Is it a sin not to work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph_Kemp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TrueLight said:
I agree with some of what you’re saying, Edward.

I don’t think it is wrong to build a birdhouse just for your pleasure. You don’t have to burn it down. You can just admire it.

I do think it’s important that God be a part of leisure, praying, suffering - essentially our whole lives.

I also believe that there is nothing wrong with leisure as long as there is no inordinate attachment to it.

I posted a section of “Introduction to a Devout Life” in another thread with a similar theme and I’m posting it here.

I think it describes wonderfully the attitude we should have toward leisure.
Click to expand...
Great posting/reference.

Exactly. The ‘attachment’ is what often gets in the way. The more we hold onto something like this…the more God wants it not to come in between Him and us.
 
BLOSSOMING WROTE: “Edward H. I haven’t followed this thread entirely, but from what I have kept up with, you are quite correct, and just because anonymous people group up on you on the internets doesn’t make you wrong. You are in line of Catholic teachings, as far as I can tell.”
  • I see absolutely nothing correct or “in line with Church teaching” in the particular way Edward H chooses to interpret Church teaching.
(1.) He believes that leisure pursued when alone, in solitude, is sinful: “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.” This is wrong.

(2.) He believes that having fun and enjoying life is “sinful:” “If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.” This is also wrong.

(3.) He continually implies that someone with a simple faith life (Church, sacraments, prayer) is not loving God “with all our heart, soul, mind and strength” – not doing enough “work,” in other words: “to the extent we are acting as the sad rich man coveting our things, our time, our leisure, our pleasure…holding on as it were…this is not a good thing. What do you think it means to love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and STRENGTH?”

(4.) He very clearly indicates by his words that we must “work our way into Heaven:” (“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.”****) - I think God would be “most pleased” if people didn’t hold erroneous positions like this.

(5.) He also tends to cover up his emphasis on exhausting work by calling it “love.” (“Joseph…not never ending Work…but never ending love, God’s love working willingly (and ever increasingly joyfully) through us.”)

These five mistakes recur over and over again in Edward H’s writings. I previously called them heresies, but he took offense to that, so I will simply call them five mistakes. Which is exactly what they are. Please explain to me how these things are “in line of Catholic teachings,” or “quite correct.”

(I am especially baffled by Edward H’s insistence that solitary leisure pursued when alone is “sinful.” The Church ABSOLUTELY does not teach this. Perhaps he would like it if I gave in and said that solitary leisure WAS sinful, but that would be flatly untrue. You will never get anyone familiar with Church Doctrine to admit this. It is just weird that he is trying to do so here.)
 
Joseph, I haven’t kept up with this thread enough to have an opinion on your most recent post because that is not what my condensed reading thought he said.

If I do, I will get back to you on that.

I believe Edward is saying that devoting your life to pure selfishness is not a Catholic virtue and I agree with him.
 
I don’t believe that leisure pursued when alone is sinful. You said that I said that and I haven’t.

I said that a movie watched all by ourselves is suspect (…and just as working alone into the night might also be suspect). Suspect means it’s worth thinking about from time to time in one’s examination. All aspects of our life should be occasionally examined during our evening examination with a healthy dose of sincerity and toughmindedness.

I haven’t said leisure is sinful, period. I have pointed out a zillion times that one would need to examine one’s intention. And the Church tells that we ought to examine our life.

I certainly haven’t said that "having fun and enjoying life is “sinful:”

This is so far away from saying “If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.”

You are very wrong on so many fronts.

Here is another plastic use of words by Joseph.
"He very clearly indicates by his words that we must “work our way into Heaven:” (“Would God the Father be most pleased if we all loved as His Son did?..Or sat around pleasing ourselves?
Click to expand...
Pleasing God and getting to heaven…are orthogonal. But Joseph likes to munge things together.
(5.) He also tends to cover up his emphasis on exhausting work by calling it “love.” (“Joseph…not never ending Work…but never ending love, God’s love working willingly (and ever increasingly joyfully) through us.”)
Click to expand...
Now he claims I am covering up by using the words love.

I have from the start said it’s about love. All over my points.

The fundamental block in this discussion is that Joseph doesn’t have a Catholic understanding of love. Love on the Cross. Love til we die. Kenosis. Love in the model of Jesus Christ. A costly love.

He has some half-stepping, “hold on to my leisure” understanding of love.

And what’s most impressive is that there’s not a single posting from Joseph referencing the Gospels on this topic (or Scripture even). He hasn’t been able to show in the life of Christ or the life of the early Christians in the NT support for his glorification of leisure for the pursuit of self.
 
