Anonymous no longer
Early Christian writers made much of today’s Gospel story. St. Augustine noted something we might overlook: “That rich man’s name was known to people, but not the poor man’s. In contrast, the Lord Jesus gives the poor man’s name, but not the rich man’s.” Already a sign that God’s scale of merit differs from ours. St. Augustine went on to describe the wealthy man, enjoying his earthly delights, constantly grabbing in order to increase his possessions, “drawing to himself the leaden weight that would cause him to drown. That great weight dragged him all the way down to hell…, for he had not heeded the words of Jesus: ‘Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened; for my yoke is easy and my burden light.’ Christ’s ‘burden’ is wings, and on those wings that poor man flew away into the bosom of Abraham.”
Two centuries later, St. Gregory was reminding his people that we encounter many Lazaruses: “they lie in front of your doors and they need the crumbs that fall from the table where you have had your fill. If we look for him, we find Lazarus every day; we see him even if we don’t look for him.” Yes, he admitted, some of the people who annoy us by their begging may be unworthy, but it’s hard to tell who the unworthy ones are, and for all we know, one of them may in fact be Christ himself.
Can’t help wondering if this was inspired by recent discussions below about illegal immigrants and the deserving or undeserving poor.
Many conservatives will argue that if you don’t establish need, you merely aid and abet someone’s sloth, which is a sin. And if it’s a sin to pay for or otherwise asist someone in getting an abortion, wouldn’t participation in sloth be a sin, too?
I tend to be a generous and spontaneous giver (no brag here; Raber thinks I am a fool and a spendthrift). I wonder how many times I’ve opened my pocketbook I’ve commited a grave sin?
I have similar questions, actually. There was a poor man (whom I know) in front of me in the Safeway and I didn’t know if I should buy his drink, because I couldn’t see it. Was it beer? Should it matter?
In my weekly travels from DC to the ‘burbs, there are inevitably people at the intersections, asking lines of stopped cars for change. I don’t usually have cash, so I shrugged at the lady. She asked me for the soda in my cup holder and I gave it to her.
Should my vices (soda) be on my shopping list? Should crack, in case somebody needs it? Those are my real questions, whether to give money for the next fix.
Sometimes I buy somebody a meal. But the guy at the Subway said one fellow returns his food for a refund.
“Je viens de faire l’aumône. En donnant deux sous, j’ai goûté la joie honteuse d’humilier mon semblable …
Je me suis humilié en l’humiliant. Car l’aumône avilit également celui qui la reçoit et celui qui la fait.”
[I have given charity. In giving two pennies, I have tasted the shameful joy of humiliating my brother. But in humiliating him, I humiliated myself: Charity is demeaning for the giver as much as for the receiver.]
So says Monsieur Bergeret, a lovable character from Anatole France. Somewhere else the book says something like: Much as Monsieur Bergeret preached to himself against the evils of almsgiving, as he walked on the street he was no more able to ignore the hand of a beggar than if it had been an impassable wall. It was a weakness of his, that he was incapable of following his own precepts against almsgiving. (I don’t have the book with me and could only find the first above citation online, so I am paraphrasing the rest from memory.)
Jean, you remind me of Monsieur Bergeret.
What struck me in this reading was the rich man’s preoccupation with his brothers’ welfare. He would probably be willing to sacrifice himself for his family. He’s not selfish, just family-centered. Worrisome!
As to more or less deserving poor: that line of thought always reminds me of Pygmalion’s Doolittle in his wonderful monologue: “ I’m one of the undeserving poor: that’s what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he’s up agen middle class morality all the time. If there’s anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it’s always the same story: ‘You’re undeserving; so you can’t have it.’ But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow’s that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don’t need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don’t eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I’m a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything. Therefore, I ask you, as two gentlemen, not to play that game on me. I’m playing straight with you. I ain’t pretending to be deserving. I’m undeserving; and I mean to go on being undeserving. I like it; and that’s the truth. “
Claire,
I think that’s the part of the story when Doolittle is trying to extort money in return in return for what he believes is the sexual exploitation of his daughter.
What ever happened to the social encyclicals?
I posit that as the country has become more conservative and individualistic (probably true in the Church as well) the message of the gospel as in MT 25 gets less shrift.
Kathy, I think you’re right, but does it matter? His seedy aspects don’t diminish his wonderful eloquence in defense of the undeserving poor, do they?
Claire, St. Gregory says that we can’t always tell who the unworthy poor are, but I’m guessing we can draw the line at participating in human trafficking.
I’ve seen two instances in DC of a kind of human trafficking in begging–persons with obvious disabilities were being “pimped” to beg at intersections under the close watch of an able bodied person nearby.
