finally, it should be noted that one can still have such
contrast experience even when one does not have the power to change
things (McAuliffe 1990, 15-69).4
In the dynamics of reaction to negativity and the desire for what is right
and huma 1e one sees the groundwork for a basic moral srnse. This fun
; adjusted. The second is a boy and he develops into a very intelligent,
damental experience underlies every concern for justice; if social justice
were the stable condition of things, it would not be a human quest. It is
only such an experience of blatant and manifest injustice that impels all
human beings of good will to seek justice. The option for the poor is not
at this level an exclusively Christian imperative; it is a universally
compelling anthropological or human demand.
The scriptural grounding that is most frequently appealed to in justify
ing the option for the poor comes from the prophets in t e Jewish wr t
ings and from what we know of the message and behav1or of Jesus m
the New Testament. The attention given in the prophetic -writings to the
poor and the helpless is dramatic. The prophets straightforward y P lace
.
concern for the poor, the deprived, the neglected, and the margmahzed
ahead of al other religious concerns, indue' ;ng worship of God. The same
is true of Jesus, who in the New TE:stament is presented as the latter-day
prophet. His teaching of the kingdom of God, the ethics of the kingdom
Ornoi\i FOR THE PooR 173
contained in his beatitudes and parables, and his actual behavior ins_ofar
as can be reconstructed by historians display a primary concern for the
poor and those marginalized by his religious society.
In weighing this scriptural evidence or data, it is crucial to realize that
what is at stake here is not an argument from words. Modern intellectual
culture rules out the possibility of biblical fundamentalism. What is in play
here is the revelation of God. We do not know much about God because
God is not immediately available 'to us. To conceive of Gbd in a Christian
way, one must take up the experiences, symbols, and language of the tradi
tion and allow them to influence how we might experience God today. The
prophets and principaHy the life and teachings of Jesus are witnesses upon
whom Christians rely, not without interpretation, to shape their idea of God.
Let me turn now to the theological grounding of the option for the poor.
_The core of Christian revelation about God is tha God is gracious and
benevolent toward God's creatures. God's love is egalitarian; God loves
all and bves each wholly, thus grounding the infinite value of every sin
gle human being. More than this, God's love for each is creative and re
storative. God wills and intends the full realization of the potentialities of
each person of whom, after all, God is the creator. God's love as it were
fills up what is lacking in each, God's forgiveness reaches out to the sin
ner, and God's concern reaches out to those who are deprived. Thus, de
spite the egalitarian nature of God's universal love, God loves most those
who are most in need. God is on the side of the poor because, with re
a spect to their poverty and the damage it causes, they are most in need.
This point may be illustrated with an analogy or parable, since there is
no other way to speak about God. Suppose a married couple has three
children. The first is a girl and she is healthy, bright, beautiful, and well
handsome, and physically gifted young person who has it all together.
The third is a girl but she is homely, weak, and slightly physically handi
capped. Although very bright, left to herself, she may become withdrawn
or aggressive. How will parental love be directed to this child? And what
will this love seek to accomplish?
The parable-analogy speaks for itself. Parental love, not to mention the
love of sister and brother, can be creative of a whole and integral person.
It can make up for what is not given by nature, and can draw out a self
esteem and a desire to live equal to that of anyone else. And this gift of
more love, which is really not quite that, is a natural reaction of the pr.
rental relationship. This process could of course go sour, and one would
then use the same scenario as a negative :;arable about collective human
sin, but we speak not of the automatic mechanisms of nature, but of free
relationships and their dynamics. The option for the poor is a dynamic
relationship of love, even when this is very indirect.
174 SOCIAL }UST!CE
Another side of this excess of love for one's own, and of loving in a
special way those who need one's love because of their deprivation, is
protectiveness. This protectiveness can flare up into a fierce anger when
someone bullies another who is weak and defenseless. This is exactly the
logi c of the outrage of the prophets and their language of the anger of
God at the way the poor and the weak were treated in Israel. God is de
picted as having said: "When you attack t he weak ones who are my
favored, you attack me." And inversely but positively: "Whatever you do
for the least of my children you do for me" (Mt. 25:40).
In sum, this is the theological logic of the option for the poor that
m aintains that God is on the side of the poor. The language of "taking
sides" is blunt and perhaps misleading. But it has an intelligibility within
the context of a personal God who loves human beings as persons who
are God's own children. God wills justice and hates injustice; but God wills
more than justice. God wants and intends the full development, the reali
zation of the whole human potential, of those who in fact are deprived of
the possibility of realizing it. God's love thus appears to increase the more
human love is denied to human beings.
How IS Goo's LovE AcTUALIZED IN HISTORY?
When one asks how God's love. for the poor is actualized in history
one runs headlong into one of the deepest mysteries of human existence
If God loves the poor so much, why are they_so_poor? The question is a
variation on the mystery of evil and innocent human suffering. In the end
there is no human answer to this mystery. BgtJQS- ho are so scandql-;
ized by the seeming impotence of God that they deny God's istence
must, in the end, accept the final meaninglessness ()f reality itself. One
cannot buy a coherent universe or history at the price of surrendering God;,
on the contrary, one loses the only ground that could possibly sustain a
hope for the ultimate coherence and meaning of existence.
But there is also a difference between a hope for final justice in an
endtime without any grounds at all, and a hope that has some basis which
points symbolically toward benign .fulfillment. It is one thing to merely
postulate and project into the void a God who is love and thus will save
humankind in the end. It is another thing to point to signs that such a
God acts even now for our salvation. Is there any indication that the words
of Jesus "Blessed are you poor, for the kingdom of God is yours" (Lk
6:20) have some symbolic referent even now in the world? Is God's salvific
love actually operative in history? If one had no tangible evidence at all
OPTION FoR THE PooR 175
for this, it would be hard to render intelligible the religious position that
God loves anyone, much less that God bears a preferential love for the
poor. Put plainly, the evidence runs in the other direction.
.
The response to this issue does ot itself break out of the mystery wtth
luminous claritv, especially to those who have come to reject God's overt
intervention in history. They cannot expect to experience God's love op
erative in history outside of an experience of faith. If there are to be mira
cles on behalf of the poor, they rvill be worked by human agents. For
God's providence and covenantal love, as these are concretized in action,
