Is it a sin not to work?

[EasterJoy]

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.

This would be true, except for our disordered concupiscence.

Think of this: If we mistreat ourselves, we would upset our parents, correct? Yet would we think a parent a good one if he or she gave into a child’s every desire? Of course not! Why? Because children do not desire what is truly in their best interest, but what they believe will please them at the time. They lack both wisdom and self-control. In the context of greater wisdom and self-control, even the child would choose what a wise parent has to choose for them when they are not seeing so clearly.

It is the same with us and our desires, even as adults. If our consciences are not formed so as to love what is truly good, rather than what is merely pleasing in the moment without thought to what is truly best for ourselves, God or neighbor, we will not naturally choose what is good in the big picture…and no one has a better grip on “the big picture” than God does! Therefore, we must compare our desires in the moment with what we have learned about the “big picture”, and adjust our desires accordingly.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• This is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with pleasing yourself in work or leisure. What an absurd statement.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Are you seriously arguing that our time will be “less sanctified” if we are not devoting every second to thinking about God or others when we engage in work or leisure? Ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in all official Catholic teaching obliging us to approach “work or leisure” in such a rigid way. You are flatly wrong.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Absolutely no one is obligated to live as the saints did. You are wrong here, too. Many saints practiced extreme penances and mortification – all of which are voluntary, and not required of anyone. Even the vow of poverty, which many priests take, is entirely voluntary. The Church does not require extremism from its followers. And many of the saints practiced extreme behavior in several different areas, eg., fasting, devotion, harsh self-denial, and so on. Very, very few people are called to those levels of devotion. You are wrong.

Steven Greydanus, who has written in Catholic Answers magazine “This Rock,” writes:

“(T)he correct dictum is not “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the saints.” The saints themselves are the first to tell us that the correct dictum is: “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the Church.””

And the Holy Father is merely requesting us to live according to the teachings of the Church. NONE of which requires us to do any of the unusual, extreme practices of the saints. If you are trying to say that someone who lives a very simple faith life (ie., going to Church, observing the sacraments, praying) is sinning, or “lukewarm” somehow, this is an EXTRAORDINARY error. There could not be a more misleading or false presentation of Catholicism. This would be as wrong as it is possible to get.

LOST WANDERER WROTE: “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.”

To which Edward H wrote: “This is a profoundly flawed understanding. Too many toeholds of error to decide where to start.”

• Actually, I think it’s a superb understanding. From someone who obviously has a straightforward sense of balance in their life. We are CERTAINLY meant by God to enjoy life, and to treat ourselves well. It is false and evil to say otherwise, and a MASSIVE heresy.

EDWARD HE WROTE: “By extension, your argument that we please God when we please ourselves…leads to utter self-seeking behavior…the exact opposite of Calvary.”

• There is nothing sinful in enjoying ourselves in leisure OR in work. Christ enjoyed his life and took pleasure in things (he transformed water into plenty of wine at the wedding feast at Cana, for example.) Enjoyment is not sinful. Our Church does not teach this. What a colossal mistake.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

EDWARD H WROTE: “Would God the Father be most pleased if we all loved as His Son did?..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)”

• Leisure is not a sin. Finding enjoyment in life is not a sin. Leisure activities do not involved “doing nothing,” and are certainly not sinful. You are wrong.

Also, you say above: “here’s where badly formed, misguided, hesitant, can’t I have it both ways, and some Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, answer Yes.”

Ah, now the truth comes out. You have said in the past “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.”

But your words above make it very clear that underneath all your other statements, you are ENTIRELY motivated by a sin/not sin – condemned/not condemned mentality. You really ARE only interested in “working your way into Heaven,” in doing “good works,” which will somehow “earn” you a place with the elect. This, of course, is a major heresy. No wonder you are so opposed to leisure. Because leisure doesn’t strike you as a “good work,” or as “working your way into Heaven.” We have it in your own words. And you further imply that I have a “Once Saved Always Saved” mentality! How absurd.

