The economy is on the mind of many Americans today. The House passed a spending bill to avert government shutdown, and that’s going to the Senate. But Catholics need to continue to mine our tradition for wisdom in these challenging times. When thinking about a just economy, the option for the poor is essential.
The “preferential option for the poor” in Catholic social teaching holds a central place in the theological ethics of Pope Francis as well as the USCCB’s presentation of CST themes. In this (admittedly long) post, I’m going to trace this theme to its roots in Scripture, describe key touch points in the development of CST and Latin American liberation theology, explain how Pope Francis has revitalized this principle in his writings, and then apply this principle to the issue of immigration. I want to note that I’m drawing heavily from Donal Dorr’s analysis in Option for the Poor: A Hundred Years of Catholic Social Teaching (Orbis, 1992) and Evangelii Gaudium by Pope Francis. Living out the Catholic faith today means showing partiality for those who face dehumanizing poverty and an unjust immigration system.
Scriptural Foundations
Peruvian theologian Gustavo Gutierrez explains that the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures “point the finger of blame at those responsible for the situation.” These passages “denounce the social injustice that creates poverty as contrary to the will of God and to the meaning of the liberative deed of God manifested in the exodus from Egypt” (Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation, 238; he also takes up this theme in On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent).
Pope Francis draws on both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament in order to develop a biblical foundation for the preferential option for the poor in contemporary theological ethics. Pope Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium (187):
A mere glance at the Scriptures is enough to make us see how our gracious Father wants to hear the cry of the poor: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt; I have heard their cry on account of their taskmasters. Indeed, I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them.” (Ex3:7-8).
For the pope, the whole Bible is “marked by God’s love for the weak and abused of human history.” The message of the Bible is that everyone is precious in God’s eyes. In turning to the New Testament, the pope draws on both the teachings of Jesus as well as the actions of Jesus.
Pope Francis writes “God’s heart has a special place for the poor, so much so that he himself ‘became poor.’ (2 Cor 8:9). .. Salvation came to us from the ‘yes’ uttered by a lowly maiden from a small town on the fringes of a great empire. The Savior was born in a manger, in the midst of animals, like children of poor families; he was presented at the Temple along with two turtledoves, the offering made by those who could not afford a lamb; he was raised in a home of ordinary workers and worked with his own hands to earn his bread. When he began to preach the Kingdom, crowds of the dispossessed followed him, illustrating his words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor” (Lk4:18). He assured those burdened by sorrow and crushed by poverty that God has a special place for them in his heart: “Blessed are you poor, yours is the kingdom of God” (Lk6:20); he made himself one of them: “I was hungry and you gave me food to eat,” and he taught them that mercy towards all of these is the key to heaven (Mt 25:5).” (EG 197).
Pope Francis continues: “If we, who are God’s means of hearing the poor, turn deaf ears to this plea, we oppose the Father’s will and his plan; that poor person “might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt (Dt 15:9). A lack of solidarity toward his or her needs will directly affect our relationship with God… The old question always returns: “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods, and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help? (1Jn3:17)” (EG 187)
For Pope Francis, the promise of Jesus is not just about eternal life. It is an invitation to struggle against hunger, poverty, weeping, and suffering. Jesus wants people to thrive in body, mind, and soul. Francis continues:
“The Good News is then made concrete in the other actions it proclaims: liberating captives, restoring sight to the blind, and bringing freedom to the oppressed…. Thus, the core of the Good News announced by the Messiah is liberation. The Reign of God, which is a Reign of Life, is not only the ultimate meaning of human history.” (248).
For Pope Francis, this requires human participation with God. Humans cannot be passive in the face of injustice. His ecclesiology is one of accompaniment and praxis rooted in Mark 6:37. Pope Francis writes:
“In this context we can understand Jesus’ command to his disciplines: ‘You yourselves give them something to eat!’ It means working to eliminate the structural causes of poverty and to promote the integral development of the poor, as well as small daily acts of solidarity in meeting the real needs which we encounter.” (EG 188).
