Is it a sin not to work?

[Edward_H]

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.

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.

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.

Sure. You say so. Easy on the finger jabbing.

For the record

Happiness no longer has the meaning it used to. It’s been cheapened and emotionalized to the detriment of people’s mental well being, in the very same way that love has been cheapened and emotionalized. Whole professions now exist fully convinced that they understand and can help people achieve happiness. Bookshelves tip over with psychopablum about happiness and love. Most should be, and eventually are tossed out or thankfully forgotten.

The Beatitudes tell us how to be happy and holy. Jesus gave us the best self-help book imaginable, one that brings joy, serenity, peace, total self-giving, the joy of a being a child of God. He didn’t want us to be worried, fretful, etc, like so many people are in these forums.

Happiness used to mean a whole life morally well lived. One could not be happy actually until the end of their life. This is how the great philosophers understood it. One could be content, satiated, etc. variously at various periods of their life, but happiness was reserved for something more substantial.

The term “the pursuit of happiness” in the founding documents of the US actually referred to the original, more substantial meaning of happiness. Most Americans have no idea.

The Church realized that the Greeks had a point, but one upped them, by thinking through the concept of holiness…set apart for God, union with God…and interestingly it too was a pursuit, a life long struggle toward this state. In this case it doesn’t end with our life, like the Greek concept of happiness, it led to Beatitude…divine union with God Himself.

Just because the dictionary has defined down concepts, doesn’t make them helpful or true. Your favorite dictionaries are but a blip on the lexical timeline. They are a but a snapshot of usage, with some jaw jacking profs in the background.

You may find these more useful than Greek philosophy, more helpful than Catholic doctrine, more practical than a pursuit of holiness…but I don’t.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Happiness no longer has the meaning it used to. It’s been cheapened and emotionalized to the detriment of people’s mental well being. In the very same that love has been cheapened and emotionalized. Whole professions now exist full convinced that they understand and can help people achieve happiness. Bookshelves tip over with psychopablum about happiness.

One thing I learned in semantics, meanings and the forms of expressing said meaning are two separate things. You can have the same idea, the same concept but it can have over a dozen words. That’s a rough explanation but it should be good enough for you. The bottom line is, no amount of belly-aching from you is going to change the fact that the letters “H-A-P-P-I-N-E-S-S” now point to a different concept than what you originally intended. This doesn’t really destroy anything as much as simply society switching codes.

What you need to do is simply accept that and update yourself to process that same code so you get your ACTUAL idea out. (You know? Instead of just writing out stuff that can easily be misinterpreted and ripped up by people.)

Happiness used to mean a whole life morally well lived.

Not anymore. It refers to a state of happiness and society is not going to change how it uses the word just because you complain about it. The best thing you can do is just find another word or better yet, just stick to using ‘holiness’ since making synonyms needlessly like you just did is pointless anyways.

Just because the dictionary has defined down concepts, doesn’t make them helpful or true. Your favorite dictionaries are but a blip on the lexical timeline. They are a but a snapshot of usage, with some jaw jacking profs in the background.

Of course the dictionary changes over time. That’s the nature of human language. Heck, I’m not even a stellar student and even I finished my classes on the subject having learned this lesson.

For the umpteenth time, realize that you’re just arguing semantics here. I am not telling you to change your views but telling you to speak as the common man speaks. Discard the form but not the meaning. Get it?

 

[Brent87st]

Yes. It does sound ridiculous in view of two groups that come to mind i.e. the unemployed and retirees. It would be tragic to deem the former as “sinning” through no fault of theirs and where the latter had already completed their task. I reckon, the real peril is in idleness…devil’s workshop and all that.http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating1.jpg
http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating2.jpg
http://www.cuinsurance.org/mating3.jpg

 

[Edward_H]

One thing I learned in semantics, meanings and the forms of expressing said meaning are two separate things. You can have the same idea, the same concept but it can have over a dozen words. That’s a rough explanation but it should be good enough for you. The bottom line is, no amount of belly-aching from you is going to change the fact that the letters “H-A-P-P-I-N-E-S-S” now point to a different concept than what you originally intended. This doesn’t really destroy anything as much as simply society switching codes.

