Is it a sin not to work?

[Beth_Cecilia]

If you can sincerely say you gave your whole mind, body, soul, all your strength in love for God and others, no sin.

If you’re pursuing leisure because it feels good, makes you comfortable, because you can afford it, because you want to, because you’re lazy…then it’s likely a sin.

So much more succinct than my response!

 

[Edward_H]

IThe works do not get you into Heaven, but if you love the Lord, you do what he asks of you

I thought this was better!

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Many people say that not working is slothful. They say SLOTH is a sin. But sloth doesn’t actually refer to not working. It doesn’t even refer to laziness. Sloth refers to AN INABILITY TO ENJOY LEISURE. That is how Saint Thomas Aquinas defined it, as Joseph Pieper points out in “Leisure, The Basis of Culture.” The term used is ACEDIA – “the inability to be at rest and to enjoy that which is effortless. “ That is also how the Catholic Church defines sloth.

I just could not let this slide again. You would do well to read what St. Thomas himself says about sloth- not this Mr. Pieper’s interpretation.

“I answer that, Sloth, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 14) is an oppressive sorrow, which, to wit, so weighs upon man’s mind, that he wants to do nothing; thus acid things are also cold. Hence sloth implies a certain weariness of work, as appears from a gloss on Psalm 106:18, “Their soul abhorred all manner of meat,” and from the definition of some who say that sloth is a “sluggishness of the mind which neglects to begin good.”
…
Accordingly, since sloth, as we understand it here, denotes sorrow for spiritual good, it is evil on two counts, both in itself and in point of its effect.”
newadvent.org/summa/3035.htm#article0

Or, what the Catholic encyclopedia says:

“One of the seven capital sins. In general it means disinclination to labour or exertion. As a capital or deadly vice St. Thomas (II-II:35) calls it sadness in the face of some spiritual good which one has to achieve (Tristitia de bono spirituali). Father Rickaby aptly translates its Latin equivalent acedia (Gr. akedia) by saying that it means the don’t-care feeling. A man apprehends the practice of virtue to be beset with difficulties and chafes under the restraints imposed by the service of God. The narrow way stretches wearily before him and his soul grows sluggish and torpid at the thought of the painful life journey. The idea of right living inspires not joy but disgust, because of its laboriousness.”
newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm

It is not the inability to enjoy leisure. It disdain for spiritual good. Thus it can equally well refer to a physical work, or something not physical at all- say contemplative prayer- neglected when it ought to be embraced.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “You would do well to read what St. Thomas himself says about sloth- not this Mr. Pieper’s interpretation.”

Nothing in Saint Thomas’s definition of sloth contradicts anything written by Joseph Pieper. Nor does anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia. What, exactly, is the objection? I can’t see one.

You admit that works do not get you into Heaven. But then you go on to speak about them as if they (somehow) do. (“The works do not get you into Heaven, but if you love the Lord, you do what he asks of you.”)

No one questions doing what God asks of you. What is being questioned is whether not working is a “sin.” (It is not.)

YOU WROTE ABOUT SLOTH: “It is not the inability to enjoy leisure. It disdain for spiritual good. Thus it can equally well refer to a physical work, or something not physical at all- say contemplative prayer- neglected when it ought to be embraced.”

Which is precisely what Joseph Pieper states as well, with a careful working out of the implications of sloth (which can easily involve hard work). I do not see the problem. Sloth can CERTAINLY be an inability to enjoy leisure. In fact, it often is. Which is the direct point of “Leisure, The Basis of Culture,” anyway.

I see nothing objectionable in any of this with respect to official Catholic Doctrine. The only objectionable thing is this strange, very common implication that not working is somehow “sinful.” Such a position is false. It is also heretical. It is tantamount to saying we must seek out work for the sake of work - suffering for the sake of suffering - something which the Catholic Church most certainly does NOT teach, and which is definitely heretical.

 

[Edward_H]

YOU WROTE: “You would do well to read what St. Thomas himself says about sloth- not this Mr. Pieper’s interpretation.”

