"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[Sponsa-Christi]

15 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I cannot agree with "higher" vocation unless I qualify it with as a theological objective determination.

I am talking in terms of objective theological determinations. Again, I am NOT trying to talk about what makes one person subjectively holier than another. I'm very well aware that a married factory worker could actually be much holier than the Pope or a Carthusian. I wanted to have a discussion about objective categories, not individual people.

15 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

With all due respect and it might be the way I am reading, but it seems to me that you are striving to make a calling within The Church to be more important than one 'outside The Church' as it were.

I'm not trying to do this, either. 

Rather, I'm wondering what specifically makes "working for the Church" something worth choosing.

(And I know you can say: "Church work is worth choosing if God calls you to it." But my question is: WHY would God call anyone to this?)

Edited March 10, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi

[BarbTherese]

1 minute ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I am talking in terms of objective theological determinations. Again, I am NOT trying to talk about what makes one person subjectively holier than another. I'm very well aware that a married factory worker could actually be much holier than the Pope or a Carthusian. I wanted to have a discussion about objective categories, not individual people.

Oh my! I heard you in the first place :) - but others may not have - see quote box below.

Further reflection (quick prayer after being shouted at ).  It seems to me that if I look at the life of Jesus, then His apostles (and perhaps others) abandoned their secular jobs to follow Jesus and His Gospel in a quite intimate sort of way.  This tells me that (since Jesus instituted it) that to work with and in The Church is higher ON A THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE SCALE than secular jobs.  However, when we introduce the subjective: "What can be higher than God's Will for a person........or God's Will in howsoever it might be expressed, I would add?"  But all that does strike me as very obvious?  One could even take human reasoning on the situation in the life of Jesus a little further and state that Jesus instituted community life as He did and therefore community life is the highest on the objective theological scale - while the subjective trumps the objective.

I am including this joke, because most often jokes pick up on the absurd and ludicrous etc. in life and bring it to our attention by invoking and even triggering laughter:

Man goes to Confession and confesses that he has stolen wood.

Father:  And how much wood was that, my son

Man: Enough to build my back shed, Father

Father: Ok, make the Stations of the Cross for your penance

Man: No worries, Father.  You give me the measurements and don't worry about the wood, I'll get that

The joke rightly illustrates (to my way of thinking) that while the educated quote the theology spot on (penance in Confession) we out in the pews can get the interpretation or understanding of what has been stated all screwed up and off track, simply because we are not equally educated in Church matters.  I agree that the joke is a quite extreme and perhaps even unlikely example - but example nonetheless

 

 

 

[beatitude]

 

56 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

What I'm asking, is there anything which makes a special commitment to an explicitly Catholic apostolate intrinsically worth doing? Because if there is no difference in any respect whatsoever between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job, then: 1. apostolic religious life is kind of silly; 2. it's really imprudent to have Catholic institutions; 3. people who make sacrifices to work for the Church are being really foolish.

I think you're making a lot of extrapolations here that don't logically follow from one another. Apostolic religious give a beautiful witness to the Gospel through how they live - the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience make Jesus' life and death visible even for people who are not called to live out those vows. Their specific vocation transforms the work they do, just as my vocation transforms the work I do. I'm hidden as Christ was at Nazareth, in the "lonely place" where he prayed, in the crowds he melted into, at Gethsemane, and in that tomb on Easter morning. This shapes my life, probably in ways I don't even see yet. For a married couple it's different again: they are a witness to the life-giving love of the Trinity, they remind us of the Holy Family. St Paul puts it well in his metaphor of the body. I can't call apostolic religious silly any more than my foot can tell my head it isn't wanted. Saying each part of the body is of equal significance doesn't mean saying that certain parts are dispensable.

Each vocation comes with sacrifices, and if you suggest that consecrated people sacrifice more than married people do I think you are coming pretty close to writing people off, even if you aren't judging their holiness. I have a half-sister who died and my mother's grief in losing her is not something I am ever likely to know, because as a consecrated woman my chances of giving birth are slim to nonexistent. When she married my dad, she took on the care of my two half-siblings, who were pretty troubled (my dad was in the military and away from home, and their birth mother was abusive). One day when our dad wasn't home my brother phoned up his mum angry because my mum wouldn't let him stay out late. She showed up at our house, assaulted my mum, and took my two siblings. My sister just had time to hide my four-year-old self in a cupboard. When I came out of the cupboard, I found my mum whimpering on the floor with blood pouring from her nose. The memory is vivid - but not as vivid as the memory of the love with which my mum welcomed those two home again when the police had retrieved them. Again, that cost her more than I'll know. She'd lost her own daughter and was now having to raise two stroppy teens who were so caught up in their own trouble and trauma that they couldn't love her back. (We just had Mothering Sunday in the UK, and twenty-four years after that incident, for the first time, my brother has sent her a card.) Her vocation is tied up with mine because she taught me what it means to sacrifice, to give unconditionally. She said yes to all of that when she married my dad. I can't say that I would be making fewer sacrifices if I were married instead. Every vocation involves sacrifices, and the sacrifices increase proportionally to the amount you throw yourself into it. The question is, "How can I love most?" not "What is the easiest path to Heaven for me?" Reading the lives of the saints, some of them underwent huge trials and made many sacrifices, and others seemed to have it pretty easy by comparison, but they were all focused on loving as best they could. This was why Francis did what he did instead of becoming a Christian cloth merchant. Making hardship itself the hallmark of holiness as opposed to following the will of God feels like turning our journey to the Kingdom into a hazing ritual.

