How do you feel about stopping at the grocery store after Mass on Sunday to pick up a few food items? I avoid malls and all other types of shopping on Sunday, but if I cannot get some food items on Saturday, would it be a venial or no sin to pick up some stuff on Sunday since the store is across from the Church? I see people leaving Mass and going right into the stores. I value your opinions. MaryAnn

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), May 13, 2003

Answers

dear maryann,

i dont know why you would think it is a sin to shop on sunday... it is most certainly not. i would refrain from activities that lead your focus away from God, but i wouldnt see shopping and honoring the Sabbath as contradictory to each other. attending a marylin manson concert on a sunday might fall under that category though...

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, maryann and "little paul."

Paul, I'm afraid that I can't agree with you about shopping on Sunday.

What the Church has always taught is that, in keeping with the Third Commandment, Christians can do only necessary work on Sundays. But it is not enough merely that we avoid doing unnecessary work. We must also not force or pressure others to do the same. When we demand the right or ability to do something unnecessary on Sunday that forces other Christians to be unable to observe the "sabbath rest," we violate the Commandment.

When I was a kid in the '50s and early '60s, ALL stores were closed. People knew that we lived in a Christian nation, and this was a way of publicly observing the Third Commandment [called the Fourth by a minority of Christians]. As America began to lose its outward Christian aspect, stores began to open, a little bit at a time, until now 95% of them are open.

I protest against this situation by never shopping on Sunday, and I encourage everyone to do the same. I want stores to have so FEW customers on Sundays that the managers will shut them due to lack of business and profitability. After all, the other six days present plenty of opportunity for us to do our shopping. If I were to have some tremendous emergency and need an item, I would probably go to one of these "gas-stations-plus-convenient-mart" places on a main highway. Places like that are legitimately open on Sundays, because their services are necessary. People must travel, sometimes long distances, every day of the week, so some fueling stations and restaurants must be open even on Sundays. I recommend that people who want to "dine out" on Sunday do so either (1) at places that must be open for travelers anyway or (2) at places at which the workers are non-Christian and thus observe a different day of rest and worship.

I believe that we have very recent guidance on this subject from the Church -- in the 1992/1997 Catechism [CCC] and in the pope's 1998 Apostolic Letter, "Dies Domini" ("The Lord's Day") [DD]. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

CCC 2185. "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are to refrain from engaging in work or activities that hinder the worship owed to God, the joy proper to the Lord's Day, the performance of the works of mercy, and the appropriate relaxation of mind and body. ... Family needs or important social service can legitimately excuse from the obligation of Sunday rest."

CCC 2187. "Sanctifying Sundays and holy days requires a common effort. Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord's Day. Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. ... In spite of economic constraints, public authorities should ensure citizens a time intended for rest and divine worship. Employers have a similar obligation toward their employees."

DD: "The disciples of Christ, however, are asked to avoid any confusion between the celebration of Sunday, which should truly be a way of keeping the Lord's Day holy, and the 'weekend,' understood as a time of simple rest and relaxation."

DD: "When, through the centuries, she has made laws concerning Sunday rest, the Church has had in mind above all the work of servants and workers, certainly not because this work was any less worthy when compared to the spiritual requirements of Sunday observance, but rather because it needed greater regulation to lighten its burden and thus enable everyone to keep the Lord's Day holy. In this matter, my predecessor Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Rerum Novarum spoke of Sunday rest as a worker's right which the State must guarantee." DD: "In our own historical context there remains the obligation to ensure that everyone can enjoy the freedom, rest and relaxation which human dignity requires, together with the associated religious, family, cultural and interpersonal needs which are difficult to meet if there is no guarantee of at least one day of the week on which people can both rest and celebrate."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.

john,

i must disagree with you on this point. i see your point about the idea that we must keep the Sabbath holy, as we are commanded by God, but i dont see the reason why that is turned into resting from all work. in fact, if one is in a proper state of mind then the work that we do should be given for the glory of God, and our work should not put any distance between us and our Creator. Perhaps this is my study of buddism showing through but i believe that we can rest while doing physical labor as well. rest is not necessarily not doing anything but clearing our MIND of that which is laborious. namely, if we dont do any physical work on sunday what do we gain? a day with little productive done. if we do SOME work on sunday, and relax our mind, meditating on what we learned in church that morning we dont lose anything, but rather make a spiritual connection between the work that we do and the God that we serve, making us better understand the way that that which we do in the world directly relates us to God. in this way we rest our mind and still get that which we need done.

now, i will cede the point that we shouldnt do anything that distracts us from our relation with God... but one of your sources specifically aides my point. one must distinguish from ones weekend rest and rest on the Sabath. they are two different kinds of rest (physical rest from work on the weekend and mental rest from that which distracts us from God on the Sabath). and i would even carry this farther to say that we should minimize our physical duties as well, but shopping for a few odds and ends that couldnt be gotten on saturday and cant be found in quick e marts should not be enough to interfere with ones faith.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 13, 2003.

