"Catholic jobs" vs. secular jobs

[BarbTherese]

I can't see anything theologically special (definition as in No. 6 of the Dictionary.com  definition - see quote box) about working for The Church within The Church (but then I am no theologian) ..versus...... taking The Gospel into the secular and working in the secular somehow.  There might be something special (as in No. 6 definition - see blelow) in Catholic Cultural Consciousness (minds generally of Catholics) ............ but the Catholic Cultural Consciousness is not always accurate theologically as ideally it should be.

God's Will is always perfect and exceptional, especial......no matter content (theological).

 

Quote

 Dictionary.com No. 6 Definition: "extraordinary; exceptional as in amount or degree; especial 

 

8 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

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. 

Amen

Edited March 10, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Sponsa-Christi]

31 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

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).

Actually, though, I don't think that priests and religious are free to have a personal call to participate in "the apostolate of the laity." I think the lay apostolate really should be considered specific to lay people.

I think if anything makes the laity out to be second-class citizens within the Church, it's the idea that non-laypeople can fulfill the mission of the laity (i.e., being a Christian presence and influence in the world of temporal affairs) just as well, if not better, than laypeople themselves can.

[BarbTherese]

I took the quote attributed to Gabriella from her post - I should have taken it from veritasluxmea, as it was her statement.

 

[Gabriela]

Although, technically speaking, religious are laity.

[Sponsa-Christi]

3 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I can't see anything theologically special (definition as in No. 6 of the Dictionary.com  definition - see quote box) about working for The Church within The Church (but then I am no theologian) ..versus...... taking The Gospel into the secular and working in the secular somehow.  There might be something special (as in No. 6 definition - see blelow) in Catholic Cultural Consciousness (minds generally of Catholics) ............ but the Catholic Cultural Consciousness is not always accurate theologically as ideally it should be.

I'm also not sure that we can define the secular world as "the Church." Obviously, there are members of the Church within the secular world, and so we might say that therefore the Church is in some way present there. But I don't think we can properly refer to the visible institution which Christ founded as "the Church within the Church." 

Also, while there of course a lot of value in bringing the Gospel into the secular world, I don't think this is the sum total of the Church's apostolic activity. I think there is also some value in having some things set apart to belong more exclusively or explicitly to Christ. 

[BarbTherese]

2 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

Actually, though, I don't think that priests and religious are free to have a personal call to participate in "the apostolate of the laity." I think the lay apostolate really should be considered specific to lay people.

I think if anything makes the laity out to be second-class citizens within the Church, it's the idea that non-laypeople can fulfill the mission of the laity (i.e., being a Christian presence and influence in the world of temporal affairs) just as well, if not better, than laypeople themselves can.

I think that when a Catholic hospital for example is established, it is Catholic action moving into the secular world.  Also, I am not going to argue, rather applaud because God's Will is always worthy of applause, if a priest or religious etc. is discerned as having some sort of call to move into the secular world somehow.  All things are indeed possible to God.

I am a lay person and I do not feel, nor cannot see, how a religious or priest etc. moving somehow into the secular world on a mission for Christ is going to make me second class.  It is all this higher and better, lower and less etc etc etc type of worldly measurements that cause problems in The Church to my mind.   I certainly do not think that a priest or religious etc. might be able to undertake a mission into the secular world and temporal affairs better than a lay person.  Not at all, in fact it could well be to the contrary.

4 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I'm also not sure that we can define the secular world as "the Church." Obviously, there are members of the Church within the secular world, and so we might say that therefore the Church is in some way present there. But I don't think we can properly refer to the visible institution which Christ founded as "the Church within the Church." 

Also, while there of course a lot of value in bringing the Gospel into the secular world, I don't think this is the sum total of the Church's apostolic activity. I think there is also some value in having some things set apart to belong more exclusively or explicitly to Christ. 

Thank you for the response, Sponsa - but I you have read my post completely inaccurately.

If you read my post what I stated was " working for The Church within The Church" 

I did not state that The Church was in some way present in the secular - that is your conclusion.

Nor did I in any way state what you have stated in your final paragraph above - that "this is the sum total of The Church's apostolic activity" -  and again your own conclusion - ratherI stated to the contrary.

______________

I am having problems with the softwear or my computer, or both.

 

 

 

 

.

[Sponsa-Christi]

17 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I am a lay person and I do not feel, nor cannot see, how a religious or priest etc. moving somehow into the secular world on a mission for Christ is going to make me second class.  It is all this higher and better, lower and less etc etc etc type of worldly measurements that cause problems in The Church to my mind.   I certainly do not think that a priest or religious etc. might be able to undertake a mission into the secular world and temporal affairs better than a lay person.  Not at all, in fact it could well be to the contrary.