[BarbTherese]

31 minutes ago, beatitude said:

  1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

What I'm asking, is there anything which makes a special commitment to an explicitly Catholic apostolate intrinsically worth doing? Because if there is no difference in any respect whatsoever between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job, then: 1. apostolic religious life is kind of silly; 2. it's really imprudent to have Catholic institutions; 3. people who make sacrifices to work for the Church are being really foolish.

I think there is a difference between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job and that difference is obvious.  One works in The Church, the other is working outside it - but in the Vineyard of The Lord nonetheless, both are working in that vineyard each in their own particular manner and focus according (one hopes) to their vocation and call.

I wonder if the question might be how to make the celibate vocation (priest, religious, Canon 603 and the consecrated virgin - secular institutes) more attractive in order to gain recruits?  My comment would be that if this is to be done by making such vocations of general more importance than a lay vocation (and false in one aspect), then it is not going to work.  Certainly, pre V2 the religious and priestly type of vocations were very generally regarded as offering a higher vocation than the laity.  We had a mass influx into those vocations...........and then a mass exodus post V2.  It didn't work.

 

Quote

 

What I'm asking, is there anything which makes a special commitment to an explicitly Catholic apostolate intrinsically worth doing?

 

I think the above is intrinsically worth doing as it is a work of The Church as is the affirmation by The Church that secular work also has intrinsic worth and as a work of The Church by the baptised (The Church is all the baptised)..............wherever one has a vocation and call to do so.  And those statements incorporate the objective and subjective with the subjective trumping objective. 

  Is one part of The Lord's vineyard more important and valuable, more holy in the objective sense than the other?  I leave that in the main to the theologians and their pins and length, width and depth of angels, as it were.  

Edited March 10, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

 

Rather, I'm wondering what specifically makes "working for the Church" something worth choosing.

(And I know you can say: "Church work is worth choosing if God calls you to it." But my question is: WHY would God call anyone to this?)

Why would God call by vocation "working for The Church" of worth.  Strange question under the circumstances it seems to me............. my response would be, because it is His Will.  Just as it is His Will in other instances to call a person by vocation into the laity to a certain way of life (married or celibate) and secular employment for example.

What makes "working for the Church something worth choosing"?  My answer would be because God has called me to it as my vocation.  Why would I look upon working for the Church as something that has worth - because The Church affirms that it does, just as The Church affirms the worth of the secular and secular employment in the workforce.

I would underscore again (I think I mentioned it previously) that working for The Church very often offers more formation opportunities and very often too easier access to weekday Mass, which is of vital importance if possible.  But again, if God does not call me by vocation into that way of life within Church human structure, I would be making a mistake to choose it.  It needs to be said too that some have chosen their particular way of life as their vocation for all the wrong reasons, while along the way motivation is purified.  But if I choose a vocation knowing my motivation is not sound, I could be making a very serious mistake for putting my money into the basket of motivation being purified along the way.  Discernment is a very important stage and process - and with a clearly defined goal if it is to be true discernment.

[BarbTherese]

55 minutes ago, beatitude said:

St Paul puts it well in his metaphor of the body. I can't call apostolic religious silly any more than my foot can tell my head it isn't wanted.

Important point and reference, since it comes direct from St Paul :

First Epistle of St Paul to The Corinthians

Chapter 12

[11] But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. [12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. [13] For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [14] For the body also is not one member, but many. [15] If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

[16] And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [17] If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? [18] But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. [19] And if they all were one member, where would be the body? [20] But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.

[21] And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. [22] Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. [23] And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. [24] But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, [25] That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.

[26] And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. [28] And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? [30] Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

 

[31] But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way. (To read about what St Paul has to state about "the better gifts" and a "more excellent way" ......... go to http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=13&l=4#x

[Nihil Obstat]

Haydock commentary on those verses:

1 Corinthians xii.

Notes & Commentary:

Ver. 1. Concerning spiritual things. In the apostle's time, the Christians in the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, many times received those graces and gifts of the Holy Ghost, by which some of them prophesied, others wrought miracles, and cured diseases, others spoke tongues, and different languages: now some among the Corinthians made not a right use of these gifts, especially they who had the gift of tongues, and made use of it through vanity, rather than for the profit of others. (Witham)

Ver. 2. You went to dumb idols. He speaks to the Gentiles before their conversion, to put them in mind, how much happier they are by receiving the faith of Christ, and such graces and favours from God. (Witham)

Ver. 3. No man, speaking by the Spirit of God, &c. He tells them, if they see a person moved in an extraordinary manner, and say anathema, curse, or speak ill of Jesus, such an one cannot be moved by a good spirit. And no man can say, the Lord Jesus, that is, praise Christ as he ought, but by a good spirit. (Witham)