Jmj

I'm sorry (and very surprised) that my argumentation and quotations didn't convince you at all, "little paul." I see that you are quite a bit like "Big Paul" in that regard! {_8^D) To get you guys to realize and to admit that you are wrong seems tougher to me than it would be for me to get Fidel Castro to pray the Rosary.

I was shocked to read the following words of yours:
"if we dont do any physical work on sunday what do we gain? a day with little productive done."

But that's the point. We need a day of REST -- with NOTHING productive done! We thereby imitate God, who created the universe in six days and then got nothing "productive done" on the seventh day. The fact that you actually recommended getting something "productive done" even on Sunday tells me that you are a "poster boy" for the disease known as work-aholism. This is exactly the kind of mentality that the Church urges us not to have. I think that you would profit greatly by reading the whole 1998 papal letter that I mentioned. "Dies Domini" is here.

You also wrote: "if we do SOME work on sunday, and relax our mind, meditating on what we learned in church that morning we dont lose anything, but rather make a spiritual connection between the work that we do and the God that we serve, making us better understand the way that thatwhich we do in the world directly relates us to God. in this way we rest our mind and still get that which we need done."

You didn't make clear what kind of "work" you have in mind for Sunday -- regular work on weekday jobs or something very different (which I'll describe in a moment).

I have no doubt that most people who would try to do their regular weekday jobs on Sunday (e.g., heavy construction, office work at a computer, teaching, medical work -- whatever) would NOT be able also to do the things you suggest -- "relax our mind, meditating on what we learned in church that morning ... mak[ing] a spiritual connection between the work that we do and the God that we serve."
No. For most people, NONE of those things would even come to mind, because their brains would be totally absorbed in the effort of accomplishing their work. Maybe you are special and different, able to fix your mind on two things at once -- but few other mortals can do that.

Or maybe, when you recommended "do[ing] SOME work on Sunday," you had in mind home-related chores, such as gardening, mowing the lawn, and the suchlike. I have heard a good priest say that, if a man gets no chance to do these things during the week and has no other opportunity for physical exercise, these things are something good to do on Sunday, because they cease to be work and turn into a form of recreation -- something that "re-creates" the mind and body for the coming week of real work. When doing simple physical chores, many people would be able also to meditate on the holy things you mentioned.

You also wrote: "... one of your sources specifically aides my point. one must distinguish from ones weekend rest and rest on the Sabath. they are two different kinds of rest (physical rest from work on the weekend and mental rest from that which distracts us from God on the Sabath)."

No, Paul. I would not have mentioned those words of the pope if they "aided your point"! The pope means that, while we may get some ("weekend") physical and mental rest on Saturday (by not going to our Monday-through-Friday jobs), we are to get that work-free, weekend rest on Sunday too and ALSO make it a day dedicated to the Lord.

You also wrote: "... we should minimize our physical duties as well, but shopping for a few odds and ends that couldnt be gotten on saturday and cant be found in quick e marts should not be enough to interfere with ones faith."

Two points: (1) It is almost always not true that they "couldn't be gotten on [Monday through] Saturday. That's usually a lame excuse. (2) You missed the point that, by insisting on being able to shop on Sunday, you are contributing to cause the store's workers to miss out on their Sunday rest -- and this is clearly contrary to the Church documents I quoted above.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.

Isn't "little paul" redundant? Tee hee.

But another question. Does this mean that any form of recreation would also be out if it requires someone else to work, e.g. a National Park visit (rangers, the ticket taker charging exhorbitant rates to camp in park lands that supposedly belong to the people), or amusement parks?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 14, 2003.

what makes you think im redundant? i thought my post was rather strait forward, comparatively.

psychologically speaking, i can see your point about a day of rest and how it would be a good thing for alot of people. but im one of those kinds that with too much rest i begin to ponder too many secular things. its better for me to find something to do to help me focus on simpler things in life. simple things like my relation to God and the like. perhaps thats a problem of being a physics major, it causes you to ponder science in most of your free time. i find alot of 'work' such as going to the store and the like to be very relaxing and mind clearing. as long as i remain aware of the simple gifts that God has given me, such as air, food, the money i am spending, and such, i can continue to relate to God in my everyday life. i find clarity of thought in actions. so you can tell me not to do anything on sunday, but i can tell you that all that will happen is i will lose my thoughts and let them wander all over the place.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

oh, nevermind GT, duh. paul means little, i forgot about that. actually, the reference little paul comes from the fact that there is a mod who is also named paul. not giving my last name out means the best way to distinguish the two of us is that i dont capitalize my first name, hence... little paul

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

paul, my comment was laughingly directed at John, I was not making fun of you or anything, honest.

