The phrase "option for the poor" was used by Fr. Pedro Arrupe, Superior General of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1968 in a letter to the Jesuits of Latin America.
At that time the Catholic Church in Latin America was still struggling, supporting poor people fighting against rich people backed by the military who oppressed them; but the Latin American church was also struggling against Rome as the theology they embraced for the struggle, the liberation theology, was considered as having a marxist element. They must abandon the theology or got kicked out of the church. (Later Pope Francis embraced the followers of the liberation theology as he also sided with the poor.)
Many of the priests who embraced the struggle, left the comfortable, often cozy, sheltered and convenient, living conditions inside church buildings and choose to live poorly, unhealthily, and miserably in the slums with the poor. That was exactly the condition when the phrase "option for the poor" was coined.
So, rather than talking about the application of the principle of "option for the poor" to the outside, social and governmental issues, let us first talk about its application in our church. Did or does our church use this principle in governing the church? The answer usually, sadly, was and is NO.
Option means, more or less, choice. The act of choosing one over another. When one has to choose A or B, one has to use that principle and choose only one, not both A and B. When the church has to choose between giving the money to the poor or to build a grand, new, beautiful church building, our church often chooses the latter, violating unashamely, openly, the principle that she says she chooses and upholds as a principle. That is sad. Very sad. That exactly was or is the reason that some antichurch activists call our beloved church a hypocrite, an accusation to which I could not contradict or disprove in this matter.
Arguments over arguments had been forwarded to and fro. The church had donated a lot to the poor. Do you know that our church was the biggest donator in xxxx etc. Well, that is true. But when there is a fixed and certain amount of fund, and one has several options for using that fund, does the principle "option for the poor" still holds? If yes, then use that principle. If a church community wants to build a beautiful and grand church, and already has the fund, look around. See if there are still poor people around. If yes, you know your principle. Give it to the poor. That WAS the option that you said you would choose. If somebody says that there are no poor people around, just call me, and I will show you where they live. Just remember, the principle applies to "the poor" in general, period; not reduced it to "the Catholic poor" or "the American Catholic poor".
Pope Francis knows and is acutely aware of this issue. He once said he could not sell the Vatican to give to the poor. Vatican is the property of human kind, the treasure of the world civilization. But he stopped short of talking about other church buildings or future church building.
He is acutely aware of the resistance and uproar that he would meet if he talks about this. But he spoke about his chosen principles through his deeds.
On July 7, 2017 Pope Francis held a private mass with Vatican maintenance staffs. Where did he hold the mass? In a simple room without chairs or seating arrangement, with a super simple table as altar that was almost devoid of decorations. (
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-to-maintenance-staff-we-are-all-sinners-but-jesus-heals-us-30881)... And no other Catholic media, again, no Catholic media, discussed this very important event. It was just too much. A pope should not do that when there were so many beautiful chapels in Vatican city that were so much more proper to hold a sacred mass for a pope (it also is against the canon law on Eucharist). But no. Not one media exposed this very important deed that plainly, openly, laid bare, Pope Francis' principle of what "option for the poor" means to him. It means to live a simple life, a simple church, and give all others to the poor.
The choice now is to change the slogan from "option for the poor" to "option for the poor and a beautiful church building" or get rid of that slogan for good. But it is my belief that no one will do that and all chooses to just live within the comfort of the inherent hypocrisy.