No kidding. And that’s why it’s wonderful that we have this concept of holiness.

Lay your over-advertised semantics degrees, certificates, and qualifications aside and actually work with the concepts for the benefit of others.

This forum sometimes reminds me of some Unitarians who seem to rather want to talk about the concept of heaven than be there.

I am not arguing semantics…we’ll let you do that…I am actually proposing principles of living in Christ. Holiness, total self-donation, interior life, prayer, converting work into prayer, call to holiness, unity with God, supernatural outlook, etc.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

No kidding. And that’s why it’s wonderful that we have this concept of holiness.

Lay your over-advertised semantics degrees, certificates, and qualifications aside and actually work with the concepts for the benefit of others.

The concept of holiness is obscure. You can’t measure it. Only God can. With that in mind, you can’t dictate to others (much less without warrant) how to achieve it. Furthermore, whilst it now is its own category, you should understand why people now organize differences between work, play, and pray. Each sphere has its own equal share of importance to the human person.

 

[someguy14]

I keep seeing work touted as something sacred.

A better question is, is it a sin to force everbody to pay for land seeing as how Adam was cursed “to till the ground from whence he was taken”.

Thats old testament though.

 

[Edward_H]

The concept of holiness is obscure. You can’t measure it. Only God can. With that in mind, you can’t dictate to others (much less without warrant) how to achieve it. Furthermore, whilst it now is its own category, you should understand why people now organize differences between work, play, and pray. Each sphere has its own equal share of importance to the human person.

Holiness is no more obscure than any other human state, including psychobabble’s happiness. Really, it’s not.

When we are sincerely pursuing holiness, like a child of God, we actually end up sensing joy and serenity - because God is the source of all joy.

Take a break from the semantics textbooks and journals, and study the lives of some saints, and learn from them.

I am not dictating anything. You seem always on the edge of being offended or poking fingers.

I am simply reminding people, many Catholics, that happiness, joy, serenity, are close by when when we pursue holiness. This is well traveled and known ground. It’s sure ground.

A nearly always fatal error is to allow a “separation” between work, play, rest. The devil loves to drive apart our categories, have us treat things separately.

God desires [ever greater] unity with us, during our work, our play, and our rest. It gives Him comfort. We can be like Simon of Cyrene, close to Jesus in His Struggles, giving Him help and comfort.

Some Catholics, and most Protestants, fail to remember that to God the Father, Jesus’s struggles on Calvary are EVER PRESENT to Him. He experiences all time as present.

A separate topic…but this is why you can not love in the future, you can’t love in the past. You can only love in the present moment. God is love. Love is available in the present moment.

This too should give us serenity, and help us to love where we are in the ordinary of our day.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Holiness is no more obscure than any other human state, including psychobabble’s happiness. Really, it’s not.

Your own words (or rather your incapacity to use them) betray you.

When we are sincerely pursuing holiness, like a child of God, we actually end up sensing joy and serenity - because God is the source of all joy.

Again, what did I say about making pointless synonyms? Must I really pull out Marx myself? I’m not even an atheist but come on, let’s face facts. We cannot reduce God to a drug of bliss.

Do not tell me I misunderstand. I am demonstrating why your choice of words is in error. Things like ‘child’, ‘joy’, and ‘serenity’ will ring differently to other people. And by differently, that includes BADLY.

Take a break from the semantics textbooks and journals, and study the lives of some saints, and learn from them.

I have read and frankly the more I read, the more I only affirm that the rhetoric is completely alienating and ripe for misunderstanding when one has considered modern man’s perspective and understanding of certain words.

