"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[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?

 

[Maggyie]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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?

 

Yes, to fill in the gaps. This is the history of many religious orders. Most recent example the sisters of Life. Also because a Catholic institution has Catholic values (see the history of parochial schools in the US). A Catholic hospital is priceless because one knows life will be treated with reverence, whereas the state hospital, who knows. 

In a world, for instance, where a secular hospital cared for the poor and sick with perfect respect for human dignity, working at a Catholic hospital would be profoundly wasteful. 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Maggyie

[Sponsa-Christi]

46 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

In a world, for instance, where a secular hospital cared for the poor and sick with perfect respect for human dignity, working at a Catholic hospital would be profoundly wasteful.

So, no special value in doing a good service (such as healing the sick) explicitly in the name of Christ and His Church? 

However, I do really appreciate the logical consistency of your answers here!

Edited March 10, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi

[veritasluxmea]

I disagree. I would argue that a Catholic institution or hospital has a special quality over a secular one for one reason: it's more directly orientated towards evangelization and therefore spreading the kingdom of God in this life. I agree with Beatitude about every job being a Catholic job, because like she's given witness to, we're called to spread the kingdom of God in the world wherever and however we find ourselves. Using institutions for these means is effective for humans because of how we are oriented towards society and social behavior. After all, if one guy is caring for people and loving them like Christ, the only thing better than that is more people doing the same thing. Institutions are more likely to be effective at mobilizing greater numbers of people towards reaching that goal. 

[BarbTherese]

There is special value indeed in works done in the name of Christ and His Church.  The range of apostolates in The Church are vast indeed including those that are situated out in the secular world as it were and the specific call and apostolate, duty and responsibility, of the laity (in which religious and priests can also engage as a more personal call).  See Vatican Document (Apostolate of The Laity).

 To engage the secular community in the name of Christ and His Church is a special call.  All apostolates have their own special mark and purpose,  And something ordained by God's Will is special indeed, no matter content. "Special" as defined in No. 4 in link below: 

 

Special is a word that has various definitions: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/special

4. having a specific or particular function, purpose, etc.:

I do wonder if we are all sharing the same definition of "special".

 

[Gabriela]

32 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

I disagree. I would argue that a Catholic institution or hospital has a special quality over a secular one for one reason: it's more directly orientated towards evangelization and therefore spreading the kingdom of God in this life. I agree with Beatitude about every job being a Catholic job, because like she's given witness to, we're called to spread the kingdom of God in the world wherever and however we find ourselves. Using institutions for these means is effective for humans because of how we are oriented towards society and social behavior. After all, if one guy is caring for people and loving them like Christ, the only thing better than that is more people doing the same thing. Institutions are more likely to be effective at mobilizing greater numbers of people towards reaching that goal. 

Well said.