Edward_H said:
I don’t believe that leisure pursued when alone is sinful. You said that I said that and I haven’t.

I said that a movie watched all by ourselves is suspect (…and just as working alone into the night might also be suspect). Suspect means it’s worth thinking about from time to time in one’s examination. All aspects of our life should be occasionally examined during our evening examination with a healthy dose of sincerity and toughmindedness.
Click to expand...
Why would it be suspect? Is it the fact that one is watching it alone that it’s suspect? Forgive me if you already explained this in other posts.

What would be considered the wrong type of intention? Let’s say my intention is to have a restful evening. Let’s say the movie doesn’t have inappropriate content. Why would it be suspect?
 
TrueLight said:
Why would it be suspect? Is it the fact that one is watching it alone that it’s suspect? Forgive me if you already explained this in other posts.

What would be considered the wrong type of intention? Let’s say my intention is to have a restful evening. Let’s say the movie doesn’t have inappropriate content. Why would it be suspect?
Click to expand...
Suspect means suspect, not sinful. It very well might be fine. It might not. It might start fine…but over time given our fallen nature, it could grow into a defect (we might become covetous of “our time”, we might start using it as an escape, we might neglect others in our life, we might start to let other parts of life fall apart…not paying our bills…watching another movie…staying up a bit later…perhaps now not getting up early enough to say our morning prayer, or make our kids lunch lovingly…or we’re out of sorts…because we decided to watch one more movie “just to relax”).

If I am escaping from calling my father, talking with my family, doing my laundry, writing a letter, reading a book to learn some truth.

Are we running from “communio”? Hiding from tough conversations, opportunities to share, to give, to help, to ask for help.

These are reasonable questions to ask during our examination.

Escapism isn’t likely a good thing to let go completely untethered, unexamined.

Rest is fine. We need to rest. We need to make sure rest doesn’t lead to escapism. It happens frequently. Temperance isn’t a popular term in our culture…but it is a principal virtue.
 
Edward_H said:
Suspect means suspect, not sinful. It very well might be fine. It might not. It might start fine…but over time given our fallen nature, it could grow into a defect (we might become covetous of “our time”, we might start using it as an escape, we might neglect others in our life, we might start to let other parts of life fall apart…not paying our bills…watching another movie…staying up a bit later…perhaps now not getting up early enough to say our morning prayer, or make our kids lunch lovingly…or we’re out of sorts…because we decided to watch one more movie “just to relax”).

If I am escaping from calling my father, talking with my family, doing my laundry, writing a letter, reading a book to learn some truth.

Are we running from “communio”? Hiding from tough conversations, opportunities to share, to give, to help, to ask for help.

These are reasonable questions to ask during our examination.

Escapism isn’t likely a good thing to let go completely untethered, unexamined.

Rest is fine. We need to rest. We need to make sure rest doesn’t lead to escapism. It happens frequently. Temperance isn’t a popular term in our culture…but it is a principal virtue.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that leisure cannot be sinful. It can. But it doesn’t have to be suspect. The definition of suspect is:
o believe to be guilty, false, counterfeit, undesirable, defective, bad, etc., with little or no proof: to suspect a person of murder.
2.
to doubt or mistrust: I suspect his motives.
Click to expand...
So I don’t think it’s good to automatically assume that watching a movie is a bad thing unless a thorough examination reveals it to be otherwise.

In fact, I’d even venture to say too much involvement in activities seen as things of the Lord, if done in excess can be sinful too.

Is it not sinful to fill up one’s schedule with church activities, if it means you will not get to see your children?

If watching an occasional comedy makes you laugh and refreshes you (as Francis De Sales said) and releases some stress, and you are better able to get on with living a life that is pleasing to God, I think it is a good thing. 👍

If one ends up watching too many movies, and are neglecting family and spiritual things, then it is a problem.
 
TrueLight said:
I’m not saying that leisure cannot be sinful. It can. But it doesn’t have to be suspect. The definition of suspect is:

So I don’t think it’s good to automatically assume that watching a movie is a bad thing unless a thorough examination reveals it to be otherwise.

In fact, I’d even venture to say too much involvement in activities seen as things of the Lord, if done in excess can be sinful too.

Is it not sinful to fill up one’s schedule with church activities, if it means you will not get to see children?