Ver. 4-7. There are diversities of graces. Literally, divisions of graces; but all from the same spirit, from the same Lord, from the same God: and all these gifts are designed, and to be made use of for the profit of the faithful. (Witham) --- St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenæus, and Origen bear testimony, that these special gifts of the Holy Ghost were not unusual in their time. St. Paul, in order to curb the vanity of such as seemed to be a little puffed up with the gifts they had received, and likewise to comfort those who had received no such spiritual and extraordinary favours, wishes to teach both parties, that the same Holy Spirit distributes these graces according as t hey are more conducive to the welfare of his Church, and the glory of God. (Calmet)

Ver. 8, &c. Word of wisdom, which differs from that of knowledge, inasmuch as wisdom is a more eminent and sublime knowledge. These are numbered among the gifts of the Holy Ghost. (Isaias, chap. xi.) --- To another faith, by which, says St. Chrysostom,[1] is not here meant a belief of revealed truths, but an humble confidence of working miracles, grounded on faith, and on the power and goodness of God. --- The same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will; by which words, they that valued themselves on the gifts of prophesying, and speaking tongues, are put in mind, that all these were purely the gifts of God, to whom alone the honour is due. (Witham)

Ver. 12. &c. As the body is one, &c. From this comparison of the mystical body of Christ, that is, of his Church, to a man's natural body, he brings excellent instructions. 1. That as all members and parts, make up the same body, so also is Christ; that is, so it is in the Church of Christ, which is his mystical body. 2. As all the parts of man's body are enlivened by the same soul, so all in the Church have their life from the same Spirit of God in baptism, and in the sacraments instituted by our Saviour, Christ; in which we are made to drink of the same spirit. 3. As all the members, that have such different offices and functions, do but constitute one complete body, so is it in the Church of Christ. 4. As those that seem the less considerable parts of the human body, are no less necessary for the subsistence and harmony of the whole, and stand in need of one another, (for example, the head stands in need of the feet) so in the Church, &c. 5. He takes notice, that in a natural body, the less honourable, the baser, and as they are called, the uncomely parts, are clothed with greater care and decency, Literally, have a more abundant honour bestowed upon them, so in the mystical body, no less, but even a greater care is to be taken of the weaker, and more infirm members, of the poor, the weak, the ignorant; and in the spirit of charity and love, that there may be no divisions or schisms, but a brotherly union: that if one suffer, another compassionate and assist him, &c. (Witham)

Ver. 15. If the foot, &c. By this comparison St. Paul teaches the Corinthians, that as all cannot exercise the same functions in the Church, so no one should be envious of his brother; but that by their mutual charity, co-operation, union of hearts, and faith, they should compose one body, of which Christ is the head. (Calmet)

Ver. 24. Cicero, in his 1st liber de Off. speaking of the human body, says, Natura quæ formam nostram atque figuram, in qua esset species honesta, eam posuit in promptu; quæ partes autem corporis ad naturæ necessitatem datæ, aspectum essent deformem habituræ atque turpem, eas contexit atque abdidit. (Calmet)

Ver. 27. Members of member.[2] The sense seems to be, you are members of the particular Church of Corinth, which is only a part or member of the whole body of the Christian Catholic Church. This is agreeable to the common reading in the Greek, where it is said, you are members of a part. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxii. (Witham)

Ver. 28. First apostles, &c. Here he sets down these gifts or graces in their order of dignity. 1. The apostles, blessed above others with all kinds of graces. 2. Prophets, who had the gift of interpreting of prophecies, and of knowing things to come. 3. Doctors, or teachers of the gospel, preferred before those who had the gift of miracles, or of healing the infirm, and before the gifts of tongues, which they valued and esteemed so much, which he reckons in a manner in the last place, except that of interpreting, which is wanting in the present Greek copies. But as interpreting is found in all the Greek manuscripts (ver. 30.) we have reason to prefer the reading of the Latin Vulgate. (Witham)

Ver. 31. Be zealous for the better gifts: which are to be more or less esteemed, as they are accompanied with charity, as he is going to shew in the next chapter. (Witham)

____________________

[1] Ver. 9. Fides, pistis, upon which word St. Chrysostom, om. kth. p. 433. pistin ou tauten legon, ten ton dogmaton, alla ten semeion.

[2] Ver. 27. Et membra de membro. Some Greek copies, kai mele ek melous, but in most Greek manuscripts, kai mele ek merous. St. Chrysostom, om. kb. p. 448. e ekklesia e par emin, meros esti tes pantachou keimenes ekklesias.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Where did I ever say I was out to judge individual people? I know obviously that people are judged as individuals and not merely by their state in life. I was not trying to argue otherwise.

But I don't think that means that we can never talk in terms of general categories. And the Church has always taught that---quite apart from the question of the subjective holiness of individuals, which of course only God can judge---some categories are higher than others in some respects. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge this when addressed certain questions.