Nothing in Saint Thomas’s definition of sloth contradicts anything written by Joseph Pieper. Nor does anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia. What, exactly, is the objection? I can’t see one.

You admit that works do not get you into Heaven. But then you go on to speak about them as if they (somehow) do. (“The works do not get you into Heaven, but if you love the Lord, you do what he asks of you.”)

No one questions doing what God asks of you. What is being questioned is whether not working is a “sin.” (It is not.)

YOU WROTE ABOUT SLOTH: “It is not the inability to enjoy leisure. It disdain for spiritual good. Thus it can equally well refer to a physical work, or something not physical at all- say contemplative prayer- neglected when it ought to be embraced.”

Which is precisely what Joseph Pieper states as well, with a careful working out of the implications of sloth (which can easily involve hard work). I do not see the problem. Sloth can CERTAINLY be an inability to enjoy leisure. In fact, it often is. Which is the direct point of “Leisure, The Basis of Culture,” anyway.

I see nothing objectionable in any of this with respect to official Catholic Doctrine. The only objectionable thing is this strange, very common implication that not working is somehow “sinful.” Such a position is false. It is also heretical. It is tantamount to saying we must seek out work for the sake of work - suffering for the sake of suffering - something which the Catholic Church does NOT teach, and which is heretical indeed.

Maybe you defined it above…but what’s your definition of work?

What did Christ do to the fig tree that didn’t produce?

The polish Cardinal Wyszynski wrote a great book on Work and the sanctification of our daily life.

 

[Edward_H]

It’s a sin not to love. And if you have a Catholic understanding of love, it doesn’t differ substantially from work. Giving ourselves fully to God’s will, according to our vocation.

So if the average husband of a family doesn’t work…he’s not loving his family fully.

 

[fanatic1]

I keep seeing work touted as something sacred. It almost seems like a Catholic belief that if you don’t work, you are sinning. I’m not talking about working to pay the bills. I’m talking about just plain WORKING for its own sake. The message seems to be that if you don’t work, you are going to Hell.

What about the super rich? What about people who don’t NEED to work? Are they going to Hell? And what about people who retire early, who specifically save up enough money so they don’t have to work anymore? Are they guilty of mortal sin for avoiding work? I can’t seem to find an answer.

Pope John Paul wrote an encyclical about work: “Laborem Exercens: On Human Work.” Even here, it seems as if work MUST be done for its own sake. NOT working sounds suspiciously like a sin - unless I am completely misunderstanding this, which I might be.

On the other hand, Catholic Philosopher Josef Pieper wrote a classic book entitled: “Leisure: the Basis of Culture,” in which he argues specifically AGAINST work done simply for the sake of work. According to Piper, it is not sin not to work, but this is never stated directly.

So what’s the deal? Is it a sin not to work? Such a thing sounds absolutely ridiculous. But I just don’t know. I know plenty of people who worry about this. Please write in, but do not post anything threatening. Any posts here should be designed to take away people’s fear about this, not to add to them. I am looking for accuracy and clarity, not needless strictness.

if one does not have to “work” then i dont see a problem. But many peiople will look @ some given person’s situation and say that person should work. And i hate that kind of thing because no one knows waht that person is going trhough, what the details of his life are, etc…

some think that mentally ill people who are on disability should work becasue physically there isn othing wrong w/ them. But again, no one knows what handicps another has and its none of their business (except that the taxpayers should not be made to support those who really can work but just - say - want to pary their lives away or whatever).

It’s interesting that in today’s Mass readings God is telling the people to do this and that and then to (on such and such day) do no work. He says this repeatedly, as though it is not just on the Sabbath that work should be abstained from (but i have to re-check that).

God does not want us to wroship work.

i hate the term Protestant work ethic - as if Catholics have no work ethic.

Its just that a good Catholic does not work (as you say ) just for the sake of wroking.

i know people who do a lot of work but it is volunteer work and so no one considers it working.

