The poor you will always have with you

If my good catholic brothers will bear with me: (as I am not catholic)

Our Lord was referencing this verse:


God will give us opportunity to show HIS grace and love to the poor. Indeed that passage says He WANTS us to fight poverty. Those who would say the opposite have not properly studied it out.

tadoflamb said:

When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.4 here were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil? It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’ wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her. Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me. She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial. Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14:3-9)
​

I've heard this verse used as a criticism of social justice. The argument goes, 'the poor will always be with us, so why bother trying to beat poverty?' I don't really buy that argument given the Gospe'ls preference to the poor and my personal experience with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. As we heard in the Gospel reading two Sundays ago if you want to experience God, go to the 'least of these'.

Anyone else?

​

Click to expand...

I have always taken that verse to be a teaching that yes, we help the poor, but the poor is not all that there is. Withholding charity from the poor can be sinful selfishness, but it is no sin to give gifts to those you love or to admire, respect, adore somebody worthy of same.

And in a more brutal universal truth, to expend all our efforts and resources on the poor is to impoverish all. There will always be poor among us and they will drain us dry if we devote all our resources to them. Those who become rich and manage and invest their riches wisely are far more able to help the poor than those who are poor.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote within a broader piece: ". . .I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. . .”

That sounds so unChristian doesn't it? Think Ebenezer Scrooge? And yet it is quite Biblical in the lesson that it teaches. You don't send away a hungry man. But you also don't remove the incentive for him to provide for himself.

That anyone could take this passage to mean "don't help the poor" makes me feel like I am insane.

hengesthorsa said:

That anyone could take this passage to mean "don't help the poor" makes me feel like I am insane.

Click to expand...

Agreed, context is everything. We already know Jesus teaches charity, the parable of the sheep and goats comes readily to mind. The scripture in the OP is specifically referring to the anointing of the messiah before His death.

hengesthorsa said:

That anyone could take this passage to mean "don't help the poor" makes me feel like I am insane.

Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it, and yet I see it all the time. Odd how those same people ignore all the numerous other passages throughout both the old and new testaments concerning God's unhappiness (to put it lightly) concerning those people and nations that neglect and mistreat the poor.

What some of the Early Church Fathers had to say......And for me it makes uncomfortable reading......

You are not making a gift of your possession to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his.
Ambrose of Milan, 340-397.

The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put into the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help.
Basil of Caesarea, 330-370 A.D.


Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours but theirs.
John Chrysostom, 347-407 AD

The rich are in possession of the goods of the poor, even if they have acquired them honestly or inherited them legally.
John Chrysostom, 347-407


And , lest we think all these words belong to bygone times , the bishops at the Second Vatican Council in the document Gaudium et Spes teach , " Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred Council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, "Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him.""

tadoflamb said:

When he was in Bethany reclining at table in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil, costly genuine spikenard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured it on his head.4 here were some who were indignant. “Why has there been this waste of perfumed oil? It could have been sold for more than three hundred days’ wages and the money given to the poor.” They were infuriated with her. Jesus said, “Let her alone. Why do you make trouble for her? She has done a good thing for me. The poor you will always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them, but you will not always have me. She has done what she could. She has anticipated anointing my body for burial. Amen, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed to the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.” (Mark 14:3-9)
​

I've heard this verse used as a criticism of social justice. The argument goes, 'the poor will always be with us, so why bother trying to beat poverty?' I don't really buy that argument given the Gospe'ls preference to the poor and my personal experience with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. As we heard in the Gospel reading two Sundays ago if you want to experience God, go to the 'least of these'.

Anyone else?

​

Click to expand...

That story that is to be told wherever the gospel is preached seems to emphasize the difference between a personal relationship with Christ expressed and those thinking and acting according to a cause. Jesus was the recipient of an act according to the need. While the poor will be with us always was His response to the suggestion that the money should have been given to the poor, in that case the one in need was right in front of them. Her correct response was to act according to need rather than a prescribed method. Moral of the story is she could only see the need according to her relationship to the Godhead.

tadoflamb said:

I guess my question to Mr. Franklin would be, "Where is that in the bible?" It seems contrary to what I learned in St. Vincent de Paul. Aside from teaching others how to be self sufficient with there own resources, not matter how meager, we also understood that we must fight against the social, political and economic systems which make poverty possible.

Click to expand...

The Bible, both old and new testaments, teaches the virtues of compassion and charity to the truly helpless and needy. But in both old and new testaments the Bible teaches us to use the gifts God gives us, do not be a burden to others, work for your bread, and 'he who will not work, let him not eat.' (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

Ben Franklin was not quoting the Bible. He was quite correctly however making the accurate observation that we do not do anybody any favors when we encourage them to become dependent on others for what they should do for themselves. And I cannot lay my hand on any point of scripture that would disagree with that truth.