But personal judgment of individuals is what this kind of thinking leads to. If you keep it black and white, it gets applied black and white. You need to acknowledge that there's a lot of gray—even on the abstract, general level.

C. S. Peirce said: "Let us not doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts." He was responding to extreme skeptics, who argued things in their philosophical writing that would get them published, but that are absolutely absurd when considered from a practical viewpoint and which nobody lives by. I think his point is relevant here: If your abstract, general thinking is croutons when applied to real life, then what's it worth? It's better to acknowledge—even in our thinking—that it's not black and white, because that's how it's lived.

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

What I'm asking, is there anything which makes a special commitment to an explicitly Catholic apostolate intrinsically worth doing? Because if there is no difference in any respect whatsoever between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job, then: 1. apostolic religious life is kind of silly; 2. it's really imprudent to have Catholic institutions; 3. people who make sacrifices to work for the Church are being really foolish.

How exactly do you get from the idea that "if there is no difference in any respect whatsoever between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job" then "1. apostolic religious life is kind of silly; 2. it's really imprudent to have Catholic institutions; 3. people who make sacrifices to work for the Church are being really foolish"? That claim seems willfully narrow, as if you're just refusing to acknowledge all the great things that Catholic institutions and religious apostolates do for the sake of argument. The Catholic apostolate isn't valuable only because it's Catholic. It's valuable because it's service. Its Catholic-ness is (ideally) intrinsically linked to that service, sustains it, gives it life, gives it a distinctness and a feeling of "home" for Catholics, and so helps to draw them into service. In those ways, it's different. A Catholic sister doing nursing work in Africa is different from an atheist doing nursing work in Africa because the former brings Christ with her, and hopefully shares Him with her patients. But any Catholic could do that. As beatitude said, we are the Body of Christ here on earth, so anywhere we go, the Church goes. Even if we're laypeople.

I just read today in Lumen Gentium that the mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church's social organization as an earthly institution are one and the same thing, indistinguishable. So I hardly think it's "really imprudent to have Catholic institutions", and I don't see how that follows at all from the assertion that work in a secular institution can be just as holy and valuable as work in the Church.

People who make sacrifices to work for the Church may be foolish, but that doesn't necessarily depend on the work. It depends on their intention. If they're making the sacrifice for good, holy reasons, they're not fools. If they're making the sacrifice because of some wrong-headed idea they have about Church work (like, that it's the only way to do holy work), they're probably fools.

I think what's happening here is that, in abstracting away from individual cases, you're disembodying the experience of work. Work is not a disembodied thing. It's lived out by individuals, in real, concrete circumstances. So there's really not much that you can say about it—comparatively—without drawing those embodied, individual, concrete circumstances into consideration. But that's what you're trying to do. Work does not have value intrinsically. It has value because man does it. And how we do it impacts its "value score." This is why the value of all work is subjective: Because work is dependent on man for its value. Read the papal encyclicals on Catholic Social Teaching and you'll see that that idea comes through again and again.

And again.

And again.

The principles of social justice regarding labor, including all the papal screeds against the industrialists and the communists, all depend on this basic fact. Work is a means to an end for man. It's not an end in itself.

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

If there is no meaningful difference at all between "better" and "best," then why bother going out of your way to do any act of charity at all? If the non-sinful act of watching a movie on Sunday afternoon is just as good as teaching a CCD class, why bother volunteering to teach? 

I'm not saying there's no such thing as "better" and "best". I'm saying that this analogy does not hold for work. And if a person makes such a rational calculus before they do acts of charity, then there is probably something wrong with their intention. Of course it's still good to do the better act, but doing it solely because it's better, rather than out of a love for God and neighbor, is kinda... legalistic.

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I get that it's important not to be proud about making "superior" choices, but it seems there's a lot more to Catholic life than just not sinning. And why bother making sacrifices for anything, if the easier way would have been just as good?

Because making sacrifices for the sake of the Kingdom is intrinsically good. But what sacrifice means for any individual person is subjective.

Are you starting to get this yet?  

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

St. Francis of Assisi could have done a lot of good as a cloth merchant---and he wouldn't have alienated his natural father. If he made enough money, he could have endowed a lot of civic projects in his hometown---possibly even doing much more social good with his cloth money than he would have as a poor friar. And if he had never started the Franciscan Order, he would have saved the Church a LOT of administrative headaches over the years. If there's nothing uniquely good about preaching vs. secular trade and civic responsibility, then the Franciscan Order doesn't have much special use, either. 

Again, it's a non sequitur. It really doesn't follow from the fact that St. Francis could have done other good work that the Franciscan order is useless. There is something uniquely good about preaching. There is also something uniquely good about secular trade and civic responsibility. They're different goods (no pun intended). The fact that they are both good does not render the Franciscans worthless.

Using your line of logic: If being celibate is the highest vocation, then we should all be celibate. Doing anything else is useless, because it's not the best. Let's all do that and see how far it gets us, yeah? (Cf. 1 Corinthians 12)

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

So my point is, there must have been SOMETHING specially valuable about Francis' apostate, otherwise it wouldn't have made sense for God to have called him out of his family's business ventures.