There’s a reason why evangelists shouldn’t just tell people to read what you recommend on the get-go. Unless you had a prior reading of the basics, the stuff I’ve seen in the flowery works of the saints and their biographies will only provoke the worst of a non-believer’s tendencies.

I am not dictating anything. You seem always on the edge of being offended or poking fingers.

Another contradiction as proven in the following words:

A nearly always fatal error is to allow a “separation” between work, play, rest. The devil loves to drive apart our categories, have us treat things separately.

That’s dictating right there. Categorizing brings forth order, not division. It helps people prioritize and know what is appropriate for which. The Separation of Church and State follows this principle as does the separation of Theology from Evolutionary Biology.

If you ask me, I’ve seen firsthand how the devil can easily work the fusing of all three categories to his advantage. On the other hand, I’ve found that separating prayer in its own unique category, helps me focus on it.

 

[Edward_H]

Again, what did I say about making pointless synonyms?

I am so slow. Please put in a simple way the synonyms I have pointlessly given. Keep the words to a few.

Must I really pull out Marx myself?

You keep waxing on about Marx…did Marx say something useful about holiness?

If you don’t understand the concept of spiritual childhood, then you don’t understand anything useful about your relationship with God, and nothing about one of the most significant points that comes out of the New Testament.

Books on the shelf, but no real knowledge about how to encounter Christ in your ordinary day.

How’s that?

Get your head out of dead dictionaries, and read the living Word, as a child, innocent, confident in the love of a never-fail Father, simple, joyful, trusting. Spiritual childhood, humility are key to developing an interior life. An interior life with God can never come about by flaunting dictionaries and credentials.

Regarding “categories”: The Jews over-categorized the law, didn’t they? They thought they were bringing “order”, didn’t they? And what did Jesus do to their refined and elaborated categories?

The deadly categorization that I was referring to was your reference to separating work, play, fun.

Some people separate God…place Him into a Sunday box, just where the devil wants Him to be. They keep Him in the Sunday box, kick Him out of (or don’t invite Him into) the marital bed box, the family balance sheet, vacations, the computer, the entertainment room, etc.

They create neat and ordered categories…and still there is no peace and real Order in their lives. Hmmm.

A key part of the interior life is being able to maintain an integral…God is with us wherever we go…ready to give us graces, there to encourage us to come out of ourselves, to be come more by being part of Him.

Nothing small connected to God remains small. And we are small, but we don’t like to admit it, even though we fashion ourselves to be smart and scholarly.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am so slow. Please put in a simple way the synonyms I have pointlessly given. Keep the words to a few.

How about making ‘happiness’ synonymous with ‘holiness’? Again, you disregard modern man’s understanding. Do you want to tell a message or are you just happy being the alienating guru?

You keep waxing on about Marx…did Marx say something useful about holiness?

Not so much about holiness but a very important philosophical perspective on the word ‘holiness’ that needs to be taken into account.

Unless of course, you are comfortable with affirming the idea that religion and God are just mixtures to a society’s wonder drug?

If you don’t understand the concept of spiritual childhood, then you don’t understand anything useful about your relationship with God, and nothing about one of the most significant points that comes out of the New Testament.

Oh I understand perfectly. I just happen to know that the words YOU use are NOT the best words today. The are in fact prone to misinterpretation, twisting, and self-mockery.

Books on the shelf, but no real knowledge about how to encounter Christ in your ordinary day.

How’s that?

Wow. Judgement. Nice. Again, how are you not dictating?

Get your head out of dead dictionaries, and read the living Word, as a child, innocent, confident in the love of a never-fail Father, simple, joyful, trusting. Spiritual childhood, humility are key to developing an interior life. An interior life with God can never come about by flaunting dictionaries and credentials.

Let’s see here… ‘child’, ‘innocent’, ‘simple’… all words now more popularly derided with their affiliations to ‘ignorance’, ‘naivety’, and ‘simpleton’. Get my point now?

You need to re-evaluate your rhetoric.

