Is it a sin not to work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph_Kemp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EDWARD H WROTE: “God’s love for us is uncondtional, until we die. Then we are certainly judged.”
  • I must point out that God’s unconditional love for us is ETERNAL, even after we die. You are wrong again.
We are judged as to whether we have committed mortal sin, and by whether we are repentant or not. We are NOT judged by how much of any particular kind of thing we have done in life.

Mother Theresa once wrote: “It’s not how much we give but how much love we put into giving.”

thinkexist.com/quotation/it-s_not_how_much_we_give_but_how_much_love_we/149755.html

Mother Theresa also wrote: “I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I do know that when we die and it comes time for God to judge us, he will NOT ask, How many good things have you done in your life?, rather he will ask, How much LOVE did you put into what you did?”

searchquotes.com/quotation/I_am_not_sure_exactly_what_heaven_will_be_like,_but_I_do_know_that_when_we_die_and_it_comes_time_for/36660/

EDWARD H WROTE: “We must love in this life. It is a commandant. This is very different from earning our way. You continue to get confused on these points.”
  • By “love,” you mean DOING things, don’t you? That is how you have talked about “love” in your other posts. You make “loving” sound like “working” that must be done, in order to get into Heaven. I am sorry, but I really do not believe you perceive any difference between “love” and “work.” This is not clear from any of your other posts, and it is certainly not clear here.
Also, thank you very much to Deborah for her encouragement. It is rare to find anyone who understands the gentleness of Catholic teaching, even on Catholic Answers (sad to say.) I was starting to feel rather alone in this.
 
Back to substantial matters,

This is a relevant document for this topic.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html
“It would be banal to interpret God’s “rest” as a kind of divine “inactivity”. By its nature, the creative act which founds the world is unceasing and God is always at work, as Jesus himself declares in speaking of the Sabbath precept: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17).”
Click to expand...
…
“In order to grasp fully what the first of the biblical creation accounts means by keeping the Sabbath “holy”, we need to consider the whole story, which shows clearly how every reality, without exception, must be referred back to God. Time and space belong to him. He is not the God of one day alone, but the God of all the days of humanity.”
Click to expand...
 
The only useful quote of the night from you Joseph is Mother Teresa’s.

Exactly all things should be done with love, for the love of God.

You’re finally getting it. Even our leisure should be done with great love. This doesn’t mean the feeling of love it means the will of love.

Too many Catholics misunderstand love as mostly a feeling. This is an error. And it is seen in divorces and immature complaints like “we fell out of love”
 
More from the Pope’s document I referenced above.
All human life, and therefore all human time, must become praise of the Creator and thanksgiving to him. But man’s relationship with God also demands times of explicit prayer, in which the relationship becomes an intense dialogue, involving every dimension of the person. “The Lord’s Day” is the day of this relationship par excellence when men and women raise their song to God and become the voice of all creation.
Click to expand...
All time must become praise and thanksgiving!

Does that tucker you out Joseph?
 
EDWARD H QUOTED JOHN PAUL II’S DIES DOMINI: “It would be banal to interpret God’s “rest” as a kind of divine “inactivity”. By its nature, the creative act which founds the world is unceasing and God is always at work, as Jesus himself declares in speaking of the Sabbath precept: “My Father is working still, and I am working” (Jn 5:17).”
  • Interestingly, the subtitle of DIES DOMINI is “ON KEEPING THE LORD’S DAY.” It is actually a document about the virtues of LEISURE, not “work.” The general thrust of the document is that one who does not make time for leisure (“THE LORD’S DAY) sins mortally. But then I’m sure you already knew that.
“Until quite recently, it was easier in traditionally Christian countries to keep Sunday holy because it was an almost universal practice and because, even in the organization of civil society, Sunday rest was considered a fixed part of the work schedule. Today, however, even in those countries which give legal sanction to the festive character of Sunday, changes in socioeconomic conditions have often led to profound modifications of social behaviour and hence of the character of Sunday. The custom of the “weekend” has become more widespread, a weekly period of respite, spent perhaps far from home and often involving participation in cultural, political or sporting activities which are usually held on free days. This social and cultural phenomenon is by no means without its positive aspects if, while respecting true values, it can contribute to people’s development and to the advancement of the life of society as a whole. All of this responds not only to the need for rest, but also to the need for celebration which is inherent in our humanity. Unfortunately, when Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a “weekend”, it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see “the heavens”.(7) Hence, though ready to celebrate, they are really incapable of doing so.”