Yes, there was something special. Does it therefore follow that business is an inferior pursuit? No it does not.

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Oh my! I heard you in the first place :) - but others may not have - see quote box below.

Sorry! I didn't mean to yell at you! I just wanted to be sure everyone understood I was clear on that point.

Really, in this thread I didn't set out to argue for "more important" vs. "less important" vocations; or who winds up making more actual sacrifices; or who is holier than whom. I also didn't mean to discuss what the best pastoral advice would be for someone discerning their vocation.

I wanted to figure out how we could describe, in objective theological terms, what is "special" about serving the Church directly. (In the same way we might ask what is "special" about motherhood, or about being a Franciscan, or about being a secular institute member, etc.)

And if there was nothing "special" at all about serving the Church directly, I wanted to know why exactly people thought that. 

[Gabriela]

4 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Sorry! I didn't mean to yell at you! I just wanted to be sure everyone understood I was clear on that point.

Really, in this thread I didn't set out to argue for "more important" vs. "less important" vocations; or who winds up making more actual sacrifices; or who is holier than whom. I also didn't mean to discuss what the best pastoral advice would be for someone discerning their vocation.

I wanted to figure out how we could describe, in objective theological terms, what is "special" about serving the Church directly. (In the same way we might ask what is "special" about motherhood, or about being a Franciscan, or about being a secular institute member, etc.)

And if there was nothing "special" at all about serving the Church directly, I wanted to know why exactly people thought that. 

Ah, well, "special" is something other than "superior". Looking back at your previous posts, I see you used the word "special" several times. I think it was this that threw me: "would they be able to do more good for the Church by working in something like catechesis full-time, or would it make just as much sense for them to become a real estate agent?" That's a relative question. Hence the rant about comparing vocations.

Of course there's special stuff about working for the Church. But again, what that is depends, I think, on the person doing it, their reasons for doing, what they do, how they do it, etc. If you wanna get into "intrinsic" stuff again, all my previous posts apply: There is nothing intrinsically good about any work (that's a Protestant view). Its value is derived from man.

[Sponsa-Christi]

3 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

But personal judgment of individuals is what this kind of thinking leads to. If you keep it black and white, it gets applied black and white. You need to acknowledge that there's a lot of gray—even on the abstract, general level.

I think we might need to agree to disagree that we're coming from different approaches. Yes, abstract thinking CAN lead to personal judgement, but it doesn't always. And there is a time and a place for abstract, theoretical thought.

And don't forget, I am a canon lawyer. Abstract categories are our trademark!

I know you're obviously writing in good faith, but where you see me as being too black and white, I see you as being too relativistic here (again, absolutely not making any personal judgement on your intentions, though.) Just like too much abstract thinking can lead to personal judgments, I think an overly subjective approach can  lead to moral confusion or compromise.

Again, though, I'm not accusing you personally of moral relativism in general!

10 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

How exactly do you get from the idea that "if there is no difference in any respect whatsoever between a Catholic apostolate and a totally secular job" then "1. apostolic religious life is kind of silly; 2. it's really imprudent to have Catholic institutions; 3. people who make sacrifices to work for the Church are being really foolish"? That claim seems willfully narrow, as if you're just refusing to acknowledge all the great things that Catholic institutions and religious apostolates do for the sake of argument.

 I know this sounds like a straw man, but the line of thought that says: "Christ is everywhere, and all service is valuable, therefore there is no real difference at all between working for the Church and working for a secular company..." was actually a major factor in why so many religious left right after Vatican II. Ann Carey talks about that in her book Sisters in Crisis, but an even more convincing read on this is Witness to Integrity by Anita Caspary. In Witness to Integrity, Caspary recounts in the first person how she, as the superior general of the IHM Sisters, let the majority of her Sisters to request dispensation of their vows so that they could live and work as laypeople.

Of course, the lay apostolate and secular institutes have a valuable role to play on the Church as a whole. However, these vocations are not the only ones in the entire Church. If we want to gain a sense of what is special and valuable about apostolic religious life, I think we also have to be clear about what is special about "working for the Church."

7 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I think it was this that threw me: "would they be able to do more good for the Church by working in something like catechesis full-time, or would it make just as much sense for them to become a real estate agent?"

Okay, fair point! This was phrased in a relative, subjective way. 

10 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Of course there's special stuff about working for the Church. But again, what that is depends, I think, on the person doing it, their reasons for doing, what they do, how they do it, etc. If you wanna get into "intrinsic" stuff again, all my previous posts apply: There is nothing intrinsically good about any work (that's a Protestant view). Its value is derived from man.

I think I'd disagree on this---I think some works do have some level of objective value. The works of mercy, for example---even if you feed the hungry for entirely the wrong reasons (e.g., you want everyone to see how wonderful and generous you are!), it's still a good thing that that hungry person was fed. Subjectively, you might not have gained the merit in God's eyes that you would have if you acted with better intentions, but that doesn't mean the act of feeding the hungry was now therefore no longer a good act in and of itself.

However, this is probably a debating point for another thread!