I’m not trying to make excuses for not-giving. But there are a lot of instances where it seems that some discernment is required, regarding how to give.
Now’s the time to hire somebody who is out of work to fix all those little, and big, aggravating things around your house that need fixing or clearing out. Pay good wages. Mutual benefit. Help him keep a roof over his family’s head. Support the economy at grass roots level.
Kathy, I agree. When I am in Paris I don’t give money in the subway to women beggars carrying babies because I worry about the story (or the man) behind it.
I heard a story about one colleague. When he left his position in California for a position elsewhere, everybody was sad that he was leaving. People were crying. All the beggars on the streets around campus were sorry to see him leave because he always had something for them and knew them all by name. Now, that does not take very much money, but it takes real effort (for someone like me, at least) to be consistently interested in the people around you (rather than, say, focused on the latest homework exercise as you are walking on the street, lost in your own world, not seeing or hearing the outside world around you…)
This is how I began my homily today: “A hymn perhaps familiar to you, “All Things Bright and Beautiful,” praises God for all the lovely things he has made: flowers and birds; mountains and rivers; sunsets and mornings; winter’s cold and summer’s sun: “the Lord God made them all.” The concluding verse ran: “God gave us eyes to see them, / And lips that we might tell / How great is God Almighty, / Who has made all things well.” One of the original verses is hardly ever sung nowadays: “The rich man in his castle / The poor man at his gate. / God made them, high or lowly, / And ordered their estate.” That is, the distribution of wealth and poverty was part of the natural order of things, the creation of the God “who has made all things well.”
The famous folk song, The Tramp on the Street, about Lazarus that begged, is sung in this version by Joan Baez. Other versions at right of screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bare05gNH88
Father Komonchak, that verse about high and low, rich and poor, castle etc. is reminiscent of the 2000 hit song “Les rois du monde”:
Les rois du monde vivent au sommet
Ils ont la plus belle vue mais y a un mais
Ils ne savent pas ce qu’on pense d’eux en bas
Ils ne savent pas qu’ici c’est nous les rois
Les rois du monde font tout ce qu’ils veulent
Ils ont du monde autour d’eux mais ils sont seuls
Dans leurs châteaux là-haut, ils s’ennuient
Pendant qu’en bas nous on danse toute la nuit
{Refrain:}
Nous on fait l’amour on vit la vie
Jour après jour nuit après nuit
A quoi ça sert d’être sur la terre
Si c’est pour faire nos vies à genoux
On sait que le temps c’est comme le vent
De vivre y a que ça d’important
On se fout pas mal de la morale
On sait bien qu’on fait pas de mal
[The kings of the world live at the top, they have the best view but there is a "but", they don't know what we think of them down below, they don't know that down here we are the kings.
The kings of the world have all they want, there are people around them but they are all alone,
In their castles up there, they are bored, while down below we dance all night.
Here we make love, we live life, day after day, night after night,
What's the point of being on earth if only to spend time on our knees
We know that time is like wind, that living is all that matters
We don't care about morals, we know what we do is not evil.]
A local guy’s young son had leukemia. I donated a fair amount to a special bank account set up to cover medical costs b/c the family had no health care insurance. After the boy died, my neighbor told me I shouldn’t have donated b/c the kid’s father was a drunk.
Did the money help the kid? No.
Did giving the money aggravate Raber? Yes.
Did the money help with funeral expenses? I don’t know.
Did the money enable the father to drink? I don’t know.
Did the generosity of strangers in any way change the father’s outlook on life or cause him to examine his own sins? Doesn’t seem like it. He now owns a bowling alley named after his son where he drinks pretty heavily.
Did the contribution win me any jewels in my heavenly crown? I don’t know.
If my contribution had been a business investment, I’m sure my financial advisor would have put the kibosh on it. In retrospect, the measurable good of my “investment” makes it look pretty stupid. Perhaps there is a little boy in heaven now interceding even now for me to show better judgment. I hope so. I need a lot of help with this type of thing.
Fr. Komonchak, we used to sing “All Things Bright etc.” in the Episcopal Church with the “estates” verse. It reflects Victorian sensibilities, that, yes, some of us are destined to live rich or poor. But, of course, Jesus himself said the poor would always be with us. Moreover, the hymn has to be understood in light of that other Victorian notion that the rich have an obligation to the poor, to live lives of use and service to others.
Fr. Komonchak, after the opening, how did your homily continue?
“That is, the distribution of wealth and poverty was part of the natural order of things, the creation of the God “who has made all things well.”
Now, let’s take a guess: what’s the next sentence in that homily?
(1) (Democrat:) That idea runs against our American ideal of striving to reach a better station in life via hard work and ambition. As Americans, we believe that yes we can.
