Three countries, two continents, one concern: the poor. Switzerland addressed the issue of poverty. You guessed how: by a referendum held on June 5. It was proposed that each adult, whether s/he works or not, should be guaranteed a monthly unconditional basic income of €2,300. Close to 80 per cent of voters said “No way”.
On the same day, Agenzia Fides reported the harsh criticism by Archbishop José Luis Escobar Alas of San Salvador. He lambasted the agreement to raise the minimum wage by 15 per cent in three years as this increase is not enough.
“How can parents with €87 make their children study, give them food and buy clothes?”
The difference between the sums mentioned in Switzerland and El Salvador is gargantuan. But just keep in mind that people in Switzerland and in El Salvador have a similar stomach, a human body needing nourishment and the same basic needs. They should also have the same basic rights.
We tend to forget all of this when we, who live in the part of the world that is super-privileged, discuss the difference between us the privileged and people in underdeveloped countries.
But not all Maltese are privileged! A recent Caritas study reminded us of the harsh reality that there are Maltese families living in poverty. And statistics published by the NSO show that their number has increased over the years. Caritas proposed, among other things, an increase in the minimum wage staggered over three years.
As I am not an economist I will not discuss the technical means of addressing the issue of poverty. I will, however, turn to three addresses made recently by the Pope, ferreting out five attitudes that Christians should nurture and a postscript.
First attitude: It is about the poor not about poverty, stupid.
This is my paraphrasing of Francis’s first consideration during his address last Monday to the executive board of the World Food Programme. He clearly stated that we should not discuss “hunger” but hungry people.
“Poverty has a face! It has the face of a child; it has the face of a family; it has the face of people, young and old. It has the face of widespread unemployment and lack of opportunity. It has the face of forced migrations, and of empty or destroyed homes.”
He hammered this point, rightly saying that there is a real risk of bureaucratising the sufferings of others when “human lives become statistics”. Social policies can only be helpful if they are not administered by bureaucracies shuffling papers but by people full of compassion.
Second attitude: waste not so that others want not.
Is it right for our country to spend close to €300,000 to erect a Christmas crib at St Peter’s Square but donate only €250,000 to the poor in Africa?
This is a question of justice, not charity. We have no right to waste. Francis’s timely reminder is that “food discarded is, in a certain sense, stolen from the table of the poor and the starving”. Wasting food, within this perspective, equals stealing food.
Third attitude: Ignore the poor at your own cost.
This can be gleaned from what Francis told those attending the general audience of May 18. He was commenting on the parable of the rich man, who “does not have a name” and the poor man named Lazarus, which means “God helps”.
“To ignore the poor is to scorn God! We must learn this well: to ignore the poor is to scorn God.”
Fourth attitude: How to use riches is the question.
The Pope is no firebrand bashing the rich. The following day at Sancta Martha he clearly stated that “riches are good” and that “there is a correct relationship that a Christian should have with money, with wealth”. Francis added that the rich man “will be condemned, not because of his riches, but for having been incapable of feeling compassion for Lazarus and helping him.”
Fifth attitude: No exploitation.
Francis does not mince his words when it comes to those who exploit people. He called them “leeches” who live off the blood of people. The Pope mentioned the exploitation of people for prostitution or child labour. But within the same breath added precarious work, which he described as employing people “without vacation, without health insurance, everything under the table”.
Precarious work should not be political chess but a scourge to be eliminated.
For Francis “this is a mortal sin” which “requires a great deal of penitence, a great deal of restitution to be converted from this sin”.
The Pope’s words put us in the dock both individually and collectively as a nation.
Postscript: Do we have the right priorities?
Is it right for our country to spend close to €300,000 to erect a Christmas crib at St Peter’s Square but donate only €250,000 to the poor in Africa and spend several million on the hospitality of political leaders participating in two summits in Valletta?
Probably the only ‘justifying’ reason is that helping the poor offers no photo opportunities! The Pope did not speak about the faces of the powerful splashed on front pages of newspapers but of the faces of the poor, didn’t he?
• Last Sunday, a reader e-mailed me with a ‘Latin’ proverb which explained why my Google search gave no results. The words ‘animals’ and ‘gods’ are not included in “Quod licet Jovi non licet bovi.” The Latin’s rhyming of Jovi and bovi gives it an elegance not found in English: “What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox.”
The Latin playwright, Terence, encapsulated a similar feeling in “Aliis si licet, tibi non licet “What is permitted to one group is not permitted to another.” Are these double standards justifiable or not?
The Romans probably would answer yes as there was a law for patricians and one for plebs.
Things have evolved since then. We believe in equality before the law. The phrase as used by Minister Evarist Bartolo clearly means that there are double standards which are not permissible. There are ethical and legal parameters that no one should overstep with impunity. There should be no gods. But the Panamanian gods still lord it over, albeit with feet of clay.
joseph.borg@um.edu.mt