[BarbTherese]

23 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Sorry! I didn't mean to yell at you! I just wanted to be sure everyone understood I was clear on that point.

Really, in this thread I didn't set out to argue for "more important" vs. "less important" vocations; or who winds up making more actual sacrifices; or who is holier than whom. I also didn't mean to discuss what the best pastoral advice would be for someone discerning their vocation.

I wanted to figure out how we could describe, in objective theological terms, what is "special" about serving the Church directly. (In the same way we might ask what is "special" about motherhood, or about being a Franciscan, or about being a secular institute member, etc.)

And if there was nothing "special" at all about serving the Church directly, I wanted to know why exactly people thought that. 

My bad, SC! I thought you were having a good old yell at me

From today's Gospel (10th March here in Aust): "44] How can you believe, who receive glory one from another: and the glory which is from God alone, you do not seek?

There is a certain glory that comes from God only, nothing to do with human type glory and hidden from human eyes possibly quite deliberately.

Life is a journey and hopefully one of (most often) gradual growth - sometimes a two steps back, one forward, one back, two forward type of dance and the gift is probably not to become discouraged in the dance.  I might start out seeking human glory (or praise and first place in human terms), but as I journey along what I seek can be be purified until the glory that comes from God alone and often completely hidden from human eyes is our primary focus and goal.  It is certainly more difficult for probably most of us, I think, to make very hidden and difficult acts of virtue and sacrifice that cost, than those that are witnessed in some way by others.  One of the astounding lessons in the life of St Therese came after her death when her fellow sisters for 8yrs living in an enclosed and close community thought of her as a "good Carmelite, but nothing special".  St Therese had an ardent desire to be a saint and she could understand that that can come only from God, not fellow humans.

Looking at the two totally objectively, then I think there is indeed something special about working for The Church (I just read Gabriella's post).  However, no matter what a person might be about in occupation either for the Church or in secular occupation, what can make anything at all very special, the very best, is the human input (as Gabriella pointed out) ones motivation etc.  What attracted me initially to religious life was being told that all a nun's duties and occupations were God's Will - and at a time when knowing what God's Will for me was very confusing as to what I should be doing during any day.  Reading the life of St Therese started to open my eyes and certainly with that, further reading from saints and The Church enlightened me even further until I realised that the duties of any state in life or vocation is God's Will calling - and anything at all (except sin) during my day is God's Will calling.  I do think that to strive to remain free of sin is of absolute primary importance in one's spiritual life.  The one thing we can be very sure of indeed is that sin, mortal or venial,is  most definitely and assuredly NOT God's Will at any time whatsoever.

Re the comments about those who left religious life post V2.  If their reasons for leaving was related solely to their particular apostolate within their religious life, then I would wonder if they understood what religious life was all about and as prime - and if not, then perhaps they just might be better to leave the life and possibly especially if they had years in religious life along with the formation and if they considered their vocation mainly about apostolate.  Religious Life does entail at times much sacrifice, as does any vocation.  There can be a certain type of freedom in serving a particular apostolate defined by The Church and undertaken often by religious...........in serving in that apostolate as a lay person and under one's own volition even.  I know in my previous location, which was beset by every imaginable social problem in the book, including dire poverty, I could be on call 24x7, whereas a religious is (very rightly) more confined.  Today, there might be more freedom in active religious life - I would not know.  God bless them if there is.  In my previous location, our pp at one point commented to me that he wished he could live as I did.  I asked him why he could not and he replied that the Archbishop "would not let me".  And this is fair enough to me, the duties (God's Will) of a priest are vastly different from duties related to life in the laity (and God's Will also).  Not that my being on call 24x7 was actually God's Will for me, but I had the freedom to do so if necessary (and certainly not sinful exercised with prudence............. therefore within the umbrella of God's Will).  God is not mean - it is not "this way only or the highway" except in matters that are mortally or venially sinful.

Praise The Lord for the stunning Gift of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

[Gabriela]

11 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I think we might need to agree to disagree that we're coming from different approaches. Yes, abstract thinking CAN lead to personal judgement, but it doesn't always. And there is a time and a place for abstract, theoretical thought.

And don't forget, I am a canon lawyer. Abstract categories are our trademark!

I know you're obviously writing in good faith, but where you see me as being too black and white, I see you as being too relativistic here (again, absolutely not making any personal judgement on your intentions, though.) Just like too much abstract thinking can lead to personal judgments, I think an overly subjective approach can  lead to moral confusion or compromise.

Again, though, I'm not accusing you personally of moral relativism in general!

 I know this sounds like a straw man, but the line of thought that says: "Christ is everywhere, and all service is valuable, therefore there is no real difference at all between working for the Church and working for a secular company..." was actually a major factor in why so many religious left right after Vatican II. Ann Carey talks about that in her book Sisters in Crisis, but an even more convincing read on this is Witness to Integrity by Anita Caspary. In Witness to Integrity, Caspary recounts in the first person how she, as the superior general of the IHM Sisters, let the majority of her Sisters to request dispensation of their vows so that they could live and work as laypeople.