(2) (Pro-immigrant:) Indeed, it cannot be denied that our wealth or poverty is largely determined by circumstances independent of our will such as our place of birth; for example, Arizona or Mexico.
(3) (Communist:) But how can it be well that a man is so poor that dogs lick his sores? This makes no sense, and that’s why we no longer think that the unequal distribution of wealth and poverty is part of the natural order of things. No. The natural order of things should be an equal distribution of wealth. What the parable leads to is that we need a immense expansion of democracy, a democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the rich.
(4) (Political:) But the point of the parable is that the rich man should have done something to reduce inequalities. There should have been redistribution. That’s the idea behind progressive taxes.
(5) (Victorian:) (following Jean’s lead) But the reason why Lazarus is there so that the rich man can earn his salvation by looking after him. The rich have an obligation to the poor.
Or … ? (And now I’ve taken more than enough space on this thread and will recede into the background.)
I knew that All Things Bright and Beautiful was originally a children’s song, but I didn’t realize that it was supposed to be an exposition of the first article of the Creed–according to Wiki:
The hymn was first published in Alexander’s Hymns for Little Children. It forms a series of poems expanding on articles of the Apostles’ Creed. This one is based on “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth.” “Once in Royal David’s City” is based on “And in Jesus Christ. . .born of the Virgin Mary.” “There is a Green Hill” is for “. . .suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. . .” “He is Risen” and “He is Coming” are respectively for “. . .on the Third Day he rose again. . .” and “he shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.”
Our homilist said ‘the dogs licked his sores’ .. the dogs had more compassion more than Lazarus.
Ed: Perhaps you meant “more than the rich man”?
St. Augustine said that the rich man was “merciful too late.”
Didn’t anyone else appreciate Augustine’s comment about the naming of Lazarus and the anonymity of the rich man? I thought that was quite insightful.
You can find the rest of my homily at: http://jakomonchak.wordpress.com/
(Please forgive the plug for my blog.)
Clearly the love of riches is problematic. Yet the hierarchy courts the rich person. Where is the kingdom of heaven. Many surprises.
Fr. Joe …right not Lazarus.. the homilist gave the ‘rich man ‘ the name Dives as Tradition holds.
“Car l’aumône avilit également celui qui la reçoit et celui qui la fait.”
This develops Nietzsche’s “Beggary should be abolished; you feel guilty if you give and if you don’t”.
Christians should think collectively about ways to aid the less well off and this should be an intrinsic strand in every Sunday liturgy. My impression is that Anglicans take this more seriously than Catholics.
A time of worldwide financial distress is a time to break with paralysis and learn again how to respond and how to give.
On the depressing “hell” aspect of the story, note that it is a completely Jewish parable; the point is the reversal, not the flames (Hades is not the Gehennah menaced in Matthieu, and the picture of Abraham feasting with Lazarus is not the usual gospel image of heaven).
St. Augustine also mentions this parable in the “City of God” too, book 1, chapter 12, when he’s reassuring the Christians that having one’s corpse buried is not the awful fate their pagan neighbors considered it. (A lot of Christians had died in the recent sack of Rome.) It’s not really germane to the question of giving money to street people, but it’s a nice example of Augustinian style:
Si aliquid prodest impio sepultura pretiosa, oberit pio vilis aut nulla. Praeclaras exsequias in conspectu hominum exhibuit purpurato illi diviti turba famulorum, sed multo clariores in conspectu Domini ulceroso illi pauperi ministerium praebuit angelorum, qui eum not extulerunt in marmoreum tumulum sed in Abrahae gremium sustulerunt.
Dynamic translation:
If an expensive burial were worth anything to the rich man, Lazarus wouldn’t have had it, because he had a cheap burial or none at all. The rich, high-ranking man’s crowd of slaves gave him a magnificent burial. But in our Lord’s eyes the service the angels offered Lazarus was more distinguished. For they did not carry him to a marble tomb, but to the lap of Abraham.
Translation in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam:
Had aught that precious burial the impious man benefited, the pious had been harmed by means of the absence of that thing in his cheap or lack thereof. Gorgeous the funeral in the eyes of men offered by that one’s multitude of slaves, but far more perlucifacient the service of angels with respect to the other, who bore him not to a marbled monument, but him to the immediate vicinity of Abraham raised.
Fr. Komonchak–
I enjoyed reading your homily for 9/26 as posted on your blog–especially your thoughts on how possessions can possess us–but the full text doesn’t seem to be available there. The homily as reproduced on the blog ends with “As St. Gregory said.” Is it possible to let us in on what St. Gregory said? :)
Fr. O’Leary: I’m puzzled that you don’t think the picture of Abraham feasting is not the usual gospel image of heaven. What about Mt 8:11: “And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,” along with its parallel in Lik 13:28-29. Wouldn’t this be the feast that Lazarus is said to enjoy “in the bosom of Abraham”?