I know what you are talking about when you are referring to physical labor being a form of recreation. Our neighbor, who drives a truck for a living, mows his lawn all the time because he enjoys it. Physical labor can also be a way to pray/meditate. I like to knit baby hats for a local crisis pregnancy organization. Work is something you don't enjoy at all, at least to me.

I'm not sure about the shopping. Most of the small stores where we live are closed Sundays (and some of the big chain stores, while open Sundays, are closed for Easter and Christmas). Isn't one of the reasons for Saturday Vigil Mass is so that you can still go to Mass? I don't know what others' definition of interfering with Sunday is, but to me it means working at a job with no time off at a time when you can go to Mass. And are you just going to assume that people are/are not working in violation of their beliefs? And what about these stores, I'm sure some or all of them donate to various charities.

Finally, I remember talking to a priest about missing Mass once because of being out backpacking all weekend. He said to just use another day of the week for the Sabbath. Is which day you take essential? Why? These days, a lot of people opt to work weekends in order to have a more relaxing day off during the week. Unlike other denominations, Catholics have the option of going to daily Mass. Mass is Mass, isn't it?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 14, 2003.

I'm fortunate enough not to work on Sundays, nor on Holy Days or our Patron Saint's Feast as our late cardinal decided that our office would not open on those days. However, I must admit to going shopping, gardening and doing housework on those days. I know I really shouldn't, but sometimes it's the only time I get to do these things. Ah well, only God is perfect :-)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 14, 2003.

GT--

thanks for understanding what i meant about menial works being relaxing. sorry, i finally got what you meant about the little paul thing and posted it later...

Finally, I remember talking to a priest about missing Mass once because of being out backpacking all weekend. He said to just use another day of the week for the Sabbath. Is which day you take essential? Why? These days, a lot of people opt to work weekends in order to have a more relaxing day off during the week. Unlike other denominations, Catholics have the option of going to daily Mass. Mass is Mass, isn't it?

this is actually a liturgical error. we are required to attend a mass after 5pm on saturday but before the end of sunday once a week. a daily mass is different from a sunday or saturday vigil mass. the priest who told you this isnt alone in this assumption though, ive heard it before too, accept when i got it i was told it was okay to occasionally skip mass... blegh.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 14, 2003.

Wow, all those answers for just the simple question I asked to start this thread. I really just wanted to know if I can pick up a few things on Sunday after Mass. That was it. Since I have a scrupulous conscience, I just wanted an opinion on only the few items picked up. I go straight home after Mass and that's my day. So, would it be considered venial or no sin??

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citigroup.com), May 15, 2003.

Hi Maryann,

The answer you are looking for can be found in the Gospel of Luke chapter 6: 1-11 or Matthew chapter 12: 1-14. It is the question about the Sabbath.

Personlly I dont think it is a sin just to pick a few items after Mass and go home.

God Bless

-- (vincentkoh@pd.jaring.my), May 15, 2003.

And how many angels is it that are on the head of a pin?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajern@htomail.com), May 15, 2003.

paul,

Thanks for the info about the Sabbath--I was thinking that the Mass is the same in the sense of Ordinary Days falling when they do. May whatever would have the same readings whether it falls on the Sabbath or during the week. Or am I incorrect about that as well?

Also, our parish has Service Sunday once a month, after 11am Mass, get your gloves on and help out with firewood stacking, brush cutting, or some other task at the home of anyone in the parish who needs help. Afterwards is a pizza feed. That can't be wrong if it is helping someone, is it?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 15, 2003.

I have to disagree with most of John Gecik's hardline version of the Catholic teaching. We are quite able to keep holy the Lord's Day, without becoming fanatical in the negation of all activities except prayer and rest. I leave it to others, and to John, if this is controversial or not. It won't matter to me.

Our true responsibility before God is less stringent. A trip to the supermarket or department store or a sports event; none of them are actually breaking the commandment. God knows our hearts first- hand. Holiness is more than denial & abstention; it embraces our person entirely. The person gives his heart to God exclusively, but not as Jews kept their sabbath. God is present to that person during the whole day; in his enjoyments as well as his/her trivial pursuits, (shopping, preparing of meals, sporting entertainment, etc.,)

The single, indispensable observance on the lord's Day is Holy Mass. Without our loving presence each Sunday before His holy altar, we have sinned against the commandments. This is explicitly taught in Catholic doctrine. All else is implicit, or marginal to our holiness. It has little real bearing; within moderation, IMHO.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, I am offended by your mischaracterization of my position.

