Is it a sin not to work?

[Contarini]

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.

In this broken world, I think it is a sin not to spend a significant portion of your time acting for the good of the neighbor. I am not going to lay down any rules as to how much is “significant,” and I consider laziness one of my own greatest sins, so I’m not putting myself on a pedestal here by any means.

People who are wealthy enough not to “work” are, in my opinion, highly privileged, because they can use their gifts for the benefit of the neighbor without worrying about whether their actions are financially remunerated. I would go so far as to say that people who don’t have to worry about money can “work” more truly than those of us who do.

Edwin

 

[Edward_H]

Work allows, unlike any other activity, the fulfillment of our capacities. And it’s these capacities that can be used to serve others and God.

Work can be…and must be sanctified.

God gave us work to do before the fall of Man. It was a good. Not a punishment.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “A movie watched by ourselves for our own pleasure is suspect… A priest once told me he had a hard time imaging a case where watching TV by oneself is a good idea.”

• It doesn’t get any weirder that this. There is NOTHING wrong with watching a movie or TV by oneself. Absolutely nothing in official Catholic teaching declares that watching movies or TV when alone is sinful. You will never find anything in Church teaching to support such a ridiculous position. You made it up. It is your own subjective invention. Yours and this priest you mention. You must lead a very stressful, uncomfortable life, with beliefs like this. I feel sorry for you. Such things are not substantiated by Church doctrine in any way whatsoever.

YOU WROTE: “(T)he 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.”

• Who are you to say how we should spend our time? That is up to us. To our own conscience. Many people take great comfort from being alone. There is no sin in this, either.

Also, there is no need to pass on a book to someone else after having read it. Keeping books for oneself is no sin. I honestly have to wonder where such bizarre beliefs come from. They are not Church Doctrine. They sound like scrupulous beliefs, driven by an unhealthy sense of sin.

I am getting weirded out from seeing so many false, unsubstantiated beliefs that are not Church Doctrine. How many Catholics actually hold opinions like this? These are basic issues, about which no Catholic should be confused. But the confusion I see goes on and on, from many, different people. This is very sad. A straightforward understanding of Church Doctrine seems very rare indeed. I wish I could see more balanced theology on Catholic Answers about such ordinary topics as this.

 

[Edward_H]

• It doesn’t get any weirder that this. There is NOTHING wrong with watching a movie or TV by oneself. Absolutely nothing in official Catholic teaching declares that watching movies or TV when alone is sinful. You will never find anything in Church teaching to support such a ridiculous position. You made it up. It is your own subjective invention. Yours and this priest you mention. You must lead a very stressful, uncomfortable life, with beliefs like this. Such things are not substantiated by Church doctrine in any way whatsoever.

It doesn’t help your case to use hyperbole and to suppose that I am making up some actual direction I received from a very good priest. “It doesn’t get any weirder than this”. Really?

Calm down. And stay on point.

The point the priest was making was a very practical one…benchmarks for how we spend our time…what criteria should we use. This is not at the level of doctrine or formal teaching. It’s related to day to day choices of how to do the will of God.

It certainly is the Church’s teaching that we should strive to pray always (that’s scriptural in fact), and that we are called to perfection (as Jesus asked us “be perfect”), and that we are all called to holiness (re-emphasized at Vatican II).

This is all Church teaching that you are rubbing up against, and which you are clearly rejecting.

• Who are you to say how we should spend our time? That is up to us. To our own conscience. Many people take great comfort from being alone. There is no sin in this, either.

I didn’t tell you how to spend your time. You can spend it any way you want to.

The Church does encourage us to pursue holiness in every part of our life. Why don’t you actually read JPII’s encyclical on Work that you mention, but clearly didn’t read or get the gist of it.

Feel free to keep all the books you want Joseph. “Store up” all the books you want. See the Gospel reading from today: usccb.org/bible/readings/101711.cfm

Nothing scrupulous about looking for opportunities for being generous.

Don’t get “weirded out” be serene and joyful. You worry over much.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Feel free to keep all the books you want Joseph. “Store up” all the books you want. See the Gospel reading from today: usccb.org/bible/readings/101711.cfm”

• Thank you. I WILL store up all the books I want.

The Gospel quote you link to is one of the most misunderstood areas in the entire Bible. All it is really saying is that one should put one’s trust in God – not in material things, which cannot grant you salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is being wealthy or owning possessions condemned as “sinful.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The moral doctrine of poverty”

“Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, “Quæst. de justitia”, n. 210).

