Owing to a combination of factors (e.g. illness and it’s being a lot closer) I went to my ‘Novus Ordo alternate’ church for Mass this morning. The homily left me with some thoughts.

It wasn’t a bad homily at all; mostly about marriage and commitment. But at one point the priest made reference to “those society often forgets.” And it was that phrase that started wheels moving.

“Those society tends to forget” or some equivalent term – e.g. the have-nots, the marginalized, the ‘other’ and so on – crops up again and again in almost every homily I’ve heard, outside of very traditional parishes. And it crops all the time in Catholic commentary, blog posts, and books.

I think this is imprudent.

We must be clear here; caring for those on the fringe of society is indeed an important aspect of Christian charity, which demands we treat all, even the least of our brethren, as Christ. So I’m not objecting to the idea behind the term.

The problem, as I see it, is that this concept of “the marginalized” (we’ll use that as a catch-all term for this sort of thing) is so very easily abused, especially today. We live in a world, or at least a country, where it is a mark of social distinction to be able to claim the status of ‘marginalized.’ Where the ‘marginal’ are granted extra consideration and the non-marginalized are consequently looked down on and treated with less consideration. Which, as should be obvious, makes the question of just who is really the ‘marginalized’ very murky indeed (if not actually meaningless) and completely unhelpful for charitable purposes.

So, when we preach about Christ’s care for the marginalized of society, it is no longer clear who, exactly, that refers to in the context of the world around us.

Moreover, this also means that the term can be very easily twisted into a self-centered interpretation: “Christ commanded care of the marginalized. I’m one of the marginalized, so why aren’t you showing me any consideration?”

When charity is emphasized as being towards a category of persons instead of being a personal duty – that is, when the focus is more on who it is directed towards than on the fact of offering it – it very easily becomes twisted into demand rather than gift. The greatest of virtues is among the most dangerous when misdirected.

In short, I think this whole category of “the other,” the marginalized, “those society tends to forget” is ill-suited to the present moment. It’s liable to mislead as much as it is to guide, and therefore should be avoided.

We ought to find different ways of framing the question that get to where we want to go – engendering charity and care for others – by a safer route. I would say emphasizing personal duty to those whom we happen to cross paths with (and so removing the social question altogether) would be a much better approach. So, not “the marginalized” but rather “those in need around me” or even just “my neighbors.”

“Love your neighbors,” be charitable to whoever it is you come into contact with. That’s more than enough for most of us.