If watching an occasional comedy makes you laugh and refreshes you (as Francis De Sales said) and releases some stress, and you are better able to get on with living a life that is pleasing to God, I think it is a good thing. 👍

If one ends up watching too many movies, and are neglecting family and spiritual things, then it is a problem.
Click to expand...
A nightly examination of conscience is a very healthy thing to do. All the saints recommend it.

We need to review - with God - our day. Did we love, did we endure struggles cheerfully as a child of God, did we spend God’s time well? Did we progress on our resolutions? What went well, what didn’t go so well. What should the focus be tomorrow.

Untethered and unexamined lives generally don’t tend to lead to substantial growth and joy.
 
Edward_H said:
? It is fancy. Never seen anything like it.

Deb of Arc, you have a not so subtle way of inserting yourself into just about everything without adding anything substantial other than 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Click to expand...
That’s because I’ve tried having logical discussions with you in the past and found it to be completely useless.

So I’d rather just show my support for the people who actually take the time to try to get through to you . 👍
 
Debora123 said:
That’s because I’ve tried having logical discussions with you in the past and found it to be completely useless.

So I’d rather just show my support for the people who actually take the time to try to get through to you . 👍
Click to expand...
Oh…that’s why. Now all the data fit!
 
EDWARD H WROTE: “I don’t believe that leisure pursued when alone is sinful. You said that I said that and I haven’t. I said that a movie watched all by ourselves is suspect (…and just as working alone into the night might also be suspect).”

On the contrary. You wrote: “A priest once told me he had a hard time imaging a case where watching TV by oneself is a good idea.” In the context you were writing, it sounded like you were saying that “watching TV by oneself” was “sinful.” If you really didn’t mean that, you should not have said in that context. It sure SOUNDS like you regard “watching TV by oneself” is not “a good idea” – as in it might be “sinful.” Good to know you don’t really believe this, in spite of what you wrote, and where you wrote it.

EDWARD H WROTE: “Suspect means suspect, not sinful. It very well might be fine. It might not. It might start fine…but over time given our fallen nature, it (leisure spent alone) could grow into a defect (we might become covetous of “our time”, we might start using it as an escape, we might neglect others in our life, we might start to let other parts of life fall apart…not paying our bills…watching another movie…staying up a bit later…perhaps now not getting up early enough to say our morning prayer, or make our kids lunch lovingly…or we’re out of sorts…because we decided to watch one more movie “just to relax”).
  • I must point out that I don’t say a “morning prayer” at all. My silence is my prayer. And I don’t have kids (or anyone else I live with) to neglect. So this does not apply to me.
But the rest of your statement goes without saying. Why did you even bother writing it? We were not talking about leisure taken to neglect other essential duties in life, or to let “other parts of life fall apart.” We were talking about ANY leisure spent while alone. You even used your “birdhouse” example to make leisure enjoyed while alone sound “sinful.” Good to know you don’t REALLY believe that spending leisure time alone, for our own enjoyment, is “sinful.” I’m personally going to go out right now and build a birdhouse, and keep it ALL TO MYSELF. Not to be selfish. I just like having birdhouses. I’m glad that you admit that the Church does not consider such behavior “sinful” at all.

EDWARD H WROTE: “I certainly haven’t said that "having fun and enjoying life is “sinful:” This is so far away from saying “If your intention is to please yourself whether it is in work or in leisure, then it might be sinful.”

Then it seems rather pointless to say it. We already KNOW that replacing God with ANYTHING else (including fun and enjoyment) is sinful. This is very black and white. I was not talking about replacing God with fun and enjoyment. I was talking about fun and enjoyment with respect to leisure spent all alone, just for ourselves, wthout replacing God. Never in all my writing have I ever ONCE suggested “replacing” God with leisure. There is no sin with spending leisure time alone for oneself. I am glad you are on board with this too. We have been arguing for nothing.

EDWARD H WROTE: “And what’s most impressive is that there’s not a single posting from Joseph referencing the Gospels on this topic (or Scripture even). He hasn’t been able to show in the life of Christ or the life of the early Christians in the NT support for his glorification of leisure for the pursuit of self.”
  • I never said anything about replacing God with a “glorification of leisure for the pursuit of self.” That really WOULD be a sin. God comes first. Leisure spent in solitude is not sinful. I’m glad you see it this way, too.
 