What I have stated is based on the Catechism and the pope's 1998 Apostolic Letter, "Dies Domini," which I linked above. Did you bother to read (or at least skim) it before posting your criticisms? If you had read it, you'd have found that what I have stated is not a "hardline version" of anything, but simply the orthodox Catholic practice that we are called upon to follow. You'd have found that I am not advocating anything "fanatical," but rather what is "papal" (to combat what is a symptom of half-hearted Catholicism).

And why does it seem as though three or four people completely overlooked the following words that I wrote above:
"I have heard a good priest say that, if a man gets no chance to do these things [yard work] during the week and has no other opportunity for physical exercise, these things are something good to do on Sunday, because they cease to be work and turn into a form of recreation -- something that 're-creates' the mind and body for the coming week of real work. When doing simple physical chores, many people would be able also to meditate on the holy things [paul] mentioned."

Thus, the Church doesn't rule out ALL work, but only unnecessary work. I believe, GT, that you'll find that the Church (especially in the papal document) praises the kind of "good works" that you mentioned -- corporal or spiritual works of mercy -- being done on Sunday. Please, folks, don't misinterpret or mischaracterize what I have said.

God bless you.
John
PS: Gene, like "little paul" earlier, you too have missed my point about shopping on Sunday. The shopping ITSELF -- which is simple and quick enough, and is not really "work" -- is not the improper thing. The improper thing that shoppers do is to require the store employees to perform unnecessary work, rather than to help those workers to have Sunday off (as they should) by shopping on the other six days of the week. We can all survive Sunday without those "few items," either by denying ourselves or by borrowing those items from a neighbor. Eventually we will train ourselves not to be "caught short" without those items.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.

I think that John has made very valid points. When I read his posts I got the impression that he was saying unecessary work, as in the work we would be employed to do in our day-to-day business, should not be undertaken. Nurses, doctors, care workers etc must work on Sundays and that's allowed for in Church teaching. If we didn't shop on Sundays the shop owners wouldn't open the shops and the shopworkers wouldn't have to work on Sundays. Now, we could perhaps do a bit of gardening, walking, reading etc as that would be recreation, rather than work. However, if we take things to their logical conclusion we shouldn't watch television, listen to the radio or attend sporting events. These all involve people working unecessarily.

Tell you what, John, on Sundays I shall teach you to spell properly, the way us in the old world do!

Saviour, colour, harbour, organisation, labour, defence....etc

on second thoughts, that would be too much like hard work! :-))

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 15, 2003.

John,
I said I disagree with SOME parts of your post. I did duly take note of the sensible aspects. You didn't find all the points I tried to make overly frivolous, I hope. Or have you pondered any of them? Do that; and you may come to give me some credit. I didn't respond just as an attack on you, whatever you might think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 15, 2003.

john,

i think deep down you and i mean the same thing in what we're saying, with the minor variation over the causing others to work on Sunday.

i can see how a long time ago shopping on sunday would have forced people to violate their beliefs to do unneccesary work, but things have changed a bit.

a middle aged man on food stamps has to work on sunday to feed his children. sundays pay time and a half, so it puts a little more food on the table, or pays the electric bill. cut sunday from all shopping lists and the man only works three days a week, and loses his highest paying day. thats a third of his weekly income. work would certainly be necessary for such a man.

a person doesnt believe in God, they wont go to church on sunday. to occupy themselves they work. instead of going out and doing drugs and vandalizing, for lack of something better to do. idle hands most certainly are the devils playground. while an old friend is getting arrested, hes restocking the shelf in a store.

there are countless other examples of people for whom menial work is mandatory on sundays. now, a lawyer in a law firm pulling in 200k a year is going to have a hard time justifying work on sundays, but a person working in a grocery store is going to need that income.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Sara, Eugene, and "little paul."
Thanks to all of you for the comments.

Gene, you wrote: "I said I disagree with SOME parts of your post. I did duly take note of the sensible aspects. You didn't find all the points I tried to make overly frivolous, I hope."

I apologize for not giving you credit for the good parts of your previous message. I guess that I was temporarily blinded to them by the fact that, within two sentences, you used the word "fanatical" with reference to my position, and you said that you "ha[d] to disagree with most [not "SOME parts"] of [my] hardline version" of Church teaching. That kind of inflammatory language tends to be distracting! As Gabby Hayes might have said, "Them's fightin' words, pardner!"

Paul, you wrote: "i think deep down you and i mean the same thing in what we're saying, with the minor variation over the causing others to work on Sunday."