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8475797

• And Catholic Apologist Father Vincent Serpa writes:

“Putting God first does not mean that one cannot work to make a profit. It means that such a profit is subject to one’s full allegiance to God. St. Thomas More was Chancellor of England. He had a private zoo and all kinds of perks from his employment. But God always came first for him. When he had to make the choice between his wealth and God, he did what he was accustomed to doing. He chose God first.”

forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8475797

• You seem to be implying, in your Gospel link above, that we are not allowed to “store up” anything for ourselves here on Earth, or we will be in “sin.” This is absolutely false. It is, yet again, another distortion of Church teaching. I suggest that you examine what the Church itself has to say before quoting from Scripture. You will likely be surprised how far your own personal opinion may vary from the truth.

YOU WROTE: “Don’t get “weirded out” be serene and joyful. You worry over much.”

• On the contrary, I don’t worry at all. But I am concerned that the things you are saying will cause many others to worry for nothing. You state your own personal opinions as if the rest of us are somehow obligated to follow them, even though we clearly are not - just like in your Gospel example above. This suggests to me that you do not understand the implications of words, and what they can do to people.

The Bible itself refers to Scripture as a double-edged sword. It can certainly build you up. But it can easily tear you down, too. Used badly, Scripture can be an absolutely terrible weapon. Your comments make it abundantly clear to me that you do not understand this aspect of Scripture at all. You say things that are quite hurtful, and blatantly false. But you don’t seem to recognize them as hurtful. And you don’t seem to register how they might negatively affect others who read them.

This concerns me very much.

 

[Edward_H]

The Gospel quote you link to is one of the most misunderstood areas in the entire Bible. All it is really saying is that one should put one’s trust in God – not in material things, which cannot grant you salvation. Nowhere in the Bible is being wealthy or owning possessions condemned as “sinful.”

If this is “all” you got out of that Gospel passage, you have more work to do.

It’s about attachment, unity with God, supernatural outlook, and about 4 or 5 other strong points.

You’re proof-texting.

Regarding poverty…of course Jesus did not condemn possession of worldly goods. I never said anything about possessing goods…in fact, if you’re nimble, my earlier comment about “what’s outside / vs inside” should have been evidence enough.

But…if you seek items in order to possess them…vs…what you can do for God and others…then you are probably bordering on having an unhealthy “attachment”. Here again, it’s the intent.

And with respect to work and profit…of course. No argument. But the intention of your work ought to be to give glory to God, to provide for your family so they are can develop their talents, to help others.

To store up profit after profit for only the intention of seeking more is however again bordering on attachment.

You’re proof-texting a priest…read the whole chapter.

Read these sections in the Catechism:

ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=attachment&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Who was the happiest person when he died?

Lookup the word “kenosis” and you will understand what I am getting at.

 

[Edward_H]

A useful test or point of examination to apply to our actions or inactions is this: to fill in the following “…so that…”. Or “…in order to…”

Having to spell out the reasons for why we do things or not do them can be very helpful in deepening our interior life and in opening us up to new forms of generous living, kenotic living.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Regarding poverty…of course Jesus did not condemn possession of worldly goods. I never said anything about possessing goods…in fact, if you’re nimble, my earlier comment about “what’s outside / vs inside” should have been evidence enough.”

-Actually, you SPECIFICALLY condemned the possession of worldly goods. You actually quoted me a passage from the Gospel as evidence that the possession of worldly goods was condemned: usccb.org/bible/readings/101711.cfm

“Then he told them a parable.
“There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, “What shall I do,
for I do not have space to store my harvest?”
And he said, “This is what I shall do:
I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods
and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years,
rest, eat, drink, be merry!””
But God said to him,
“You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you;
and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?”
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself
but is not rich in what matters to God.””

• As I pointed out above, this is not a condemnation of worldly goods. The Catholic Encyclopedia and the quote from Apologist Vincent Serpa make that quite clear. Perhaps you thought I wouldn’t catch this.

YOU WROTE: “But…if you seek items in order to possess them…vs…what you can do for God and others…then you are probably bordering on having an unhealthy “attachment”. Here again, it’s the intent.”

• I never said anything about the seeking of possessions replacing my relations with God or others. You are hearing things that aren’t there.