I have already addressed the “good works getting you into Heaven” error earlier in this thread. Again, here is a link to Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin’s website. He has written a very good article about how good works are NOT necessary for salvation. They CONTRIBUTE. But they are not in themselves needed for one to be saved. I cannot believe I am having to retread this old ground again.

jimmyakin.org/2006/01/fear_of_going_t.html

““(T)he thing that gets us to heaven is our receiving and remaining in God’s grace. We receive God’s grace when we turn to him and accept his offer of grace, particularly through the sacraments…Good works are a natural outgrowth of his grace working in our hearts, and he rewards us for cooperating with his grace in doing good works, but the thing that would keep us out of heaven is mortal sin, not having an insufficient number of good works.”

• So much for your “Once Saved Always Saved” Protestant implication.

And thus 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. Good works arise whenever they arise, and at no other time – just as in the use of our talents, as I have said all along. Good works happen when they happen, and cannot be forced. God moves the heart and mind when He chooses to do so. To claim otherwise would simply be false. Such a view is not from God, but from the Devil.

 

[Edward_H]

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• This is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with pleasing yourself in work or leisure. What an absurd statement.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Are you seriously arguing that our time will be “less sanctified” if we are not devoting every second to thinking about God or others when we engage in work or leisure? Ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in all official Catholic teaching obliging us to approach “work or leisure” in such a rigid way. You are flatly wrong.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Absolutely no one is obligated to live as the saints did. You are wrong here, too. Many saints practiced extreme penances and mortification – all of which are voluntary, and not required of anyone. Even the vow of poverty, which many priests take, is entirely voluntary. The Church does not require extremism from its followers. And many of the saints practiced extreme behavior in several different areas, eg., fasting, devotion, harsh self-denial, and so on. Very, very few people are called to those levels of devotion. You are wrong.

Steven Greydanus, who has written in Catholic Answers magazine “This Rock,” writes:

“(T)he correct dictum is not “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the saints.” The saints themselves are the first to tell us that the correct dictum is: “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the Church.””

And the Holy Father is merely requesting us to live according to the teachings of the Church. NONE of which requires us to do any of the unusual, extreme practices of the saints. If you are trying to say that someone who lives a very simple faith life (ie., going to Church, observing the sacraments, praying) is sinning, or “lukewarm” somehow, this is an EXTRAORDINARY error. There could not be a more misleading or false presentation of Catholicism. This would be as wrong as it is possible to get.

LOST WANDERER WROTE: “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.”

To which Edward H wrote: “This is a profoundly flawed understanding. Too many toeholds of error to decide where to start.”

• Actually, I think it’s a superb understanding. From someone who obviously has a straightforward sense of balance in their life. We are CERTAINLY meant by God to enjoy life, and to treat ourselves well. It is false and evil to say otherwise, and a MASSIVE heresy.

EDWARD HE WROTE: “By extension, your argument that we please God when we please ourselves…leads to utter self-seeking behavior…the exact opposite of Calvary.”

• There is nothing sinful in enjoying ourselves in leisure OR in work. Christ enjoyed his life and took pleasure in things (he transformed water into plenty of wine at the wedding feast at Cana, for example.) Enjoyment is not sinful. Our Church does not teach this. What a colossal mistake.

We are called to perfect holiness. **Jesus told us this in the Bible. ** Our Church reinforced this in Vatican II.

Why do you refuse repeated use of Biblical and Church writings?

 

[Edward_H]

If our dominant intention is us, our pleasure vs. loving God and others, then it’s not holiness.

I can pursue holiness in a relaxing family conversation…by maintaining an awareness of God in our presence, by allowing others to talk, by not always talking about myself, by holding judgement, by praying for others as they talk, by helping pursue beauty, truth, goodness, by being cheerful, attentive, positive, by engaging, by gently correcting untruths as fitting, by adding a human tone to the conversation, by avoiding crudeness, by showing temperance, by being self-less.

All of this can be done in leisure…and all of this can be done with the right and holy intention of pleasing God and loving others.

 

[Edward_H]

Joseph,

You don’t get it. We ARE called to an extreme. Extreme love. This doesn’t mean we are called to unusual penances and mortifications.