I wish that you were right -- that we "mean the same thing" -- but I don't think so!

You wrote: "i can see how a long time ago shopping on sunday would have forced people to violate their beliefs to do unneccesary work, but things have changed a bit."

I disagree. It's not really true that "things have changed a bit" in the working world. It's the same old world, which had plenty of problems pre-1950 too. What has "changed a bit," though, is that society's willingness to commit sin (and to permit others to commit it) has grown by leaps and bounds. This laxness has carried over into the area of work.

You wrote about a man who "has to work on Sunday" to get "time and a half", etc.. "[If we] cut sunday from all shopping lists ... the man only works three days a week ... [so] work would certainly be necessary for such a man."

The Church says that society has to make Sunday work UNnecessary for such a man. This could happen in two ways:
(1) When his store is closed on Sundays, the poor man should be allowed to make up for what is lost by being asked to work overtime on other days of the week. The people who now shop on Sunday will come in on the other days of the week, so the store will remain open longer.
(2) The Church says that employers should pay a variable wage in a way to help employees who have more mouths to feed. (I realize that this concept is foreign to most people, but it is just. From Article 10 of the Vatican's "Charter of the Rights of the Family": "Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a 'family wage,' or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children.")

You wrote: "[If] a person doesnt believe in God, they wont go to church on sunday. to occupy themselves they work. instead of going out and doing drugs and vandalizing, for lack of something better to do. idle hands most certainly are the devils playground. while an old friend is getting arrested, he's restocking the shelf in a store."

This is not a valid argument. It violates the principle of moral theology that states that we cannot do wrong [unnecessary work on Sunday] so that good may come of it [avoiding a life of crime]. Stated in more familiar words, "a good end does not justify an evil means." The guy in your example is required to avoid crime AND unnecessary Sunday work, not just one of them.

You wrote: "there are countless other examples of people for whom menial work is mandatory on sundays."

Well, I don't think that the number is "countless," but when the work truly is "mandatory" [and not just imagined or rationalized as mandatory], then the Church teaches that it is permissible.

Sara, you correctly analysed [note: not "analyzed"] my position!
Whenever I see "defence" [a lot, lately, because of the War on Terror], I can't stop myself from thinking of people who "straddle de fence." You have to admit that many in your land mix "defence" and "offense"! That seeems like straddling the spelling "fentz."

You wrote: "However, if we take things to their logical conclusion we shouldn't watch television, listen to the radio or attend sporting events. These all involve people working unecessarily.

I think that the Church wouldn't say that they are "working unnecessarily."

Well, I think that part-time Sunday work by sportsmen, entertainers, and media employees would fall under what is permissible according to the following CCC passage:
"2187 ... Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 16, 2003.

No, John-- I wasn't ''fightin''. I was making a valid point: there's a literal and there's a more BASIC understanding to be drawn from the cathechism and our Church's laws. Not to mention the commandments.

Your prescription favors a letter-perfect understanding. I could have got that just reading a catechism. I know you didn't mean to send a fanatical message. You just lean unecessarily to the contrary of what I expressed. as if there is no middle way, only the written instruction. I mentioned the need for moderation. Nothing is sinful when the intent to sin is absent. Yes, we have obligations. But sometimes within a moderated interpretation of the rules. I think Christ taught us this.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.

Yes John, I agree that we may spectate at, or participate in, sports events on Sundays. I even agree that we may employ people part-time to facilitate that. However, since there are exceptions to every rule, I insist that Golf and Cricket are not included as they are the cause of interminable boredom and have resulted in many venial sins occurring on Sunday afternoons. I've heard that some people's tellys have never been the same again!

Proper English Spelling: Lesson 2

DEFENCE, OFFENCE, ORGANISATION.

The use of the letter z (pronounced zed and not zee of course) instead of the letter s is entirely unacceptable!

God bless :-)

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 16, 2003.

Nae, Sister Sara,

Not the CAUSE of interminable boredom; these sports RESULT in the latter. What causes us pain is bad spelling. Si !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.

(2) The Church says that employers should pay a variable wage in a way to help employees who have more mouths to feed. (I realize that this concept is foreign to most people, but it is just. From Article 10 of the Vatican's "Charter of the Rights of the Family": "Remuneration for work must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, either through a suitable salary, called a 'family wage,' or through other social measures such as family allowances or the remuneration of the work in the home of one of the parents; it should be such that mothers will not be obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially of the education of the children.")

John, in many ways people with families get all sorts of breaks that singles (and I might mention, that family goes North South East West with parents,brothers, sisters, and children) aren't entitled to, like the Family Leave act, tax credits for day care, etc. I do agree that spouses should be able to pay into Social Security for stay-at-home spouses.

