E
- Status
E
Edward_H
Guest
Joseph wrote:
Love is a decision. Love is volitional, in Catholic theology. There is no force. I gave you Luke, I gave you Matthew.
I didn’t imply this. You inferred it. You insert this ‘force’
Love is a decision. Love is volitional, in Catholic theology. There is no force. I gave you Luke, I gave you Matthew.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Well if the person hasn’t done a lot of favors for himself/herself and risks burning out without relaxation, it could be likely (seeing as God doesn’t like those who mistreat themselves either). I might sound like Ayn Rand right now but not all cases of self-sacrifice are admirable. I for one am also a creation of God as any other and I don’t think He’d appreciate any needless misery inflicted on any of his creations, self-inflicted or otherwise. There’s also another alternative: How you treat others can reflect how you treat yourself. You can’t give what you don’t have after all. I find it hard to see certain people make others happy, when they themselves are pretty miserable.
A
ahs
Guest
I must start off by admitting I have not followed this thread closely. The latest posts seem to be in the direction of ‘are we called to do everything we think we are being called to do’ (that’s not a quote 
).
The answer is, we need to make sure we have set proper boundaries with ourselves and others before we answer that. Doing as much for others as possible…potentially leading to burn-out…is not “love”, nor is it responsible. There is a wonderful book called “Boundaries” by Drs. Cloud and Townsend. I don’t think they are Catholic, but the book is written completely from a Christian perspective and shows us how to set Biblical boundaries based on Scripture and Christ’s and the Apostles’ examples.
).The answer is, we need to make sure we have set proper boundaries with ourselves and others before we answer that. Doing as much for others as possible…potentially leading to burn-out…is not “love”, nor is it responsible. There is a wonderful book called “Boundaries” by Drs. Cloud and Townsend. I don’t think they are Catholic, but the book is written completely from a Christian perspective and shows us how to set Biblical boundaries based on Scripture and Christ’s and the Apostles’ examples.
Yep! It’s wonderful to give, but we have to know when we cannot give and exercise our ‘no’ to keep from giving more than we are capable of. There are many who cannot bear to hear our ‘no’ and will use anger, guilt messages, violence, etc…to try to force a ‘yes’. But a person must know his/her limits and know when to say ‘no’.
C
cynic
Guest
Are you suggesting that taking part in leisure because it feels good is a sin?
A Saturday night movie arfter a week’s work, relaxing on a Sunday afternoon at the beach… anything enjoyable that isn’t based around worship… is this official Church doctrine?
“forced” or “obliged”, the difference is meaningless in this context, since you have implied that if we aren’t working 24/7 for God, we are sinning.
C
cynic
Guest
E
Edward_H
Guest
If the object of our actions is not Love, is not God…then is that a good thing? I am not on the sin/not sin - condemned/not condemned formal Church doctrine / not formal Church doctrine paranoia like some people in this world and forum appear to be suffering from. The Jews over focused on rules and laws; Jesus told AND showed them how God wants us to love Him and serve Him by loving others.
I have been trying to emphasize the message of love, as mentioned in Luke. But that message of love is a stretchy one: a willingness to total self donation and abandonment to God’s will in the big and the little of the day.
What’s your interpretation of loving God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength? What’s your interpretation of "picking up your cross daily and following Jesus. Jesus was on the way to Calvary. He was in the process of obeying God and loving us…of laying His life down for us.
The purpose of rest is to allow us to love more. Rest and leisure can serve God. There should be no grand separation in our life between such things as work, worship, play, leisure, love, and daily annoyances. All can be occasions of loving God, praying with Him and serving others.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
CYNIC WROTE: “Are you suggesting that taking part in leisure because it feels good is a sin? A Saturday night movie after a week’s work, relaxing on a Sunday afternoon at the beach… anything enjoyable that isn’t based around worship… is this official Church doctrine?”
Evidently, Edward H’s interpretation of “loving God with all our heart, mind, etc.,” implies working ourselves to death for the sake of “Christ.” He associates “Christian love” with Christ’s death – as if our interpretation of “loving God” is somehow not up to the bar, unless we donate every single moment to working for others, in order to “surrender our lives in TOTAL love to Christ” – unless we basically kill ourselves working out of “love” for others, in other words. Why else would Edward H be posting on a forum entitled “Is it a sin not to work?” Evidently he thinks that it is. This is absolutely ridiculous.