We can self-donate, and give ourselves by smiling when we don’t want to, occasionally not taking seconds, walking instead of taking the elevator, holding our tongue, choosing a more refined word, taking notice of someone’s efforts in service to us, praying for others, instead of listening to cantankerous talk radio.

Small, little things, not done in any sort of extreme or maniacal way, but done lovingly, with God, for God, very naturally like a loving and trusting child might do.

Why must everything be maniacal and extreme for you?

 

[Debora123]

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• This is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with pleasing yourself in work or leisure. What an absurd statement.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Are you seriously arguing that our time will be “less sanctified” if we are not devoting every second to thinking about God or others when we engage in work or leisure? Ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing in all official Catholic teaching obliging us to approach “work or leisure” in such a rigid way. You are flatly wrong.

EDWARD H WROTE: “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.”

• Absolutely no one is obligated to live as the saints did. You are wrong here, too. Many saints practiced extreme penances and mortification – all of which are voluntary, and not required of anyone. Even the vow of poverty, which many priests take, is entirely voluntary. The Church does not require extremism from its followers. And many of the saints practiced extreme behavior in several different areas, eg., fasting, devotion, harsh self-denial, and so on. Very, very few people are called to those levels of devotion. You are wrong.

Steven Greydanus, who has written in Catholic Answers magazine “This Rock,” writes:

“(T)he correct dictum is not “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the saints.” The saints themselves are the first to tell us that the correct dictum is: “If we want to go to Heaven, we listen to the Church.””

And the Holy Father is merely requesting us to live according to the teachings of the Church. NONE of which requires us to do any of the unusual, extreme practices of the saints. If you are trying to say that someone who lives a very simple faith life (ie., going to Church, observing the sacraments, praying) is sinning, or “lukewarm” somehow, this is an EXTRAORDINARY error. There could not be a more misleading or false presentation of Catholicism. This would be as wrong as it is possible to get.

LOST WANDERER WROTE: “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.”

To which Edward H wrote: “This is a profoundly flawed understanding. Too many toeholds of error to decide where to start.”

• Actually, I think it’s a superb understanding. From someone who obviously has a straightforward sense of balance in their life. We are CERTAINLY meant by God to enjoy life, and to treat ourselves well. It is false and evil to say otherwise, and a MASSIVE heresy.

EDWARD HE WROTE: “By extension, your argument that we please God when we please ourselves…leads to utter self-seeking behavior…the exact opposite of Calvary.”

• There is nothing sinful in enjoying ourselves in leisure OR in work. Christ enjoyed his life and took pleasure in things (he transformed water into plenty of wine at the wedding feast at Cana, for example.) Enjoyment is not sinful. Our Church does not teach this. What a colossal mistake.

 

[Debora123]

EDWARD H WROTE: “Would God the Father be most pleased if we all loved as His Son did?..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)”

• Leisure is not a sin. Finding enjoyment in life is not a sin. Leisure activities do not involved “doing nothing,” and are certainly not sinful. You are wrong.

Also, you say above: “here’s where badly formed, misguided, hesitant, can’t I have it both ways, and some Once Saved Always Saved Protestants, answer Yes.”

Ah, now the truth comes out. You have said in the past “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.”

But your words above make it very clear that underneath all your other statements, you are ENTIRELY motivated by a sin/not sin – condemned/not condemned mentality. You really ARE only interested in “working your way into Heaven,” in doing “good works,” which will somehow “earn” you a place with the elect. This, of course, is a major heresy. No wonder you are so opposed to leisure. Because leisure doesn’t strike you as a “good work,” or as “working your way into Heaven.” We have it in your own words. And you further imply that I have a “Once Saved Always Saved” mentality! How absurd.

I have already addressed the “good works getting you into Heaven” error earlier in this thread. Again, here is a link to Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin’s website. He has written a very good article about how good works are NOT necessary for salvation. They CONTRIBUTE. But they are not in themselves needed for one to be saved. I cannot believe I am having to retread this old ground again.

jimmyakin.org/2006/01/fear_of_going_t.html

““(T)he thing that gets us to heaven is our receiving and remaining in God’s grace. We receive God’s grace when we turn to him and accept his offer of grace, particularly through the sacraments…Good works are a natural outgrowth of his grace working in our hearts, and he rewards us for cooperating with his grace in doing good works, but the thing that would keep us out of heaven is mortal sin, not having an insufficient number of good works.”