YOU WROTE: “And with respect to work and profit…of course. No argument. But the intention of your work ought to be to give glory to God, to provide for your family so they are can develop their talents, to help others.”

• And what if a person lives alone? No family? You seem very clear that looking after yourself doesn’t take very high priority. You even claim “A movie watched by ourselves for our own pleasure is suspect (of being sinful).” As if an individual is not important enough to derive benefit from doing something alone.

This is NOT Church Doctrine. In the words of the Fifth Commandment, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.” You obviously have very little love or value for yourself (or individual people), if you think that actions (like watching movies or TV) done while alone - by yourself - are “sinful.”

If you do not first love and take care of yourself, you most certainly are not going to love others. There is no objective difference between families watching movies and individuals watching movies. No moral difference. All are children of God. All of us need rest and entertainment. Including individuals. If you say otherwise, that is just your opinion, and nothing but.

YOU WROTE: “To store up profit after profit for only the intention of seeking more is however again bordering on attachment.”

• I would certainly agree. Such actions would likely require the aid of a psychologist, not a priest. Very, very few people make acquiring of goods at the focus of their lives, even in the secular world. Such behavior likely stems from genuine psychological disorders, not sin.

Besides, you yourself say: “And with respect to work and profit…of course. No argument.”

• And I myself have never said otherwise. The Catechism itself says exactly the same thing:
  **
  2432 “Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment…Economic activity presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly.”**
• I have never disagreed with this assessment in any way whatsoever in my posts. What, exactly, is the problem here? We are arguing for nothing.

You have some very strange ideas about what counts as sin (watching TV/movies alone, reading and accumulating books.) These ideas are merely your own purely subjective, personal beliefs. They are not Church Doctrine. You will never find anything in official Catholic teaching to back them up. Such ideas are simply bad reasoning. They are flatly wrong. Perhaps you need take a break from listening to whatever sources are feeding you this nonsense. This priest you mention sounds like an remarkable source of bad reasoning. It might be good to start listening to someone else.

 

[LilyM]

Joseph, St Paul said ‘if anyone refuses to work, then do not let him eat’. That’s a pretty strong condemnation of idleness right there.

And he says elsewhere that along with his preaching he kept right up with his trade as tentmaker all the while, so as not to be a burden on others. Presumably this means he made sure to earn enough for himself through his own labour that others did not have to directly or indirectly support him.

As for people without family or friends - Jesus told such people exactly what to do. Love your neighbor, do good for ‘the least of these’, ie for those who are in need.

And His description of the last judgement in Matthew’s gospel makes it clear that those who neglect to do the works of mercy for others where they can - who fail to help ‘the least of these’ when they can, will not get off lightly come the Last Day.

More than this, He gave us His own example. Yes, He had times of leisure and solitude, but He also gave His all to good works - teaching and healing being the most prominent. Above all, as Christians we are called on to be as like Him as we can, in His doing His fair share of work as well as resting from time to time.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Joseph, St Paul said ‘if anyone refuses to work, then do not let him eat’. That’s a pretty strong condemnation of idleness right there.”

• I do not understand why everyone thinks leisure is idleness. It most certainly is not. It is merely work of a different sort.

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 is the only well-organized, well-recognized Catholic work on this odd subject. No one will be confused about this issue, 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.

If you are describing leisure as “idleness,” you quite literally do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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.

Again, your self-contradictory logic exposes itself. Read the following words right there.

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.

If you disregard something even as basic as a dictionary definition, then you are in no place to dictate to me like you know more about semantics than I do. The dictionary is your reference if you want to know how modern man currently speaks. To insist on equating ‘holiness’ with modern man’s current understanding of ‘happiness’ (being it simply an emotional state of bliss) is to risk justifying the age-old Marxist criticism against religion.

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

Do you get a kick out of being deliberately ironic or is this just how ‘spiritual’ people think? You can’t be an error at the same time as being a fact. Errors are anomalies in need of correction. To say a fact is an error implies that it is not a fact at all.

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

With the current understanding of work, pray, and play, there is such a separation. You said so yourself that sitting on the beach isn’t glorifying God as much as Eucharistic Adoration. Am I to expect nothing from you except more obscurity and contradiction?

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.