(continued from above)

EDWARD HW WROTE: “The fundamental block in this discussion is that Joseph doesn’t have a Catholic understanding of love. Love on the Cross. Love til we die. Kenosis. Love in the model of Jesus Christ. A costly love.”
  • I didn’t know God’s love was “costly.” I thought it was unconditional. I didn’t know we had to “earn” it somehow. That doesn’t sound “Catholic” to me. That sounds like “working your way into Heaven.” But I’m happy to see that now you say “good works” don’t earn us Heaven. This is progress. And as for yours “Once Saved Always Saved Protestant” comment, by which you implied we must not “sit around pleasing ourselves” in order for God to be “pleased” with us, (so we can get into Heaven, no doubt,) I’ll try to pretend you never wrote it.
EDWARD H WROTE: “Are we running from “communio”? Hiding from tough conversations, opportunities to share, to give, to help, to ask for help.”
  • Too much giving, on the other hand, verges on the Sin of Prodigality. This is a wasteful squandering of one’s time, property, and wealth on others, and a disrespect for any riches or possessions that God has given us. Thomas Aquinas indicates that Prodigality is just as much a sin as covetousness; it springs from the same source. You covet the “blessings of God” by focusing too much on others, doing everything for others, rather than yourself. You are quite right to mention Temperance. You might want to apply it to your own insistence on giving everything for others. This could easily evolve into sin.
TRUE LIGHT WROTE: “I’m not saying that leisure cannot be sinful. It can. But it doesn’t have to be suspect. So I don’t think it’s good to automatically assume that watching a movie is a bad thing unless a thorough examination reveals it to be otherwise. In fact, I’d even venture to say too much involvement in activities seen as things of the Lord, if done in excess can be sinful too.”
  • This is absolutely true. It would simply be another form of greed. Which springs from covetousness, just as much as any other type of greed. It may even possibly reach the point of spiritual gluttony.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. John of the Cross, in his work “The Dark Night of the Soul” (I, vi), dissects what he calls spiritual gluttony. He explains that it is the disposition of those who, in prayer and other acts of religion, are always in search of sensible sweetness; they are those who “will feel and taste God, as if he were palpable and accessible to them not only in Communion **but in all their other acts of devotion.” **This he declares is a very great imperfection and productive of great evils.”
  • It is all too easy for an overemphasis on religious devotion to turn into spiritual gluttony. There IS such a thing as “too much religion.” We must be careful not to cross that line. Edward H has come dangerously close to this, in my opinion, when speaking of involvement with other, FOR others. I of course cannot read his mind. But I can certainly see the things he says.
Now to go build that birdhouse, to keep all to myself, not out of selfishness, but because I love birdhouses. I think I’ll make a new one for my own enjoyment every week. Thanks for the idea. Given those EXACT PARAMETERS, I doubt this could EVER be seen as “sinful.”

Time to start enjoying my leisure in peaceful solitude.
 
“unconditional love”. Where did you get that nonsense, out of some 1970s psychobabble book?

You’ve bought some spiritual drivel…

Show me where unconditional (whatever that means) love is mentioned in the Bible

Take a look at matthew 16:21-28, instead.
 
I don’t think our society is in danger of suffering from prodigal giving any time soon.
 
EDWARD H WROTE: ““unconditional love”. Where did you get that nonsense, out of some 1970s psychobabble book? You’ve bought some spiritual drivel… Show me where unconditional (whatever that means) love is mentioned in the Bible.”
  • Oh. My. Goodness. Are you seriously saying that God only loves us if we fulfill certain CONDITONS?! This is perhaps the most COLOSSAL mistake anybody could EVER make with respect to the Catholic religion.
Catholic Answers Apologist Father Vincent Serpa writes:

“God does love us unconditionally in that he loves us even in our sins. Our choice to not love him does not diminish his unconditional love.”

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-unconditional-love-without-limit

Father Serpa also writes:

“That God loves us unconditionally means that He loves us even when we don’t love Him. “…but what proves that God loves us is that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.” Romans 5:8”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8557561#post8557561
  • THERE’S your Bible quote.
You walked right into that one. Wow. You accuse ME of having an immature view of love - yet you don’t even believe that God loves us unconditionally. What an astounding error.

EDWARD H WROTE: “I don’t think our society is in danger of suffering from prodigal giving any time soon.”
  • Perhaps not. But YOU might be, given some of the things you have been saying. You know what they are.
 
Joseph,

God’s love for us is uncondtional, until we die. Then we are certainly judged. And even then we are loved by Truth; but this doesn’t mean we all will be saved.

We must love in this life. It is a commandant. This is very different from earning our way. You continue to get confused on these points. Many Protestants do the same.