But if everyone who was retired kept working because he thought that was the noble thing to do, there would be fewer jobs 4 the younger people, and others who really NEED his job.

 

[Edward_H]

God wants us to convert what He gives us to do in our life into a well done prayer.

We sanctify our whole day that way. We turn our life into prayer. Our work life and our leisure. All this time is spent with God.

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”
“Pray always”
“Rejoice always”

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

YOU WROTE: “You would do well to read what St. Thomas himself says about sloth- not this Mr. Pieper’s interpretation.”

Nothing in Saint Thomas’s definition of sloth contradicts anything written by Joseph Pieper. Nor does anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia. What, exactly, is the objection? I can’t see one.

If you cannot understand the difference between a spiritual good and leisure, than we have landed on the misunderstanding. Leisure, in and of itself, like work, is neither good nor bad. It can be either in a given context.

You admit that works do not get you into Heaven. But then you go on to speak about them as if they (somehow) do. (“The works do not get you into Heaven, but if you love the Lord, you do what he asks of you.”)

You misunderstand. Works do not get you into Heaven, but that does not mean they are not asked of you. No one can earn Heaven. That fact does not excuse any follower of Jesus from His commands. We do not get to Heaven by doing good things. We do whatever we do for the glory of God because we love Him, and He asks us to. You cannot pretend to love and follow the Lord (to be a Christian) if you do not listen and obey Him.

No one questions doing what God asks of you. What is being questioned is whether not working is a “sin.” (It is not.)

As has been noted before, the question cannot be answered. Work is not, in and of itself, good or bad. Not working, likewise, cannot be said to be sinful or not generally. Some reasons we avoid work are virtuous, some reasons to avoid work are sinful. Laziness is not the same as the necessity of a quiet to hear God’s voice.

…Which is precisely what Joseph Pieper states as well…

Possibly, but he did not say it here, and neither did you.

The only objectionable thing is this strange, very common implication that not working is somehow “sinful.” Such a position is false. It is also heretical. It is tantamount to saying we must seek out work for the sake of work - suffering for the sake of suffering - something which the Catholic Church most certainly does NOT teach, and which is definitely heretical.

Work and suffering may indeed share some similarity. They are generally unavoidable, and they can bring us closer to our Father. They can also be a stumbling block. However, they are not the same. Work need not be suffering. Your equations do not equate. Work is not suffering, though it can be in certain circumstances. Spiritual good is not leisure, though it can be in certain circumstances. In both cases you are taking a a tiny piece of the pie, and drawing definition.

From another perspective, virtue is hearing God’s voice and obeying. Vice is hearing God’s voice and ignoring it. Work or leisure can neatly fall into virtue or vice. The original question cannot be answered. It may seem obvious, but let me give an example of something which is neither virtuous or vicious until circumstances are introduced. I eat a plate of spaghetti. (Seems easy enough to establish that it is not sinful.) I eat a plate of spaghetti and it is my fifth plate. Gluttony? Perhaps something even easier. I eat a plate of spaghetti slowly, and savoring every bite in front of a starving family. Or, I eat a plate of spaghetti which I stole not because I was hungry but for the thrill of it.

Not working likewise needs circumstance to establish whether or not it is sinful. Am I not working, though I could and my family needs food? Am I not working because I hate work and would prefer to play video games? Am I not working because I am painting/studying/writing? Am I not working because it is Sunday? Am I not working because I am ill? Am I not working because I was a workaholic and my marriage suffered and I need some time to pick up the pieces? Bottom line, whether you are working or avoiding work, you are sinning if your chosen action (or inaction) is based on selfishness rather than God’s will.

 

[Edward_H]

If our not working (by free choice) causes someone else to work in order to feed us, that’s not only a sin, it’s bad example. It’s a lack of a generous response to what God has given to us.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Depending on the time and place during the High Middle Ages (the period where the Catholic Church was at it’s apex of involvement) people worked between one thirds and two thirds of the year, the rest was typically spent in sober Mass going and merriment. Does it sound like not working is a sin to you?

