"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[Gabriela]

3 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

It would be wrong to say: "You say there is special value in being a Franciscan. How dare you call the Dominicans a second-class Order!"

Nobody said this. What people said was: "You say that being in Vocation X is superior to being in Vocation Y. How dare you call Vocation Y a second-class vocation!"

 

Quote

It would also be missing the point to say: "The only value in your becoming a Franciscan is that God called you there. It would have made no difference if you had become a Dominican if that's where God called you."

Nobody said this either. What people said was: "We can't know the difference it would have made if you'd have become something else." Which I think is incredibly hard to argue with. But you can try.

 

Quote

Even though of course there is a subjective dimension of how God calls someone, we still can talk about the unique good qualities which make joining the Franciscans a worthy choice in and of itself. 

Yes, we can. Nobody said otherwise. What people said was: "Let's not talk about how one vocation is superior to another, cuz they all have unique good qualities."

 

3 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

An unhelpful answer would be: "It makes no real difference whether or not you join the Franciscans, because there are hundreds of other equally good Orders out there!"

Who would ever say that?

 

Quote

So with my question is sort of like: "What is the special 'charism' of working directly for the Church?"

This is a good way of putting it. Clearest phrasing of it yet. Unfortunately, I still don't think the question can be answered, because it depends on what you're doing for the Church. The Church is not the Sisters of Life who have one specific charism that you can sum up in a sentence, "to protect life". I mean, you could sum up the Church's charism in a sentence, "to save souls" or "to give glory to God" or whatever, but no matter how you do it, someone's going to argue it's too specific, or too one-sided, or whatever.

I tend to agree with—who was it? Barbara Therese?—who implied that evangelization is the one main thing that working in the Church enables people to do differently than others do outside of Church work, because, as veritas said, within the Church, one can do it both personally and institutionally. Of course, personally, one can do it anywhere. So I think veritas has probably nailed this one: That's likely the only difference, "objectively speaking".

But someone else said that some jobs are more conducive to holiness... I'd agree with that, but only subjectively. I don't think there's anything intrinsic about any job that conduces more to holiness—objectively—than any other job. Barring the sinful ones, obviously.

 

4 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

The special value of religious/consecrated life is that it is "set apart" from the world to remind us of eternal things. The special value of the lay state is that it brings Christ into the realm of temporal affairs from within the world. If we say that religious can feel called to the lay apostolate, to me, this undermines the special vocation of the laity--meaning that the lay vocation isn't really special after all, since non-laypeople can do it. If someone feels called to the lay apostolate, they should not become a priest or religious.

To me, saying religious might be called to the lay apostolate (while they remain religious, that is) is like saying that a man can be called to bring "the feminine genius" into the life of the Church. Not everyone is called to every vocation, and that's ok!

I can't agree with this entirely, because of the apostolic religious orders. They're not set apart from the world, and that brings us back to this:

Quote

Well, it depends on which sense we're using the word "lay." Religious can "lay" in the sense of non-ordained, but "lay" can also mean "neither ordained nor consecrated."

It can mean that, but it doesn't "officially"—although Church documents use it that way all the time, too. Originally, though—as I'm sure you know—"the laity" meant strictly the non-clergy, and so included (non-clerical) religious. I think it's useful to remember that distinction in this discussion, because you seem to have an idea of religious life ("The special value of religious/consecrated life is that it is "set apart" from the world to remind us of eternal things") that bars the apostolic orders from actually being considered religious. Which is absurd. When one remembers that they, too, are non-clerical laity, one sees no problem with them participating in the "mission of the laity", as so many sisters do in apostolic works of mercy.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, the spirituality of St. Josemaría Escrivá was loved and adopted by many priests, and nobody had a problem with it, even though that spirituality is all about "bring[ing] Christ into the realm of temporal affairs from within the world", which you say is "the special value of the lay state [exclusively]". In fact, I would say that that is a value of all states but the cloistered one. Even these guys—who are hands-down the most hard-core religious I know—are opening a coffee shop to better evangelize the heathens around them.

 

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Really interested to hear you explain this more fully, especially the idea that that is a Protestant view. I would disagree and say that some work certainly does have more intrinsic value than other work, though before commenting more I'd want to understand better what you meant when you say there's nothing intrinsically good about any work. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. 