The most glaring Lazarus collective is becoming more frequent in this country with this semi-Depression. Yet Lazarus has been in Haiti and the rest of the Third World for a long time. Today, most of us live better than Dives with our modern conveniences while the Third World barely has food and medicine. To narrow that divide is the challenge of every follower of Christ.
Thanks for the link, even if incomplete. Great! Here our homilist, always a pragmatist, talked about information overload: how we can feel overwhelmed by the many Lazaruses that appear on our screen as soon as we turn on the news. And, yes, I was interested by the note that Lazarus was had a name, but Wikipedia says that it may have been a historical allusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_and_Dives), and, you know, between Wikipedia and St Augustine, Wikipedia is surely more up to date :)
William and Claire: thanks for alerting me to the missing sentence. I’ll fix it.
Claire Already St. Ambrose had maintained that it seems more a true story than a parable, precisely because the poor man is given a name (“Narratio magis quam parabola videtur, quando etiam nomen exprimitur.”) If it is a parable, is it the only one in which one of the parties is named? Parables are like jokes: you give only as much information is required to keep the story moving and to set up the punch line. You would no more give the name of the guy who “walks into a bar” than you would tell whether or not he was wearing a tie…
The takeaway for me from yesterday’s gospel reading is to do a better job even just seeing the Lazuruses that are right outside my front door.
Several years ago, I was going to a party on a bitterly cold Christmas Eve night. We stopped at a traffic light in one of those hipster, part-industrial/part-luxury loft neighborhoods. At a factory by the intersection, a man was working, moving a load of wood down the street. My boyfriend at the time pointed him out to me; I said, “Oh, he must be working overtime”. My boyfriend said “ No, he’s not. Nobody’s out working in this crappy weather on Christmas Eve.” To my surprise, my boyfriend parked the car, crossed the intersection and went down the street to talk to the man. He told me later that he wished the man Merry Christmas and gave him a $20. The man’s first reaction was distress: “How did you know? Can people tell?” My boyfriend fibbed and said, no, no one would see anything unusual. He made up an excuse, “ My girlfriend works with homeless people so she would notice somebody out working in this kind of weather, nobody else would think twice.”
The man was relieved that his financial situation wasn’t obvious; then he was really happy about the $20. He told my boyfriend he had enough now to shop for dinner and he could go home.
I think about that Christmas Eve encounter sometimes, and yesterday’s gospel reminded me of it again. While some people, like my old boyfriend, can often see the Lazaruses among us, so many of us aren’t even aware of their existence.
My personal belief is that I don’t think it’s ever wrong to give money to a “street person”, and I do think that by doing so, you’re storing up treasure in heaven. I also think it’s okay to use good judgment, if you suspect a scam.
I think it’s even better to give to trustworthy social service agencies that are committed to the welfare of the total person. Catholic Charities is always a good bet in the US (Caritas elsewhere); St. Vincent de Paul Societies also do a great job in our area (worthy of a plug on St. Vincent’s feast day today). Salvation Army, if I can plug one of the competitors :-), also does good work.
When I was a young assistant in a Yonkers parish, a man knocked on the door, came in, and proceeded to tell me a hair-raising story about having just been released from prison, being under threat of death, and needing money to go to Florida. I gave him $200.00, a lot of money on a priest’s salary. Two or three days later I was driving in Manhattan and, believe it or not, I spotted the man walking jauntily along the avenue! I’m not sorry I gave him the money, but I had to resist the temptation to run him over!
Our parish invites the Lazaruses in… see short video..
http://thegubbioproject.org/video.html
My personal belief is that I don’t think it’s ever wrong to give money to a “street person”, and I do think that by doing so, you’re storing up treasure in heaven.
Jim,
But if your charitable giving is done in order to store up treasure in heaven, I don’t see that it is actually charitable. It’s just an investment to help buy your salvation.
David, you don’t think that the same action can be multivalent in its goodness? Good for me, honoring God, helping someone–all at once?
Fr. Komonchak, once when entering the subway on the way home from work, I encountered a woman with a baby in her arms and two toddlers hanging onto her skirt. She was pleading for someone to give her some money so she could take the train home with her little family. I gave her a dollar, and so did some other folks.
The next night, I entered the same subway entrance, and there she was again. At that point, I suspected that I had been “had” :-)
David N – you’re right, it can be a spiritual problem. I do agree with Kathy, though, that we can have more than one motive, and I usually have a tough enough time discerning the motives in my own heart for my own actions.
