Anyone have experience with job interviews?

[Daniel]

Hi Daniel,

Are you familiar with a double effect principle? Or a remote cooperation rules? More strict does not always mean Catholic. Sometimes it is worse to see the sin when it is not there then not to see a sin when it is there.

Yes, I think I know the gist. And I do see that what I am saying is inconsistent with these principles. But my problem is that I'm not so sure that these principles are "Catholic" to begin with. They look to me like later innovations, not infallible teaching that we can safely rely on. Moreover, these principles themselves presuppose a legalistic and reason-based theory of ethics which posits that the moral law (and its principles) can be known through human reason, which I don't believe was ever Catholic teaching either.

I honestly don't see the basis for Thomistic ethics, and I know next to nothing about the epistemology behind it (other than the fact that it doesn't appear to make any sense at all). I've asked around, but nobody has been able to help me out with this. If some priest--or even a knowledgable layman--would just take the time to show me (beyond all my doubt) that Thomism is, in fact, "Catholic", then there'd be far less of an issue for me. I could simply learn the whole of Thomism, identify my error, correct it, live my life accordingly, and hopefully do all of this before I am too old to enter the seminary or monastery (only about 2 years left). But I don't think it's that simple.

[Non Nobis]

Daniel, it seems if we all had your self-imposed standards we would have to be hermits in caves. 

The Mystical Body of Christ is one body we live in in which the sins of each member wound us but are not our individual sin.   ONLY The Mystical Body of Christ has a sinless head.

If a company has over-all evil goals (Planned Parenthood) we don't join it.  If it has largely evil goals or is more evil than another company, look for the best company we can.  But we don't have infinite time and sometimes need a  job that is "good enough" so that WE are not personally required to sin but can't vouch for the company being sinless in all its goals.

God sometimes permits evil (it only happens if He permits it), and sometimes  allows us to not stop it if we have other goals that are our personal duties in life.  This includes taking care of our own lives and our family and preparations for our vocation.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" is a saying that can be true when the supposedly perfect is something that we decide by long thinking and the good is God's will that includes what is best but permits some evils.

Pray Daniel.

 

[clau clau]

[Graham]

You have zero chance of paying off 60k in debt within 2 years. A young Greg, Gardener, or James03 might be able to do it, with a lot of difficulty, but you in particular with your stringent requirements and lower success orientation have absolutely no chance on that timelime. If you want to become a monk you should look into declaring bankruptcy.

I don't think filing for bankruptcy would do anything, as half my debt is student loans (which is apparently immune to bankruptcy) and the other half is restitution for theft and property damage (which nobody knows about). But even if bankruptcy were an option, I doubt it would be an option, as: 1.) I am not sure whether or not the government actually has God-given power, and 2.) even if it does have God-given power, is it really allowed to interfere with private debt? This seems like an abuse of power, and I would think God would still require us to pay up.

Realistically speaking, I think you're right. I can't imagine paying it off within 2 years. But it's not actually "zero chance", as chance is chancy and sporadic. Some lucky people become millionaires literally overnight, and I still have like 2 years. If God wants to give me the money then I'm sure He will. But until that happens I don't think there's much I can do, other than try to find an acceptable job and set aside all my income towards paying the debt.

Student debt is not immune to bankruptcy. It's more difficult to have it wiped out or reduced through bankruptcy than other unsecured loans, but far from impossible.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/797330613/myth-busted-turns-out-bankruptcy-can-wipe-out-student-loan-debt-after-all

Now, I know without waiting for your reply that you will latch onto some facet of the "more difficult" part as an excuse for not even looking into it by calling a few bankruptcy specialists.

And I know that once you've established that it's too difficult to bother exploring as an option, you will further pile on explanations that there are insuperable metaphysical problems behind it all, or whatever.

What I want to get across to you is that declaring bankruptcy is your only reasonable hope of being where you SAY you want to be in 2 years.

Without that option, there is no point "giving yourself 2 years." The ONLY reasonable course then is to forget about your supposed religious vocation and IMMEDIATELY pursue new training or a new skill that will gain you entrance to a line of work with more job opportunities and fewer moral obstacles, however you define that.