Did you even READ my words right? It’s a combination of BOTH intellect and sense of leisure that separates us from both BEAST and MACHINE.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “It’s a combination of BOTH intellect and sense of leisure that separates us from both BEAST and MACHINE.”

• Quite so. It sounds like you’ve been reading Joseph Pieper’s book. Good for you. This IS the Catholic Church’s position on this matter. I’m glad to see someone is benefiting from the information here.

 

[LilyM]

Do you suppose St Paul would’ve been happy to feed someone who did little else with their days but sit on the beach? I strongly doubt it, being as he was so keen himself to be actively doing. And it’s HIS, scripture’s, definition of work which matters, not yours or mine or your pet author’s.

YOU WROTE: “Joseph, St Paul said ‘if anyone refuses to work, then do not let him eat’. That’s a pretty strong condemnation of idleness right there.”

• I do not understand why everyone thinks leisure is idleness. It most certainly is not. It is merely work of a different sort.

If leisure is work then the title of your thread is nonsense because by that logic everyone, with no exception, is working, and there’s no such creature as a person who doesn’t work.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If leisure is work then the title of your thread is nonsense because by that logic everyone, with no exception, is working, and there’s no such creature as a person who doesn’t work.

Me thinks all this arguing is based on different perspectives on what constitutes as ‘leisure’, ‘idleness’, and ‘work’.

Just to offer a crude example: To a laborer in my country with barely a highschool diploma to his name, the work of a CEO or even just a college professor would seem easy compared to the heavy work he does. Obviously, the other party would have a different say.

 

[Edward_H]

YOU WROTE: “It’s a combination of BOTH intellect and sense of leisure that separates us from both BEAST and MACHINE.”

• Quite so. It sounds like you’ve been reading Joseph Pieper’s book. Good for you. This IS the Catholic Church’s position on this matter. I’m glad to see someone is benefiting from the information here.

I encourage you to read Pieper more deeply and read it in light of a full view of Church teaching across the ages.

Doctors of the Church, Aquinas for example, (Pieper hasn’t been so designated), very carefully teased out the differences between humans and other things. These differences and distinctions have withstood hundreds of years of application and testing.

There are different types of souls…animative, sensitive, and rational. Plants live because they have a animative soul, which allows for the fundamentals of life. Animals have “sensitive” souls…allowing them to respond to feedback and other (name removed by moderator)ut from their senses…and we have a spiritual or rational soul, which means our souls have no end, they can exist separated from the body, and it means we can understanding good and evil, and make decisions using our intellectual faculties and our will.

Leisure may be a fallout of the above, but it is definitely not the essence (“that without which is not”) of our humanity.

Geesh.

 

[Edward_H]

Joseph wrote:

Actually, you SPECIFICALLY condemned the possession of worldly goods. You actually quoted me a passage from the Gospel as evidence that the possession of worldly goods was condemned: usccb.org/bible/readings/101711.cfm

WARNING. Do not point to the USCCB website as proof that I condemned the possession of worldly goods, and then fail to make any strong connection using my actual words to your assertion. You CANNOT show or prove I condemned any such thing. I never used or implied the word condemn. I specifically pointed out that the passage was about attachments, unity with God, and so forth. I said nothing anywhere close to condemn, loss of salvation, etc.

• I never said anything about the seeking of possessions replacing my relations with God or others. You are hearing things that aren’t there.

Good. You’re making progress. Now, the question remains how one uses their possessions (and their time) to love God and others, with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength?

If a person lives alone, this doesn’t stop them from loving God and others with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Far from it. This state of live leaves plenty of time to serve God and others.

• Volunteer regularly at some charity (Sorting, washing clothes)
• building toys,
• mending coats,
• feeding people,
• getting groceries for old people who can’t drive,
• writing letters to their congressman on important moral issues,
• putting together formation classes for others,
• praying the Rosary for a million intentions,
• building an endowment to give away,
• helping old people with their computer problems, etc.

The movie point was…giiven ones intelligence and good will…isn’t it possible to give a supernatural meaning to our ordinary actions? Reviewing a movie with an eye toward helping others…vs. self-absorbing a movie with no supernatural intention?

WARNING:

You obviously have very little love or value for yourself (or individual people), if you think that actions (like watching movies or TV) done while alone - by yourself - are “sinful.”

Just stop with the silly assault and assertion.