I took an independent study with a theologian strictly on the topics of labor, work, and vocation. I read nearly all the papal encyclicals on work (not all, though, cuz after a while, they start to get really redundant). If you read those, you start to see the difference between the Protestant view of work and the Catholic view. Both believe that work can sanctify man, but Protestants think that's because there's something in work that is inherently good. Catholics don't think that. They believe work can sanctify man because of what good man can put into the work. The good starts in a different place—in the work (Protestant) versus in the man (Catholic)—and ends in a different place—in the man (Protestant) versus in the work (Catholic). If you read Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Catholic critiques of that, you'll get an even broader picture of how this has played out in history. It's a subtle distinction that has made an ENORMOUS difference in society.

In a sense, it is (Catholic-ly) incorrect to say, "Work sanctifies man"—although I'm pretty sure some pope said that somewhere (maybe it's even in the Catechism? don't remember...). If you read the context and explanation, though, you'll find that what they really mean is, "Man sanctifies work, and in so doing is himself sanctified."

This is why I can't agree that some work is inherently better than other work: because there's nothing in the work. We put the value into the work. Again, if you read the CST encyclicals on labor and work, you'll see the popes arguing this vehemently, because at the turn of the 19th century, industrialization had caused massive disillusionment and emptiness and vacuity and meaninglessness in the work process of billions of people. To give those people hope, the popes explained this idea over and over again: It doesn't matter if you put switches on thingamabobs all day long in an endlessly repetitive motion that constrains your fingers to a one-inch circle for 12 hours straight—that work is meaningful because you give meaning to it (e.g., by doing it for Christ, for love of your family, for the good of society, etc.—which brings us right back to subjective intent).

(Now, what they said to the heartless industrialists was quite something else: "Stop constraining these people's fingers to a one-inch circle for 12 hours straight cuz it's damned inhumane and makes it incredibly hard for them to put meaning into their soul-crushing work." But they still argued it could be done, cuz if they hadn't, those poor industrial workers wouldn't have had a hope in the world.)

Incidentally, it's no surprise to me at all that God sent us St. Josemaría at precisely this period in history!

 

Quote

Personally I think this threads question an interesting question, and nobody has yet said why there is any value in specifically "Catholic" work as opposed to secular work. It seems to me that most people are saying that there is no difference, it's simply a matter of what one is called to do. This is, I think, I problematic stance, and from my brief skim of the thread I'd say Sponsa Christi has done a good job of articulating why. 

 

We're not saying there is no difference. We're saying the difference isn't in the work itself. It's in what the people bring to it. Although I think veritas makes an excellent point about the institutional context being a kind of "second level" of evangelization that a non-Church-worker can't get at.

 

Quote

I'd like to try and answer the original question. My answer would be yes I do think there is a difference. While I think it is possible to sanctify any and all work, I think some work is more suited to both sanctify a person and be a vehicle for sanctification, objectively speaking. I'm a little bit unsure whether we're including religious life or priesthood in the category of "working for the Church," or if we're just speaking about the laity.

Religious are laity.

(But I see your point!)

Edited March 11, 2016 by Gabriela

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

Nobody said this. What people said was: "You say that being in Vocation X is superior to being in Vocation Y. How dare you call Vocation Y a second-class vocation!"

For the record, I never said (and am not saying) that "being in vocation X is superior to being in vocation Y." 

As a side note apart from my original question, I noted that Church teaches that the consecrated life as an objective category is higher than the non-consecrated state, but talking about objective categories is not the same thing as saying that subjectively being in X state is higher than subjectively being in Y state. Also, just because one category might be "superior," this doesn't mean that the other categories aren't very, very good!

I'm happy to agree to disagree on the objective superiority of the consecrated life as a category, but I feel frustrated when it keeps being implied that I'm trying to judge the personal holiness of individuals.

One more time (and I'm not trying to yell at anyone, I just want to make sure this point above all other points is not overlooked): 

I am NOT making judgments on the personal, subjective holiness of individuals!!!

[BarbTherese]

[BarbTherese]

25 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

that Church teaches that the consecrated life as an objective category is higher than the non-consecrated state,

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement - but it is the type of statement (though absolutely correct theologically)that causes confusion and misunderstanding and I have noted such among those ordinary everyday Catholic laity those discerning and even at times among the consecrated and even priests.  I do not think that certainly our priests mean to mislead - nor perhaps anyone else either, however without qualifying the theological objective scale with the subjective factor, the statement can be misunderstood. 

The problem can then develop with misunderstandings of the theological categorizing position that the ordinary everyday Catholic does not grasp at all their very real importance and apostolate with a vocation to the laity, either single or married.