• So much for your “Once Saved Always Saved” Protestant implication.

And thus 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. Good works arise whenever they arise, and at no other time – just as in the use of our talents, as I have said all along. Good works happen when they happen, and cannot be forced. God moves the heart and mind when He chooses to do so. To claim otherwise would simply be false. Such a view is not from God, but from the Devil.

 

[Edward_H]

I never said good works get us to heaven. Ridiculous.

I have said that we are called to an extreme. Extreme Love.

This is Biblical and it’s Church doctrine.

But you’d rather clip narrow quotes from other sources to piecemeal your defense of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Prove that we should not love with all our heart, soul, mind and strength…that we not should be perfect as our Father is perfect, that we should not always rejoice, and always pray…prove that we are not called to holiness.

Prove those “extremes” away…and I will let you have the last word.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This is a profoundly flawed understanding. Too many toeholds of error to decide where to start.

The only thing profound here is your capacity to twist someone’s beyond both their intention and anything resembling rational recognition. Nice of you to try hiding it behind an amateur use of hyperbole but no dice.

• There is nothing sinful in enjoying ourselves in leisure OR in work. Christ enjoyed his life and took pleasure in things (he transformed water into plenty of wine at the wedding feast at Cana, for example.) Enjoyment is not sinful. Our Church does not teach this. What a colossal mistake.

Not to mention there’s a huge difference between treating yourself well and downright hedonism. The only thing truly flawed on this thread is this insistence on a false dichotomy which breeds nothing more than a skewed perception of reasoning, society, and just human life in general.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Therefore, we must compare our desires in the moment with what we have learned about the “big picture”, and adjust our desires accordingly.

Contrary to Edward’s distortion, there’s a fine distinction between knowing when to give yourself your due and clear-cut hedonism.

In one extreme, you can end up like Ayn Rand, trying to justify a self-centered ego. However, on the other hand, the other extreme is in fact the very thing Rand warns people about: parasites. Both extremes aren’t commendable.

Balance is a two-way street, along with equality. We are ALL created in God’s image and likeness and therefore are equally entitled to good treatment.

I personally had moments where I needed to put others above myself. On the other hand, I have no patience for parasites who count on me for every single thing without so much as a thank you. Either case prevents an evil of great weight. The former affirms the duty to give others what is due to them. The latter affirms the duty they have to give what is due to me. It’s quite simple yet some people insist that an excess tendency towards one is somehow more acceptable in the eyes of God (or human dignity) than the other.

 

[Edward_H]

The only thing profound here is your capacity to twist someone’s beyond both their intention and anything resembling rational recognition. Nice of you to try hiding it behind an amateur use of hyperbole but no dice.

Not to mention there’s a huge difference between treating yourself well and downright hedonism. The only thing truly flawed on this thread is this insistence on a false dichotomy which breeds nothing more than a skewed perception of reasoning, society, and just human life in general.

By pleasing ourselves, we please God

.

There are your own words. So when we masturbate we please God? Profoundly flawed logic, Wanderer.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

.

There are your own words. So when we masturbate we please God? Profoundly flawed logic, Wanderer.

Your persistent distortion only demonstrates further that you have lost any right to even argue with people.

Here’s a hint: Apples aren’t the same as oranges.

 

[Edward_H]

Your persistent distortion only demonstrates further that you have lost any right to even argue with people.

Here’s a hint: Apples aren’t the same as oranges.

Your own words. So few words, but such a profound error.

By pleasing ourselves, we please God

 

[Debora123]

.

There are your own words. So when we masturbate we please God? Profoundly flawed logic, Wanderer.

It is your own distortion, not a flawed logic.

Obviously, LW refers to “pleasing oneself” in the sense of taking good care of ourselves, respecting ourselves, being healthy/happy, etc etc (positive things). He doesn’t mean “pleasing oneself” as in sexually pleasuring ourselves by doing things that are gravely immoral.

…But I think you know that.