So, then, upon this foundation of Scriptural analysis, we see the urgency in the pope’s tone and the challenge that this brings to Christians in an affluent context (like, for example, the United States of America in 2025). Before I move on, I think it is important to say that the moral tradition of the church has talked about poverty in a variety of ways. There are at least five different “senses” of poverty in the Christian tradition: material poverty, spiritual poverty, religious vows of poverty, material simplicity, and poverty of spirit. One can see from this list that some forms of poverty contain objective disvalue (e.g. material poverty, spiritual poverty), while others contain value (religious vow of poverty, material simplicity, poverty of spirit). This has been a source of confusion in discussing the “preferential option for the poor,” and so what I would like you to keep in mind is that the “preferential option for the poor” focuses on the material poverty, understood as an objective disvalue. Material poverty is when one does not have access to some or all of the goods needed to lead a dignified human life. Material poverty is one of the largest drivers of immigration today.
Latin American Liberation Theology
To understand Liberation Theology we need to recall the complicity of the Catholic Church in the colonization of Latin America (going back to the 15th century). In the commercial and political expansion of European nations into Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the popes saw this as an opportunity for the Church to bring the gospel to other countries. Catholic missionaries traveled along with the merchants, soldiers, and colonists from Portugal and Spain. Theologian Donal Dorr explains that the Church gave little or no support to indigenous peoples struggling for independence in Latin America. While some Church leaders spoke out against the colonization policies of Portugal and Spain (including Bartholomew de las Casas’ attention to enslavement and forced conversions of indigenous people), there was little recognition among the popes of the time that the whole process of European colonization was morally repugnant (Dorr, Option for the Poor, 69). For example, popes Benedict XV and Pius XI both insisted that the sole concern of missionaries should be to gain souls and promote the glory of God. Both warned that clergy in Latin America should “never get involved in any of the political” issues and should exhort the people to faithfully obey the public authorities (Dorr 72).
This is the backdrop for the emergence of liberation theology. Sometimes Catholic leaders had sided with the elites and not the people who were struggling for political and economic liberation. Liberation theologians tried to initiate a shift in the church’s perspective to recover the gospel roots of Jesus’ mission and identify again with the poor and marginalized.
Catholic Social Teaching prior to Vatican II
In Rerum Novarum, the first social encyclical, Pope Leo XIII tried to direct the Church in taking a middle way between liberal capitalism and communism. He advocated for just treatment of workers and explicitly stated that the Church was on the side of the poor. He maintained that the State has a duty to protect workers against exploitation and to ensure just distribution of property and wealth. Leo encouraged Catholics to seek political change but only by legal means. On the positive side Pope Leo affirmed the need for humane treatment of workers. But to some degree he approved of the power of the rich over the poor, and did not see a need for major social transformation, focusing primarily on charity towards the poor. Forty years later, Pope Pius XI issued Quadragesimo Anno, which coined the phrase “social justice.” The pope writes:
“To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice.” (QA, 58)
Pius XI recognized in the 1950s that the colonial era was coming to an end but he worried for social stability. Dorr explains that there was a widespread assumption that once the young nations attained political independence they would become masters of their own economic destiny and could begin to catch up with industrialized countries. This assumption proved disastrously wrong because it failed to take into account the extent to which the wealthy nations controlled both the world market and the distribution of capital within formerly colonized nations. (Dorr, 110). In many respects we still see this pattern today.
Vatican II
Let’s jump ahead to the 1960s. Pope John XXIII was optimistic about the world and encouraged the Council fathers to pay attention to the signs of the times. The Council Fathers showed considerable concern about the problem of poverty on a global scale.
The document Gaudium et Spes, issued towards the end of the council, presents justice as central both to the issue of poverty and to that of peace. It calls for a change in international economic structures and stresses the right of the poor to share the earth’s goods.
In 1968 Latin American bishops gathered in Colombia for the Medellin conference (same year as Humanae Vitae). They pointed out the massive structural injustices in their part of the world and committed themselves to giving effective preference to the poorest and most needy sectors of society. They wrote about the need to be in solidarity with the poor and marginalized and advocated for “conscientization” of the poor to educate the poor to an awareness of the causes of the marginalization they experience. The bishops advocated peaceful means of working for justice. Some Catholics became worried that the Latin American bishops were going to advocate for violent popular uprisings inspired by Marxist ideology. John Paul II traveled to Mexico for the Puebla conference in 1979, where he challenged an understanding of Christ as political revolutionary but still advocated for solidarity with the poor.
