Is it a sin not to work?

[sojo]

OK, I’ll say it - I think that sitting on a beach all day reading is NOT loving your neighbor, and we are commanded to do so. The works itself is not what gets us into heaven, but obeying the command to love our neighbor, indeed even our enemy is required.

Now you can say, “I’ll love my neighbor from a distance on this here beach” but that is not real love. If your neighbor on that beach is struggling to get home on crippled legs and her porch steps are broken, and you just sit on the beach watching and feeling sorry and doing nothing to help her, assuming you are capable… yeah, I’d call that lazy and morally bankrupt.

There is plenty of lovely, “fun” work to do. Some people get a charge out of working in a soup kitchen. Others like to help the elderly or assist hospice or help find homes for stray animals. In addition to my work as a mother, home school teacher, work online doing consignment sales, I still feel called to help others as a disability advocate and volunteer for Special Olympics. None of this feel like work, at least most of the time, as I enjoy doing this and make sure I get enough leisure time and prayer time not to burn out (usually).

If someone feels so little love for others that they feel no call to help those less fortunate, I do think something is wrong… that their moral compass is off.

Flame away - I have asbestos underwear on!

 

[Madeline616]

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.

I totally agree. As a homemaker and volunteer who does not go to a rented building a work in exchange for a paycheck, each morning I offer up all the works of my day to the Lord, no matter how small.

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.

…but I must be missing the point on this one. As long as we’re loving God and our neighbor in the course of our leisure time, why else would we pursue leisure? Because it feels bad? (God didn’t give us sunshine and good food and a million other gifts that make us feel good so we could avoid them for fear of actually feeling good…)

Because it makes us uncomfortable?

Because we can’t afford it? (God blesses us with the resources to afford some enjoyable things)

Because we don’t want to?

I don’t think it’s a sin not to work. What occupies the time that you would otherwise spend at work or driving to and from it can be sinful. If parties, fine restaurants, vacation planning, cruises, golf, gardening, workouts, cooking is all that makes up your time, in other words if it’s all about you and your selfish gratifications/interests (did I just describe a majority of retirees?) then this life will be lots of fun in a purposeless kind of way, the next life won’t be so pleasant.

I don’t mean to sound defensive here, so please don’t think I’m upset or angry about your post, RobertAnthony. I agree, our lives obviously need to be filled with more than you describe in the above quote. A lot of what you describe, however, in addition to depicting retirees, also depicts homemakers such as myself. I do volunteer for several organizations because I believe we have to serve (and I feel personally called to serve in a larger context than just that of my home).

I assure you, though, my days at home are full and–in addition to prayer and about a million other tasks–most certainly include cooking, gardening, and planning upcoming vacations. I’m not great at working out, but if anything, I believe that is more sinful because I am not taking care of my body, a temple of the Lord. Some of the holiest priests and laypeople I know are rigid about daily workouts in an effort to care for the bodies God gave them and deal with stress in a healthy way. (I’m not talking about trying to look buff or fixating on physique, just maintaining good cardiovascular condition and a healthy weight.)

I certainly pray that your assertion that the “next life won’t be so pleasant” for people who spend a significant portion of time cooking, gardening, planning upcoming family trips, and working out is incorrect. I live the life of a homemaker–which would have been perfectly acceptable 50 years ago-- but today is deemed somehow too leisurely and therefore sinful because I don’t travel to a rented building and perform tasks in exchange for a paycheck. (This is a general statement, not directed at the posters.)

 

[sojo]

But Madeline - cooking, cleaning, gardening, running a household IS work. It may or may not be pleasant work (it sounds like you find it quite pleasant!), but it is not the same as sitting on a beach reading a good book. So on top of your work running a household (at one time called “women’s work”), you also donate your time to serve others. Sounds like your life is work-filled.

Work doesn’t have to be unpleasant. Many very wealthy people who never need to work a day more in their lives due to that wealth continue to work long hours into their later years. Work can be very fulfilling. The sad part of our life today is that for some, work is not fulfilling, tedious and sometimes exhausting, dangerous and harmful to their health. Most people who find work something forced on them and distasteful (as the OP apparently does), really have very little or no choice in the matter. Some are too lazy or not creative enough to find fulfilling work.

