Povery

Lord Acton held the conviction, expressed by Christian thinkers throughout history, that poverty is not a merely material problem, but a moral and spiritual problem as well:

The remedy for poverty is not in the material resources of the rich, but in the moral resources of the poor. These, which are lulled and deadened by money-gifts, can be raised and strengthened only by personal influence, sympathy, charity. Money gifts save the poor man who gets them, but give longer life to pauperism in the country.

Lord Acton correctly concluded that simply alleviating the material difficulties of the poor without addressing their spiritual and moral difficulties did not solve the problem of poverty, and in fact had a tendency to worsen it.

Before the creation of the welfare state, poverty relief was provided almost entirely by churches or other local religious associations. That the primary locus of charity should have been religious, and more specifically, Judeo-Christian, is not accidental. In the history of Christian charity one can see the truth of the Christian understanding of man in application: That man, created in the image and likeness of God, has a unique dignity before Him; that God has the power to transform and elevate man, making him a "new creation", and that Christian charity has by analogy a sacramental reality.1

In his recent book The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky demonstrates that Americans shared Lord Acton's belief almost universally prior to the late nineteenth century. Olasky points out that almost all poverty relief was administered privately before the Great Depression. Olasky shows that relief was given with the understanding that it was temporary and contingent upon the recipient exhibiting demonstrable efforts at achieving independence, and that such relief was highly effective. These restrictions were placed upon recipients specifically to encourage habits of industry and self-reliance and to prevent "pauperization".2 "Pauperism" was understood as a state of material dependence, characterized by lack of initiative, lassitude, and spiritual malaise.3 Most Americans believed that merely giving the poor relief without requiring efforts at self-improvement on their part encouraged them to habits of idleness and dissolution and ultimately to deeper dependence:

Many, once learning to lean on public or associated relief, not only neglect to exert the powers God gave them, but continue to call for aid long after it is right. This leads on the broad road to pauperism.4

There has been a shift in attitudes regarding poverty and how best to serve the poor. Many people no longer see relief as a temporary phenomenon, but as an entitlement. The requirement that a person who sought assistance must justify his or her claim has largely been discarded, and with it the sense of an individual's responsibility for himself. This shift in attitudes is inconsistent with a Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person's dignity.

Historically, the problem of poverty has been seen as endemic to the fallen human condition, and therefore ineradicable. The Old Testament tells us "the poor will never cease out of the land,"5 and in the New Testament Jesus says "you always have the poor with you."6 Individual poor people may be helped out of poverty, but poverty remains. Only in this century did people begin to think of poverty as a problem that could be eliminated entirely.7 But the historical acceptance of the fact of poverty did not produce complacence or indifference. Rather, the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity place strict moral obligations on the wealthy to share with those who are in need. But these traditions have also always viewed human beings as individuals who are responsible for themselves and accountable to God and their fellow men. The practice of charity thus required that the needs of poor persons be balanced against their dignity and responsibility.

This charity had as its object not only helping the poor out of their material plight, but enabling them to become self-sufficient. The rationale behind this effort was explicitly moral. The relief organizations wished to "foster amongst the poor the habits of industry, providence, frugality, saving, and honest desire to rise in the world, and simple dependence on their own exertions."8 Churches were careful to distinguish between the "helpless" poor, such as the sick, the aged, and orphans, and the "able" poor, those able to support themselves but needing work. Those who were in the first class received aid with no strings attached, those in the second received aid, but were expected to reform their lives and become productive citizens.9

The churches' methodology and theology of charity in nineteenth century America is strikingly similar to that of the early Christian Church in the fourth century and following. In the fourth century, Christianity became, in stark contrast to it's earlier persecuted status, the religion favored by the Empire. This led to an explosion of growth in membership, and an accompanying explosion of philanthropy toward the Church. This philanthropic activity was unlike anything which had existed previously, both in scope and in character.10 The scale of giving to the Church was so vast that churchmen such as St. Augustine had the enviable problem of having more money than they needed to take care of the poor.11

That wealthy individuals would give food and money to the poor was not unknown in pagan Rome, but these distributions were almost always politically motivated, and they were accompanied by much fanfare and publicity. In pagan Rome, when a wealthy man gave away money he would make sure that everyone knew he was doing it. In that way he would increase his prestige as a "great man."12 Every great man also had his clients, men of lower socio-economic status who were dependent upon the patron for protection, assistance in obtaining government services, and frequently for sustenance. In turn the client owed the patron his services. These could range from attending him at the Forum to acting as courier to getting out the vote for his patron at election time. The client-patron relationship was hereditary: There was no escape from this subservient status.

Philanthropy in Christian Rome differed in that it no longer had the political aspects, because Christians were expected to remain anonymous. The Fathers took quite literally Christ's injunction not to "let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."13 St. Jerome castigated wealthy Christian women who went about distributing alms publicly, telling them not to become boastful in their charity.14