are always concealed in finite causes, specifically in the agency of human
love. God works in history in the collective situations and events of hu
man subjects, precisely through human subjects. Just as Jesus, a human
.
being, was the primary agent of God's love for the world, so too th1s
mission of Jesus is carried forward by disciples, explicit or anonymous.
Human beings axe the coworkers of God's kingdom when that kingdom
is envisioned in its overt and historical form. And in the grand scheme of
things, the final meaningfulness of human freedom demands that we con
tribute to the kingdom in the endtime (Segundo 1985, 123-25, 157). To
think otherwise, that is, t9 think that God's love will take care of the poor
in history without any human mediation, could be aivete. or, more likely ,
an evasion of Christian responsibility Either case 1s a failure to under
.
stand the mission and message of Jesus at its very core.
_..
WHAT DoEs THE OPTION FOR THE PooR ON THE
PART oF THE CHURCH CoNSIST IN?
This questi on and the next cannot be answered satisfactorily without a
great deal of discussion. The reason for this is t at with them we re be
ginning to come down to earth and to the practical meamng of thrs gen
eral axiom. What does it mean concretely? What are we supposed to do?
What I will suggest is that one can say something gnerally here, but the
final answer will depend on different situations and different people re-
5ponding to them.
Let me begin with a general principle that concerns the Issue of what
.
m option for the poor might consist in for any given chur;h. Such a en
ral principle can be drawn from Jesus' parable of the Good Samantan
(Lk. 10:29-37), which was Jesus' response to the question of who the
neighbor is that one should love. The parable, like many of Jesus' para
.
bles, contains a couple of tricks and sudden reversa ls One of them rs that
.
the neighbor turns out to be not the man on the side of the road who
was beaten up, but the Samaritan who helped him. In other words, Jesus
 176
SociAL JusncE
says, !n response o the question who is my neighbor, that it is the wrong
question to ask: , You are the neighbors of the others who are different
from you; go out to them and make yourself neighbor to them." This is
tlw general principle that guides a response to the question of the con
crete meaning of the option for the poor in any given church. Church
should go out to the poor according to the situation and the condition in
which they are found. This will be different in different societies; cultures,
/ THE OPTION FOR THE PooR?
and periods, and will unfold on different levels and in different kinds of
activities in different circumstances.
One could divide the concrete unfolding of an option for the poor in
the way the Church responds to issues "within" the Church and how it
responds to social issues in the world "outside" the Church.s Relative to
!
th nternal life of the Church, it should reach out to the poor with its
mmtstry. The need here can be recognized by a general consideration of
the degree to which the wealthy classes have churches and ministers and
the poor do not. In Latin America the option for the poor is a reversal of
a lngtime identification of the Church with government regimes and the
soe1al identification that added up to the virtual neglect
of the poor masses. This is probably a universal tendency. It seems obvi
ous, enough that a n option for the poor would mean a transfer of
pastoal and ministerial energy toward the poor, a putting of the social
agencres of the Church at their disposal. Concretely, this involves rethink
ing the commitment of the offi ci al and financially supported ministers of
the Church. Ideally, this allocation of ministerial personnel should be
supported by the whole Church. , of some rhetorical extremes in this area. Some professions of course are
On the social level, the Church would become the spokesperson, the
social ombudsman, operating with an explicit bias for the disadvantaged
classes. For example, in Latin America, in opposition to the Church's iden
tification with the oligarchic elite class, a new identification with the poor
_
implies a concern on the part of the Church for the social structures that
'l. keep the poor in bondage. A good example recently is the church in Bra
zil which stood up to business and industrial interests and the govern
ment, in speaking out for the rights of natives in the rain forests. in the
interior of the country.
In the United States, I already mentioned the Catholic church's engage
merit in the politicoeconomic discussion of the nation. The Church issued a it has taken wrong forms in Latin America and in some respects in the
policy document dealing with poverty, unemployment, the welfare system,
the agricultural system, and trade relationships with the Third World, guided
by the principle of the option for the poor. People in all the parishes in the
United Stntes were asked to consider these positions, and Catholic agcn
des Wf:'re askf:'ll to implement them in the measure that is possible.
In the end, it is difficult to answer the question of the concrete mean
ing of the option for the poor. This will depend on the specific church in
OPTION FOR THE PooR 177
an actual society, on what is needed, and on what is possible. And in
every case it will be decided on the basis of practical prudential judgment,
and not simply on a priori principles.
How Do INDIVIDUALS MAKE OR IMPLEMENT
This is the hardest question of all because one cannot give a general
response for the concrete behavior of individuals. I have been asked this
question in very excruciating forms by college students who, having
internalized the Christian imperative of the option for the poor, find them
selves on the threshold of choosing a career filled with opportunities for self
advancement and achievement. What are thy to do? Let me first give. two
general principles that may serve as premises for such a discussion, and then
outline some of the options that are factually and historically available.
A first general principle is that there is a division of labor within soci
ety and within the Church, and that by and large no profession or
oi:10rable way of life is intrinsically hostile to an option for the poor. To
put the same principle the other way around, an option for the poor does
not in itself dictate a specific career. It is possible to be motivated by and
_to exercise an option for the poor from within the whole field of various
forms of work and stations in life. This seems to rne important because
intrinsically hostile to an option for the poor; it is difficult, for example,
to justify the drug trade on the basis of providing jobs and income for
Peruvian and Bolivian peasants.
A second principle is that as a Christian and a member of the Church
one should be supportive of all efforts on behalf of the poor insofar as
one thinks them moral and effective. In other words, there should be a
general solidarity among the many Christians who display an option for
the poor in their activity even though there may be wide diversity in the
way this is done. For example, it is difficult to respect Michael Novak's
hostility to liberation theology or the option for the poor. He is convinced
United States as well, because he is a firm believer in what he calls
democratic capitalism . But in all that he writes one finds no deep
contrast experience, no scandal or reaction against the condition in which
the poor in Latin America live. If even a hint of that were present, one
would be inclined perhaps to read his arguments more carefully.
What are some of the many ways in which Christians might internal
ize and live out an option for the poor? Some Christians of course are
 178 SociAL JUSTICE OPTION FOR THE PooR 179