One of the beautiful things about the Christian life is that sometimes, we can even find joy in what most would consider very tedious and unrewarding work. It is when we can turn our work into a prayer that it ceases to be a burden. Many religious orders insist on quite tedious manual labor as a great training in for the soul.

 

[Edward_H]

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.

No you can’t. God doesn’t need your sitting on the beach (in comfort) giving Him adoration. You’re fooling yourself. He needs you - as a willing, self-donating instrument of His love and grace - pouring yourself out like His Son did on the Cross.

He needs your brains, your imagination, your creativity, your arms loving the world with deeds. You can’t read the Gospels deeply and come to any other conclusion. You can’t find a single Saint who lived on the beach or anywhere and did simply what you said.

You have a sad, immature understanding of love…a thin one…, love veneer; one with the lips or an easy mind. Not a lively love. Not a love without measure. Not one that’s is overflowing with effect from the Holy Spirit.

You are fooling yourself, and you have much formation to do, to fill out your understanding of what God’s Love is, and what it means to your ordinary life, day to day.

 

[Edward_H]

No you can’t. God doesn’t need your sitting on the beach (in comfort) giving Him adoration. You’re fooling yourself. He needs you - as a willing, self-donating instrument of His love and grace - pouring yourself out like His Son did on the Cross.

He needs your brains, your imagination, your creativity, your arms loving the world with deeds. You can’t read the Gospels deeply and come to any other conclusion. You can’t find a single Saint who lived on the beach or anywhere and did simply what you said.

You have a sad, immature understanding of love…a thin one…, love veneer; one with the lips or an easy mind. Not a lively love. Not a love without measure. Not one that’s is overflowing with effect from the Holy Spirit.

You are fooling yourself, and you have much formation to do, to fill out your understanding of what God’s Love is, and what it means to your ordinary life, day to day.

And the reason God needs this stuff from us - this visible love - is for your good and mine. It’s when we pour ourselves out in love for the benefit of others that brings goodness to the world.

 

[Nate13]

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.

lol that is the whole point. You see it as work, and Mother Teresa saw it as leisure. I’m not at all trying to say we can work our way into Heaven because we can’t. But we are capable of striving for sainthood with the help of God’s free gift of grace. Obviously we act this out in different ways depending on whether we are married or called to the religious life, but sainthood is what God wants for all of us. Your body was given to you by God and you owe him everything, and should withhold nothing from him. This doesn’t mean he will use all of us in the same way, but the point I’m trying to get across is don’t hold anything back from God. And yes we are all called to be saints no matter what our vocations in life is.

 

[Nate13]

“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.

Wow, so I guess Mother Teresa was just an overachiever…good to know she wasted her time. Sacrifice and good works DOES make you a saint if you realize that everything you have been given is God’s and you allow him to use as he wishes. When someone is able to perfectly realize this, these things no longer become a “sacrifice” in the terms we normally think of it because the person is happy to do it. It would be like if you found 10 dollars on the street, but then gave it to a poor man sitting away’s down the road. The 10 dollars wasn’t yours to begin with and therefore wasn’t hard to give to someone who obviously needed it more. We are called to imitate Christ. Remaining in a state of grace will get you to Heaven, but Purgatory will be the destination of those who have are not Saints and still have selfish desires. The purpose of Purgatory is to purge us of our selfish desires so that we can completely embrace God. I doubt you believe God wants you to go to Purgatory for awhile before you reach Heaven. He wants us all to be in a state at death where we are ready to love him completely. You should listen to Scott Hahn and his talks about Purgatory.

 

[Madeline616]

But Madeline - cooking, cleaning, gardening, running a household IS work. It may or may not be pleasant work (it sounds like you find it quite pleasant!), but it is not the same as sitting on a beach reading a good book. So on top of your work running a household (at one time called “women’s work”), you also donate your time to serve others. Sounds like your life is work-filled.

