Who Are the Truly Poor?: St. Francis, Leonardo Boff, and Katzanzakis

Abstract

WHO ARE THE TRULY POOR? ST. FRANCIS, LEONARDO BOFF, AND KATZANZAKIS 1. LEONARDO BOFF Leonardo Boff has given us an account of St. Francis in the context of "liberation theology."1 This is a good general setting in which to consider St. Francis, since he surely aimed to set himself, and hopefully others, free from the constraints of a dominating world/church. The problem we have is to detach Francis from any distortion this setting might involve. As Boff states, he wants to use St. Francis as a "model for human liberation," and there is no question but that Francis freed himself from the confines of the life that would have limited him to his societally defined state. Boff states clearly that the "liberation theology" in which he sets Francis is not Francis's own, but our question is to decide how faithful this is to the Gospel Francis preached. Let us go through Boff's account and ask how accurately it renders Francis's message, and then contrast it with the account Katzanzakis has given us. We would expect that to be different— Greece vs. South America. Great figures can be transposed from culture to culture and have something to say to each age. But the contrast may help us find the essence of St. Francis's message and where it can carry over for us. We must be careful of putting our own causes onto the innovators of an earlier time, non-traditional as they were in their own day. We want to renew an important message without distorting it, if we can. When Boff calls Francis "a model for human liberation," we suspect that his may be a more "humanistic" interpretation than normal. There is nothing wrong with this, but we should see how far this may differ from what we might take to be Francis's own message. Boff tells us that the perennial truth of the Gospel appears "whenever the saints . . . plumb the depths of human existence" (1). True, but we need to note that this makes the Gospel a human 1 Saint Francis: A Modelfor Human Liberation, trans. John W. Diercksmeier (New York: Crossroad, 1982). Franciscan Studies 52 (1992) 234 FREDERICK SONTAG discovery. Boff wants to stress creating "fraternity," which turns Francis's message into one of self-discovery. Boff is also interested in the "Church" in a way Protestants can hardly be. But more important, was it Francis's own vision of his relationship to "Church"? Francis's concentration on the poor is the key for Boff, and this service is paramount for Francis. But did he understand the "poor" as Boff does? Boff sees "our crisis" as "structural" (4) and it may be, but did St. Francis have the same goals that Boff has? For instance he begins to talk about "class," which is a Marxist concept, and it is doubtful that Francis saw the poor of his time set in this metaphysical scheme. Boff talks of the "dominant class" (5), but we know that Francis was a radical individualist in his treatment of people. Is, then, the "dialectics" of Marx/Hegel congenial to Francis's message? Boff gives us an account of Francis's social setting, but how did Francis see himself? Boff tells us that the "upperclass" must be replaced by a new structure of hope (7), but did Francis see hope as a function of class struggle? Boff wants to stress passion over reason (11), and certainly Francis was not a modern "rationalist." However, did he see life as the clash of universal forces? Boff stresses "gentleness" and "care," and this certainly seems clear for Francis (13). This may be present in "humanizing culture" (18), as Boff suggests, but did Francis see either the human problem or its solution in "culture"? Boff appears to take a "nature mysticism" and translate it into a Utopian revolution, which he is clear Francis did not propose. Poverty surely is one of Francis's stresses, and "humility" is a governing virtue—that much we can be certain about (39). Like the Marxist, Boff seeks a "universal fraternity" (46) but it is hard to see Francis thinking in these categories. Boff wants a "revolution...