among the poor and work in solidarity wi th each other in addressing their
common problems. Other Christians, not bo111 poor, become poor to work
with and alongside the poor. This may be considered an extension of the
traditional vocation of the missionary. Other Christiam work for and on
behalf of the poor less directly, from various positions of power and in
fluence. For example, the Jesuit centers for social justice in various coun
tries and cities throughout the world try to understand social issues,
conscienticize people regarding them, and mobilize human energy to ad
dress them. Other Christians associate themselves with any one of the
many issue-oriented and problem-specified agencies and organizations.
There is no major social problem among the poor that does not have one
organization or another addressing it, whether Church-sponsored, secular
and private, or run by government.
But finally, I believe that all should display in their private and public
/ 1988, 95).
lives a concern for the poor. This a priori and intentional bias is intrinsi
cally Christian and should operate as a tacit ethical principle governing
Christian life. It should engender a reflex response that governs one's
munity, including and especially its liturgical life. Then this ideal would
be a constant appeal to Christian commitment. With enlightened leader
ship in the Church, one can hqpe that a renewed understanding of
Jesus' message and mission, and of the Church itself as the continuation
of that mission, would generate the promotion of this ideal in all local
Church communities.
NoTES
1. Looking at the option for the poor theologicaUy, one can say that it "renders
the very mystHy of salvation. As a basic soterio logical and ecdesiological affir
mation, it becomes a way of saying what God has done for us in Christ" (Clarke
2. The American bishops make the following categorical assertion: "As indi
viduals and as a nation, therefore, we are called to make a fundamental option
'