 

[Edward_H]

It is your own distortion, not a flawed logic.

Obviously, LW refers to “pleasing oneself” in the sense of taking good care of ourselves, respecting ourselves, being healthy/happy, etc etc (positive things). He doesn’t mean “pleasing oneself” as in sexually pleasuring ourselves by doing things that are gravely immoral.

…But I think you know that.

She’s a self-professed linguist. Pleasing oneself doesn’t have to mean sexually…it can mean that. These forums are full of such talk.

The larger point is with respect to INTENTION. As I have said again and again…and it just skips over your minds…if the direct object of our actions is our pleasure…then that is not a holy pursuit.

Even sexuality in marriage should not be self-oriented. It shouldn’t even be “reciprocally
oriented”. It should be self-less, self-forgetting, self-donation.

Read Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body.

So many Catholics have a flawed understanding of marriage, of sex, of love…it’s about self-donation. Total self-donation.

So…the larger point, if you’re still with us, is that pleasure pursued for something other than God and those that God puts in our life…begins to walk into the land of selfishness.

And this is true not just for sexual matters…but all forms of pleasure. If I like gardening…and I build a wall around my yard so that no one sees my work…that action isn’t other-oriented…it’s not “communio” (to use Cardinal George’s language). It’s me oriented.

I have said that we are called to an extreme. Extreme Love.

This is Biblical and it’s Church doctrine.

But you’d rather clip narrow quotes from other sources to piecemeal your defense of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.

Prove that we should not love with all our heart, soul, mind and strength…that we not should be perfect as our Father is perfect, that we should not always rejoice, and always pray…prove that we are not called to holiness.

Prove those “extremes” away.

 

[davidv]

Joseph,

You don’t get it. We ARE called to an extreme. Extreme love. This doesn’t mean we are called to unusual penances and mortifications.

We can self-donate, and give ourselves by smiling when we don’t want to, occasionally not taking seconds, walking instead of taking the elevator, holding our tongue, choosing a more refined word, taking notice of someone’s efforts in service to us, praying for others, instead of listening to cantankerous talk radio.

Small, little things, not done in any sort of extreme or maniacal way, but done lovingly, with God, for God, very naturally like a loving and trusting child might do.

Why must everything be maniacal and extreme for you?

We are not called to the extreme, we are called to perfect holiness. One of the Cardinal virtues is Temperance. Temperance is the avoidance of extremes.

 

[Edward_H]

We are not called to the extreme, we are called to perfect holiness. One of the Cardinal virtues is Temperance. Temperance is the avoidance of extremes.

We are called to an extreme of sort…to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. I’d call that an extreme.

Giving what is most precious…an extreme gift…ourselves. “Laying down our life”.

It’s all over the Bible.

pray always, rejoice always, take up your cross daily, lay down your life. No greater love.

Why do Catholics struggle so to understand the beautiful message of total self-donation, the model that Jesus gave us on the Cross? It’s so plain. Yet we seem to want to find a middle comfortable ground. Why do we run from the cross, like they did on Good Friday. Why do we abandon Him at the first struggle, like Peter did?

We need to be more like Simon of Cyrene…helping Jesus carry the Cross.

Remember the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father is ever present to the Father.

We can be Simon of Cyrene today, in the Father’s eyes.

But we’d rather have our cake and eat it too. The rich man who is unwilling to give, and to detach.

We need to be prepared to detach from our comforts for the love of God.

Why do we covet our comfort so? Staking out a middle ground.

Where’s the abandonment to God’s will?

 

[davidv]

We are called to an extreme of sort…to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. I’d call that an extreme.

Giving what is most precious…an extreme gift…ourselves. “Laying down our life”.

It’s all over the Bible.

pray always, rejoice always, take up your cross daily, lay down your life. No greater love.

Why do Catholics struggle so to understand the beautiful message of total self-donation, the model that Jesus gave us on the Cross? It’s so plain. Yet we seem to want to find a middle comfortable ground. Why do we run from the cross, like they did on Good Friday. Why do we abandon Him at the first struggle, like Peter did?

We need to be more like Simon of Cyrene…helping Jesus carry the Cross.