Gustavo Gutierrez
Gustavo Gutierrez, a Peruvian theologian who died in 2024, was one of the fathers of Latin American Liberation Theology, and his work has been deeply influential on Pope Francis. Through his work with the poor he became more aware of the structural injustices in Peruvian life and became convinced that the Church needed to respond, not simply by affirming God’s love for the poor, but by helping to transform the society and by actively working with the poor to eliminate poverty.
Gutierrez was criticized for relying on Marxist social analysis. He has defended his reflections, saying that Marxist thought influenced him but not because he sees the world only through the lens of class struggle. Rather, Marxist thought, like liberation theology, focuses on praxis. “Doing theology” does not simply mean that we think about God, but instead implies a lifestyle, a way of discipleship. Gutierrez criticizes “armchair theology” (343) and says that to really do liberation theology one must struggle with the poor for liberation from oppression. “Theology of liberation offers us not so much a new theme for reflection as a new way to do theology” (343). “This is a theology which does not stop with reflecting on the world, but rather tries to be part of the process through which the world is transformed.” (343).
Gutierrez wrote, in 1971: “Ultimately, poverty means death. Food shortages, housing shortages, the impossibility of attending adequately to health and educational needs, the exploitation of labor, chronic unemployment, disrespect for human worth and dignity,… the lot of the poor, in a word, is suffering.” (236). How little has changed! Today we continue to face these same social problems, not just in the US but all around the world.
For Gutierrez, the experiences of material deprivation raise questions for the Church’s theology. How can the Church offer a message of hope to those who live in extreme poverty? And how can the Church itself stand up against injustices instead of becoming complicit in injustices? Material poverty is devastating, humiliating, and dehumanizing. Gutierrez says it is essential that Christians begin to analyze and denounce the structural causes of the injustice and oppression. Taking sides is important. God takes sides, and so should we.
Preferential Option for the Poor
The preferential option for the poor is now a central principle in Catholic social teaching. It means that preference should be given to those in most need. This is not “optional” for Christians.
A “preferential” option for the poor does not mean that some are excluded from God’s love. It means instead that some, in light of their condition of suffering, should be given first priority. “It simply points to who ought to be the first—not the only—objects of our solidarity,” writes Gutierrez. (239).
Think of a mother with two children, one of whom tested positive for Covid and feeling the effects of the fever and body aches. The six year old, who isn’t sick, wants his mother’s attention. He wants her to read him a book, to play with him. She must tell him that because his younger brother is sick, she cannot read him a book right now, or play with him. This doesn’t mean she loves her sick child more. Rather, she loves them both, but must give preference to the sick child.
Liberation theologians have argued that theology must be done from the perspective of the poor. Pope Francis focuses on accompaniment of the poor, and the need to understand poverty from the perspective of those who suffer. This focus on immersion and listening is a hallmark of his papacy. In the same way that Gutierrez rejects “armchair” theology and affirms the need to get involved in the praxis of liberation, Pope Francis tells readers of Evangelii Gaudium that faith is not “private” (183).
So how has this principle of the preferential option for the poor been employed in contemporary ethics? It is one of the central frames of argument in Laudato Si, where the pope writes about the reality of climate change and the importance of environmental justice. It has been invoked in the argument against the death penalty in the United States. It has been invoked in a call to end homelessness, as well as the USCCB platform on debt forgiveness. In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops write:
“A special emphasis must be given to the Church’s preferential option for the poor. While the common good embraces all, those who are weak, vulnerable, and most in need deserve preferential concern. A basic moral test for any society is how it treats those who are most vulnerable.” (FCFC, no. 53, with citation to CCC, no. 2448).
The Migrant Crisis Today
How might we apply the preferential option for the poor to immigration today? In his 1963 encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII said that “the fact that one is a citizen of a particular state does not detract in any way from his membership in the human family as a whole, nor from his citizenship in the world community.” (par. 25). What powerful words in our own context! The pope’s argument here invites all of us to consider our common humanity as prior to any identification of national identity, citizenship, or social location. So often this kind of analysis is written off as idealistic rhetoric that fails to take into consideration the reality of contemporary nation-states. But those nation-states were constructed by humans in particular historical contexts, with particular histories of power and narratives of control. We should do better.