 

[Nate13]

@Joseph
We are all called to be saints. Explain how your ideas of leisure will help you become saintly. Sacrifice = Love. What made the saints, saintly? They gave everything they had to the Lord to the best of their ability to mirror how God loves us unconditionally. I can’t see Mother Teresa saying “sorry can’t help you now, because I’m too old.” Everything you have was given to you from God. I’m not trying to make you feel guilty, but you seem to be trying to justify leisure for the sake of leisure. You haven’t given me enough information to see your argument as more. If you were to answer any question I would ask why are you so worried about living a life of leisure here on Earth? It almost seems as if you feel you are entitled to some period of time of leisure. We always hate on the workaholics and tell them they are making work their God, so why couldn’t someone do the exact opposite and make leisure their God?

 

[Edward_H]

I remember a priest helping me understand the proper use of leisure.

Here’s the way he described it, not his exact words, but get the gist of his point.

He said, with respect to the average workday, the time during work belongs to your company; give yourself completely to it. Don’t do personal email, internet news checking, minimize personal calls and errands, and idle chatter.

When you get home, that time belongs to your family. Smile, chase the kids, chase your wife, help clean up after dinner, get your kids onto their homework…or have them bring you their work for review, pay some bills [show your children that work continues], fix some lightbulbs, go for a walk (not alone, but with your wife or family), say the Rosary together, do a few minutes (5-10) of spiritual reading, scan the internet news…it’s faster, better than watching TV…limit your news to just a few minutes…put your kids to bed, have a half-glass of wine with your wife to see how her day went.

If all the family chores are done and you’re both ready for bed, go together.

If not, kiss her goodnight and pick up a good book, one that you’re thinking of giving to your good friend.

In other words…even the few minutes at the end of the day - true leisure time - can and should have a supernatural purpose…a larger intention behind it.

How’s that for a view of our time?

 

[Nate13]

@Edward H
Haha much better, that’s how I see it. Some people would look at what you described there though and ask where was the leisure time

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

DAKOTA ROBERTS WROTE: “Depending on the time and place during the High Middle Ages (the period where the Catholic Church was at its apex of involvement) people worked between one thirds and two thirds of the year, the rest was typically spent in sober Mass going and merriment. Does it sound like not working is a sin to you?”

At last! Someone who understands. This is precisely what “Leisure, The Basis of Culture” is based on, too. There is no need to rigidly structure your leisure time, as if leisure need to be “justified” against “work time” somehow. I particularly like what FANATIC 1 said as well:

“If one does not have to “work” then I don’t see a problem. But many people will look @ some given person’s situation and say that person should work. And I hate that kind of thing because no one knows what that person is going through, what the details of his life are, etc…God does not want us to worship work. I hate the term Protestant work ethic - as if Catholics have no work ethic. It’s just that a good Catholic does not work (as you say ) just for the sake of working.”

Quite so. And this is precisely the issue at stake here. If I have the opportunity to sit around on a sunny beach for the rest of my life, I am sure as heck going to do it. There is no sin in that. As long as it’s not hurting anybody, or I’m not neglecting something important to me or my family (if I have one), then there’s no problem.

Sometimes, I ENJOY working hard. As long as it is something that I MYSELF want to do. If no one is forcing me to do it, then it’s not work. It’s fun.

I think I see the misunderstanding in many of the posts here. People wonder if I am against ALL work. I most certainly am not. I am merely against the extreme of being forced to work for the sake of working if I don’t have to, supposedly because our religion says so. (It does not.) This is the impression I have received from many, many Catholics. Thankfully, it is not true at all.

