Would you work on Sunday?

[The Harlequin King]

If your job rostered you to work maybe 2 sundays a month and you would more than likely miss mass , would you take a job that does this?

I never apply to jobs that require Sunday work unless they're for emergency services or the like.

[Archer]

This Commandment really isn't as complicated as people always want to make it. If you have a career in emergency services, its going to be a necessity for you to work on Sundays. We need good and moral cops, firemen, doctors, nurses, etc. even on Sundays. Do your best to get to Mass around your shifts.

If you're not in emergency services, and not a farmer or the like, you probably shouldn't be working on Sundays. Unless, not working meant creating a insurmountable hardship for your family. I.e. You can't pay your electric bill without it. If that's the case, you need to work so work.

In most other cases, if you're in a job that requires work on Sunday, I would personally be actively looking for another position.

Oh, and don't mow the lawn or do unnecessary cleaning on Sundays - but don't be stupid about stuff either. God knows your intentions.

[lauermar]

I have been working in home health marketing and now hospice. These are 24/7 businesses as all Healthcare is. My husband is Director of Housekeeping at a large Continuing Care Retirement Community. Both our jobs require occasional weekends.

In my husband's case, he's picking up after sick people which is a corporal work of mercy. He doesn't work every Sunday. The managers take turns covering that shift every other month. And my husband doesn't miss mass. He goes to anticipated mass on Saturday.

I'm under constant pressure from management to go out and make sales calls on Sundays,  especially when referrals are down. I refuse to sell on Sundays and I've told management that. I have worked the Saturday though. Only if a patient was hospitalized or being discharged did I ever go out on Sunday, and that was rare. I have had to fly out of state for a company meeting on a Sunday, but it is travel day only and not actual work.

I don't believe God blesses Sunday work unless it's corporal mercy. I'm thinking of the sins of La Salette.

[Archer]

I don't believe God blesses Sunday work unless it's corporal mercy. I'm thinking of the sins of La Salette.

I don't agree with that statement as is. I think God blesses the Sunday work of a farmer. He can't ignore his cows, livestock, or crops, just because its Sunday.

He does, and you probably don't have milk waiting for you at the grocery store when you do your shopping on Monday.

I'm also not entirely sure what encompasses corporal mercy in your example. What about ER nurses or a hospital doctor? A patrol cop or firefighter?

[red solo cup]

Yes. I would go to mass on Sat or Mon.

[Traditionallyruralmom]

This is why I'm not entirely buying the idea that "necessary" servile work is permitted. Because the word "necessary" is always relative, never absolute (except in reference to God).

Is it necessary to do emergency plumbing on Sundays? In some ways yes; in other ways no. (No plumbing for the day is a huge inconvenience and in some cases a health/safety hazard. Yet people have lived for thousands of years without plumbing.)
Is it necessary that assisted living facilities be open on Sundays? In some ways yes; in other ways no. (If the assisted living center is not open, the elderly and handicapped will go uncared for. Yet this is what families are for.)
Is it necessary that a hotel/resort be open on Sundays? In some ways yes; in other ways no. (People can't go on week-long vacations if hotels aren't open on Sundays. Yet nobody needs to go on a week-long vacation.)
Is it necessary that police, firefighters, etc., work on Sundays? In some ways yes; in other ways no. (No police and no firefighters make for unsafe living conditions. But is this not God's will? Can we not simply accept it as the punishment we're due?)

I think the Amish church has an opening for you 

[Josephine87]

Pilgrims used to (and still) go on weeks to months long "vacations" that require lodgings on Sundays.

[dymphnaw]

I don't do servile work on Sunday but if someone vomits in the bathroom I am not going to leave it until Monday. Our Lord did not say Sunday was to be the day when criminals roam free, sick people lie unwashed, unfed and without medicine in their soiled bed and the cow doesn't get milked.That would be ridiculous.

[Carleendiane]

Work on Sunday? Only if it is unavoidable. Sunday, by its very nature, is sacred. Every Sunday at my house meant family, friends, with Mass first. It means discussing church matters, good food, and family unity. Years and years of this has shown God's intelligent design. Each week is filled with work, secular association, and duty. Sunday brought a temporary halt, provided a day to regroup, recharge, and prepare for whatever battles we would be forced to wage during the coming week. Invaluable for those that must interact with the world Monday thru Saturday.