I don't think it's getting into "who has the higher vocation?" to acknowledge that there are different vocations in the Church with different missions. I think the way that we all become subjectively holy is by living out own vocations well, by fulling the mission that is specific to us.

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!

19 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

If you read my post what I stated was " working for The Church within The Church" 

I did not state that The Church was in some way present in the secular - that is your conclusion.

You're right, I did misread this. Apologies!

25 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Although, technically speaking, religious are laity.

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."

Edited March 11, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi

[BarbTherese]

37 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

I don't think it's getting into "who has the higher vocation?" to acknowledge that there are different vocations in the Church with different missions. I think the way that we all become subjectively holy is by living out own vocations well, by fulling the mission that is specific to us

Thank you indeed, Sponsa, for all your comments.

Firstly, what I was commenting on was  " I think if anything makes the laity out to be second-class citizens within the Church " and a statement you made earlier.  It was the term "second class" that took me aback and drew my comment that all this talk of higher and lower etc..........and of course the use of the term:  "second class" ...............that has caused so many problems in general Catholic understanding, or what I have termed "Catholic cultural consciousness".  I am not of course in any way inferring that it was deliberate.

Being out 'in the pews' as it were and not at all anyone different or special, just another face as it were, I hear lots of comments indeed by ordinary lay people - comments probably not made to religious nor priests etc. I would tend to think.  It is my very ordinariness with my peers that possibly opens up to me a rather unique area of my own mission or apostolate.

I have already stated that there are indeed different vocations in The Church with different missions - as well as that holiness is attained by living out one's vocation well and fulfilling that mission assigned or specific to us.  We are in agreement.

 

37 minutes 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.

Your first two sentences I completely agree with nor have I ever stated anything to the contrary.

I never said that a "religious can FEEL called to the lay apostolate.  What I stated was "discerned" rather than "feel" and two completely different indeed dispositions.  If a priest or religious should discern that they are called into some area of what is normally a lay apostolate and their superior or bishop, whatever the case might be, gave permission, then goodness me, certainly I would have no objections whatsoever.

37 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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 find that quite an extreme awareness or feeling and an apples and oranges comparison.  You stated "THE lay apostolate" which is different from (as I stated) "A lay apostolate". There is a difference and a huge difference.

 I completely agree without reservation that "not everyone is called to every vocation, and that is ok".  Nor have I ever stated to the contrary..........not ever -  meaning not only on Phatmass.

37 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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."

I am very aware that religious are a special consecrated state of life within the laity.  This is in the sense that they are not clerical thus non-ordained and a separate state of life and vocation in The Church separate from the laity.

I am very curious to understand your definition of "special" for the purposes of this thread..........as you stated here: "I'm asking if there is any special value AT ALL in doing work which has an explicitly Catholic dimensions" http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/141196-catholic-jobs-vs-secular-jobs/?do=findComment&comment=2761246

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Sponsa-Christi]

1 minute ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Firstly, what I was commenting on was  " I think if anything makes the laity out to be second-class citizens within the Church " and a statement you made earlier.  It was the term "second class" that took me aback and drew my comment that all this talk of higher and lower etc..........and of course the use of the term:  "second class" ...............that has caused so many problems in general Catholic understanding, or what I have termed "Catholic cultural consciousness".  I am not of course in any way inferring that it was deliberate.

Ugh, I don't think I was very clear there! What I meant was basically: "this is what might make some people THINK that laity are second-class..." I myself wasn't trying to call the laity second-class!

By "THE lay apostolate," I mean the special mission of the laity in general, which is to evangelize the world from within.

4 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I am very curious to understand your definition of "special" for the purposes of this thread..........

I meant something like: is there any objectively good aspect about working for the Church in and of itself that makes it a worthy choice?

To try to give (yet another) analogy...we could say there is a special value to being a Franciscan because of the Franciscan Order's special focus on evangelical poverty. A person might chose to become a Franciscan (or called by God to become a Franciscan) because they are attracted to this charism of poverty. The might opt not to become a Dominican because they feel drawn to Franciscan poverty in a special way. 

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!"

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." 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. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

(continued...)

If someone asked, with a view to choosing an Order: "Why specifically should I join the Franciscans?" A helpful answer might be something like: "They have a beautiful focus on poverty." 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!"

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

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Sponsa-Christi
I tried to make these last two posts merge, but they didn't.

