"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[Gabriela]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Well, it's not out of a desire for one-upmanship or anything.

A few reasons:

1. As a theologian/canonist, I'm concerned with seeking the truth. (NOT saying that anyone else isn't seeking the truth, I'm just speaking for myself here.) The Church's traditional teaching is that in some areas, there are good things and better things. So in order to "think with the Church," I feel like I need to take this into account---or at least admit that a hierarchy in some things is a possibility. 

2. Generally, it seems like the "superior" vocations also involve a lot more sacrifices. Someone may be called by God to celibacy and given the gifts for this, but that doesn't mean you aren't making a sacrifice that runs directly contrary to our human nature. (And yes, there are sacrifices in marriage, but marriage is something all healthy human beings already have a natural inclination towards.) It doesn't make sense to me why a just and loving God would call some people to give up so much more without them being awarded in some kind of proportional way---or rather, without their vocation having some kind of value which makes the additional sacrifices "worth it."

3. It seems to me that if EVERYTHING is specially consecrated to God, then nothing is. If God will be equally pleased with every non-sinful action, then it's impossible to offer "more" to Him. You can't give yourself to God in a radical or supererogatory way if all non-sinful actions have exactly the same worth. 

Also, turning the question around, why would you have a problem with a hierarchy of vocations? Theologically, that martyrdom is considered the highest vocation of all. I'm unlikely to be martyred, but it doesn't bother me that my vocation is "lower" than theirs.  

First, I just want to say that I agree 100% with what beatitude wrote, and as usual, she wrote it incredibly beautifully.

Second, in regard to (1), Truth is not always black and white in application. Perhaps theological or canon law studies incline one to seek clear divisions in things—I don't know. But when it comes time to pass judgment upon people's vocations and choices in life, I don't think that what is True can be generalized so easily as you're trying to do. Every life is unique, and I know of no Church scholar who thinks that they can use abstract, general principles of Church teaching to judge the relative value of a person's life or life decisions based solely upon a few facts of their station. Only God has all the information necessary to make such a judgment. That being so, while there may be objective principles to consider, ultimately judgment boils down to the subjective. God will not judge you "as a CV" or me "as a single laywoman"; He will judge you as Sponsa-Christi and me as Gabriela.

I second also what beatitude said about focusing less on the superficial appearance of superiority/inferiority in the hierarchy and more on how the whole organism works together. I suggest meditating on 1 Corinthians 12.

What counts as a sacrifice in a vocation is 100% dependent upon the individual in that vocation. We recently had this conversation in the VS. I discerned with the Carthusians, but solitude was really no sacrifice for me; it was the main sacrifice for most Carthusians. Others in that thread in the VS said that sleeping on a board would not be a sacrifice for them; I have a gimpy lower back, so that would be the mother of all penances for me. It is therefore very incorrect to say that "the 'superior' vocations also involve a lot more sacrifices". I have zero drive to have children, so celibacy is not a sacrifice for me. In fact, I can remember the precise moment in my life that I recognized God had given me that quality as a specific grace.

I would suggest that you talk to the women of Leonie's Longing about this matter. Many of them wanted to give up everything to follow God. In their coming to terms with their return to the world, many of them realize that, for them, being in the world is a bigger sacrifice than being in religious life, and so better mortifies them, makes them holier, and gives more glory to God.

"It seems to me that if EVERYTHING is specially consecrated to God, then nothing is." This is also incorrect. Things can be consecrated to God in different ways. That's all there is to it. They don't have to be "more consecrated" or "less consecrated". That kind of quantitative thinking is related to the black-and-white thinking I mentioned earlier.