That one day, truly has more value than the 6 days prior. Of course, if it means losing your method of family support....duty to job....etc., a person is allowed to sacrifice their Sunday rest, but knowing well the positive and spiritual benefits of using Sunday as the Lord intended, one should make a sincere attempt to save that holy day of obligation. And yes, we need doctors, nurses, emts, firefighters available EVERY day. God knows this too. But we should try to fulfill  His intent for the day, if we have the choice. If bills are paid, obligations met, without sacrificing Sunday, working Sunday is superfluous and unnecessary. If one works Sunday, simply to "get ahead" then maybe they should rethink their mindset and their life choices.

[Lambda Phage]

Police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, power plant oprators.

A little of track here but I was wondering what other people think; Is it immoral for a policeman to disguise himself, "undercover"?

It's a slippery slope. Disguises aren't immoral, and equivocation isn't immoral, but lying is immoral. Theologians make a distinction between equivocation and lying. But I would say that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put this distinction into practice. The mental gymnastics involved seem humanly impossible.

Bro. Come. Awn.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm#article3

Article 3. Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?

Augustine says (QQ. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): "Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes": and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2).

...A man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Matthew 7:6: "Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [Stratagematum i, 1 by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.

Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him.

Now if you don't think that applies to undercover law enforcement, the justice of whose cause is more immediately apparent than that of the soldier at war, you lack a capacity for abstraction.

The subsequent article is also relevant to the topic.

Article 4. Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?

It is written (1 Maccabees 2:41): The Jews rightly determined . . . saying: "Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him."

The observance of holy days is no hindrance to those things which are ordained to man's safety, even that of his body. Hence Our Lord argued with the Jews, saying (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath-day?" Hence physicians may lawfully attend to their patients on holy days. Now there is much more reason for safeguarding the common weal (whereby many are saved from being slain, and innumerable evils both temporal and spiritual prevented), than the bodily safety of an individual. Therefore, for the purpose of safeguarding the common weal of the faithful, it is lawful to carry on a war on holy days, provided there be need for doing so: because it would be to tempt God, if notwithstanding such a need, one were to choose to refrain from fighting.

[Heinrich]

Police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, power plant oprators.

A little of track here but I was wondering what other people think; Is it immoral for a policeman to disguise himself, "undercover"?

It's a slippery slope. Disguises aren't immoral, and equivocation isn't immoral, but lying is immoral. Theologians make a distinction between equivocation and lying. But I would say that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put this distinction into practice. The mental gymnastics involved seem humanly impossible.

Bro. Come. Awn.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm#article3

Article 3. Whether it is lawful to lay ambushes in war?

Augustine says (QQ. in Hept. qu. x super Jos): "Provided the war be just, it is no concern of justice whether it be carried on openly or by ambushes": and he proves this by the authority of the Lord, Who commanded Joshua to lay ambushes for the city of Hai (Joshua 8:2).

...A man may be deceived by what we say or do, because we do not declare our purpose or meaning to him. Now we are not always bound to do this, since even in the Sacred Doctrine many things have to be concealed, especially from unbelievers, lest they deride it, according to Matthew 7:6: "Give not that which is holy, to dogs." Wherefore much more ought the plan of campaign to be hidden from the enemy. For this reason among other things that a soldier has to learn is the art of concealing his purpose lest it come to the enemy's knowledge, as stated in the Book on Strategy [Stratagematum i, 1 by Frontinus. Such like concealment is what is meant by an ambush which may be lawfully employed in a just war.

Nor can these ambushes be properly called deceptions, nor are they contrary to justice or to a well-ordered will. For a man would have an inordinate will if he were unwilling that others should hide anything from him.

Now if you don't think that applies to undercover law enforcement, the justice of whose cause is more immediately apparent than that of the soldier at war, you lack a capacity for abstraction.

The subsequent article is also relevant to the topic.

Article 4. Whether it is lawful to fight on holy days?

It is written (1 Maccabees 2:41): The Jews rightly determined . . . saying: "Whosoever shall come up against us to fight on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him."