You seem to be assuming that it was a bad thing that these sisters entered secular work. But as Barbara Therese pointed out, this is a human way of looking at the matter. When I started learning about the catastrophes that followed upon VII, I realized how God might be using these changes to purify the Church, to "separate the chaff from the wheat", if you will. In the last couple years, with the persecution of Christians, I've come to believe that that is precisely what He was doing, because in times of persecution, what you need is a really, really strong Church. And you don't get that when you've got a humongous Church full of lukewarm people.

If some sisters couldn't see any value in a specifically Christian apostolate post-VII, then maybe they were lukewarm. Or maybe VII changed so much about religious life that many people felt it wasn't worth living anymore. The post in the VS about the calligrapher priest says exactly that. And I have certainly been in some communities where I couldn't see the point of living in the community at all. But that doesn't mean that all of religious life has no special value.

It's just not a superior value.  

I can also see why VII was necessary in the Church: The sense of priests and religious being superior to laity was pretty intense. I do think we swung a little too far to the other extreme post-VII, but I can see signs now that that extreme swing is finally beginning to settle in a healthier middle ground that looks more like what 1 Corinthians 12 says we should look like.

I am an academic, so abstract thinking is my bread and butter. I'm just very careful about what content and contexts I do it with. I think that, on a public forum like this one, one needs to be careful about speaking in abstract categories that someone might interpret as a judgment of their personal holiness. As Barbara Therese mentioned, many people in here won't have the background to understand that a statement like, "Being celibate/working for the Church is intrinsically/objectively superior to other ways of life" is a theoretical statement and not a judgment of their personal choices in life. You have a reputation for bringing up the superiority of the celibate vocations, and you're a CV, so I hope you can see how people might misinterpret your talking about the superiority of any vocation or role in the Church. In contexts like this one, I think that statements about superiority and inferiority should probably just not get brought up.

[BarbTherese]

It might be me once more, but I think it can be seen as this thread has unfolded, the vast difference between the educated and the not as educated.............and the problem evident possibly when those two groups engage in a conversation?  To be honest, I have had my dictionary open reading this thread and some words, I just had to abandon in understanding altogether.  This is not a criticism at all of either group.  Both are valid and important.

Valid and important SINCE both groups do exist and have persevered in existence down the ages.  Possibly today with computers - and as in no other day down the ages, the possibility exists for both groups to engage in conversation and try to understand each other.  My definition of genius is a step forward from that initial gift - i.e. to communicate the genius so those 'in the pews' can understand.  The problem can come down to language and as mankind (woops! personkind ) grows in understanding and knowledge, he has invented special words (used by specialists in their field) to communicate a whole concept or understanding, meaning.  Sort of reminiscent of the result of the tower of Babel in Scripture.

_______________

Posted the above before I read Gabriella's post , but having read it I tend to think we might be on the same wavelength.......stating the same thing differently.

Ran out of props

Edited March 10, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Gabriela]

48 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It might be me once more, but I think it can be seen as this thread has unfolded, the vast difference between the educated and the not as educated.............and the problem evident possibly when those two groups engage in a conversation?  To be honest, I have had my dictionary open reading this thread and some words, I just had to abandon in understanding altogether.  This is not a criticism at all of either group.  Both are valid and important.

Valid and important SINCE both groups do exist and have persevered in existence down the ages.  Possibly today with computers - and as in no other day down the ages, the possibility exists for both groups to engage in conversation and try to understand each other.  My definition of genius is a step forward from that initial gift - i.e. to communicate the genius so those 'in the pews' can understand.  The problem can come down to language and as mankind (woops! personkind ) grows in understanding and knowledge, he has invented special words (used by specialists in their field) to communicate a whole concept or understanding, meaning.  Sort of reminiscent of the result of the tower of Babel in Scripture.

_______________

Posted the above before I read Gabriella's post , but having read it I tend to think we might be on the same wavelength.......stating the same thing differently.

Ran out of props

Well, God willing, I'll have a PhD by August of next year, but I feel very strongly about not living in an academic ivory tower or talking in a way that less educated people can't understand. It's a social justice issue for me. I study communication, and most of my teaching and my current research has a lot to do with speakers adapting to their audience. So I think about these things a lot, especially about context, because that should determine all of a speaker's choices.

But in most of this thread, I was speaking directly to Sponsa, and my understanding is that she's a scholar, too. So my apologies, Barbara Therese, if I used words you didn't understand!

[BarbTherese]

2 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Well, God willing, I'll have a PhD by August of next year, but I feel very strongly about not living in an academic ivory tower or talking in a way that less educated people can't understand. It's a social justice issue for me. I study communication, and most of my teaching and my current research has a lot to do with speakers adapting to their audience. So I think about these things a lot, especially about context, because that should determine all of a speaker's choices.

But in most of this thread, I was speaking directly to Sponsa, and my understanding is that she's a scholar, too. So my apologies, Barbara Therese, if I used words you didn't understand!

I totally applaud your first paragraph!  God's every blessing on your studies and desired outcome.

