The different facets

The proposal consists in freely choosing “simplicity in life”. Attention should be focused on being rather than on having, while fighting against consumerism and opting for sober, sustainable and alternative consumption styles. A way that can strengthen not only “interpersonal relations”, but that may also “transform society by increasing the quality and sustainability of life”. This is the conclusion drawn by Chapter 2 in the Report drafted by the Churches of Europe “Do not deny justice to your poor people” and devoted to poverty as a “multidimensional reality”. “Today, it is therefore again necessary – states the last part of the Chapter – to work simultaneously both for the conversion of hearts and for the improvement of structures. If not, the priority given to structures and technical organisation over the person and the requirements of his dignity would be the expression of a materialistic anthropology and contrary to the construction of a just social order”.Absolute poverty and relative poverty. The first refers to a situation whereby the income of people is insufficient to allow them to afford goods and services. On the contrary, relative poverty is measured by taking into account the income of people in relation to average income. It therefore implies the impossibility for some to participate in the goods and services that most people take for granted. “ From a Christian perspective- underscore the Churches – the distinction between absolute and relative poverty in monetary terms is not sufficient, since it can not fully cover the reality of poverty. In the Christian understanding, poverty is a multidimensional reality, not restricted to its material aspects alone. There are also relational and spiritual aspects of poverty”. A vicious circle. According to the Christian perspective, “poverty and exclusion are not only the absence of material goods and social welfare. The strength of family and family ties is also crucial. Linked to these situations are also loneliness and how supportive the person’s network is. Poverty leads to social exclusion and social exclusion leads to poverty, but they are not the same”. “One of the deepest forms of poverty a person can experience is isolation: a lack of relationships and social links, whatever one’s socio-economical condition”.The groups at higher risk: the elderly, families, children. According to the Report, there are some social groups that are at a higher risk of poverty and exclusion. Some even have to face multiple discrimination, for instance women with disabilities or elderly migrants. The elderly are generally those who are more exposed to poverty, owing to low pensions. Their poverty rate reaches 25% in some countries. In most EU countries, families with children are at a higher risk of poverty compared with the general population (19% of children against 17% of adults). It also emerged that children living in families whose parents are jobless or holding low-paid jobs, living with a single parent or in a large family are particularly at risk, as this type of family is often not adequately supported by society. Very often, intergenerational transmission of poverty limits opportunities and choices from early infancy, exposing children to more obstacles in the future owing to scant education, health and occupational prospects. Poverty and women. In the European Union poverty and social exclusion have mainly a female face. This is because – states the Report – employment, work and pay are still not equally distributed in all EU Member States. The factors that make women poorer than men are complex. In many cases it is still difficult to combine caring responsibilities with paid work. If a family break-up occurs, women often run a much higher risk of poverty. Stereotypes still play a role in restricting the choices of occupation made by women and men. This affects women’s chances of equal financial resources, particularly if they are living on their own or if their status is dependent on the husband (e.g. in the case of many migrant women).Inadequate welfare states. The most effective societies in combating poverty are those with the lowest levels of inequality created by redistribution of income through generous social benefits and adequate access to services. However, the Report denounces that “over the last twenty years States have withdrawn from some of their previous obligations and moved away from a general and universal approach to social protection against poverty. The welfare states have been transformed with a stronger focus on individual responsibility and on the conditionality of social benefits leading to a stronger individualisation of social risks”. “It means an increasingly accepted view that society cannot protect the individual from malfunctions of the labour market”. But there is more: according to the Churches, these changes are due to the fact that “human beings and society appear to have been more and more under the pressure of economic criteria and a predominant focus on profit and growth. Following this trend, safeguards to care for people have often been under-valued and reformed, pushing vulnerable people further into the trap of poverty and social exclusion. As Christian Churches with well established welfare organisations, we most certainly want to be on the side of the poor and oppressed and to serve, accompany and listen in a spirit of friendship; at the same time, and with no less energy, we want to work for the structural reduction of poverty and injustice”.