People should be looking at how they plan to support a spouse and children before they get married, not expect the employer to just give them more money because they choose to have children. We already have a problem with welfare and people having more children than they can adequately care for.

Also, people manage their money differently, and it wouldn't matter how much you paid many people, they would still be in debt up to their eyeballs, yet their children would still go without. These are often the same people who refuse to work minimum wage jobs because they feel it is beneath them.

I'm with Eugene here--everything in moderation.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 16, 2003.

agreed, Eugene.

Incidentally...

Did you hear about the dyslexic occultist?

He sold his soul to Santa!!

(yes I hear the groans already)

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 16, 2003.

Really, now, Sara;

Oh-- one of our visitors here keeps spelling it with an ''i''; Satin. (Close, but no cigar.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2003.

You mean Satin is not evil?

What about Cotton or, worse yet, Polyester?

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

"2187 ... Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure."

how is eating at a restaurant any more/less necessary than going to a store to get something to eat.

i hear what youre saying about the whole thing of working overtime on other days, but let me share something with you: there arent enough hours available. the unemployment rate is already high because there arent enough hours for people to work. alot of stores already ban overtime without manager permission because they already have too many employees. cut sunday and you cut a full day of work. i cant imagine the social disaster of unemployment that would cause.

also, variable wages? couldnt happen. raise the wages to meet everyones needs and you have to print ALOT more dollars to make up for it. the inflation caused by such an act would merely drive even more people into the poverty range. it doesnt do any good to get an extra ten dollars a week if everything you earn is worth two thirds as much as it was before. germany tried to solve their depression by printing more money, and all that happened was people needing a wheelbarrow full of marks to buy a loaf of bread and potatoes.

what your pushing is nice, but its not a feasable change in the united states. we dont have the system set up for that type of thing.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

Sara you have the support of the colonies! I have no credibilty trying to teach these AMericans how to spell as my own spelling is appalling. But keep the lessons going for sake of saving them from the evil that is American english. Your reward will be great! INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE is not an option yanks, you have been warned! The Queens English is INFALLIBLE and American schismatic abuses will NOT be tolerated any longer! Yes zero tolerance on such evils. Quite. Jolly good show chaps. Rule Britania etc :-)

I am howevr dissapointed with your lack of appreciation for our great summer game, cricket. Mind you if I had to support ENgland...

Enough sillyness on to Pauls economic theory.

Paul sorry brother but we disagree yet again! Nothing personal.

In fact less working hours in countries who have adopted the French model has shown a happier, more productive and less stressed work force ( I think theyre down to 35 hours). I believe we CAN NOT afford to reduce the amount of time fathers especially in society spend with their children today, and through redistribution of income and welth we can create a much fairer society than we see today. What youre promoting is utiliatian pragmatism. I strongly reccomend a short book by Max Webber "The Protestant work ethic and the spirit of Capitalism" for you to get a ffeel in how deely capitalism in its most individual and pure form is deeply calvinist in its basis.

But its not just on a social conscience level I reject your views. The classical free market economic theory you seem to be promoting (either conciously or not) is where the indidvidual only promotes his own security and gain and in doing so he may often promote the intrests of society. It is something which apart from a few dissident theological voices in the USA (FAther Michael Novak being the most notable) the Church rejects as unjust and immoral. When we look at the massive inequalities of wealth and the gap bewteen the rich and poor that exist in all developed capitalist countries your view becomes increasingly difficult to accept as credible. The basic premise of the pure free market in that you cant get rich without someone getting poorer is abhorant to anyone with a true Catholic social conscience.

Your first concerns relating to unemployment and inflation and example of the great depression is a prime example of such classical thought which has long been discredited. The logic that wages and prices should fall to restore unemployment was first oppposed by John Keynes in 1936 and are the basis to Keynesian economics. In reality increases in wage rates lead to an increase in consumer spending and increase aggregate demand and an increase in employment.

You are right to suggest that wage rises can lead to inflationary pressure in economy but you over simplify the issue. The government has a number of tools to counter inflation, the most obvious being monetary policy and how the Federal bank can use interest rates to offset wage increases. The Government also has a number of fiscal (tax) tools available to increase tax rates on those MOST ABLE to afford the burden The government also has a number of micro economic tools it can use to increase productivity on the suppply side but I wont elaborate anymore..economic theory = boring boring on a Catholic forum! If you want a better explanantion of any of these points please email me I lecture macro-economics so its something I do for a change actually know at least a little on.

Blessing paul

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 17, 2003.

kiwi,

thank you, and may God bless you in your path as well. i understand your disagreement and i dont take it personally. i have a few contentions with your points as well though my specialty is physics.