No need for an apology at all.  I did understand that you and Sponsa were exchanging posts and that you are both scholars.  I had just wanted to butt in and point out that while undoubtedly you both understood each other, at times I was floundering.  There is nothing, to me, intrinsically wrong (not a good word - at fault perhaps better) with the unfolding of this thread and your scholarly exchanges with Sponsa - you have every right to exchange scholarly opinions - but I wanted to chuck a seed into the wind anyway from my point of view.............and on reading your first paragraph, I was very happy indeed to read of the course you hope to take as a result of your studies.  Outstandingly happy - keep on keeping on in my book.

If anyone needs to apologise, it is probably me.  The context of this thread in the main has been scholarly opinions - I am the outsider not being well educated in Church matters.   It is the title of the thread that drew my curiosity and the opening post sparked my interest.  It is probably a pig headedness attached to my own interest in the subject that has kept me in the thread.  Be all that as it may, we all have a right to contribute on Phatmass in the debates and other forums in the main   

General comment: And the moment one  submits a reply, one is open to (mentioning a few) disagreement or agreement  - one might be ignored or even ridiculed (and very sadly contrary to Charity and the highest of all vocations and calls)  C'est la vie

[Gabriela]

29 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I totally applaud your first paragraph!  God's every blessing on your studies and desired outcome.

No need for an apology at all.  I did understand that you and Sponsa were exchanging posts and that you are both scholars.  I had just wanted to butt in and point out that while undoubtedly you both understood each other, at times I was floundering.  There is nothing, to me, intrinsically wrong (not a good word - at fault perhaps better) with the unfolding of this thread and your scholarly exchanges with Sponsa - you have every right to exchange scholarly opinions - but I wanted to chuck a seed into the wind anyway from my point of view.............and on reading your first paragraph, I was very happy indeed to read of the course you hope to take as a result of your studies.  Outstandingly happy - keep on keeping on in my book.

If anyone needs to apologise, it is probably me.  The context of this thread in the main has been scholarly opinions - I am the outsider not being well educated in Church matters.   It is the title of the thread that drew my curiosity and the opening post sparked my interest.  It is probably a pig headedness attached to my own interest in the subject that has kept me in the thread.  Be all that as it may, we all have a right to contribute on Phatmass in the debates and other forums in the main   

General comment: And the moment one  submits a reply, one is open to (mentioning a few) disagreement or agreement  - one might be ignored or even ridiculed (and very sadly contrary to Charity and the highest of all vocations and calls)  C'est la vie

There's no need to apologize at all, Barbara Therese. You made some very good points!  

[BarbTherese]

26 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

There's no need to apologize at all, Barbara Therese. You made some very good points!  

.Thank you for that, Gabriella - I never know if I have done so.  My SD that pointed me in the direction of private vows as a potential told me before his death of cancer "Go through your life merrily casting your seeds and don't you hang around to see what happens, will you?"  Much later, I concluded that it is not so much not hanging around to see what happens, as to be emotionally detached from whatever does happen (take all that with a good dose of common sense). The Parable of the Seed Sower is very interesting from a few angles.  And my beloved SD I mentioned delighted in making cryptic comments - God Bless his outstandingly holy soul.

Incidentally he was a priest religious and theologian who lectured in our seminary back then.  He was quite a character, and most always I would find him waiting for me on the grounds somewhere - with his rosary beads.

He once banged his fist on his desk and yelled at me (literally) "Who taught YOU moral theology?"  "Dunno Father, could it have been the Holy Spirit?"

Edited March 10, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Maggyie]

Personally, I don't believe there is anything "higher" about pro-Catholicism vs non pro. I just don't think this is a state of life the way marriage, religious life, priesthood is.

The sisters who left after Vatican II perhaps entered for the wrong reason in some cases. One shouldn't enter religious life because you want to DO God's work - it's about who you will BE as someone consecrated to God. So when they saw they could also do Gods work in a secular context, they left, but that was the whole point. It shouldn't have been about the work to begin with.

dont get me wrong, it's work that needs to be done. But comparing being a secretary in a diocesan office vs being the secretary of an unaffiliated soup kitchen - I don't think there's anything particular about doing Catholic good works for a living, vs good works in general. 

Again what makes priesthood and religious life objectively higher is what they ARE not what they do. I don't think lay pro Catholics are objectively in any different state of "being" than the layest of the lay (for lack of a better term, ha). 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Maggyie

[Sponsa-Christi]

25 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

dont get me wrong, it's work that needs to be done. But comparing being a secretary in a diocesan office vs being the secretary of an unaffiliated soup kitchen - I don't think there's anything particular about doing Catholic good works for a living, vs good works in general. 

I'm not trying to talk about the ontological status of "professional Catholics," either. 

I'm asking whether there's any special value at all in doing work which is explicitly Catholic. E.g., is there any special value, in any respect whatsoever, to working in a Catholic hospital rather a non-Catholic hospital, or working for Catholic Charities rather than a county social services office?

And if there is NOT any special value in this, why are Catholic institutions a good thing? Is it just because they fill in the gaps of what others can't provide?