But more or less, I intend to bow out of the thread (while continuing to read) as it is better served, I feel, as an academic type of post exchange and I am hoping another member can grasp my meaning and take it up if it is of value within the terms of this thread.

____________

doesn't seem to be saving - will try another way and apologies if it posts twice

[Sponsa-Christi]

@BarbaraTherese Of course, do what's right for you here, but do know I really didn't mean to make anyone feel pushed out!

I totally appreciate how some topics aren't always appropriate in all settings (which is why I didn't start this thread in VS), but I am assuming here that people are can approach a debate involving objective categories from the proper frame of reference.

[Gabriela]

I have an idea. How about we start a thread discussing the intellectual superiority of whites compared to blacks. Cuz that's an objective fact that has been documented again and again over the last century using psychometric testing. It's been written up in journals and books and some of them used quite impeccable methods.

No? Why not? Because someone might not be educated enough to catch the facts that intelligence tests are culturally biased? Because blacks don't have nearly the same opportunities for quality education as whites? Because education actually does influence intelligence test scores? Because despite their claims, such tests don't measure exclusively "native intelligence"? And because if someone doesn't catch those things, they might wind up becoming racist?

Right. That is why discussing the "objective facts" of some groups' superiority over other groups is socially taboo and in very poor taste: because some people will not be able to see that those "objective facts" mean jack squat when you apply them to real life, but they'll lead to pride and hatred anyway.

But by all means. Go ahead and start that thread.

[Sponsa-Christi]

14 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Right. That is why discussing the "objective facts" of some groups' superiority over other groups is socially taboo and in very poor taste: because some people will not be able to see that those "objective facts" mean jack squat when you apply them to real life, but they'll lead to pride and hatred anyway.

I think it's sort of unfair to compare the Church's teachings on consecrated life to racism. 

Also...I was talking about theological "objective categories," not "objective facts." That may look like splitting hairs, but when we're talking in terms of "facts," that suggests something related to the empirical sciences, which is a totally different field from theology. (It's not like we're collecting "data" on who has demonstrated more holiness---we're talking about abstract categories in and of themselves.)

Can anyone really say that John Paul II was encouraging pride and hatred when he wrote: "it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ's own way of life, has an objective superiority."  (in Vita Consecrata, 32)? Or that the Catechsim was fostering pride and hatred when it stated: "The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a "more intimate" consecration" (CCC 916)?

I can see where some people might not be able to properly put these teachings into context without the appropriate catechesis, but I don't think this means that these things should never be talked about, ever.

Also, again, this issue really wasn't what I set out to discuss in this thread!

[Gabriela]

I'm going to say this and then I'm going to make like Barbara Therese and start ignoring this thread: @Sponsa-Christi, I believe you when you say that it wasn't your intent to pass judgment on individual people. But for four pages, people have been telling (and showing) you that that's what happens when you talk about this. Unintentionally, you made multiple relative, comparative statements that implied subjective superiority/inferiority—though, as you say, you never stated it explicitly. Your questions also suggested judgment, though again, I completely believe that's not what you intended. Still, the point is, people's posts were telling you how this was all coming off, and you persisted anyway.

There are thousands of lurkers on Phatmass a day. Go here anytime in the afternoon or early evening and you'll be amazed at the number of "Guests" reading in the Phorum. Any one of those people could stumble onto this thread and see suggestions—maybe only implicit, but nonetheless clear as day to their uneducated minds—that the Church thinks they're inferior because they're not priests or religious. Given the state of American Catholics today, I can imagine the mental response to that, "Well, if that's what the Church thinks, I want nothing to do with it."

That is why I have responded so strongly at times in this thread. Because I think it as imprudent to bring up in a public forum the objective superiority of the celibate vocations as it is to bring up the objectively true fact that whites consistently test higher on intelligence scores than blacks: It's absolutely true, but the "real truth" is that that fact needs to be smothered in qualifications to be correctly understood. And if it's not, it has very bad consequences.

Some things should stay between theologians.

And now I'm out.

[BarbTherese]

6 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

the "real truth" is that that fact needs to be smothered in qualifications to be correctly understood. And if it's not, it has very bad consequences

6 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Some things should stay between theologians.

 

47 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

But more or less, I intend to bow out of the thread (while continuing to read)

The above is what I stated - and the above at this point is operative still.  I was depending on @Gabrielain this thread as I have agreed totally with most all she had to say and she is an academic with, it seemed to me, excellent ability to post on an academic type level.