Kathy – when I was in DC on vacation with my family last summer, I was struck by the number of street people who were wandering about, or sprawled in doorways or on the sidewalk. I don’t know if homelessness and its attendant problems is greater in DC than in other cities, but it’s more visible.
In the suburban area where I live, there are people in need, but the suburbs are designed to make them much less visible. For example, the relatively low-rent apartments are in developments that aren’t on thru-ways – nobody would ever drive into one of the complexes unless they were visiting a resident.
Jim and Fr. Komonchak, one morning in Paris a man asked me for money so that he could take the train back home; according to him he had been victim of pickpockets. I asked him how much he needed and gave him the requisite $20. In the evening that same day, I walked on the same street, and there he was again. He asked me for money. I said: “Wait a minute. I gave you the money you needed this morning!” — He started mumbling an explanation. I cut him short … and gave him another $10 anyway (I guess I must have been in a good mood). Whereupon, instead of being duly humbled and grateful of my unexpected generosity, he shamelessly asked me for more!!!
Jim,
People with netflix can “instantly watch” an interesting documentary called Let the Church Say Amen about a small DC church’s initiative to help people in a neighborhood in the Catholic University area.
I’ve often thought that DC needs something like this, the comprehensive partnership in my hometown: http://www.svdpv.org/index2.html
It was a parish priest who really got this effort going, and Joan Kroc, whose husband founded McDonalds, who led with donations over the years. This is a timeline (beware video that begins when page opens): http://www.svdpv.org/
David, you don’t think that the same action can be multivalent in its goodness? Good for me, honoring God, helping someone–all at once?
Kathy,
Yes, but I would say a truly saintly person would perform charitable acts purely out of compassion rather than to store up treasures in heaven or even to honor God. I think doing good for it’s own sake is more commendable than doing it with some ulterior motive. If you do it without thinking, it comes directly from the heart.
David… Guilt trips and duty is the ignition for us weaker souls.
I have had several experience where I gave people money and determined later it was a scam, but I actually had a good experience once. When I first came to New York, some relatives in New Jersey asked me to dinner for Christmas. On my way to Penn Station I found a $20 bill in the snow, and I decided to give it to the first person who needed it. In Penn Station there was a young man who said he and his girlfriend (nowhere in sight) needed money to get back to Philadelphia. They needed $19 and change. So I pulled out the $20 bill and handed it to him. I thought it might be a scan, but you can never tell. He seemed genuinely taken aback, and he insisted on introducing me to his girlfriend, who was indeed nearby in the station. It seemed to me that it was unlikely someone scamming people in Penn Station would keep a fake girlfriend nearby just to introduce to people after successfully scamming them out of $20. So I think this one time, it was genuine.
This is why I can speak with authority on how saintly people act. I myself am a saint. Hahahahaha!! (Or alternatively — and I am always for some reason charmed when chatting online with a Spanish-speaking person who says this — Jejejejeje!)
David,
I would think that the “saint” according to your explanation is a philosophical saint, one whose motives are “pure” in a Kantian sense. As a Thomist my understanding of virtue runs contrary to this.
I do think Christians are called to a consistency of charity so thoroughgoing that even if all other motives seem stripped away, they should give to the neighbor whom God places nearby. But according to the Gospels, God will reward these actions, “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap.” (Luke 6:38)
I don’t think the reward is escapable, and I don’t see the point of trying to avoid it–that would be like refusing to attend the wedding feast.
Jim P.’s plug for social services organizations is one that I wrestle with because it removes the giver from the recipient, creates a screen–and probably vets the recipients to make sure they are truly deserving.
The Buddhists have various levels of charity, which I’ve always found interesting. The highest level is to create a society in which no charity is needed. I am reminded of St. Hilda’s convent, which was modeled on the passage in Acts in which each received according to their needs and talents.
More or less random thoughts.
Hi, Jean, your point is well-taken that we’re a degree separated from those in need if we donate to social service agencies.
FWIW – people in my area can live their entire lives without stepping over any Lazaruses; people aren’t allowed to lie in doorways in these parts. Yet they’re out there, and they go to places like Catholic Charities (and to local parishes) for help.
We have the opposite problem here, I think. Help is available, and people are in need–but the connections are not always made. It’s an intake problem. People who approach a priest or minister might get the help they need, if the priest knows where to refer them. But what if someone is at home without knowing who to call?
Kathy –
Many, many years ago my father volunteered with a friend to set up an office in City Hall whose only purpose was to refer callers to whichever sort of help they need. It’s phone file was enormous. Called “the Answer Desk”, it was a huge success, and many cities copied the program. If your city doesn’t have one maybe you could initiate or encourage one.