Work doesn’t have to be unpleasant. Many very wealthy people who never need to work a day more in their lives due to that wealth continue to work long hours into their later years. Work can be very fulfilling. The sad part of our life today is that for some, work is not fulfilling, tedious and sometimes exhausting, dangerous and harmful to their health. Most people who find work something forced on them and distasteful (as the OP apparently does), really have very little or no choice in the matter. Some are too lazy or not creative enough to find fulfilling work.

One of the beautiful things about the Christian life is that sometimes, we can even find joy in what most would consider very tedious and unrewarding work. It is when we can turn our work into a prayer that it ceases to be a burden. Many religious orders insist on quite tedious manual labor as a great training in for the soul.

Thanks for these kind thoughts and great perspective, Sojo.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

EDWARD H WROTE: “God doesn’t need your sitting on the beach (in comfort) giving Him adoration. You’re fooling yourself. He needs you - as a willing, self-donating instrument of His love and grace - pouring yourself out like His Son did on the Cross.”

It is strange to say that “God doesn’t need your sitting on the beach (in comfort) giving Him adoration.” Isn’t that exactly what people do in Eucharistic Adoration? They sit there (not on a beach, of course) "in comfort,” adoring Christ. What is the difference? There is none. ALL adoration of God is GOOD adoration. Never before have I seen a denial of peaceful adoration of God. This is entirely bizarre.

Also, why would God object to me sitting or a beach “in comfort?” Does this mean that God needs me to be uncomfortable in order to “love” Him? Ridiculous. This is heresy. As Catholics, we are not taught to seek out suffering for the sake of suffering. This is sin. I am not going to deliberately seek out some unpleasant task to “serve” God, just so I can be miserable while doing it. This is the very DEFINITION of heresy.

EDWARD H WROTE: “You have a sad, immature understanding of love…a thin one…, love veneer; one with the lips or an easy mind. Not a lively love. Not a love without measure. Not one that’s is overflowing with effect from the Holy Spirit.”

I must say that this is an extremely odd sentiment. You can’t “measure” love. Unless what you are really talking about is measuring (counting) how many “good works” you do. And Christ absolutely forbids us to do this. To only way to determine how much “holiness,” or “good works” you have, is by comparing yourself to others - to how many “good works” that others do. (For example, by comparing the rest of us to Mother Theresa, and declaring her to be somehow more “holy” than most everyone else.) Christ commanded us to avoid such comparisons. They can only generate pride, envy, and/or despair in others. Precisely what you seem to be trying to generate within me.

Many people on this thread seem to find something objectively wrong with sitting on a beach, reading all day. Why? Where is the sin in that? Find the offense in this. I live near a lake. Plenty of people here sit on the beach reading all day. I guess we’re all going to Hell. If such a thing is a “sin,” then by definition every moment spent relaxing by ANYONE qualifies as “sin,” which is plainly absurd.

Why do people seem to distrust work that seems effortless? What IS it that people seem to have against leisure, anyway? Are we to judge the value of work by how much effort that we put into it, or how much it hurts us?

In a key passage in his book, “Leisure, The Basis of Culture,” Catholic Philosopher Josef Pieper is critical of the “effort is good” hypothesis:

”Effort is good”: objecting to this thesis in the Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas wrote as follows: ”The essence of virtue consists more in the Good than in the Difficult.”21 ”When something is more difficult, it is not for that reason necessarily more worthwhile, but it must be more difficult in such a way, as also to be at a higher level of goodness.”22 The Middle Ages had something to say about virtue that will be hard for us…to understand. And what was this? That virtue makes it possible for us … to master our natural inclinations? No. What Thomas says, instead, is that virtue perfects us so that we can follow our natural inclination in the right way.23 Yes, the highest realizations of moral goodness are known to be such precisely in this: that they take place effortlessly because it is of their essence to arise from love. And yet the overemphasis on effort and struggle has made an inroad even on our understanding of love. Why, for instance, in the opinion of the average Christian, is the love of one’s enemies the highest form of love? Because here, the natural inclination is suppressed to a heroic degree. What makes this kind of love so great is precisely its unusual difficulty, its practical impossibility. But what does Thomas say? “It is not the difficulty involved that makes this kind of love so worthy, even though the greatness of the love is shown by its power to overcome the difficulty. But if the love were so great, as completely to remove all difficulty that would be a still greater love.”