 

41 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

@BarbaraTherese Of course, do what's right for you here, but do know I really didn't mean to make anyone feel pushed out!

I did not say at all that I felt "pushed out" - your jumping to a conclusion again.   My decision to more or less stay out of the thread while continuing to read was not directed at you at all. Apologies if I came across that I did.  It was my decision entirely considering the exchanges that had already taken place in the thread - coupled with the fact that I floundered in the reading of posts at times only when academics were exchanging posts.

41 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I totally appreciate how some topics aren't always appropriate in all settings (which is why I didn't start this thread in VS), but I am assuming here that people are can approach a debate involving objective categories from the proper frame of reference.

I agree, this topic would not have been appropriate in VS.

 

45 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

but I am assuming here that people are can approach a debate involving objective categories from the proper frame of reference.

Oh my - as we say in Aussie land here under certain circumstances "please excuse my existence"    All I can add is as stated previously: "what I said is operative still". 

[BarbTherese]

45 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Can anyone really say that John Paul II was encouraging pride and hatred when he wrote: "it is to be recognized that the consecrated life, which mirrors Christ's own way of life, has an objective superiority."  (in Vita Consecrata, 32)? Or that the Catechsim was fostering pride and hatred when it stated: "The state of the consecrated life is thus one way of experiencing a "more intimate" consecration" (CCC 916)?

Vita Consecrata under the heading "Thanksgiving for the Consecrated Life" also states: 

"We are all aware of the treasure which the gift of the consecrated life in the variety of its charisms and institutions represents for the ecclesial community. Together let us thank God for the Religious Orders and Institutes devoted to contemplation or the works of the apostolate, for Societies of Apostolic Life, for Secular Institutes and for other groups of consecrated persons, as well as for all those individuals who, in their inmost hearts, dedicate themselves to God by a special consecration"

 

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that all the misunderstanding of the objective theological category of the consecrated life has all come about SINCE V2 and I think probably or possibly, perhaps, due to The Church's awareness that prior to V2, we had the understanding of the various vocations incorrect certainly and without a doubt in the laity.  In an attempt, I think, to correct the situation and remain theologically correct, we began to hear the term OBJECTIVE superiority - while many if not most did not grasp what that word "objective" actually meant -  and just how much it did qualify "superior or superiority".

NOte too that in the quotation Sponsa gave from the CCC, the quotation states "one way" not "the only way".

Edited March 11, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

There are thousands of lurkers on Phatmass a day. Go here anytime in the afternoon or early evening and you'll be amazed at the number of "Guests" reading in the Phorum. Any one of those people could stumble onto this thread and see suggestions—maybe only implicit, but nonetheless clear as day to their uneducated minds—that the Church thinks they're inferior because they're not priests or religious. Given the state of American Catholics today, I can imagine the mental response to that, "Well, if that's what the Church thinks, I want nothing to do with it."

Well said and why I will remain a contributor in this thread on a "more or less"  basis.......as long as the thread is active.

  Plenty of "Well, if that's what the Church things, I want nothing to do with it" and similar in Australia also.........in fact, far too often in my book.   What is actually happening in many instances is what The Church is stating is being misunderstood, misinterpreted............ then minds are close.

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

That is why I have responded so strongly at times in this thread. Because I think it as imprudent to bring up in a public forum the objective superiority of the celibate vocations as it is to bring up the objectively true fact that whites consistently test higher on intelligence scores than blacks: It's absolutely true, but the "real truth" is that that fact needs to be smothered in qualifications to be correctly understood. And if it's not, it has very bad consequences.

Strongly agree; however, I do tend to think that the term "objective superiority" is too well known in Catholic cultural consciousness, together with the totally incorrect understanding, to ignore the term altogether.  An attempt has to be made to correct the incorrect understanding as the 'mischief' is a fait accompli (has already happened), while I am not stating deliberately brought about.

No way I have been able to delete the quote box below!  Apologies.