You have some very strange ideas about what counts as sin (watching TV/movies alone, reading and accumulating books.) These ideas are merely your own purely subjective, personal beliefs. They are not Church Doctrine. You will never find anything in official Catholic teaching to back them up. Such ideas are simply bad reasoning. They are flatly wrong. Perhaps you need take a break from listening to whatever sources are feeding you this nonsense. This priest you mention sounds like an remarkable source of bad reasoning. It might be good to start listening to someone else.

I didn’t say watching movies is a sin…it’s the INTENT. That’s about the tenth time I have used that word. And that IS Church Doctrine.

If your intent is to serve yourself and not God directly (or to love God by serving others)…then a good spiritual director - depending on the state of your interior life - might ask you to stretch a bit…and to give your actions a supernatural intention.

Your persistence in not “getting” intention and “praying always” is revealing. And I think that this is why so many Catholics have have such a spotty and weak interior life. They approach God maybe 10 times a week…rather than seeking Him always amid their ordinary day.

 

[Edward_H]

If you disregard something even as basic as a dictionary definition, then you are in no place to dictate to me like you know more about semantics than I do. The dictionary is your reference if you want to know how modern man currently speaks. To insist on equating ‘holiness’ with modern man’s current understanding of ‘happiness’ (being it simply an emotional state of bliss) is to risk justifying the age-old Marxist criticism against religion.

I am interested in substantial, enduring truths on how to live in this world, how God shows us to be infinitely happy. The answer to those substantial questions aren’t found in the ever changing dictionary.

I didn’t equate holiness with modern man’s understanding. Goodness gracious.

Holiness is smirked at by non believers. And poorly understood by believers. It isn’t a mere emotional state. And neither is happiness. Don’t go running to today’s dictionary.

 

[ahs]

…And I think that this is why so many Catholics have have such a spotty and weak interior life. They approach God maybe 10 times a week…rather than seeking Him always amid their ordinary day.

I apologize for any interruption, but as I was browsing through the posts I thought that this statement ties deeply into the original question of the OP.

Humans are meant for work, and work is for us. Even before the first sin, God commanded man to subdue the earth and rule over it. That involves work. Created in the likeness and image of God, we are workers, as He is a worker/do-er/creator.

And as we are created to do work, we should do all our work (not just your paying job, but everything you do…all your responsibilities, efforts, etc… ) for Him who created us. When we forget to offer all our works to God, to seek Him in all the things we do, we end up as Edward H points out, with a weak interior life…a weak spirituality…which eventually affects other aspects of our lives.

 

[Edward_H]

I apologize for any interruption, but as I was browsing through the posts I thought that this statement ties deeply into the original question of the OP.

Humans are meant for work, and work is for us. Even before the first sin, God commanded man to subdue the earth and rule over it. That involves work. Created in the likeness and image of God, we are workers, as He is a worker/do-er/creator.

And as we are created to do work, we should do all our work (not just your paying job, but everything you do…all your responsibilities, efforts, etc… ) for Him who created us. When we forget to offer all our works to God, to seek Him in all the things we do, we end up as Edward H points out, with a weak interior life…a weak spirituality…which eventually affects other aspects of our lives.

AHS: Thank you for saying something so amazingly correct and precise, in so few words, in such a charitable way.

I can learn much from you.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am interested in substantial, enduring truths on how to live in this world, how God shows us to be infinitely happy. The answer to those substantial questions aren’t found in the ever changing dictionary.

You really like to make me repeat myself don’t you? I’m not really asking you to change the ideas but I am asking to rethink your MEANS of expressing them.

I didn’t equate holiness with modern man’s understanding. Goodness gracious.

Given that, in the same sentence, you equate two words that have two wholly different meanings in the context of modern man’s definition (for more reference, check your dictionary)… yes, you did.

Holiness is smirked at by non believers. And poorly understood by believers. It isn’t a mere emotional state. And neither is happiness. Don’t go running to today’s dictionary.

Ah, I think I will. I don’t see how hard it is for someone like you to face the simple fact that the word ‘happiness’ does in fact refer to an emotional state as far as modern man uses it in everyday language. You can’t just blatantly make it a synonym to the obscure and elusive concept that is the Catholic understanding of ‘holiness’.

Your refusal is in fact one of the greatest weaknesses religion has in the face of secularism today. You refuse to restate your terms and definitions so that people might understand you more and would rather alienate them with obscure statements that reek of a True Scotsman fallacy.