So effort in Christian love, as well as in work, is not good at all. As Thomas Aquinas says, if good could be accomplished without great effort, that would make it an even GREATER good. So much for the value of hard work being “difficult.” All that should be valued is the good.

Peiper elaborates:

“We mistake leisure for idleness, and work for creativity. Of course, work MAY be creative. But only when informed by leisure. Work is the means of life; leisure the end. Without the end, work is meaningless —a means to a means to a means … and so on forever, like Wall Street or Capitol Hill. Leisure is not the cessation of work, but work of another kind, work restored to its human meaning, as a celebration and a festival.”

And appropriately, Pieper begins his book with this quotation:

Be at leisure - and know that I am God.

• Psalm 45

I already know perfectly well that leisure is not a sin. But it seems that many people I encounter do not have this understanding. I STRONGLY urge everyone to read “Leisure, The Basis of Culture” for the correct Catholic perspective of leisure. It will quietly blow your mind. No one will be confused about this issues, ever again. The FULL TEXT of the book can be read online, here:

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

Until the correct context for understanding leisure has been internalized, we do not even have a proper vocabulary for discussing this issue. Thus, I will not be responding anymore to anyone here who has not read this book. There is simply no point. Nothing will be solved, and people just end up being confused for nothing.

 

[Blossoming]

From your posts, it almost sounds as if you joined here specifically and exclusively to promote this book and justify wealth and leisure. You may not mean for it to come out this way, but it comes off as if you have made yourself your own God and worship yourself and seek only pleasure. There is a name for that. It’s hedonism, not Catholicism. It’s what Satanists practice:

Satanism Is Self-Interested Hedonism. In the end, LaVey’s religion is directed toward one’s self-interest in the pursuit of pleasure, or hedonism. This is where he saw his views standing in their most stark contrast to Christianity: "The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these ‘sins’ as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification."18 His hedonistic philosophy also was evident in the summary of his religion known as “The Nine Satanic Statements.” These statements express what Satan represented for LaVey, including “indulgence, instead of abstinence,” “vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek,” and "all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification."19

journal.equip.org/articles/satanism

I would strongly advise actual Catholics seeking Catholic opinions on this board to disregard advice that flies directly to the practice of Satanism as being inappropriate for Catholics.

 

[Edward_H]

Joseph,

You misunderstand Eucharistic Adoration.

God doesn’t need our adoration. He knows we need to adore Him to be truly happy. We need unity with Him to reach Beatitude.

You also misunderstand work and heresies.

God doesn’t object to our rest. He rested. But He also got right back to work. And Jesus tells us that His Father continues to work.

The Bible reminds us that sloth is a serious sin.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I would strongly advise actual Catholics seeking Catholic opinions on this board to disregard advice that flies directly to the practice of Satanism as being inappropriate for Catholics.

The gap between seeking to please oneself and the level that LaVeyan Satanism promotes is at the very least the size of a galaxy.

In a nutshell, one CAN pursue pleasure so long as it doesn’t break the rules (which in turn are governed by reason).

On a side note, I honestly cannot stand it when religious people like to make some sort of false dichotomy between self-interest and doing the right thing. I for one had more than one occasion in my life where both happily coincided. Just because morality trumps self-interests doesn’t mean you should always have them both at each other even during times when they are NOT at odds with each other.

I’m a human being to you know and I have just as much right to the good things in life as you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You misunderstand Eucharistic Adoration.

God doesn’t need our adoration. He knows we need to adore Him to be truly happy. We need unity with Him to reach Beatitude.

I hate to break it to you but Eucharistic Adoration =/= Happy Tool. In fact, I was always under the impression that to seek it to obtain an emotional state such as ‘happiness’ is actually a mark of WEAK faith.