Your Bible quote of Romans 5:8 doesn’t support your point about unconditional love. It actually supports my point “8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

We are to love as Christ did.
 
Joseph_Kemp said:
EDWARD H WROTE: ““unconditional love”. Where did you get that nonsense, out of some 1970s psychobabble book? You’ve bought some spiritual drivel… Show me where unconditional (whatever that means) love is mentioned in the Bible.”
  • Oh. My. Goodness. Are you seriously saying that God only loves us if we fulfill certain CONDITONS?! This is perhaps the most COLOSSAL mistake anybody could EVER make with respect to the Catholic religion.
Catholic Answers Apologist Father Vincent Serpa writes:

“God does love us unconditionally in that he loves us even in our sins. Our choice to not love him does not diminish his unconditional love.”

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-gods-unconditional-love-without-limit

Father Serpa also writes:

“That God loves us unconditionally means that He loves us even when we don’t love Him. “…but what proves that God loves us is that Christ died for us while we were still sinners.” Romans 5:8”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8557561#post8557561
  • THERE’S your Bible quote.
You walked right into that one. Wow. You accuse ME of having an immature view of love - yet you don’t even believe that God loves us unconditionally. What an astounding error.

EDWARD H WROTE: “I don’t think our society is in danger of suffering from prodigal giving any time soon.”
  • Perhaps not. But YOU might be, given some of the things you have been saying. You know what they are.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Deb

On cue, a minute or too early though.

Do you delight in little perceived embarrassments of others?

Do you take pleasure in the setbacks of others?

What do you take to prayer?
 
Joseph_Kemp said:
(continued from above)

EDWARD HW WROTE: “The fundamental block in this discussion is that Joseph doesn’t have a Catholic understanding of love. Love on the Cross. Love til we die. Kenosis. Love in the model of Jesus Christ. A costly love.”
  • I didn’t know God’s love was “costly.” I thought it was unconditional. I didn’t know we had to “earn” it somehow. That doesn’t sound “Catholic” to me. That sounds like “working your way into Heaven.” But I’m happy to see that now you say “good works” don’t earn us Heaven. This is progress. And as for yours “Once Saved Always Saved Protestant” comment, by which you implied we must not “sit around pleasing ourselves” in order for God to be “pleased” with us, (so we can get into Heaven, no doubt,) I’ll try to pretend you never wrote it.
EDWARD H WROTE: “Are we running from “communio”? Hiding from tough conversations, opportunities to share, to give, to help, to ask for help.”
  • Too much giving, on the other hand, verges on the Sin of Prodigality. This is a wasteful squandering of one’s time, property, and wealth on others, and a disrespect for any riches or possessions that God has given us. Thomas Aquinas indicates that Prodigality is just as much a sin as covetousness; it springs from the same source. You covet the “blessings of God” by focusing too much on others, doing everything for others, rather than yourself. You are quite right to mention Temperance. You might want to apply it to your own insistence on giving everything for others. This could easily evolve into sin.
TRUE LIGHT WROTE: “I’m not saying that leisure cannot be sinful. It can. But it doesn’t have to be suspect. So I don’t think it’s good to automatically assume that watching a movie is a bad thing unless a thorough examination reveals it to be otherwise. In fact, I’d even venture to say too much involvement in activities seen as things of the Lord, if done in excess can be sinful too.”
  • This is absolutely true. It would simply be another form of greed. Which springs from covetousness, just as much as any other type of greed. It may even possibly reach the point of spiritual gluttony.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

“St. John of the Cross, in his work “The Dark Night of the Soul” (I, vi), dissects what he calls spiritual gluttony. He explains that it is the disposition of those who, in prayer and other acts of religion, are always in search of sensible sweetness; they are those who “will feel and taste God, as if he were palpable and accessible to them not only in Communion **but in all their other acts of devotion.” **This he declares is a very great imperfection and productive of great evils.”
  • It is all too easy for an overemphasis on religious devotion to turn into spiritual gluttony. There IS such a thing as “too much religion.” We must be careful not to cross that line. Edward H has come dangerously close to this, in my opinion, when speaking of involvement with other, FOR others. I of course cannot read his mind. But I can certainly see the things he says.
Now to go build that birdhouse, to keep all to myself, not out of selfishness, but because I love birdhouses. I think I’ll make a new one for my own enjoyment every week. Thanks for the idea. Given those EXACT PARAMETERS, I doubt this could EVER be seen as “sinful.”

Time to start enjoying my leisure in peaceful solitude.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top