CYNIC WROTE: ““forced” or “obliged”, the difference is meaningless in this context, since you have implied that if we aren’t working 24/7 for God, we are sinning.”
At least some people here, like LILYM and LOST WANDERER, appear to have absorbed this understanding.
EDWARD H WROTE: “I am not on the sin/not sin - condemned/not condemned formal Church doctrine / not formal Church doctrine paranoia like some people in this world and forum appear to be suffering from. The Jews over focused on rules and laws; Jesus told AND showed them how God wants us to love Him and serve Him by loving others.”
- It most certainly is NOT Church Doctrine. But I think this is still being implied most strongly by Edward H anyway. He denies it again and again, but then prints statements like:
Evidently, Edward H’s interpretation of “loving God with all our heart, mind, etc.,” implies working ourselves to death for the sake of “Christ.” He associates “Christian love” with Christ’s death – as if our interpretation of “loving God” is somehow not up to the bar, unless we donate every single moment to working for others, in order to “surrender our lives in TOTAL love to Christ” – unless we basically kill ourselves working out of “love” for others, in other words. Why else would Edward H be posting on a forum entitled “Is it a sin not to work?” Evidently he thinks that it is. This is absolutely ridiculous.
CYNIC WROTE: ““forced” or “obliged”, the difference is meaningless in this context, since you have implied that if we aren’t working 24/7 for God, we are sinning.”
- This is precisely what I get from Edward H’s posts, too. It is NOT official Church teaching. It is his own. You should feel free to relax and forget about it.
- And once again, we have Edward H’s theology of TOTAL WORK. Even rest and leisure figure in his made-up theology only as a means to do MORE work. What a dismal, utilitarian view of things. It is entirely wrong.
At least some people here, like LILYM and LOST WANDERER, appear to have absorbed this understanding.
EDWARD H WROTE: “I am not on the sin/not sin - condemned/not condemned formal Church doctrine / not formal Church doctrine paranoia like some people in this world and forum appear to be suffering from. The Jews over focused on rules and laws; Jesus told AND showed them how God wants us to love Him and serve Him by loving others.”
- I think you (Edward H) are all too clearly on the “sin/not sin - condemned/not condemned” mindset you mention. You just refuse to admit as much, in so many words. But it is right there in your statements. It is the direct implication of absolutely everything you say. This is very deceiving and devious, and I am completely astonished you continue push this erroneous position again and again, regardless of its consequences on anyone reading it. I suspect you just don’t care. It bears repeating here that your subjective, personal opinions do NOT count as Church teaching, and nobody is obliged to obey them. I suggest you stop presenting them as if we are.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Joseph
Again you try to spin and characterize and infer.
Not “total work” but “total love” in the model of Christ on the cross. This is straight on Catholic theology.
From Romans 15
We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves;a
2
let each of us please our neighbor for the good, for building up.b
3
For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written,c “The insults of those who insult you fall upon me.”*
4
For whatever was written previously was written for our instruction, that by endurance and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.d
5
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony* with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus,e
6
that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Again you try to spin and characterize and infer.
Not “total work” but “total love” in the model of Christ on the cross. This is straight on Catholic theology.
From Romans 15
We who are strong ought to put up with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves;a
2
let each of us please our neighbor for the good, for building up.b
3
For Christ did not please himself; but, as it is written,c “The insults of those who insult you fall upon me.”*
4
For whatever was written previously was written for our instruction, that by endurance and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope.d
5
May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to think in harmony* with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus,e
6
that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
E
Edward_H
Guest
duplicate
E
Edward_H
Guest
Joseph’s ongoing defense of play for the sake of play reveals a governed understanding of love, at best. One that is meted out, not giving oneself in abandonment, but giving oneself based on one’s perception of what is ‘enough’, holding back just in case. Love isn’t to be measured out. That’s in the Bible.
That’s not loving in the model of Jesus.