If I wanted to be ‘happy’, I’d just go bust some moves in a video game, read a good book, or watch a cool movie. Eucharistic Adoration is not even going to be on that list.

 

[Edward_H]

I hate to break it to you but Eucharistic Adoration =/= Happy Tool. In fact, I was always under the impression that to seek it to obtain an emotional state such as ‘happiness’ is actually a mark of WEAK faith.

If I wanted to be ‘happy’, I’d just go bust some moves in a video game, read a good book, or watch a cool movie. Eucharistic Adoration is not even going to be on that list.

You didn’t read my posting too closely. You’re a writer but not a listener.

God doesn’t need our adoration. He knows we need it - we need unity with Him - to be truly happy. Happy in the truest, classical sense…which actually means holiness, unity with God.

The Greeks, at least intellectually, had a far truer sense of ‘happiness’ than our understanding today (“just bust some moves in a video game…watch a cool movie”). This “comfort seeking for its own end” pursuit can bring ‘contentment’ but not true happiness, in the classical understanding of the term. The Greeks understood ‘happiness’ far more deeply and defined happiness as a whole life well lived (and yes, this specifically implied a morally and virtuously well lived life).

The Catholic Church teaches that true happiness is actually holiness, which comes with unity with God. Unity with God can be approached through various forms of prayer…which is just conversation with God. Examples of such approaches to unity can be mental prayer at home, Eucharistic Adoration, fasting, and yes, even working.

When we work with the intention of pleasing God, giving glory to God, as a form of adoration of God, in sorrow for our sins, as an offering or intention for others, WE ARE ALSO drawing to closer union with God in those moments.

Thus, our work and our needed rest and even leisure, become opportunities for union with God, if our intention is right minded…and is done out of true love.

If we pursue leisure for its own comfort seeking end…then our intention needs a little rectification.

We have the most substantial joy, however, by living, by working, by resting, and by giving ourselves totally to God. He promised us this.

 

[Edward_H]

Catholics should rediscover the full understanding of holiness, prayer, and the presence of God.

Work becomes prayer, rest becomes prayer, chores can become prayer, leisure can become prayer, and sex can become prayer. All done with God, and as appropriate with those that God puts in our lives. With Him, through Him, for Him, and for those around us. This is how we rectify our intention during all of our day.

When you have been maintaining a conversation…a presence of God…throughout the day…it’s quite natural and loving to ask Him for the grace to be generous with your wife in both the ordinary of the day as well during intimate moments. There’s nothing more beautiful than a husband and a wife offering themselves, being totally generous for the other, with God among them. And there is far more joy and ‘happiness’ that comes out of such a marital exchange compared to a self-seeking, pleasure seeking sexual encounter by husband and wife.

This is as close to understanding the Trinity as we can get on earth.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You didn’t read my posting too closely. You’re a writer but not a listener.

No, I take your words EXACTLY as they are. Maybe you should read them yourself more often.

Happy in the truest, classical sense…which actually means holiness, unity with God.

Look I have a background in semantics so I know where you’re going with this talk. Unfortunately for you, the common man doesn’t speak your language and I will demonstrate how.

The Greeks, at least intellectually, had a far truer sense of ‘happiness’ than our understanding today (“just bust some moves in a video game…watch a cool movie”). This pursuit can bring ‘contentment’ but not true happiness, in the classical understanding of the term. The Greeks understood ‘happiness’ far more deeply and defined happiness as a whole life well lived (and yes, this specifically implied a morally and virtuously well lived life).

The term ‘true happiness’ is in fact one big misnomer. You are in fact referring to an abstract philosophical/spiritual idea that by its very nature defies description. It’s like just trying to describe God with positive adjectives. You may have a certain definition of each and every adjective but an atheist with an axe to grind is obviously just gonna scoff at your face.

The word ‘happy’ means differently to other people in a sense that there are different things that make people ‘happy’ (as far as OUR understanding is concerned). As much as I like to respect the Greeks for their philosophy, your mode of expression should be more in tune with modern man’s. In short, I’m not asking you to really change anything as much change how you communicate your ideas.