Here is a quote from BETH CECILIA, illustrating the misunderstanding:

“Not working likewise needs circumstance to establish whether or not it is sinful. Am I not working, though I could and my family needs food? Am I not working because I hate work and would prefer to play video games? Am I not working because I am painting/studying/writing? Am I not working because it is Sunday? Am I not working because I am ill? Am I not working because I was a workaholic and my marriage suffered and I need some time to pick up the pieces? Bottom line, whether you are working or avoiding work, you are sinning if your chosen action (or inaction) is based on selfishness rather than God’s will.”

I am most certainly not against working if there is necessity. If you have to work to eat, then work. If you need to feed your family, then work. If you are ill, then don’t work. If you are a workaholic who needs to devote more time to his/her marriage, then don’t work. BETH CECILIA is quite right when she says that action (or inaction) based on selfishness is sinful, especially if someone else (or yourself) is going to suffer as a consequence.

(Oh, and playing video games all day is not sinful in itself. Neither is reading or watching TV all day – things which traditionally involve sitting very still, and not “working.”)

As I pointed out earlier in an earlier post:

“The way a lot of Catholics talk about work, it almost sounds like you are required to find work – ANY work, no matter what it is - or you will be in mortal sin! It doesn’t matter if the work benefits anyone or not. It just has to be WORK. This sounds suspiciously like the Protestant work ethic, to me. As long as you’re doing something difficult, then it must be worthwhile.”

I absolutely reject such an idea. So does the Church. I am happiest and I appreciate God the most when I am sitting still, in silence and stillness. As it says in Scripture, God was not in the storm. God was not in the mountain. God was not in the darkness. God was in the silence AFTER the storm. In the stillness.

Whenever I have been working at a job, I have never once come up with a new or creative idea in my head. Not one beautiful thought or notion. The work eats me up. I can’t stand it. I do it to stay alive, and for no other reason. Any time that is not spent working at a job (or at anything I don’t want to do) is good time, as far as I’m concerned.

I am a writer, but I don’t consider that work. I’m an inventor, but I don’t consider that work. I do philosophy, weight-training, neurological research, physics, literary analysis, technical blueprinting, and many, many other strenuous things, but I don’t consider ANY of it to be work. Because it’s fun. And if it’s fun, you can do it forever.

Because I spend most of my days having “fun,” I don’t consider myself a “worker” at all. Every one of these things, no matter how difficult, falls under the purview of “Leisure,” for me. If I don’t like something (like servile labor,) I avoid it when I can. Which seems a remarkably healthy attitude. Until what many “religious” people on the Internet said started interfering with my lifestyle, with their false notions about the “binding necessity” of work.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

NATE 13 WROTE: “We are all called to be saints. Explain how your ideas of leisure will help you become saintly.”

Joseph Pieper does a very good job of that in “Leisure, The Basis of Culture.” A well-read person is a happy person – someone who has narrowed the gap between the human and the Divine. I suggest you read the entire book online, and this particular objection will no longer occur.

scribd.com/doc/28873477/L…sis-of-Culture

NATE 13 WROTE: “Sacrifice = Love. What made the saints, saintly? They gave everything they had to the Lord to the best of their ability to mirror how God loves us unconditionally. I can’t see Mother Teresa saying “sorry can’t help you now, because I’m too old.”

I am not Mother Theresa. No one else is. We are not all called to be like her. If you feel that YOU are, that is your business. But I’m not. I don’t personally know of anyone who is.

“Sacrifice” and “good works” do not make you a “saint,” or “saintly.” Receiving the Sacraments makes you a saint. Remaining in God’s Grace by not committing mortal sin makes you a saint. Anything else is just an extra.

Good works do NOT get you into Heaven. You can’t “earn” your salvation. The belief that you can is a common mistake I see among Catholics. They believe that we must “work” our way into Heaven somehow, even though the Catholic Church does not teach this at all. Apologist Jimmy Akin’s article on the issue is the best summation of this understanding I know of. I suggest you read it.

jimmyakin.org/2006/01/fear_of_going_t.html

Too many Catholics are under the bizarre impression that we are somehow to “work” our way to salvation. This is absolutely false. God does not add up every little good work we do, like some kind of cosmic bean counter.