This is PRECISELY what Joseph Pieper refers to in his book “Leisure, The Basis of Culture:”

“The simple ”break” from work - the kind that lasts an hour, or the kind that lasts a week or longer - is part and parcel of daily working life. The ”break” is there for the sake of work. It is supposed to provide ”new strength” for ”new work,” as the word ”refreshment” indicates: one is refreshed for work through being refreshed from work.

(continued) “Leisure, however, is not there for the sake of work, no matter how much new strength the one who resumes working may gain from it; leisure in our sense is not justified by providing bodily renewal or even mental refreshment to lend new vigor to further work - although it does indeed bring such things!”

(continued) “While it is true that the one who prays before going to bed sleeps better, surely nobody would want to think of praying as a means of going to sleep. In the same way, nobody who wants leisure merely for the sake of ”refreshment” will experience its authentic fruit, the deep refreshment that comes from a deep sleep.”

(continued) “Leisure is not justified in making the functionary as ”trouble-free” in operation as possible, with minimum ”downtime,” but rather in keeping the functionary human (or as Newman said it, so that he can stay a gentleman); and this means that the human being does not disappear into the parceled-out world of his limited work-a-day function, but instead remains capable of taking in the world as a whole, and thereby to realize himself as a being who is oriented toward the whole of existence.14”

ENDS.
  • For the person obsessed with “work,” Pieper points out that “free time,” a weekend, or whatever, will always appear only as “rest.” You just rest up for more work. And any “leisure” that is not spent resting up for work with simply look like “laziness.” This EXACTLY how Edward H has described leisure, many times. He sees it as “suspect,” unless it is used as resting up for more work.
It really does seem he is concerned only for work. Which he often uses in the same breath as “love” – as if they were one and the same thing. As if we need “love” (ie., work,) in order to get into Heaven.

I’m sorry, but this is all I really get from his posts.
 
Joseph

I’ve read some Pieper; love it.

I have no quarrel with leisure, properly understood and pursued (licit, healthy, tempered). The common understanding of leisure is faulty (TGIF, everybody is working for the weekend, etc.).

The Pope’s point that all time must be oriented to God is hard news for this crowd of weekenders.
 
Edward: it’s hard to see how leisure can really be called that if there is some pre-occupation over how it must glorify God. Distractions exist in the world and either we are allowed to enjoy (some of) them, relax and be free of worries for a time, or we aren’t.
 
cynic said:
Edward: it’s hard to see how leisure can really be called that if there is some pre-occupation over how it must glorify God. Distractions exist in the world and either we are allowed to enjoy (some of) them, relax and be free of worries for a time, or we aren’t.
Click to expand...
The ‘preoccupation’ is our calling, to give all to God. That’s the Pope’s true and useful point.

We can enjoy even distractions with God. He willed them for us.

Some people think of pursuing holiness as a long term objective, as if we earn our way into heaven. Tit-now-for-eternal-tat-later.

No. We are called to share the divine life with God now. He makes this possible. A traffic light, a broken window, a festive dinner with family, a tough business meeting, writing complex software, planning for a summer vaction with ones family, a quiet walk by oneself in a park , and reading a good book - all are opportunities to live divinely with God now, today.
 
CYNIC WROTE: “Edward: it’s hard to see how leisure can really be called that if there is some pre-occupation over how it must glorify God. Distractions exist in the world and either we are allowed to enjoy (some of) them, relax and be free of worries for a time, or we aren’t.”
  • CYNIC makes a very good point. Especially in regards to Sunday “leisure.” Such leisure does NOT imply thinking only of God, reading only religious literature, doing only corporal or spiritual works of mercy, or being “preoccupied” with God. Nor do weekends HAVE to be a total halt of all activity. Christ himself makes the same point about the Jewish Sabbath:
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27

We are not FORCED into inactivity, or religious devotion. We are not OBLIGATED to be preoccupied with God on a Sunday. When something is always on your mind, it can be an intolerable burden. Too much of anything, even religious thinking, can destroy a person. It is not a joy – just more needless suffering.

Such thinking can suggest a possible inclination toward spiritual gluttony. This is just as destructive and sinful as any other excess. As Saint John of the Cross indicates, in inordinate hunger for spiritual experience and religious devotion can breed “innumerable evils.”

EDWARD H WROTE: “The Pope’s point that all time must be oriented to God is hard news for this crowd of weekenders.”

I’m afraid this is just more excessive thinking. The Pope is most definitely NOT saying that “all time” must be constantly devoted to being “preoccupied” with God on a weekend. What the Pope actually says is:

“Unfortunately, when Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a “weekend”, it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see “the heavens”.(7) Hence, though ready to celebrate, they are really incapable of doing so.”

The Pope is talking about the dangers of excessive WORK as well as mere REST. When Sunday becomes just another work day, OR just another day to REST from work, there is nothing special about it.