I don't have a problem with a hierarchy of vocations per se, but I think that St. Thomas got it wrong (and was quite incoherent, to be honest) when he argued that the religious state is superior to the married state. Christ Himself said that celibacy is superior to the married state, but He said this only about celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Why? Cuz my single friend John could go his whole life without marrying, but not because he wants to, rather because nobody wants to marry him. That's a sacrifice for John, but it's not an intentional one. It isn't made out of love for God. What makes the celibate state superior to the married state, then, is not that one gives up a primal, basic human urge, but that one gives it up for God. One can give up many things for God, in any state in life. Thus someone who gives up sleep and food and personal time and fulfillment from work and occasionally sanity because she feels that imitating Mary in the raising of her children is the best sacrifice that she can make for God is, in my estimation, in a "higher vocation" than someone who lives a consecrated life because she had no desire to get married, or because she loves the attention sisters get, or because she really wanted to live with a big bunch of women cuz she thought it'd be like a life-long slumber party. Compared to the mother, what did she sacrifice?

Returning to what I said earlier, and what you said last: I have never been terribly attached to life, so I don't think martyrdom would be a difficult thing for me. At least not if it were just a bullet in the head. If there were torture involved, that would be much, much worse for me, and I'm not sure I could do it. But a bullet in the head is still martyrdom, and I think I'd have no problem with that. I fear suffering MUCH more than death, so were I to be martyred by bullet, I personally would not think I'd sacrificed much at all.

Again, sacrifice is relative to the individual, and so therefore is the "superiority" of vocations.

 

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

But by this logic, it seems like the large numbers of religious who left after Vatican II were doing something perfectly reasonable. Why bother having Catholic institutions at all, if a government institution can do the job just as well? Or what good do apostolic religious congregations do? Does it matter at all that apostolic religious congregations are dying out? Or does it really make no difference at all to the life of the Church, since women can be every bit as dedicated to God as married women in secular careers?

Of course it matters. I fail to see how you even got here from the preceding discussion. It seems like a non sequitur. Again, you should reflect on 1 Corinthians 12. The situation you describe is like having the arm cut off the Body.

I personally look at women in the contemplative life and feel that their greatest value, aside from praying for the Church, is in the witness they give to our insanely fast-paced world that there is value in silence and slowness. Many of those communities provide a place for people to come see that first-hand, to experience it, to remind themselves that they are human and not machines. The disappearance of these communities would therefore be catastrophic not just for the Church, but for all humanity.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Gabriela

[BarbTherese]

1 hour ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

But by this logic, it seems like the large numbers of religious who left after Vatican II were doing something perfectly reasonable. Why bother having Catholic institutions at all, if a government institution can do the job just as well? Or what good do apostolic religious congregations do? Does it matter at all that apostolic religious congregations are dying out? Or does it really make no difference at all to the life of the Church, since women can be every bit as dedicated to God as married women in secular careers?

I don't think we can understand God's Ways by using human logic.  As for those religious who left religious life post V2, it is not for us to judge and for those few that I have spoken with had good reason when that reason is situated into their life and personal experience within their particular community (subjective).

From our perspective and secular human type reasoning, the knowledge that some religious congregations may seem to be dying out, is a catastrophe.  However, God's Ways can indeed be very strange.  He obviously has good end purpose for what is happening in His Church, or put simply: it would not be happening.  See Catholic Catechism.  Some of those religious orders that are struggling for 'recruits' are looking at alternative ways of living religious life and keeping 'an eye out' for such new ways.  If God does intend new ways of religious life, then to look at this in my simple terms:  it will not last nor even happen in the first place.

(I can include quotes from Scripture and the CCC to support the above if anyone needs or wants them)

1 hour ago, beatitude said:

As St Catherine of Siena put it, "If you are what you are called to be, you will set the world ablaze." They should do it because God is asking it, not for any other reason. That's the only good reason to do anything.

Amen.

[Gabriela]

I feel that I should add: My second SD identified this same kind of thinking that you're doing in me years ago. I'm a convert from Judaism, so I wanted clear rules to apply, so that I wouldn't have to do the hard work of discerning every decision with God in prayer, so that I could simply say, "This is the right ("superior"/"best"/"better") way, so I'm good." That leads straight to Pharisaism. My SD nipped that croutons right in the bud.

Life is hard. The only easy choice is between sinning and not sinning. The rest is not black and white.