Ann, what a wonderful idea! The ombudsman needs to make a comeback, and I’m going to suggest this to the men’s club at the local parish (they’re the ones who seem interested in doing stuff).
My great-grandfather, who was the town busy-body, was the go-to guy during the Depression in the village where my Dad grew up. He could do everything from find a cheap used tire for your tractor to helping you find home care for an elderly relative at the poor farm (which his daughter ran, and, frankly, I’d rather go there when I get decrepit than to any of those assisted living places any day).
Everyone who tries to prasctice personal giving may hav ebeen scammed at one time or another, but those stories do not provide an excuse for not caring.
Today we learn the income gap in our country is worse than ever, worst among civilized nations, and poverty rates continue to grow,
Politically, though, our divisions mean that we either accept “the rich get rich and the poor get poorer” or we sacrifice for maintaining a safety net.
Has anyone here been on the receiving end of begging?
As a student once I ran out of my weekly cash and had to ask strangers for money to call home from a pay phone and tell my parents what time to pick me up at the train station. I took it for granted that someone would help me, and it happened almost immediately — a little old lady gave me the change needed for me to call.
Some years ago in France I remember hitch-hiking in the rain. How humiliating when car after car goes right by you without stopping. It’s hard not to feel rejected.
Recently in the US a couple of times I accidentally left my car lights on, the battery ran out, and I stood on the street with my car hood up and my red and black cables in plain sight, waiting for someone to take pity on me. Once in a lower-class neighborhood: almost right away someone stopped by (an immigrant) and helped me as a matter of course; once in a more fancy neighborhood: I had to wait a long time while people drove by on their way to dinner at some restaurants. It made me angry. (The person who eventually stopped and helped turned out to also be an immigrant.)
“Politically, though, our divisions mean that we either accept “the rich get rich and the poor get poorer” or we sacrifice for maintaining a safety net.”
Those shouldn’t be the only two options on the table, and I don’t sense that Americans as a whole believe that those are the only two options.
“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” doesn’t sound like the most accurate description of what’s been happening … it’s more like, ‘the rich get richer, and the poor become increasing irrelevant in the game of the-rich-getting-richer, and nobody has figured out yet how to make the poor less poor.’
Traditionally, exploiting the poor has meant exploiting their labor, on the farm or in the factory. Sure, some of that happens in the US still (cf Stephen Colbert’s Congressional testimony) and we need to work for justice in those situations.
The economy seems to have moved on, though. The gazillionaires these days made their loot by starting up hi-tech companies, or trading exotic financial instruments. The poor have no role to play in those activities, neither as workers or consumers. They’re extraneous.
“We have the opposite problem here, I think. Help is available, and people are in need–but the connections are not always made. It’s an intake problem. People who approach a priest or minister might get the help they need, if the priest knows where to refer them. But what if someone is at home without knowing who to call?”
Hi, Kathy, I agree with you that the patchwork of government and private agencies that comprise the social safety net is a bewildering maze.
I’ve noted two basic types of people who need aid in our community: there are the members of the underclass, who have been on public aid for much/most/all of their lives, and have a pretty good understanding of how to navigate the system; and then there are people not from the underclass but whose circumstances are sliding downward. Typically, they don’t know where to go for help, and wait too long to ask (perhaps in part because it’s hard for them to accept that they need to ask).
Jean –
I checked the phone book, but there’s no listing for “Answer Desk”. All there is, is a listing for “How to Do Business in New Orleans” with listings of different offices and agencies to contact. Maybe it just got too complicated. (I wonder if an equivalent service could be established on the internet.) All I remember about it is that it was all-volunteer, including college kids, and that the office was one room at City Hall with phones.
Your great-grandfather sounds really special :-)
Ann, he was a real character. I wish I’d known him longer. He was born in 1860 and lived to be 100. He raised Dad for a good deal of his childhood, and Dad was the same way. During one of his hospital stays, he made it his biz to find out what everyone was ailing from, and then asking his own doctor what was being done to help his “neighbors.” The nurses finally put him on a shorter O2 hose so he couldn’t sit in the hall and eavesdrop. He didn’t do it from idle curiosity–he really worried about people.
Jean,
This hearkens back to your original post.
I think your comments on conservatives and sloth a very oversimplified, but I do think they touch on a very valid point. Charity or assistance must always have as its focus the good of the object and not the intentions of the giver.
My wife is like you. Her grandmother told her you never know if that begger or homeless person is an angel from God, so help. I doubt you ever commited a sin following this impulse.