Joseph Pieper makes this point, also. If people do not make time for Mass, and playtime, fun, enjoyment, and carefree abandonment to let the beauty and wonder of things occur to them for their own sake (which does NOT mean excluding God), then Sunday really IS just another workday; or perhaps just another uninspiring “rest” from work. Both these things are unenlightening. Boring. And a continual preoccupation with God on a weekend just strikes me as more needless “work,” which may be the avenue to spiritual gluttony. We do not have to be constantly preoccupied with God on a weekend. Our Church does not teach this. You are wrong.
 
Joseph_Kemp said:
CYNIC WROTE: “Edward: it’s hard to see how leisure can really be called that if there is some pre-occupation over how it must glorify God. Distractions exist in the world and either we are allowed to enjoy (some of) them, relax and be free of worries for a time, or we aren’t.”
  • CYNIC makes a very good point. Especially in regards to Sunday “leisure.” Such leisure does NOT imply thinking only of God, reading only religious literature, doing only corporal or spiritual works of mercy, or being “preoccupied” with God. Nor do weekends HAVE to be a total halt of all activity. Christ himself makes the same point about the Jewish Sabbath:
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Mark 2:27

We are not FORCED into inactivity, or religious devotion. We are not OBLIGATED to be preoccupied with God on a Sunday. When something is always on your mind, it can be an intolerable burden. Too much of anything, even religious thinking, can destroy a person. It is not a joy – just more needless suffering.

Such thinking can suggest a possible inclination toward spiritual gluttony. This is just as destructive and sinful as any other excess. As Saint John of the Cross indicates, in inordinate hunger for spiritual experience and religious devotion can breed “innumerable evils.”

EDWARD H WROTE: “The Pope’s point that all time must be oriented to God is hard news for this crowd of weekenders.”

I’m afraid this is just more excessive thinking. The Pope is most definitely NOT saying that “all time” must be constantly devoted to being “preoccupied” with God on a weekend. What the Pope actually says is:

“Unfortunately, when Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes merely part of a “weekend”, it can happen that people stay locked within a horizon so limited that they can no longer see “the heavens”.(7) Hence, though ready to celebrate, they are really incapable of doing so.”

The Pope is talking about the dangers of excessive WORK as well as mere REST. When Sunday becomes just another work day, OR just another day to REST from work, there is nothing special about it.

Joseph Pieper makes this point, also. If people do not make time for Mass, and playtime, fun, enjoyment, and carefree abandonment to let the beauty and wonder of things occur to them for their own sake (which does NOT mean excluding God), then Sunday really IS just another workday; or perhaps just another uninspiring “rest” from work. Both these things are unenlightening. Boring. And a continual preoccupation with God on a weekend just strikes me as more needless “work,” which may be the avenue to spiritual gluttony. We do not have to be constantly preoccupied with God on a weekend. Our Church does not teach this. You are wrong.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand what the presence of God is. You’d be able to understand all these points…use of leisure, intention, work, rest, love, effort, and joy, Sunday, use of time, the Pope’s points, Pieper’s points and all the Scriptural points you gloss over - all as an integrated whole, If you understood presence of God.

It isn’t work and tiring to have God with you throughout the entire day.

God need not be put into a preoccupation shoe box. God is not work.

My Goodness.
 
YOU WROTE: “It isn’t work and tiring to have God with you throughout the entire day.”
  • This is absolutely true. But it sure doesn’t SOUND that way, when you write about it. You put so much emphasis on others, praying for others, devotion for others, reading books for others, previewing movies for others, making things for others, cooking for others, spending EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE for others (even your “leisure” time, absurdly), etc., that your spiritual life sounds like a COLOSSAL MOUNTAIN of work. And no matter what else you say, just the fact that you have argued with me for this long, suggests very strongly to me that you do indeed harbor a gospel of “total work,” which you evidently take very seriously indeed.
Again, I cannot know exactly what is happening in your mind. But many of these things you have been saying sound remarkably excessive for absolutely nothing. They sound almost glutinous, in a spiritual sense. At least potentially so. I cannot see the virtue in holding these views in any way whatsoever.

Again, I am not arguing against the Church or the Bible. Just the hurtful slant you put on these things.

YOU WROTE: “You don’t understand what the presence of God is. You’d be able to understand all these points…use of leisure, intention, work, rest, love, effort, and joy, Sunday, use of time, the Pope’s points, Pieper’s points and all the Scriptural points you gloss over - all as an integrated whole, If you understood presence of God.”
  • I can’t see that I have “glossed over” anything here at all. On the contrary, I have tried to EXPOSE the truth of these points you mention – in ways which you evidently don’t want to hear, although I can’t imagine why. A person who wants to work themselves basically to death would NO DOUBT find what I have to say extremely distressing. But no one else would. I cannot comprehend the state of mind necessary to write some of the things you have been saying. They sound extraordinary unhealthy.
 