In 2003, the United States Conference of Bishops issued a joint statement with the Mexican bishops on migration. That statement is called Strangers No Longer. There, the bishops tell the story of Jose Luis Hernandez Aguirre. In doing so, they employ the category of the “preferential option for the poor,” by demonstrating that poverty has a human face and that material poverty is dehumanizing.
| Jose Luis Hernandez Aguirre tried desperately to find work in the maquiladora plants near Mexicali but was unable to do so. With a wife and two children, ages one and seven, Jose needed to find a job that would put food on the table. A smuggler told him of the high-paying jobs across the border and offered, for $1,000, to take him there. Joined by his brother Jaime and several others, the group headed for the United States with hope. After one day, brother Jaime called and reported to the family and Jose’s sister, Sonia, that Jose was lost. Jaime could not make the trek in the desert, but Jose wanted to continue on the journey. He had to find a job for his family. Four days later, Jose’s body was found in the desert. His sister Sonia borrowed a truck to retrieve Jose’s remains. Upon her return, she encountered another group of migrants heading to the United States. “Why do you want to risk your lives like this?” she implored. “Come and look at my brother in his coffin.” |
In Strangers No Longer, the bishops explained that people have a right to migrate, and that this right must be honored even as nation-states have the responsibility of controlling borders. But the anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies of the second Trump term do not recognize that people have a right to migrate. Into this current political crisis, bishops are speaking up.
SEDAC (Secretariado Episcopal de America Central) issued a pastoral letter “He Saw Them, He Drew Near to Them, & He Cared For Them” to demonstrate support for the ongoing pastoral work of local churches as they respond to the migrant crisis in 2025. The bishops acknowledge that the causes of this migration are many and complex: “social and political instability, inequality and poverty, and lack of access to basic rights such as dignified work, education, housing, drinking water, and health.” (2). They cite an international report on poverty which estimates that “201 million people did not have enough income to cover their basic needs, including 80 million people whose income was less than the value of a basic food basket,” in 2023 (3).
The bishops condemn deterrence policies that violate human rights. “It is important to understand the deadly costs of these deterrence policies and their increasing use throughout our region, to analyze them in light of the demands of the Gospel and to ask how our community of faith should respond to the pain and death they inevitably bring.” (28). Let me restate that. The bishops condemn deterrence policies advocated by the current Trump administration.
The pastoral letter invokes the option for the poor explicitly: “We know that the preferential option for the poor is implicit in the Christological faith in the God who became poor for us, so as to enrich us with his poverty (Apericida, 392), and we wish to reaffirm the preferential option for the poor and excluded, which should permeate all evangelizing action and the entire life of the Church. Therefore, we, the border Bishops and Bishops responsible for ministry with those who migrate in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean, raise our voices in union with the many pastoral efforts carried out historically in our different countries on behalf of those who migrate, refugees, internally displaced persons and survivors of trafficking.”
Their plea is that this work of accompanying the migrant not be delegated to border communities. “This work can no longer be the responsibility of a few professionals or of traditionally assigned structures, nor only of border dioceses. Now it must be a response that comes from the entire People of God, an invitation to every diocese, every ministry, every parish and every member of the church.” (65).
The US Catholic bishops have also called for a series of reforms to the broken US immigration system. These include: policies to address the root causes of migration, such as poverty; reform of our legal immigration system, including an earned legalization program and temporary worker program with appropriate worker protections and greater efficiency in handling family-based cases; and restoration of due process for migrants. In Forming Consciences, the US Bishops demanded that Catholic voters “continue to oppose policies that reflect prejudice, hostility toward immigrants, religious bigotry, and other forms of unjust discrimination.” (FCFC, 92).
David Remnick writes in the March 10 edition of The New Yorker that in the second Trump term, “each day is its own fresh hell, bringing ever more outrageous news from an autocrat who revels in his contempt for the government he leads, for the foreign allies who deserve our support, and for the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.” Advocating for the preferential option for the poor could not be more important. The flurry of executive orders has been difficult even to follow (see this list from ProPublica). Trump’s radical reset of immigration policies deserves strong rebuke from faithful Catholics.
Resistance to the Trump administration’s inhumane immigration policies can take many forms. But if you are not resisting, you are complicit. Each of us must discern in our own lives how best to live out our faith commitments. You can learn about organizations making a difference by going here, here, and here. But I want to reiterate that in church teaching, the option for the poor is “not optional.” If we fail to advocate for those who face material poverty and unjust immigration policies, we have failed in the practice of our Catholic faith.