The observance of holy days is no hindrance to those things which are ordained to man's safety, even that of his body. Hence Our Lord argued with the Jews, saying (John 7:23): "Are you angry at Me because I have healed the whole man on the Sabbath-day?" Hence physicians may lawfully attend to their patients on holy days. Now there is much more reason for safeguarding the common weal (whereby many are saved from being slain, and innumerable evils both temporal and spiritual prevented), than the bodily safety of an individual. Therefore, for the purpose of safeguarding the common weal of the faithful, it is lawful to carry on a war on holy days, provided there be need for doing so: because it would be to tempt God, if notwithstanding such a need, one were to choose to refrain from fighting.

Good post, bro.

What about exercising on Sunday? Tomorrow is a scheduled leg and kettlebell day.

[Daniel]

Lambda Phage -

I never said that a police officer is not allowed to conceal his identity when undercover. What I said is that he's not allowed to lie in order to do so.

But my followup point was that even though it's permissible in theory, I'm not sure how you can ever do it reliably in practice.  Suppose you're a cop who has gone undercover as a janitor. Somebody asks you a direct question, "Are you a cop?" You use some licit equivocation to dodge the question: "I'm a janitor". So far so good. But the guy responds, "Maybe you are, but you still haven't answered my question. Are you a cop?" It seems there's only two ways you could respond. Your first way is to remain silent or say something like, "That's none of your business". But, in doing so, you'll basically blow your cover. Your only other option is to say, "No, I'm not a cop." But in doing so, you lie.

Some would argue that this is not a lie, so long as you silently (in your mind) add a followup qualification to the statement such that it is no longer false. e.g. "No, I'm not a cop... [silently]...except when I am a cop[/silently]". (I think they call this "mental reservation"?) But for one thing, this doesn't come natural. Most cops who say "I'm not a cop" are probably just lying plainly, not quantifying the statement in their head. (They most likely don't even care whether or not it's a lie.) Second, I'm not seeing any essential difference between this and lying. In either case the statement (at least the audible part) is false, and your intention is to deceive. Not to mention that you can do this sort of thing pretty much any time you want to tell a lie, hence the slippery slope.

But I will grant that some other kinds of equivocation are permissible, such as that time when St. Raphael said "I am Azarias the son of the great Ananias". Still, this isn't the same situation, since St. Raphael's words were mysterious (not unequivocally false) and there's no indication that his intention was to deceive. He never said anything to the effect of "I'm not Raphael" or "I'm not an angel" or "I am Gabriel the archangel".

[Gardener]

[1] At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat. [2] And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days. [3] But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: [4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? [5] Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

[4] "The loaves of proposition": So were called the twelve loaves which were placed before the sanctuary in the temple of God.

[6] But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple. [7] And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent. [8] For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. [9] And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues. [10] And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

[11] But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up? [12] How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days. [13] Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand; and he stretched it forth, and it was restored to health even as the other. [14] And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him. [15] But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all.

...

Matthew 12

[Lambda Phage]

Point taken Daniel, I see what you're specifically asking about now.

No doubt the vast majority just straight up lie without reservation when it comes to actually adopting a false persona and having to interact with others as that persona. True that is not the same as somebody who is simply dressed as a civilian and lying in wait as I was imagining.

Would be curious to hear more input.

[lauermar]

I don't believe God blesses Sunday work unless it's corporal mercy. I'm thinking of the sins of La Salette.

I don't agree with that statement as is. I think God blesses the Sunday work of a farmer. He can't ignore his cows, livestock, or crops, just because its Sunday.

He does, and you probably don't have milk waiting for you at the grocery store when you do your shopping on Monday.

I'm also not entirely sure what encompasses corporal mercy in your example. What about ER nurses or a hospital doctor? A patrol cop or firefighter?

Since the farmer feeds the hungry that could be a corporal work of mercy. Anything that would serve to offset life-threatening situations are something that are corporal works of mercy. Police and fire fighters' work, the military, drugstores dispensing medicine, emergency workers, public safety like utilities, road safety, cleaning up after the sick, transitioning patients in the hospital, meeting with family members to start home health or hospice care, travel, stations for gas or food. These are all essentials.

I am not convinced that selling just for the sake of selling automobiles, clothing, referrals, furniture, vanity items is ever an absolute necessity. So I don't cold call customers on a Sunday asking for more referrals because of the message of La Salette.

http://catholicstraightanswers.com/what-is-the-story-of-our-lady-of-la-salette/