The Catholic Church teaches that true happiness is actually holiness, which comes with unity with God. Unity with God can be approached through various forms of prayer…which is just conversation with God. Examples of such approaches to unity can be mental prayer at home, Eucharistic Adoration, fasting, and yes, even working.

See this is proof of what I’ve been saying right here. You treat the words ‘holiness’ and ‘happiness’ as if they were synonyms but even the dictionary doesn’t agree with you.

Secondly, religious activities and activities for leisure can be done separately without conflict and at times I find it even better than trying to put them together. Simply put, there’s a time to pray and also time to play.

If we pursue leisure for its own comfort seeking end…then our intention needs a little rectification.

We are created in the image and likeness of God. God created us on a whim (at least partially). If I’m made in the image and likeness of someone like that, then I believe I’m entitled to have fun for the heck of it, for the sake of mere whim.

Are you aware that whilst our intellect and sentience separates us from animals, it’s our sense of leisure that separates us from soulless machines?

We have the most substantial joy, however, by living, by working, by resting, and by giving ourselves totally to God. He promised us this.

Here’s another example of why I think your words need more refinement. I’ve seen atheists take phrases pretty much like this and then easily use it as affirmation of Marx when he said that religion was the opium for the masses.

 

[Blossoming]

Anyone can think or rationalize anything they wish. But to live a self-absorbed life seeking and worshipping only self-pleasure still reeks to me of Satanism.

I understand that is only my opinion, but to me such a life matches the tenets of Satanism perfectly. I can’t even see any philosophical difference at all.

Wealth isn’t a sin in and of itself, but it can certainly be a stumbling block. I think that is why priests make vows of poverty.

If being a Catholic/loving God is less important than worldly goods/money for some, that is certainly their free will to choose.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Anyone can think or rationalize anything they wish. But to live a self-absorbed life seeking and worshipping only self-pleasure still reeks to me of Satanism.”

• I never said anything about a “self-absorbed life seeking and worshipping only self-pleasure.” You are flatly wrong. That is not what leisure is. I merely wanted to know if leisure is a sin. There is absolutely nothing in official Church teaching stating that leisure is sinful. Nobody should torture themselves for enjoying leisure.

YOU WROTE: “I understand that is only my opinion, but to me such a life matches the tenets of Satanism perfectly. I can’t even see any philosophical difference at all.”

• Enjoying leisure is not sinful. It is certainly not Satanic. What a ridiculous position. Many of the Catholics I see on the Internet seem to be workaholics. They give the impression that enjoying leisure is some kind of “sin.” With all this extremism, which seems very unhealthy, I merely wondered what the Church ITSELF had to say on the issue. Very little, as it turns out. The Church does not officially teach that leisure is “sinful.”

YOU WROTE: “Wealth isn’t a sin in and of itself, but it can certainly be a stumbling block. I think that is why priests make vows of poverty.”

• We are not all priests. We are not obliged to take vows of poverty. Such vows are entirely VOLUNTARY in nature. The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“(T)hough the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership.”

“VOLUNTARY poverty is the object of one of the evangelical counsels…If voluntary poverty is ennobled by the motive which inspires it, the poverty which puts aside temporal possessions for the service of God and the salvation of souls is the most noble of all. It is the apostolic poverty of the Christian religion which is practiced in the highest degree by missionaries in pagan countries, and to a certain degree by all priests: all these voluntarily give up certain possessions and advantages in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God.”

newadvent.org/cathen/12324a.htm

• Nobody HAS to take vows of poverty. Anybody who says so is wrong. The Catholic Church does not teach this. This is so basic I don’t know how anybody could be confused about this.

YOU WROTE: “If being a Catholic/loving God is less important than worldly goods/money for some, that is certainly their free will to choose.”

