Both the first reading and the responsorial psalm brings us to the concept of “the poor.”  As I read these, I kept thinking who are “the poor?”  What does it mean to be “poor?”

I do understand that James was speaking in terms of material possessions – the people we see without all the fancy garments, jewelry, or other such things. I think about my grandparents – as a young child I would have thought my grandmother a mother of two sons with her mink stole and the little heads on it was rich.  While my other grandparents you had 12 children and always seemed in quite simple attire as poor.  My grandpa (who was born on this day 152 years ago) always seemed so unassuming – walking from his “lots” – where he grew vegetables and some fruit – back to his house in his old overalls and straw hat.  He had to walk by where we lived so that image of him is firm in my head.  Yet I have come to realize that this man who could not read or write was not only a skilled tradesman (bricklayer) who could figure out any bid for a job but also the owner of extensive property.   His outward appearance and demeanor did not reveal who he truly was:  A man who raised a very large family and had a large stucco house and two three-tenement houses on the front part of his property.  I do remember my mother telling me that no one in her family ever went hungry during the Depression and often shared food with the tenants who were never pushed for the rents when times were bad.  This “poor” man with a heart of gold and full of kindness yet so humble and unassuming.  I have come to realize the riches that this humble man had and so freely shared.  The grandma with the mink stole never owned a home that I’m aware of – was even one of the tenants for some time.

The other aspect of this reading that really caught my attention was the concept of not showing favoritism or partiality to the rich. It seemed so paradoxical to me since one of the most poignant Ignatian concepts to me is Preferential Option for the Poor.  So, there is a favoring yet in a very different way.  When students have had a test question that dealt with this, many would choose an answer emphasizing equal care for all those being served.  Some were nearly indignant to think care should vary.  Yet equal care can easily end with very unequal results.  I would often pose an example: two patients are being seen and both need a certain expensive medication.  There are samples available, however, only enough for one full treatment.  The first reaction may be let’s treat them equally – we can give each half and then give each a prescription for the remainder.  Yet, I pose if I were one of those patients as a retired veteran, I can get my meds either free or at a reduced cost and if the other patient had no coverage for medication would need to pay full price and perhaps out of necessity opt to not fill the prescription.   Would the approach be an equal one – YES.  Would it be equitable – NO.  Could I expect equal outcomes with this approach – probably not.  So, the preferential approach would be to give the sample to one who could not otherwise get the meds and the prescription to the one who could get it filled.  Is it equal – NO; is it equitable – YES!  Thus, sometimes we must show favoritism  . . .

One last thought . . . A dear friend of mine shared some writing that she created for her church bulletin last week.  She included a quote from Robert Nesta Marley: "Some people are so poor, all they have is money."

Of course, a song from Matthew West – Do Something.