[BarbTherese]

57 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I think if anything makes the laity out to be second-class citizens within the Church, it's the idea that non-laypeople can fulfill the mission of the laity

What you stated is above - and I can well understand that you might have worded incorrectly.  The very reason that some laity still do consider that they are "second class" in The Church is because they have "read it somewhere" is the usual statement - and/or "it is obvious" and that is a much bigger question I wont tackle here.  The two Vatican Documents on The Laity are absolutely beautiful - very sadly and a real problem it seems to me, is that (again talking with my peers) they just do not have time (nor inclination it seems to me) to read "all that stuff" and believe that going to Mass on Sunday will grant them salvation and that is what it is all about (to them).  This is a real concern to me, but a problem far bigger than I can handle as an overall problem.

I do not think nor have ever stated that non-laypeople can fulfill the mission of the laity.  This does not mean, of course, that a priest or religious could not move into some area of the mission of the laity for a sound reason, approved by their superior(s).

 

7 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

By "THE lay apostolate," I mean the special mission of the laity in general, which is to evangelize the world from within.

To me "the lay apostolate" means the whole overall general apostolate to "evangelize the world from within".  While my term "a lay apostolate" means a certain section of the overall lay apostolate.  Most of the areas, as an example only, which religious etc. do undertake as their particular apostolate (hospitals, schools, aid to the poor) is a somehow moving into secular society and the temporal - it is indeed an evangelizing the world from within - not as a lay person in the usual understanding of the word, but as a visible Catholic presence as a consecrated religious person and often enterprise as well.

[Maggyie]

2 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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!

In that scenario, which sadly is far fetched, there are 2 scenarios for the would-be employee:

1. Don't work for the morally outstanding secular hospital, instead found a Catholic hospital that will be morally outstanding AND explicitly evangelize 

2. Go work for the secular hospital (which again in every way is morally satisfactory) and evangelize "from within" as previous posters have put it. 

Between these 2, option 2 is the better choice. In this scenario the secular hospital is working by Gospel values without the name. And the opportunity to evangelize is still there, if not enhanced in a secular setting where more of the people encountered will be unchurched. 

In this scenario I don't want to say it would be snobbish... But something like that, to create a Catholic hospital that would do nothing but duplicate good service and thin out resources. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

6 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

In that scenario, which sadly is far fetched, there are 2 scenarios for the would-be employee:

1. Don't work for the morally outstanding secular hospital, instead found a Catholic hospital that will be morally outstanding AND explicitly evangelize 

2. Go work for the secular hospital (which again in every way is morally satisfactory) and evangelize "from within" as previous posters have put it. 

Between these 2, option 2 is the better choice. In this scenario the secular hospital is working by Gospel values without the name. And the opportunity to evangelize is still there, if not enhanced in a secular setting where more of the people encountered will be unchurched. 

In this scenario I don't want to say it would be snobbish... But something like that, to create a Catholic hospital that would do nothing but duplicate good service and thin out resources. 

I understand that in real-life situations there are loads of concrete factors to consider that may or may not make a Catholic institution the best choice even from a Christian perspective.

What I'm asking, though, is not "does explicit evangelization and Catholic identity outweigh every other possible consideration?" But rather: "Does explicit Catholic identity have any intrinsic value at all?"

[BarbTherese]

5 minutes ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

"Does explicit Catholic identity have any intrinsic value at all?"

I think that it does, simply because it is The Church very VISIBLE.  That is the intrinsic value to me.

It could be said that priests and religious etc. are taken out of the world for the world, while those in the laity (and not in a consecrated state in the laity) are in the world for the world.  I think that "not in a consecrated state" might be now somewhat blurred due to the consecrated state of secular institutes and their particular way of living and constitutions.  That "blurring" of understanding is really interesting - and a work of The Holy Spirit.  It is the most recent form of a new way of living consecrated life in The Church and does not ask a strict life in common or community life under the one roof as it were (as with traditional religious life).  Most members of secular institutes retain secular clothing and live in their own homes. Some do make the traditional religious vows of poverty, chastity and obedience - vows defined in their constitution.

15 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

Between these 2, option 2 is the better choice. In this scenario the secular hospital is working by Gospel values without the name. And the opportunity to evangelize is still there, if not enhanced in a secular setting where more of the people encountered will be unchurched. 

Again, what is "the better option" is trumped by God's Will - His personal call and vocation to a particular person.  Obviously nothing can be better than God's Will for a person.  To evangelize from within in an area that is "unchurched" is important, as is working in a completely VISIBLE Catholic enterprise or involvement.  It is the use of the term "better" and the like that I keep stumbling over.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Amppax]

23 hours ago, Gabriela said:

There is nothing intrinsically good about any work (that's a Protestant view). Its value is derived from man.

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. 

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. 

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.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Amppax