[Sponsa-Christi]

3 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Second, in regard to (1), Truth is not always black and white in application. Perhaps theological or canon law studies incline one to seek clear divisions in things—I don't know. But when it comes time to pass judgment upon people's vocations and choices in life, I don't think that what is True can be generalized so easily as you're trying to do. Every life is unique, and I know of no Church scholar who thinks that they can use abstract, general principles of Church teaching to judge the relative value of a person's life or life decisions based solely upon a few facts of their station. Only God has all the information necessary to make such a judgment. That being so, while there may be objective principles to consider, ultimately judgment boils down to the subjective. God will not judge you "as a CV" or me "as a single laywoman"; He will judge you as Sponsa-Christi and me as Gabriela.

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.

And again: I am not out to judge the personal holiness of individuals.

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.

3 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

I feel that I should add: My second SD identified this same kind of thinking that you're doing in me years ago. I'm a convert from Judaism, so I wanted clear rules to apply, so that I wouldn't have to do the hard work of discerning every decision with God in prayer, so that I could simply say, "This is the right ("superior"/"best"/"better") way, so I'm good." That leads straight to Pharisaism. My SD nipped that croutons right in the bud.

Life is hard. The only easy choice is between sinning and not sinning. The rest is not black and white.

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 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?

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. 

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.

[BarbTherese]

7 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

So, what is the intrinsic, distinctive value of choosing to devote yourself to work which is explicitly Catholic? Or is there really nothing that makes direct Church service especially worth doing?

 

8 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

But when you choose a "higher" vocation, there are sort of intrinsic rewards that makes it worth doing. Like, with my own choice of consecrated virginity, it seemed logical to me that I was sacrificing the joys of married life because in doing so, I would be able to offer my heart to Christ in a more undivided way. So objectively, virginity is worth choosing because by its very nature it's conducive to a more intimate relationship with Christ.

I cannot agree with "higher" vocation unless I qualify it with as a theological objective determination.  The reasons that you chose consecrated virginity are a unique understanding in your particular path or life.  I cannot agree that virginity is more conducive to a more intimate relationship with Christ - although your particular gift is that it was and is. Celibacy and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom are on an objective theological scale higher than any other human state of life.  But once the subjective enters into any consideration: "What can be higher than God's Will for a person?"

9 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

And if so...again, why bother having Catholic institutions or apostolic religious communities?  If a woman can do just as much good for the Church teaching in a public school (where she would be paid better and would have more professional development resources available to her), why bother choosing to be a Catholic school teacher (especially when closing Catholic schools would save a lot of money and administrative headaches for cash-strapped local dioceses)? If both jobs are equally "Catholic" in ever single respect, it would be foolish and imprudent to opt to work for an impractical institution. 

Again, this seems to me to be considering problems/situations within The Church from a human reasoning point of view.  I am not saying at all that human reasoning is not important in life, for it very obviously is.  But if I think I can solve all problems in life from a human reasoning point of view and then conclude that human reasoning is the only way to travel, then I have not yet encountered the ludicrous, absurd and unfair (all seemingly) in life.  And as much as the ludicrous, absurd and unfair in life can be a stumbling block, on the other hand such situations do 'state' as it were that God's Ways are far superior without limit to our own ways and sometimes totally inaccessible to human understanding.

I think you are raising two different subjects, re closing Catholic schools for cash-strapped local dioceses reasons, and then comparing a public school to a Catholic school as being equal theologically - the objective scale theologians seems to like -  (to use your term "equally Catholic").  And the objective scale that theologians seem to like has caused many problems in The Church, perhaps not amongst theologians and the educated - but certainly amongst those 'in the pews'.

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.........and searching for reasons to justify your conclusion/s?  Or perhaps even acting as 'devil's advocate' to clarify 'a problem' to yourself. On the other hand, it might be indeed that you perceive a problem (for whatever reason) and you are seeking the truth of matters, then may God Bless your researching.

Finally, I might have got the bull by the horns and am right off the beaten track of this thread.

____________

I feel that if what I have to state is not of much value, it might, in hope, be some sort of a clue somehow for another member to reason more clearly on what I seem to be trying to say.  If I cannot plant a seed, I might find good soil by chucking the seed into the wind.

[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.