Regarding “categories”: The Jews over-categorized the law, didn’t they? They thought they were bringing “order”, didn’t they? And what did Jesus do to their refined and elaborated categories?

Apples and oranges. I dare you to mix politics with religion. I dare you to mix theology with evolutionary science. You’ll find that there are just some things about them that make them incompatible when fused together, instead of simply working with each other in their own proper place.

Some people separate God…place Him into a Sunday box, just where the devil wants Him to be. They keep Him in the Sunday box, kick Him out of (or don’t invite Him into) the marital bed box, the family balance sheet, vacations, the computer, the entertainment room, etc.

Given the modern/popular image of religion (Note: meditate on the bolded without the rose-tinted glasses), I would say those are very wise choices. I’d rather play Dissidia Duodecim than Bible Scrabble. I’d sooner imagine my author avatar as some brooding, anti-social Warlock than some dumb, blonde Knight in shining armor. If I wanted to give the Church some money, I’d just do it on Sunday as soon as I get a job. (I gotta feed myself too y’know.)

And before you (or anybody else for that matter) accuses me of having distorted view of religion, please read the bolded portion. I actually have a good idea of what our religion truly means. I’m just aware that we might need to put the perspective of those outside into consideration first.

 

[Edward_H]

How about making ‘happiness’ synonymous with ‘holiness’? Again, you disregard modern man’s understanding. Do you want to tell a message or are you just happy being the alienating guru?

Not so much about holiness but a very important philosophical perspective on the word ‘holiness’ that needs to be taken into account.

Unless of course, you are comfortable with affirming the idea that religion and God are just mixtures to a society’s wonder drug?

Oh I understand perfectly. I just happen to know that the words YOU use are NOT the best words today. The are in fact prone to misinterpretation, twisting, and self-mockery.

Wow. Judgement. Nice. Again, how are you not dictating?

Let’s see here… ‘child’, ‘innocent’, ‘simple’… all words now more popularly derided with their affiliations to ‘ignorance’, ‘naivety’, and ‘simpleton’. Get my point now?

You need to re-evaluate your rhetoric.

Apples and oranges. I dare you to mix politics with religion. I dare you to mix theology with evolutionary science. You’ll find that there are just some things about them that make them incompatible when fused together, instead of simply working with each other in their own proper place.

Given the modern/popular image of religion (Note: meditate on the bolded without the rose-tinted glasses), I would say those are very wise choices. I’d rather play Dissidia Duodecim than Bible Scrabble. I’d sooner imagine my author avatar as some brooding, anti-social Warlock than some dumb, blonde Knight in shining armor. If I wanted to give the Church some money, I’d just do it on Sunday as soon as I get a job. (I gotta feed myself too y’know.)

And before you (or anybody else for that matter) accuses me of having distorted view of religion, please read the bolded portion. I actually have a good idea of what our religion truly means. I’m just aware that we might need to put the perspective of those outside into consideration first.

And so this sub-thread ends the way all threads end with you, with your endless one-upping pseudo-scholasticism.

Dissidia Duodecim: Indeed.

 

[Contarini]

Work allows, unlike any other activity, the fulfillment of our capacities.

I think we may need to define “work.”

If by “work” you mean “things one does for pay” (which is practically what it means to most people) then I think your statement is clearly false.

If one means “activity that has the goal of producing something that will be of benefit to others” then I would agree, with the caveat that developing our capacities is a good in itself. It’s not an either/or. Putting our capacities at the service of the neighbor is part of developing and using them to the full, but it is not the sole justification for developing them.

The evangelical athlete in Chariots of Fire says, “When I run I feel God’s pleasure.” That athlete used his gifts in ways that benefited others, but for him the sheer act of running was glorifying to God. Had he simply spent all his time becoming a better runner so that he could feel God’s pleasure, that would have ceased to be glorifying to God, because in this world our neighbors have needs that we can’t meet by simply being ourselves.