• It is absolutely bizarre that you got this out of my words. You entirely misunderstand EVERYTHING I have been saying. And it would seem to me you don’t understand what leisure is, either. Leisure does not mean doing absolutely nothing. Human beings would never be happy doing absolutely nothing. Leisure is merely work of a different kind. It strikes me that you are EXACTLY the kind of person who needs to read “Leisure, The Basis Of Culture.” It is the only comprehensive Catholic writing on this odd subject anywhere. Again, I cannot recommend it more strongly:

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

 

[Edward_H]

Ok.I take your words EXACTLY as they are. Maybe you should read them yourself more often.

Look I have a background in semantics so I know where you’re going with this talk. Unfortunately for you, the common man doesn’t speak your language and I will demonstrate how.

The term ‘true happiness’ is in fact one big misnomer. You are in fact referring to an abstract philosophical/spiritual idea that by its very nature defies description. It’s like just trying to describe God with positive adjectives. You may have a certain definition of each and every adjective but an atheist with an axe to grind is obviously just gonna scoff at your face.

The word ‘happy’ means differently to other people in a sense that there are different things that make people ‘happy’ (as far as OUR understanding is concerned). As much as I like to respect the Greeks for their philosophy, your mode of expression should be more in tune with modern man’s. In short, I’m not asking you to really change anything as much change how you communicate your ideas.

See this is proof of what I’ve been saying right here. You treat the words ‘holiness’ and ‘happiness’ as if they were synonyms but even the dictionary doesn’t agree with you.

Secondly, religious activities and activities for leisure can be done separately without conflict and at times I find it even better than trying to put them together. Simply put, there’s a time to pray and also time to play.

We are created in the image and likeness of God. God created us on a whim (at least partially). If I’m made in the image and likeness of someone like that, then I believe I’m entitled to have fun for the heck of it, for the sake of mere whim.

Are you aware that whilst our intellect and sentience separates us from animals, it’s our sense of leisure that separates us from soulless machines?

Here’s another example of why I think your words need more refinement. I’ve seen atheists take phrases pretty much like this and then easily use it as affirmation of Marx when he said that religion was the opium for the masses.

If you have a substantial background in semantics you never would have offered up the example of “busting moves, video” as a pathway to happiness.

I don’t care what today’s dictionary shows, the Catholic understanding of happiness and holiness converge at Beatitude. We will truly be happy when we die and are with God. And this is Beatitude.

The word happiness certainly does mean different things to different people, and this is an error though it is a fact. :>

Where you are wrong theologically is to say "Secondly, religious activities and activities for leisure can be done separately without conflict and at times I find it even better than trying to put them together. Simply put, there’s a time to pray and also time to play.:"

The Bible in several places reminds us to pray always, and to rejoice always. This is the goal. The way to do that is to give all your activities a supernatural intention…to please God, to comfort Our Lord, comfort Our Lady, to atone for sins in union with Jesus.

There is no crazy separation between play, pray, and work…all is prayer, conversation and unity with God.

And it’s not just "Are you aware that whilst our intellect and sentience separates us from animals, it’s our sense of leisure that separates us from soulless machines?

Monkeys and Dolphins play too. Our humanity is not derived or distinguished by our sense of leisure. This is theologically a huge error. It might sound poetic, but it’s plainly wrong.

 

[Edward_H]

Leisure and rest are certainly not sins. Jesus told us what’s on the outside is not sinful, it’s what is inside that counts.

What are our intentions when we engage in leisure, when we work, when we rest?

Are we trying actively / contemplatively to fulfill the will of God in those moments?

Are we scratching our our own itch, seeking security in what others say or think about us, seeking pleasure for its own end?

Pride, vanity, comfort seeking. Or something a bit more substantial, even supernatural?

A well picked movie, spent with our family can be a wonderful way to serve God. Wonderful.

A movie watched by ourselves for our own pleasure is suspect.

A movie watched by ourselves with the intention of previewing it for others (perhaps parents) could be fine.

A priest once told me he had a hard time imaging a case where watching TV by oneself is a good idea. Possible…but the time would be better spent by going on a walk, greeting the neighbors with a smile, writing a letter to someone who is lonely, calling them. Reading a good book…perhaps to send to someone else later on.

These forms of leisure seem to me to stack up higher than watching tv or a movie by oneself.