Edward_H said:
You don’t understand what the presence of God is. You’d be able to understand all these points…use of leisure, intention, work, rest, love, effort, and joy, Sunday, use of time, the Pope’s points, Pieper’s points and all the Scriptural points you gloss over - all as an integrated whole, If you understood presence of God.

It isn’t work and tiring to have God with you throughout the entire day.

God need not be put into a preoccupation shoe box. God is not work.

My Goodness.
Click to expand...
Amen! It’s no more “work” to think about God frequently (not to say constantly) than it is to think about one’s bf/gf, spouse or child often. And it’s no more “work” to make frequent choices to please Him instead of yourself than it is to frequently make choices to please bf/gf spouse or child rather than yourself.

These are choices that people who love make very often, and very naturally, often without even thinking about it at all, much less feeling it to be some sort of burden or imposition. More than that, it is in fact one of the very indicia of love. And the fact of feeling burdened by it is often an jndicator that love is waning or non-existent. Just look at Paul’s definition of love - patient, kind, unselfish, totally giving - and ask yourself where insisting on leisure time away from the Beloved fits in. It doesn’t, essentially.
 
LILY M WROTE: It’s no more “work” to think about God frequently (not to say constantly) than it is to think about one’s bf/gf, spouse or child often. And it’s no more “work” to make frequent choices to please Him instead of yourself than it is to frequently make choices to please bf/gf spouse or child rather than yourself.”
  • This is quite true. I have no argument with this, since much of this happens naturally anyway – “often without even thinking about it at all, much less feeling it to be some sort of burden or imposition,” as you say.
My only point is that none of this really comes through in Edward H’s posts. It sounds like he is saying something quite different. PERHAPS he is not. But it’s really hard to tell.
 
Joseph_Kemp said:
YOU WROTE: “It isn’t work and tiring to have God with you throughout the entire day.”
  • This is absolutely true. But it sure doesn’t SOUND that way, when you write about it. You put so much emphasis on others, praying for others, devotion for others, reading books for others, previewing movies for others, making things for others, cooking for others, spending EVERY SINGLE MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE for others (even your “leisure” time, absurdly), etc., that your spiritual life sounds like a COLOSSAL MOUNTAIN of work.
Click to expand...
Joseph, I don’t know you. I suspect you don’t have children. A healthy mother, influenced by the Presence of God during her day, with a strong interior life, doesn’t look at caring for her child as a “COLOSSAL MOUNTAIN of work”. It’s all joy. Same for a father. I am father of 3 young men. Fatherhood has been one long struggling joy for 20 years.

It takes work, and prayer, and frequent reception of the sacraments, humility, effort, beginning again, to reach this state…where love and work and effort and joy all become nearly identical.

But it can happen.
 
Joseph,

I take ownership for my inability to communicate quickly and clearly.
 
I received a private message from someone asking me to explain an earlier comment on pleasure and leisure.

Basically, the question was is it a sin to go to the beach. Such a question is about impossible to answer in a single sentence. Intention and motive in our behavior needs to be brought in to answer such terse questions.

My answer is here:

If one is merely indulging in sensuality, that is, giving in to the pursuit of mere pleasure…for the sake of pleasure alone, then one should examine one’s motives a bit more closely.

Going to the beach with one’s family to recreate is not a sin. Here the purpose is family focused, not self-focus.

Going to the beach on a Tuesday afternoon (say if one lives near a beach) to relax early in the week, while evading one’s professional work, should also be a cause for examination.

Self-pleasure alone is usually a sign of a creeping sensuality, an over-love of comfort.

God gave us leisure and pleasure for good reasons, to rest the body, to engage in forms of communication with others that are harder to do while we are working, etc.

So we simply need to occasionally examine our motives to double check that our engaging in pleasing activities is serving God somehow or is it just serving our senses.

And…when we are at the beach, we should bring Our Lord with us…we should reflect on His awe and beauty and gift. We should take notice of how He is “always creating”.

I was on a business trip last week, and had a beer with my pizza in a little restaurant. It was pleasing…I enjoyed it. I used that time to run over my day with God, thanking Him for His protection during travels, for his gift of my family who I was missing.

So if we do anything with God or intentionally for God…there’s decreased chances we’re treading anywhere close to sin.

So approach sensuality from the positive side…if we’re doing something with the intention of pleasing God or His children, we’re on solid ground.

I hope this answers your question and corrects any misunderstanding caused by my earlier hasty writing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top