That’s not loving in the model of Jesus.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Does Paul sound “dismal” about loving and suffering for love?
From yesterday’s readings in Romans
Brothers and sisters,
we are not debtors to the flesh,
to live according to the flesh.
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die,
but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body,
you will live.
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you received a spirit of adoption,
through which we cry, “Abba, Father!”
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit
that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs,
heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,
if only we suffer with him
so that we may also be glorified with him.
From yesterday’s readings in Romans
Brothers and sisters,
we are not debtors to the flesh,
to live according to the flesh.
For if you live according to the flesh, you will die,
but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body,
you will live.
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear,
but you received a spirit of adoption,
through which we cry, “Abba, Father!”
The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit
that we are children of God,
and if children, then heirs,
heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,
if only we suffer with him
so that we may also be glorified with him.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Joseph writes: - And once again, we have Edward H’s theology of TOTAL WORK. Even rest and leisure figure in his made-up theology only as a means to do MORE work. What a dismal, utilitarian view of things. It is entirely wrong.
This is wholly made up.
My point again and again has been to point out that our work, our play, our rest, our joys, our setbacks, our sorrows can all become prayer, that is conversation with God. This is how we maintain a unity of life. All is done for God, with God. It is all joy. This doesn’t mean it becomes easy. But it does seem to get easier in a way when there is supernatural motive attached to all the events of our day.
Last weekend I had to take a Marine Corps combat fitness test as part of my reserve obligation. One part of it involves running, one part lifting, another part crawling, more running, carrying a Marine down a field, more running with weighted ammo cans.
I did the whole thing praying, did it with our Lady. It was great and I did well on it. No “dismal” life. I offered up each step for a Marine who needed graces.
This isn’t dismal living. It was a joy to run the test.
This is wholly made up.
My point again and again has been to point out that our work, our play, our rest, our joys, our setbacks, our sorrows can all become prayer, that is conversation with God. This is how we maintain a unity of life. All is done for God, with God. It is all joy. This doesn’t mean it becomes easy. But it does seem to get easier in a way when there is supernatural motive attached to all the events of our day.
Last weekend I had to take a Marine Corps combat fitness test as part of my reserve obligation. One part of it involves running, one part lifting, another part crawling, more running, carrying a Marine down a field, more running with weighted ammo cans.
I did the whole thing praying, did it with our Lady. It was great and I did well on it. No “dismal” life. I offered up each step for a Marine who needed graces.
This isn’t dismal living. It was a joy to run the test.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
I am interested to learn that you are a Marine. This explains a lot. I know several Marines. Work is so inbuilt into a Marine’s life it can be difficult for many of them to think of life in any other terms. If the Corps isn’t telling them to do something, they often find life difficult to deal with. The idea of actually having hobbies and practicing self-motivation can be quite hard for some of them. They often see it as a waste of time, although it most certainly is not. This is not the Church’s teaching, of course. It is their own. But many of them still believe it anyway. This makes me very sad.
And unfortunately, you are STILL preaching a theology of total work. How you dress it up with words of love makes absolutely no difference.
I am afraid I can’t do anything else for you here. I am truly sorry for you. It must be very hurtful to believe the false things that you claim are true. Such things will bring comfort to nobody - only misery. You can dress up your bizarre ideas in the language of love as much as you want. They are still unloving, hurtful and wrong. But at least I now have a better insight into where such ideas are coming from.
And unfortunately, you are STILL preaching a theology of total work. How you dress it up with words of love makes absolutely no difference.
I am afraid I can’t do anything else for you here. I am truly sorry for you. It must be very hurtful to believe the false things that you claim are true. Such things will bring comfort to nobody - only misery. You can dress up your bizarre ideas in the language of love as much as you want. They are still unloving, hurtful and wrong. But at least I now have a better insight into where such ideas are coming from.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Careful with your wildly inaccurate hasty generalizations of Marines. It’s tempting to do, but it leads to substantial errors. Except for a narrow band of characteristics, Marines are as diverse as they come.
I am not preaching a theology of total work.
For the eleventy-seveth time, I am telling you that the Catholic Church tells us that our work should become prayer. Our play should be prayer. Our rest should be prayer. All things should be done with God, in conversation with God. All is joy, if it’s done with Him.