Remember the sacrifice of Jesus to the Father is ever present to the Father.

We can be Simon of Cyrene today, in the Father’s eyes.

But we’d rather have our cake and eat it too. The rich man who is unwilling to give, and to detach.

We need to be prepared to detach from our comforts for the love of God.

Why do we covet our comfort so? Staking out a middle ground.

Where’s the abandonment to God’s will?

How does appropriate leisure do anything against the will of God? What about the seventh day? One of the greatest affronts to the Israelites in Egypt was when they were forced to work on the Sabboth. It was for the restoration of the Sabboth rest that they were freed from the Egyptians.

 

[Joseph_Kemp]

EDWARD H WROTE: “We are called to perfect holiness. Jesus told us this in the Bible. Our Church reinforced this in Vatican II. Why do you refuse repeated use of Biblical and Church writings?”

• I am not refusing anything in the Bible or the Church. I am merely refusing the false and hurtful spin you put on them. You are wrong.

EDWARD H WROTE: “If our dominant intention is us, our pleasure vs. loving God and others, then it’s not holiness.”

• Why would experiencing pleasure and enjoyment negate our relationship with God? What an absurd position. This, also, is wrong.

EDWARD H WROTE: “I can pursue holiness in a relaxing family conversation…by maintaining an awareness of God in our presence, by allowing others to talk, by not always talking about myself, by holding judgement, by praying for others as they talk,…by avoiding crudeness, by showing temperance, by being self-less. All of this can be done in leisure…and all of this can be done with the right and holy intention of pleasing God and loving others.”

• This is truly strange. You say we can pursue holiness by “praying for others as they talk.” What a remarkably stressful and uncomfortable (and false) thing to say. It sounds like work, not leisure. LISTENING to what others have to say would be more respectful than “praying…as they talk.” This is both wrong AND bizarre.

Also, the only “leisure activities” which you seem to approve of as “worthy” of doing are those done around others, FOR others. This, too, is wrong. Earlier, you wrote in this forum:

“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.”

• If you are seriously trying to say that enjoying leisure all by yourself, in solitude, is somehow sinful (“suspect,” is the word you used), you are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Enjoying leisure while alone has NEVER been condemned as a sin by the Roman Catholic Church. This is false in every imaginable way. You have consistently put forth this incorrect, erroneous message in your posts, and it was as wrong then as it is now.

And then you have the nerve to say to me: “Why must everything be maniacal and extreme for you?”

On the contrary. “Praying for others while they talk” is maniacal and extreme. Saying that “A movie watched by ourselves for our own pleasure is suspect” is maniacal and extreme. Claiming that “If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful” is maniacal and extreme. These beliefs are HERESIES, and they are hurtful and false in every possible way. And claiming that enjoyment and leisure done while alone are “suspect” is maniacal and extreme, too.

EDWARD H WROTE: “I never said good works get us to heaven. Ridiculous.”

• What you actually said is this:

“Would God the Father be most pleased if we all loved as His Son did?..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).”

You are very clearly describing me as “badly formed, misguided, hesitant, can’t I have it both ways,” simply because I advocate leisure as non-sinful. You also associate me with “Once Saved Always Saved Protestants.” Protestants, I might add, are well-known for believing good works do not earn them salvation. You are perfectly clear in your characterization of me as one who doesn’t believe in “working” my way into Heaven, either. You imply it’s a bad thing to “sit around pleasing ourselves (with leisure).” Such a thing, in your words, is only for the “badly formed, misguided, hesitant,” and for “some Once Saved Always Saved Protestants.”

You are thus absolutely clear that you believe good works earn us salvation. You object to leisure on possible every level, simply because leisure doesn’t strike you as a “good work,” or as “working your way into Heaven.” We have it in your own words. And you further imply that I have a “Once Saved Always Saved” mentality. You even object to simple enjoyment and fun! You say: “If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.” This is utterly wrong. There is nothing sinful in finding enjoyment in leisure OR in work. Every last one of the things you have been saying here is wrong. The Catholic Church does not teach that leisure is sinful, or that enjoying ourselves is sinful. This is a completely false teaching, and a total waste of time.