But you also have to take responsibility for the consequences. For conservatives, its not just a situation of preventing sloth. It’s that you need to observe the consequrnces of what you do and when they are harmful, do something else. When I argue against what seem charitable programs and efforts, its’s not because I resent lazy people (while there certainly are plenty) or because they are “unworthy” of help, it’s because sometimes things that are well intentioned have bad consequences – for the intended beneficiaries, for me, for everyone.
Like everything in the Gospels, the story of Lazarus has many layers. Sure, its a message about our obligation to the poor. But to me, the more important part of the story is that, to the wealthy man, Lazarus does not exist. He is so wrapped up in his own desires and comforts that he doesn’t see Lazarus as a fellow human being, and object of God’s love (as you see in the end of the story). I submit we can do the same thing even as we do things that we intend to be charitable.
Would the wealthy man have been any less contemptable if instead of ignoring Lazarus he set up a system where Lazarus was forever dependent on him when he didn’t have to be? Would the fact that he parted with a few sheckles mean that he treated him as he should?
Ok.
The domain name help.org is available. Why don’t we set it up as a resource center?
Sean, I don’t disagree with your point particularly, but I envy you if you can see the consequences of all your actions.
You (and millions of other Americans) are now paying for my kid’s asthma drugs because a second round of layoffs have now cut our income to the point where we qualify.
It is very likely that, despite the fact that we work three jobs and cannot afford health insurance for ourselves, we will remain dependent on this handout (until Congress decides it’s making too many people soft) because nobody’s hiring anybody over 55 right now. If the health care bill works as it should (and I have expressed my doubts about it many times here), we may be able to afford something by 2014–when we’re 60.
Being a beggar on the dole makes me feel shame, hopelessness, anger, and, many days, when I see what we’ve come to, wishing I had never had a child.
But when you’ve seen your kid in an asthma crisis, you suck it up and do what has to be done, and try to remember that other people have it worse.
Jean, I guess I have internalized the notion of basic health care being a right, so I think I would probably feel hopelessness and anger, but not shame. You’re more likely to end up in the bosom of Abraham for having been denied health care than me for having been denied juice for my car battery.
I have to admit that having been a subscriber for certainly twenty, maybe more years, I am just testing the new format to see how I am styled. A bit self-serving of me no doubt, but I am proud to be a subscriber.
Jean,
I don’t think I ever said I, or anyone else, always sees the consequences of his actions. My point is, that when you do see them, saying your intentions are pure isn’t a whole lot of use.
An example:
Right now, in Massachuseets, we have a ballot initiative to repeal part of the state’s affordable housing law. The idea behind the law, apparently, was to ease the zoning process (and eliminate most local control) for developers who included “affordable housing” in a development. It’s caused problems in some towns because it has allowed developers to by-pass town authorities and build large multi-family units where the area was not zoned for them, and the locals think the developments are not keeping in with the “character” of the town, and drive down values.
Our bishops – all four diocese – have come out against the repeal. The problem I have been having is that they, and others who oppose the repeal can’t seem to show that the law is actually helping many lower and middle income people. They support the law because of what it is intended to do. I know it has the negative effects I discussed above are real, I have seen them. What I don’t know is whether they are worth suffering and whether the law works to help less fortunate people or, as detractors say, real estate developers. I am still considering my vote, but it would be helpful to see tangible results touted rather than good intentions.
I don’t begrudge you your help, and I am not judging you. Sometimes people need help, we all do.
What I do have a problem with is turning a blind eye to the problems our “generosity” creates and immediately tagging anyone who doesn’t greedy, mean, or biggoted. We have to help the Lazaruses in our lives, but if we do it be creating a permanent class of anonymous Lazarus-lite brothers and sisters, are we helping?
Sean –
I agree with you that purity of intention is not the purpose of giving to those who need help. To say otherwise is to say that my good intention is more important than Lazarus’ need. But there is another basic question here: when we refuse to *try* to help we *certainly* have not alleviated Lazarus’ need. True, property values are important — houses are most people main investment. But what about the poor? Shouldn’t we risk something for them.
Recently there was a zoning dispute in the City Council here concerning my street, which is a “historic district”. (That’s another story — I don’t see anything historic about where I live.) Anyway, a former Lutheran nursing home went out of business, and Odyssey House wants to buy the not very large and rather inconspicuous building to make some (not many) apartments for poor folks and for a program for disabled drug addicts. Well, you’d have thought they were asking to tear town St. Louis Cathedral. And it wasn’t just the white folks who complained, it was some rich black ones as well.
The ultimate problem is that everybody has to be somewhere, and my point was that, apart from the needs of those people, I’m less likely to be mugged by a participant in the Odyssey drug program than by a homeless, abandoned drug addict roaming the streets looking for money for a hit. t is actually safer to have them inside than out. I just can’t see that a the plan would be risker than leaving the building empty.
