Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Politics and Religion
The Poor Have Rights—and Responsibilities

The Poor Have Rights—and Responsibilities

Last updated on: September 24, 2026 at 7:24 pm by Dennis Knapp

0 Comments

The Poor Have Rights—and Responsibilities 2026-09-24T19:24:00-06:00 Dennis Knapp

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Image created using AI.

I recently read these words by a fellow Patheos writer concerning the Christian’s obligation to the poor. Citing St. John Chrysostom, he states:

How can anyone claim to love Christ if they will abuse Christ in the poor and needy? The excuses various Christians give all come down to the claim that the poor are unworthy of their aid. St. John Chrysostom strongly disagrees! ‘Need alone is the poor man’s worthiness; if anyone at all comes to us with this recommendation, let us not meddle any further.’ Chrysostom says we are not to judge the poor when they are in need; we are to help them, and this is true, not just on a personal basis, but for society in general. Need is what proves them as being worthy of our help. We shouldn’t be talking about the lazy poor, we shouldn’t be talking about how the poor abuse the system – for in reality, the system already abuses them, and what many politicians suggest are policies which add to that abuse. The poor are not proving themselves unworthy, the rich and powerful are.

I agree with much of what the author wrote. Christians have serious obligations toward the poor, and poverty does not diminish human dignity. Christians cannot use judgments about someone’s circumstances as an excuse for indifference. However, the author creates a false choice between compassion and responsibility. He seems to assume that placing expectations on the poor shows contempt for them.

Catholic social teaching offers a fuller understanding of human dignity. The poor have legitimate claims upon society, but they also remain moral agents with responsibilities toward themselves, their families, their neighbors, and the common good. We honor human dignity when we help those who cannot help themselves. But we also honor human dignity when we expect those who can act responsibly to do so. Removing reasonable expectations from the poor does not affirm their dignity. It risks denying their agency.

A One-sided View of the Poor

As previously stated, I agree with much of what the author writes about the Christian obligation to the poor. The problem with his argument lies in its one-sidedness. He concentrates almost entirely on what others owe the poor while overlooking the responsibilities the poor have toward society and themselves. Furthermore, he treats expectations placed on the poor as evidence of contempt and yet another form of systemic abuse.

Yet we must distinguish between someone who cannot provide for himself and someone who can but is unwilling to do so. Catholic concern for the former does not require us to pretend the latter category does not exist. In fact, Scripture itself makes precisely this distinction.

St. Paul Had Expectations

If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. — 2 Thessalonians 3:10

St. Paul makes the point clear: unwillingness to work carries consequences, even the loss of access to sustenance. Note that St. Paul speaks of someone unwilling to work, not someone unable to work.

The surrounding passage reinforces this distinction. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians to avoid idleness, just as he and his companions did while among them. He reminds them that they “worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you” (v. 8). He commands those living in idleness “to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living” (v. 12). If a believer refuses to obey this instruction, St. Paul tells the community to “have nothing to do with him” (v. 14). Yet he ends on a compassionate note: “Do not look on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother” (v. 15).

St. Paul holds together principles that may seem incompatible to modern ears. He demands personal responsibility and recognizes consequences while still insisting upon compassion and human dignity. He does not treat the irresponsible person as an enemy, but neither does compassion require him to excuse the person’s irresponsibility.

The Catechism quotes St. Paul’s words in paragraph 2427 and directly connects work with human dignity:

Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: ‘If any one will not work, let him not eat.’ Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.

So, was St. Paul showing contempt for these people—or was he treating them as responsible moral agents precisely because he respected their human dignity?

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

In 2000, George W. Bush popularized the phrase “the soft bigotry of low expectations” in a speech to the NAACP. He criticized a subtle, often unintentional prejudice that assumes certain people lack the capacity to fulfill their potential because of their race, background, or circumstances. Unfortunately, the author risks adopting this same logic in his treatment of the poor. He places most of the responsibility on the wealthy. He expects the rich to share their wealth, resist greed, contribute to society, and fulfill their obligations toward others.

Contrast this with his treatment of the poor primarily as recipients, dependent upon others for assistance—often with the government acting as intermediary. Such an approach risks becoming paternalistic by diminishing the agency of the poor and overlooking the dignity and sense of accomplishment that can come from meaningful work and personal responsibility. We generally recognize that expecting responsibility from someone capable of exercising it affirms his agency rather than diminishes his dignity.

What Catholic Social Teaching Holds Together

Fortunately for Catholics, Catholic social teaching avoids both extremes: abandoning people genuinely unable to provide for themselves and treating capable people as passive recipients without responsibilities. Instead, Catholic social teaching holds together three important principles: solidarity, subsidiarity, and participation.

Solidarity recognizes that we have genuine obligations toward one another, especially the poor and vulnerable (Caritas in Veritate 58).

Subsidiarity recognizes that higher levels of society should not unnecessarily assume responsibilities that individuals, families, and intermediate communities can fulfill themselves (Centesimus Annus 48).

Finally, participation recognizes that people are not merely recipients of the common good but active participants in creating and sustaining it.

Applied to the poor, these principles give us a fuller picture. The wealthy have obligations toward the common good. The middle class likewise has obligations toward others, including the poor. But the poor also have obligations appropriate to their abilities and circumstances. Poverty may limit what we can reasonably expect from someone, but it does not erase that person’s moral agency.

What we do not find in Scripture or Catholic teaching are dictates concerning SNAP rules, Medicaid requirements, welfare limits, or specific tax rates. These remain matters of prudential judgment. Therefore, those who identify their preferred governmental mechanisms with Christian justice risk overstating their case. We should evaluate policies according to whether they meet genuine needs while encouraging responsibility, participation, and human flourishing wherever possible.

Final Thoughts… Dignity Makes Demands in Both Directions

To reiterate my agreement: Christians cannot abandon the poor. Genuine need creates genuine obligations upon the rest of society. No one’s human worth depends upon income or economic productivity. However, we must not fall into the trap of thinking that compassion and expectations exist as opposites. They don’t.

St. Paul affirmed this truth in his letter to the Thessalonians. He commanded Christians to continue doing good and not to treat the irresponsible person as an enemy. Nevertheless, he expected those capable of contributing to do so. Catholic social teaching affirms this approach by refusing to divide society simply between providers and recipients. The poor participate in the common good; they do not merely benefit from it.

Human dignity means the poor have claims upon us. But that same human dignity means they remain moral agents capable of having obligations of their own.

I close with a final question for us to consider:

Which view ultimately takes the poor more seriously as human persons: one that asks only what society must do for them, or one that also asks what they are capable of contributing to themselves, their families, their neighbors, and the common good?

Thank you!

If you liked this article, please leave your comments below. I am very interested in your opinion on this topic.

Read The Latin Right’s other writing here.

Please visit my Facebook page and IM your questions (and follow my page) or topics for articles you would like covered.

Progressive Christian

Politics and Religion

Catholic Culture

Catholic Politics

Dignity of the Human Person

Previous Post

September 22, 2026

Is This “Culture War” Catholicism—or Evangelization?

Next Post

October 1, 2026 The Order We Did Not Make: The World We Received

In the Gospel of Luke, how does the Virgin Mary learn of her pregnancy?

Select your answer to see how you score.

From the Angel Gabriel From the wise men From Elisabeth Joseph