If you reject this aspect of our faith that’s your error.
I appreciate the offer to help, but I’ve had the help of a tremendous spiritual director and priest over the last 4 years who is great at coaching strugglers like myself to understand at a very practical level how to deepen one’s interior life, how to integrate work, play, rest into a unity with God.
Don’t feel sorry for me…pray instead for others.
I encourage you to read more about the Catholic understanding of sanctification. You have some substantial gaps.
From the Catechism.
2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.” Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
YOU WROTE: “Careful with your wildly inaccurate hasty generalizations of Marines. It’s tempting to do, but it leads to substantial errors. Except for a narrow band of characteristics, Marines are as diverse as they come.”
- I am not talking about ALL marines. Just the ones who function the way you seem to. You are wrong.
- I think you most certainly are. Earlier, you wrote:
- You directly state that leisure – ANY leisure – is sinful. That is the very DEFINITION of a theology of total work. It doesn’t get any stronger than that. And you are still wrong, for the same reasons.
- I have never denied that all things should be done with God. That’s YOUR error. But I utterly deny that leisure is sinful. You are flatly wrong. You will never find anything in all official Catholic teaching stating that leisure is a sin. Such documentation does not exist. The only significant writing on the subject of leisure is Joseph Pieper’s book “Leisure, The Basis of Culture.” This book DEFENDS leisure as a worthwhile pursuit. If you disagree with this, that is simply your own unsupportable opinion. You will never back it up with established Church teaching. You have utterly failed to provide any here.
- That’s fine for you. But it’s interesting how you actually make this “integration” sound like a lot of work. It doesn’t sound restful at all. I’m glad if it works for you. But I have never seen anyone who makes “play” and “rest” sound like work; as if they must be effortfully “integrated” into a unity with God, just like work must. When I rest and play, I simply rest and play. I trust God is there. No effort needed at all. It’s funny how even “rest” and “play” sound like work with you.
- But we weren’t talking about sanctification. We were talking about your insistence that “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.” Nobody said anything about sanctification. We were simply discussing your false, misleading, hurtful statement and attitude. You are simply wrong. Leisure is NOT a sin. And nobody here is obligated to follow your personal, subjective (wrong) opinion in any way whatsoever.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Joseph,
You don’t understand the meaning of intention. If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.
If your intention is to please God or to serve others, whether it’s in work or leisure, then you’re sanctifying the time that God has given you.
It’s so utterly simple and joyful. And yet you just can’t accept this truth of the Church.
I suggest you read the life of the saints. And then read the Holy Father’s exhortation on the Lay Apostolate. We are all called to holiness, to be canonizable saints.
You don’t understand the meaning of intention. If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.
If your intention is to please God or to serve others, whether it’s in work or leisure, then you’re sanctifying the time that God has given you.
It’s so utterly simple and joyful. And yet you just can’t accept this truth of the Church.
I suggest you read the life of the saints. And then read the Holy Father’s exhortation on the Lay Apostolate. We are all called to holiness, to be canonizable saints.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
We are God’s creation, fashioned in His image and likeness.
Mistreating ourselves would automatically mean we are mistreating God’s creation.
The reverse is then logically sound.
By pleasing ourselves, we please God. By treating ourselves well, we treat well God’s creation.
E
Edward_H
Guest
This is a profoundly flawed understanding. Too many toeholds of error to decide where to start.
God would not want us to abuse ourselves without cause because it would limit our ability to love Him and others. He will let us suffer for others. His Son gave us the model of real love.
By extension, your argument that we please God when we please ourselves…leads to utter self-seeking behavior…the exact opposite of Calvary.
This is a profound error, an utter falsehood.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Would God the Father be most pleased if we all loved as His Son did? (Here’s where Catholics answer a resounding, never ending Yes).
Or sat around pleasing ourselves? (here’s where badly formed, misguided, hesitant, can’t I have it both ways, and some Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, answer Yes)
Or sat around pleasing ourselves? (here’s where badly formed, misguided, hesitant, can’t I have it both ways, and some Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, answer Yes)
- Status