for the poor"' (U.S. Bishops 1986, 42).

thinking when any social issue arises. This last point is still very vague
and will take on many forms, but it is simply a restatement of the basic
principle that the Church has made an option for the poor. Members of
the Church are those who have internalized this concern in such a way
that it governs their general behavior in the same measure Christian faith
does. This bias for the poor is internal to a faith in God mediated by Jesus ..
3. The meaning of poverty, the logic of the option for the poor, an explanation
of why this is God's option, and a justification of the partisan character of this
option for a universally valid ethics are analyzed by P. McAuliffe (1990, 70-18).
4. The logic of a negative experience of contrast is developed by McAuliffe (1990,
15-69).
5. I put these words in quotation marks to show that they do not represent
a hard distinction: They begin to lose their clarity over against each other upon
analysis.

CoNCLUSION

WoRKs CITED
The preferential option for the poor, in imitation of God's own option,
is idealistic in its altruism. Is it mere romanticism to speak of such an
option becoming operative in the Church at large? A realistic response to Clarke, T. 1988. Option for the poor: A reflection. America 158 (January): 30.
this question depends on where one looks and what one expects. There is Hennelly, A. T. ed. 1990. The second general conference of Latin American bish
,

no doubt that one finds an option f6r the poor already operative in the ops. In Liberation theology: A docwnentan; history. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books.

Church in various places and at different levels. Already, in many smaller John Paul II. 1985. One Church, many cultures. Origins 14 (January).
McAuliffe, P. 1990. A liberationist ethic: Some fundamental elements and their logic.
communities, the sense of solidarity is such that the poor are not neglected
Ph.D. diss., Universitv of St. Michael, Toronto.
or devalued. As the Church is conceived and organized in larger and more
Sacred Congregation fo; the Doctrine of the Faith. 1986. Instruction on Christian
impersonal structures, one can probably expect that the conscious dedica
freedom and liberation. Vatican City.
tion of Church members to the plight of the poor will decline-that is, Schillebeeckx, E. 1968. God the future of man. Trans. by N. D. Smith. New York:
statistically. But even in larger Church settings one always finds some Sheed and Ward.
people who give of themselves in varying degrees to the service of the Segundo, J. L. 198.5. The humanist Christology of Paul. Trans. by J. Drury. Maryknoll,
poor. It would be utopian to think of the whole Church as actually dedi N.Y.: Orbis Books.
cated to overcoming the conditions of poverty, but one can conceive of U.S. Bishops. 1986. Economic justice for all: Catholic social teaching and the U.S.
this ideal written into the very fabric of th e pu bl ic religio us life of a com economy. Origino 16 (No vem be r).