I hope/suspect that in the Kingdom this will no longer be the case–gazing on God and overflowing to the neighbor will, I speculate, be one and the same act there. To follow Augustine’s interpretation of the first day of creation, there will be no night in that city and so the “morning” and “evening” knowledge of God will be the same.

Edwin

 

[Edward_H]

I think we may need to define “work.”

If by “work” you mean “things one does for pay” (which is practically what it means to most people) then I think your statement is clearly false.

If one means “activity that has the goal of producing something that will be of benefit to others” then I would agree, with the caveat that developing our capacities is a good in itself. It’s not an either/or. Putting our capacities at the service of the neighbor is part of developing and using them to the full, but it is not the sole justification for developing them.

The evangelical athlete in Chariots of Fire says, “When I run I feel God’s pleasure.” That athlete used his gifts in ways that benefited others, but for him the sheer act of running was glorifying to God. Had he simply spent all his time becoming a better runner so that he could feel God’s pleasure, that would have ceased to be glorifying to God, because in this world our neighbors have needs that we can’t meet by simply being ourselves.

I hope/suspect that in the Kingdom this will no longer be the case–gazing on God and overflowing to the neighbor will, I speculate, be one and the same act there. To follow Augustine’s interpretation of the first day of creation, there will be no night in that city and so the “morning” and “evening” knowledge of God will be the same.

Edwin

The demands of work, of any kind of work, mowing the grass, balancing a spreadsheet, changing diapers, programming software, surveying a road, flying a plane, patrolling a police beat, flipping burgers - all of these can help us develop our capacities.

Some pay, some don’t…doesn’t matter to God. All licit work can be sanctified.

Work allows us to develop many capacities…calculation, planning, attention to detail, prediction, hand eye control…and work (of all the forms I mention above) can also help us develop human virtues: prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, patience, magnanimity, longanimity, etc.

Work can be sanctified, and it can sanctify…it can draw us closer to God. All work can be done for the glory of God.

Work done well, with the right intention, made attractive, on time, innovative…can actually end up being useful apostolate. Well done things attract attention. They naturally draw our eye and attention. They allow God’s beauty to breathe through the well done work. Well done work can actually transcend us…take us to some place. Not just great music…but a great well run restaurant…cheerful, bright, service minded, sacrificing staff etc…can actually take us out of ourselves…and to help the ‘communion’ that goes on during a dinner conversation.

Regarding the Evangelical athlete…yes exactly. All activity can be raised to this level.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

I must thank CONTARINI for his summation above. It mostly answers my question in the OP.

LOST WANDERER WROTE: “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 high school 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.”

• This is exactly right. It is the entire point of this forum. Things I consider fun are not work. Eg., philosophy, literature, science, engineering, artistry, etc. I do these things because I ENJOY them. To feel the presence of God, as CONTARINI says. Not for any utilitarian benefit, although that may come to pass. But that’s not the reason I do them. If it’s fun, it’s not work. This is PRECISELY the point of Pieper’s “Leisure, The Basis of Culture.” It is not right to distrust leisure just because it seems easy, or because it seems to be done for its own intrinsic goodness.

Thomas Edison himself said:

“I never did a day’s work in my life. It was all fun.”

And he was a very hard worker.

I was originally asking about work that is NOT fun. (Perhaps I did not make this clear.) Are we as Catholics required to seek out work that makes us miserable? Will we be in sin if we aren’t doing work that makes us miserable and unhappy, and causes us to suffer for nothing? This would seem to be a heretical message. Like seeking out suffering for the sake suffering. The Catholic Church does not teach this. But I am amazed by how many Catholics seem to hold this attitude anyway.

And I’m not talking about helping someone who absolutely needs your help. That’s not “work.” If God sends you a person who needs your help, He will make it absolutely unmistakable. You will not even think of such things as “work.” Your response will simply be part of who you are.

I consider my original question in the OP entirely answered. I thank the people who posted here whose writing helped make this clear.