When we look at the massive inequalities of wealth and the gap bewteen the rich and poor that exist in all developed capitalist countries your view becomes increasingly difficult to accept as credible.

i never said it was right that the system is the way it is, i said that it simply was, and that to attempt a change would have drastic socio-economic backlash.

that being put aside, i understand that the government has measures to counter inflation, but as an economist, do you really think that such a rapid switch in raising the salary of the poor is even possible to counter that rapidly? chaos theory shows that in a nonlinear system like economics that drastic changes can produce catastophe, but in trying to counter those changes one significantly increases the risk of system crash. but enough of the chaos theory, as exploring it too far leads to some serious questions about the practicality of physics... questions i dont like because of physics being my major.

but i digress. the question we should ask is: is the communist ideal of 'equality' just. even in a perfect world it is most certainly not moral. why? pure equality calls for the destruction of religion (see karl marx works). so we limit our discussion to economic equality. everyone gets paid just what they need. where does charity come in? of what use is donation to the poor when everyone only earns EXACTLY what they need. as an economist you know that prior to the depression there was no welfare state like today... none whatsoever. somehow, however, i think i remember a history professor teaching me that the poverty incident was actually much lower than it is today...

and why should we tax the rich more heavily? should charity be mandated? of what use is our charity to God if we are forced to do it? it is bandaging a symptom without fixing the problem of lack of charity. if we teach our wealthy to be charitable and to give as they can then we inherently solve the problem without the club of government mandate. taxes are essential, but im sure that the system of unequal taxation as we have today would have been seen as an abomination by the founding fathers of the greatest economic power in the world.

besides, frances system isnt that great. works for small villages and stuff, but i saw ALOT of poverty in paris. didnt look at all like the system was working to me. but it is a beautiful country.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, "little paul" and Kiwi.

Kiwi, Michael Novak is a layman (not "Father"), and he is no longer a dissenter. Back in the 1970s, he dissented from "Humanae vitae," but repented of this later.

Paul, you wrote:
"how is eating at a restaurant any more/less necessary than going to a store to get something to eat.

I didn't claim that "eating at a restaurant" is "necessary" -- except, perhaps for travelers. Rather, the Church said that there is some "necessary work" being done by people at restaurants on Sundays. Some restaurants need to be open for travelers. And I think that the Church also is saying that some people may work part-time in restaurants on Sundays, to help the rest of the public partake in a "recreational" meal (e.g., a family reunion), so that people don't have to labor for hours at home to prepare a big banquet.

You also wrote: "there arent enough hours available. the unemployment rate is already high because there arent enough hours for people to work. alot of stores already ban overtime without manager permission because they already have too many employees."

If there are "too many employees," those who don't need to work [and I think you know who they are] should give way to the needy father in your example.

You continued: "cut sunday and you cut a full day of work. i cant imagine the social disaster of unemployment that would cause."

It's not a "full day of work." It's a day of rest and worship.
Society would adjust. Society was better when almost everything was closed. I know, because I saw it with my own eyes.

You continued: "also, variable wages? couldnt happen. raise the wages to meet everyones needs and you have to print ALOT more dollars to make up for it."

Not true. The Church doesn't say that everyone's wage should be earned, but only those needing the support for their family. Those not needing so much (e.g., single people) would see their wages lowered, to compensate for the others' being raised. The balance remains, resulting in economic improvement, not disaster (e.g., inflation).

You concluded: "what your pushing is nice, but its not a feasable change in the united states. we dont have the system set up for that type of thing."

It's not what I am "pushing." It is what our Church is teaching as a more just way for people to live than the currently dominant method. It helps the essential unit of society, the family. You may be shocked to learn that, because the Church encourages this, some orthodox Catholic employers are putting it into practice. It doesn't get much ink, but it is happening out there. I believe that God rewards that kind of fidelity.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 17, 2003.

CORRECTION (in bold type):
"The Church doesn't say that everyone's wage should be raised, but only those needing the support for their family."
[Sorry. Dumb error.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 17, 2003.

John thanks for the correction Id always presumed wrongly that he was a priest, I dont know why. His writings in support of capitalism and more recently in favour of the iraqi war carry much less weight than his earlier work on contraception, at least to me but I guess thats to be expected coming from me :-). ANyway a pattern is emerging here and while you dont think he is a dissident, he is certainly not orthodox, to me.

Hi Paul Ill have to reply over two nights, very busy at work this week :(. Your questions deal with a few issues. Ill present my views on your tax/charity argument tommorrow as i dont think it stacks up very well from a Catholic perspective nor economic.