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

 

Should read "well if that is what the Church thinks" not "Church things" - second paragraph above.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Amppax]

16 hours ago, Gabriela said:

I took an independent study with a theologian strictly on the topics of labor, work, and vocation. I read nearly all the papal encyclicals on work (not all, though, cuz after a while, they start to get really redundant). If you read those, you start to see the difference between the Protestant view of work and the Catholic view. Both believe that work can sanctify man, but Protestants think that's because there's something in work that is inherently good. Catholics don't think that. They believe work can sanctify man because of what good man can put into the work. The good starts in a different place—in the work (Protestant) versus in the man (Catholic)—and ends in a different place—in the man (Protestant) versus in the work (Catholic). If you read Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Catholic critiques of that, you'll get an even broader picture of how this has played out in history. It's a subtle distinction that has made an ENORMOUS difference in society.

In a sense, it is (Catholic-ly) incorrect to say, "Work sanctifies man"—although I'm pretty sure some pope said that somewhere (maybe it's even in the Catechism? don't remember...). If you read the context and explanation, though, you'll find that what they really mean is, "Man sanctifies work, and in so doing is himself sanctified."

This is why I can't agree that some work is inherently better than other work: because there's nothing in the work. We put the value into the work. Again, if you read the CST encyclicals on labor and work, you'll see the popes arguing this vehemently, because at the turn of the 19th century, industrialization had caused massive disillusionment and emptiness and vacuity and meaninglessness in the work process of billions of people. To give those people hope, the popes explained this idea over and over again: It doesn't matter if you put switches on thingamabobs all day long in an endlessly repetitive motion that constrains your fingers to a one-inch circle for 12 hours straight—that work is meaningful because you give meaning to it (e.g., by doing it for Christ, for love of your family, for the good of society, etc.—which brings us right back to subjective intent).

(Now, what they said to the heartless industrialists was quite something else: "Stop constraining these people's fingers to a one-inch circle for 12 hours straight cuz it's damned inhumane and makes it incredibly hard for them to put meaning into their soul-crushing work." But they still argued it could be done, cuz if they hadn't, those poor industrial workers wouldn't have had a hope in the world.)

Incidentally, it's no surprise to me at all that God sent us St. Josemaría at precisely this period in history!

Very interesting.  That gives me a lot to think about. That's not necessarily the sense I've gotten from reading the texts myself, nor from talking to theologians who know the topic far better than I do, but I haven't done as focused a study on the topic. And I almost mentioned St. Josemaria in my first post, so props there. 

[BarbTherese]

20 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Even these guys—who are hands-down the most hard-core religious I know—are opening a coffee shop to better evangelize the heathens around them.

Excellent move! Although the link did not say anything about the coffee shop I could find - obviously  you have some other source for the info.  I've long thought that if I ever had the money, I would open a coffee shop - free coffee for those with low income identification.  The Lord most wisely keeps me poor.  Here in the CBD district of Adelaide Sth Aust there is a venture for the homeless in many of our CBD coffee shops where one can buy a cup(s)of coffee for oneself and then donate money for a free coffee(s) for the homeless.  Not to sure about this, but I think the homeless need to show low income identification - and all on any sort of welfare support, which includes our homeless, do have such ID.  

20 hours ago, Gabriela said:

"Man sanctifies work, and in so doing is himself sanctified."

3 hours ago, Amppax said:

Very interesting.  That gives me a lot to think about. That's not necessarily the sense I've gotten from reading the texts myself, nor from talking to theologians who know the topic far better than I do, but I haven't done as focused a study on the topic. And I almost mentioned St. Josemaria in my first post, so props there. 

Thank you, Amppax, for highlighting @Gabriela post by your comments above.  The section of her post to which you refer is worth keeping on file as a resource.........I would be really interested to read a thread on the subject if ever was posted.

Edited March 12, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Sponsa-Christi]

I was recently re-reading this article from "First Things," which I'm sharing here, as I think it addresses some of the issues here in a very thoughtful and eloquent way: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/dismantling-the-cross 

[Maggyie]

41 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I was recently re-reading this article from "First Things," which I'm sharing here, as I think it addresses some of the issues here in a very thoughtful and eloquent way: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/04/dismantling-the-cross 

Sorry but I think it's a terrible article! Not very Catholic in its pinched approach. Most of all the way it conflates priesthood and celibacy. People who do this don't understand priestly vocations. A man can be both married and a priest. Is such a man both horizontal and vertical, twisted like a pretzel? 

I also enjoyed this part : "in the short run it does no harm and possibly much good to try to strengthen monogamous, lifelong marriage." 

It POSSIBLY is good to strengthen Christian marriage. But only in the SHORT run mind you. 

In the long run it leads to many people desiring things like "love, closeness, sex" and even remarrying after their spouse dies instead of taking themselves off to the convent. The horror.