My point is that if you look at most poor people objectively you’ll see that most are not a real threat to the middle class. Yes, some are. But as to property values, historically the older parts of this city (like other large southern cities) has always had rich and poor living within blocks of each other, and we’re better off for it than the newer areas, the suburbs. My “historic district” is, to the south, not four blocks from a bad area. but mine is still a nice neighborhood. Americans have got to get over their fear of the poor. Some of the newly poor are learning that lesson too.
Having lived near poor people all my life I just can’t buy the BNIMN line.
Ann,
The “affordable” housing that is being put up in my town consists of a few $350K condos in a multi-family development where most of the condos are $380-425K.
Which poor people will be living there? Also, I live 35 miles from Boston, 8 miles from the nearest public transportation, in a semi-rural area with very little employment opportunities in the immediate area.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t support housing for poor people – either privately or with some state assistance. I am simply asking that when we do institute laws that effectively place some of the burden (often disproportionately) on local communities there at least be some evidence that they actually work.
It is easy to criticize people who oppose what some call charitable movements for what you see as selfish reasons, but too often we have laws about affordable housing or job opportunites that become impossible to oppose simply because they have the right label.
In my opinion, most “affordable housing” initiatives tend to have the exact opposite effect. They may help a handful of people, but generally leave most poor and working class people worse off than if they weren’t there. Look, for example at the rent control regimes in places like New York and San Francisco. Is housing more affordable there? A few people benefited, but by and large it contributed to housing shortages and higher prices. Look at the major public housing works in the US. In Chicago they are tearing down buildings less than 30 years old, they have been such failures.
Finally, this whole get over fear of the poor line is just a bit too smug, and awfully judgmental. I don’t know about your experience, but in mine an awful lot of the people you are scorning probably know first hand what its like to be poor, or have lived on the hairy edge of it.
I guess my view of my neighbors isn’t that glum. I have found generally that people, poor and better off, in this country are pretty generous.
Sean –
YEs, I’m being judgmental about some people. The people who complained the loudest are well known and have never been poor. Face it.
“My point is, that when you do see [that the consequences of your actions are bad], saying your intentions are pure isn’t a whole lot of use.”
So then on what grounds would you anyone do anything at all? Geez, better not help anyone with their meds or they’ll just get lazy and dependent. Better not save that guy who’s having a heart attack because he might get something more painful and lingering later on. Better not give old people Medicare b/c they’ll start living longer and start costing even more money.
I know these are exaggerated examples, but isn’t that where your argument tends?
Moreover, I don’t think liberals are as eager to throw money down ratholes as conservatives sometimes think. The difference is that liberals seem more willing to experiment with social programs to see if they WILL work.
Certainly some don’t, and yes, and this leads to waste and frustration trying to get rid of ineffective programs (the housing projects of which you speak).
On the other hand, many conservatives were initially against WIC and Headstart as government interference where it had no business. Those programs seem to have been fairly effective, and now have pretty good bipartisan support.
I think we need conservatives to offer a healthy dose of skepticism or to put the skids on nutty ideas. But often conservatives, instead of raising pragmatic arguments against such clunkers as the health care bill, use scare arguments like “death panels” and “rationed care,” or ideological hot button words like “socialism” and “communism.”
Attention, conservatives! I already have to ration my care! This year I have enough for a check-up and Pap. I will have saved enough for a mammogram in three years. (And don’t tell me to seek assistance in the private, nonprof sector; the American Cancer Society and Susan Komen Foundation offer very little practical help; they are busy feeding the lion’s share of their donations into research for cures that few of us would be able to afford if we got cancer). This I am rationing my meds–I can afford to get the blood pressure meds before pay day, but not the RLS scrip.
In addition, the health care bill has had the very effect many said it would have–it has raised premiums. When our finances improved somewhat, we hoped to purchase insurance for our son. But now that you can’t ban kids for pre-existing conditions, the only way to ensure a kid is to add him as a rider to your own policy, the costs of which have gone up in the last six months, and which we cannot afford.
I check out the pharmacy to make sure none of my students is working there when I pick up his prescriptions; I don’t really want to be flashing my kid’s bright green Medicaid card where people I know can see it. One of the worst parts of being hard up is trying to keep up appearances that you aren’t. That means you put off socializing with your friends, you become isolated, your stress goes up.
You also start wondering how many other faces you see are hiding the same types of problems, and you start praying more. You become more generous with what you do have. You become more more inclined to offer things to people on the off chance that they really need what you can provide.
I know this is a rant, realize it’s all my personal problem and anecdotal. But I don’t see anything in this conversation that really hits at all what it means in this country to have to beg, to be poor, and to listen to the ideological exchanges that completely seem to miss reality.