I dont know much about Chaos theory but you are right such changes are radical, in the sense that they challenge the classical protestant work ethic and capitalist individual view of the place of work. But against all odds they can work, and do work. True, the French economy with its strong labour union roots is very different to yours but such changes from an economic perspective can AT LEAST maintain employment , productivity, growth and eficiency but at the same time greatly extend social benefits and quality of life of which we can only begin to measure.

It is truely incredible that such reforms work as well as they do because on paper from a free market psoition, you are right they shouldnt. I havent read up on how the reforms have panned out but I recall they lowered employment and growth was not affected. There were protests from small to medium sized firms who lacked the flexibilty and for certain sectors of the economy such as service industires, food etc and trucking but overall I thinlk it was a success. Bemused free market economists whio had scratch their heads and yell "SOCIAL ENGINEERING shouldnt improve output, it doesnt fit on a marginal cost curve.. whats going on here?" they forget that humans are not robots operating only on the forces of demand and supply.... and it pisses them off no end. re "chaos" theories are hatched. France's 35 hour work week represents, after all, the kind of illiberal government intervention that globalization is supposed to have rendered virtually impossible today. Christ would be pleased.

In terms of equality, the Church agrees with you in the evils of communism, and I was wrong to impress on you that perfect equality is the aim of the Church. I used the term equality beciuase I guess from an economic point of view equality of income is the best measure of equity or fairness in a society. fairness being a subjective measure economist tend to get a bit nervous on. However the facts remain about the market in that there willl always be winners and losers, if someone gets richer, someone will be getting poorer, its a basic free market precept and a very unchristian one- "exploit others less fortunate than yourself for your own personal gain". The Church regonises differences in equality will always exist but it rejects excessive inequalities that are created through the market...

1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:

Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.44

1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.

1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.

The Church views man as a social creature and but is well aware of your fears of communisim, this is known as the principal of subsidisation. It is no surprise to find most Catholic parties are based not only on moral conservatism but a social conscience, a caring social humanist part, a party of "common sense"...which normally finds itself as a centerist party. There is one thing undeniable... the principles that underly many aspects of conservative economic and politcal philosophy are strongly condemended by the Church as strongly as it condems collectivism.

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs."5 This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.6

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

excuse the long cut and paste but i think these passages are important and quite clear ...

The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church's teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.201

Any system in which social relationships are determined entirely by economic factors is contrary to the nature of the human person and his acts.203

2424 A theory that makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity is morally unacceptable. The disordered desire for money cannot but produce perverse effects. It is one of the causes of the many conflicts which disturb the social order.204

Every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit enslaves man, leads to idolizing money, and contributes to the spread of atheism. "You cannot serve God and mammon."206

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2426 The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings. Economic life is not meant solely to multiply goods produced and increase profit or power; it is ordered first of all to the service of persons, of the whole man, and of the entire human community. Economic activity, conducted according to its own proper methods, is to be exercised within the limits of the moral order, in keeping with social justice so as to correspond to God's plan for man.209

2428 In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work.214

Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community. 2429 Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.215 2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that respects the rights and duties of each social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and public authorities when appropriate.

2431 The responsibility of the state. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217

2432 Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218 They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants.219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority. Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family.223

2437 On the international level, inequality of resources and economic capability is such that it creates a real "gap" between nations.224 On the one side there are those nations possessing and developing the means of growth and, on the other, those accumulating debts.

2438 Various causes of a religious, political, economic, and financial nature today give "the social question a worldwide dimension."225 There must be solidarity among nations which are already politically interdependent. It is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the "perverse mechanisms" that impede the development of the less advanced countries.226 In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, "redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values."227

2439 Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves or have been prevented from doing so by tragic historical events. It is a duty in solidarity and charity; it is also an obligation in justice if the prosperity of the rich nations has come from resources that have not been paid for fairly.

2440 Direct aid is an appropriate response to immediate, extraordinary needs caused by natural catastrophes, epidemics, and the like. But it does not suffice to repair the grave damage resulting from destitution or to provide a lasting solution to a country's needs. It is also necessary to reform international economic and financial institutions so that they will better promote equitable relationships with less advanced countries.228 The efforts of poor countries working for growth and liberation must be supported.229 This doctrine must be applied especially in the area of agricultural labor. Peasants, especially in the Third World, form the overwhelming majority of the poor.

2441 An increased sense of God and increased self-awareness are fundamental to any full development of human society. This development multiplies material goods and puts them at the service of the person and his freedom. It reduces dire poverty and economic exploitation. It makes for growth in respect for cultural identities and openness to the transcendent.230

2442 It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful, acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens. Social action can assume various concrete forms. It should always have the common good in view and be in conformity with the message of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church. It is the role of the laity "to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice."231

phew anyone who got through all that from me deserves a medal.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.