" If the poor do not fall under the rubric of "least of our brothers," I cannot imagine who would.Since you can't imagine, I'll be happy to help.
The "least of our brothers" could just as easily apply to, say, the intellectually challenged and the mentally handicapped. Since you're a nice guy, I should emphasize I'm not taking a shot there, either. But they're certainly among the least, yes?
...or those who labour under the ignorance of false religious doctrines.
...or those who suffer from substance abuse.
...or emotional problems
...or the elderly who are abandoned by their own families.
...or those oppressed by tyrannical regimes.
...or from anything
else that lowers and degrades humanity, either by their own choice or through no fault of their own.
As for the poor, well... the "poor" today often live better than those who are, on paper, earning decent wages. The poor qualify for free housing, free utilities, free medical-care, free food, free transportation, free child-care, free education, and even in some places free entertainment which is conflated with an essential utility.
...all paid for by those who
don't qualify as "the poor" on their 1040s.
;-)Helping the
"least of our brothers" does not require the appointment of married deacons, nor should it be a gateway
to allowing married deacons to serve as de facto priests. This has been a recurring tactic of Pope Francis' Papacy... the establishment of new entirely uncanonical policies through his "approval" and "promotion" even if they aren't formally recognized as such.