As Mother Theresa once said:

“I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I 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?"

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

In short, the idea that we must be constantly “working for God” (as in some exhausting toil) in order to get into Heaven is completely baseless. Nobody should worry about this. It is a totally imaginary belief, and is COMPLETELY non-Catholic. It smacks very much of the Protestant Work Ethic, which I do not like at all.

 

[Edward_H]

NATE 13 WROTE: “We are all called to be saints. Explain how your ideas of leisure will help you become saintly.”

Joseph Pieper does a very good job of that in “Leisure, The Basis of Culture.” A well-read person is a happy person – someone who has narrowed the gap between the human and the Divine. I suggest you read the entire book online, and this particular objection will no longer occur.

scribd.com/doc/28873477/L…sis-of-Culture

NATE 13 WROTE: “Sacrifice = Love. What made the saints, saintly? They gave everything they had to the Lord to the best of their ability to mirror how God loves us unconditionally. I can’t see Mother Teresa saying “sorry can’t help you now, because I’m too old.”

I am not Mother Theresa. No one else is. We are not all called to be like her. If you feel that YOU are, that is your business. But I’m not. I don’t personally know of anyone who is.

“Sacrifice” and “good works” do not make you a “saint,” or “saintly.” Receiving the Sacraments makes you a saint. Remaining in God’s Grace by not committing mortal sin makes you a saint. Anything else is just an extra.

Good works do NOT get you into Heaven. You can’t “earn” your salvation. The belief that you can is a common mistake I see among Catholics. They believe that we must “work” our way into Heaven somehow, even though the Catholic Church does not teach this at all. Apologist Jimmy Akin’s article on the issue is the best summation of this understanding I know of. I suggest you read it.

jimmyakin.org/2006/01/fear_of_going_t.html

Too many Catholics are under the bizarre impression that we are somehow to “work” our way to salvation. This is absolutely false. God does not add up every little good work we do, like some kind of cosmic bean counter.

As Mother Theresa once said:

“I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I 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?"

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

In short, the idea that we must be constantly “working for God” (as in some exhausting toil) in order to get into Heaven is completely baseless. Nobody should worry about this. It is a totally imaginary belief, and is COMPLETELY non-Catholic. It smacks very much of the Protestant Work Ethic, which I do not like at all.

I have heard a lot of Protestants say that Catholics believe we work our way into heaven, but never met a single Catholic who really believes this.

There is no doubt that our correspondence to God’s unmerited gift is called for by God. Love as I have loved, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, endure to the end, carry your cross daily, love God with all your heart mind body and strength.

etc
etc
etc
etc

We may not all be called to be Mother Theresa’s but God is expecting we love Him with all our strength, just like Mother Theresa.

 

[Edward_H]

In short, the idea that we must be constantly “working for God” (as in some exhausting toil) in order to get into Heaven is completely baseless. Nobody should worry about this. It is a totally imaginary belief, and is COMPLETELY non-Catholic. It smacks very much of the Protestant Work Ethic, which I do not like at all.

“All our strength”. Exhausted like Christ on the Cross with nothing left to give. “Love as I have loved”.

This is very different from toil. Ask a mother whether the work and pain she goes through in giving birth is toil…and you’ll get a crazy look.

You may not like it, but it’s Biblical.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “We may not all be called to be Mother Theresa’s but God is expecting we love Him with all our strength, just like Mother Theresa.”

I can love God with all my strength by sitting on the beach all day looking at the ocean, and reading. I find God infinitely more in that than in volunteering at a soup kitchen (for example). Since our works don’t get us into Heaven, I really don’t see what you’re trying to say here at all.
If you are simply stating that we should “Love God,” I agree wholeheartedly. I can love God without working, and by sitting on a beach.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

After all, as they say, “Grace builds on nature.” If you try and go against your nature to do what you THINK God wants you to do, rather than what would actually draw you closer to God (be that leisure, or something else), you will not grow in Grace. You will be miserable.