ANOTHER POSTER WROTE: “Yes. It does sound ridiculous in view of two groups that come to mind i.e. the unemployed and retirees. It would be tragic to deem the former as “sinning” through no fault of theirs and where the latter had already completed their task. I reckon, the real peril is in idleness…devil’s workshop and all that.”

This is entirely correct.

And I still recommend that everyone interested in the issue of leisure should read Joseph Pieper’s “Leisure, The Basis Of Culture.” Again, here is the full text:

scribd.com/doc/28873477/Leisure-the-Basis-of-Culture

It agrees ENTIRELY with what is being said here.

As far as I’m concerned, this issue is closed.

 

[Edward_H]

Actually, everything is not closed.

Many humans, perhaps not you, still need to face the work that’s not fun. And yet all of it too can be sanctified, as easily as the “fun”.

• The baby vomiting all night
• The tornado broken home that needs to be sorted through and cleaned up
• The Alzheimer’s wife who needs to be changed.
• etc.

All this can be sanctified and done in the service of God.

The classics on these topics are:

Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski: All You Who Labor: Work and the Sanctification of Daily Life.
Jose Luis Illanes: The Sanctification of Work

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Actually, everything is not closed.”

• Actually, it is. At least for me.

YOUWROTE: “Many humans, perhaps not you, still need to face the work that’s not fun. And yet all of it too can be sanctified, as easily as the “fun”.

• And I have never disputed that in any way. This matter is closed for me. I see no reason to keep restating what we already know from our religion anyway.

I have nothing left to say here.

 

[Edward_H]

Temper temper.

I offered 2 as yet unmentioned books on the sanctification of work.

These are on topic, and might benefit someone else.

 

[white_sheep]

I agree that it is a sin to not work. And by that I mean to be idle when one is capable.

 

[LilyM]

Joseph, Thomas Edison might not have felt like he was working but he sure produced things that were of enormous benefit to others. He didn’t sit on the beach all day with no more active or productive end in mind.

You may do things to ‘feel the presence of God’, but feeling the presence of God is only half the story. The Apostles felt the presence of God, true, but they were active and productive nonetheless, teaching, writing, advising and doing works of charity. As well, of course, as having deep prayer lives.

Feeling the presence of God, for Christians, means we then transmit that presence to our fellow man via the corporal and spiritual works of mercy or in other concrete ways. Such is the example Jesus set for us to follow. I don’t see anywhere indicated in scripture, Church teaching or in the example of the saints who She holds up to us as role models, a single example of anyone who felt the presence of God as any sort of end in itself.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

YOU WROTE: “Feeling the presence of God, for Christians, means we then transmit that presence to our fellow man via the corporal and spiritual works of mercy or in other concrete ways.

No it doesn’t. Not in every circumstance. You are wrong.

Philosophy is an example of something practiced purely for its own sake. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge. I have a hard time seeing how philosophy could EVER be transmitted “to our fellow man via the corporal and spiritual works of mercy or in other concrete ways.” This is one of the primary arguments that utilitarians often use to classify philosophy as “useless” and a “waste of time.” It doesn’t build houses for the poor. It doesn’t help the economy. It doesn’t build road, etc. It serves no utilitarian purpose to speak of. But it is still a valuable field for its own intrinsic worth, and I find that being a philosopher is an important end in and of itself, and for no other reason.

As a philosopher, I find your implication very offensive that leisure activities like philosophy are somehow “worthless,” because they do not “transmit that presence (of God) to our fellow man via the corporal and spiritual works of mercy or in other concrete ways.” Are you seriously trying to tell me that my chosen field is worthless just because it doesn’t do anything “concrete?” Ridiculous.

There is more to life than utilitarian concrete living. Non-philosophers generally do not register this. Every single one of your objections has been exhaustively covered in “Leisure, The Basis Of Culture” in minute detail. It is quite clear to me that you have not read the book at all, and still do not understand what I am talking about.

Once again, here is a link to the FULL TEXT of the book. I suggest you read it before addressing this issue again.

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