Again, there is NO POINT waiting around for your golden ticket. Without bankruptcy or a fundamental change in your personality, you have NO HOPE of paying 60K in 2 years. "Giving yourself 2 years" will almost certainly result in 2 years of accumulating interest and personal stagnation, leaving you worse off than you are now.

Therefore, two practical conclusions: (1) EXPLORE BANKRUPCY and (2) DO NOT WAIT TO GET STARTED ON A NEW SKILL

[Daniel]

calling a few bankruptcy specialists.

I take it you mean a lawyer? How can I do that when I have no money?

And I know that once you've established that it's too difficult to bother exploring as an option, you will further pile on explanations that there are insuperable metaphysical problems behind it all, or whatever.

Don't jump to conclusions. But what I want to know is, has the American government ever actually received power? And, if so, is this a licit use of power? If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then this is not an option. If the answer to both is yes, could you please show me?

[Graham]

calling a few bankruptcy specialists.

I take it you mean a lawyer? How can I do that when I have no money?

Do you have access to a phone? Pick it up and call them.

And I know that once you've established that it's too difficult to bother exploring as an option, you will further pile on explanations that there are insuperable metaphysical problems behind it all, or whatever.

Don't jump to conclusions. But what I want to know is, has the American government ever actually received power? And, if so, is this a licit use of power? If the answer to either of those two questions is no, then this is not an option. If the answer to both is yes, could you please show me?

The government created the framework in which you accumulated the debt! If the debt is legitimate, it follows that the legal framework that made it possible is legitimate, and since that framework includes methods for people to escape crushing debt, availing yourself of them is legitimate! If the framework is illegitimate, so is the debt, so feel no compunction about wriggling out of it! FFS!!!

I gave you your two options. If you refuse to even look into #1, then proceed to #2. DO NOT SIT AROUND FOR 2 YEARS

That's the last advice or explanation you're ever getting from me! If I was KK I would IP ban you for your own damn good!

[Daniel]

The government created the framework in which you accumulated the debt! If the debt is legitimate, it follows that the legal framework that made it possible is legitimate, and since that framework includes methods for people to escape crushing debt, availing yourself of them is legitimate! If the framework is illegitimate, so is the debt, so feel no compunction about wriggling out of it!

The debt is legitimate by the very fact that I borrowed money while agreeing to pay it back. My primary concern is moral, not legal. I really have no idea whether the nation's laws are binding. But either way, I still need to pay it. And, by paying it, the legal aspect is also taken care of (if it should turn out that laws do bind).

I gave you your two options. If you refuse to even look into #1, then proceed to #2. DO NOT SIT AROUND FOR 2 YEARS

Thank you.

[andy]

Yes, I think I know the gist. And I do see that what I am saying is inconsistent with these principles. But my problem is that I'm not so sure that these principles are "Catholic" to begin with. They look to me like later innovations, not infallible teaching that we can safely rely on. Moreover, these principles themselves presuppose a legalistic and reason-based theory of ethics which posits that the moral law (and its principles) can be known through human reason, which I don't believe was ever Catholic teaching either.

I honestly don't see the basis for Thomistic ethics, and I know next to nothing about the epistemology behind it (other than the fact that it doesn't appear to make any sense at all). I've asked around, but nobody has been able to help me out with this. If some priest--or even a knowledgable layman--would just take the time to show me (beyond all my doubt) that Thomism is, in fact, "Catholic", then there'd be far less of an issue for me. I could simply learn the whole of Thomism, identify my error, correct it, live my life accordingly, and hopefully do all of this before I am too old to enter the seminary or monastery (only about 2 years left). But I don't think it's that simple.

If you do not have job and money, how do get the food and roof? Do you live out of somebody else money?  Are those money made with the same super strict puritan like standards you try to hold yourself to? Most likely no, so why do you accept that situation?

By the way, you seem to analyze every possible detail and scenario from a moral theology perspective. Have you ever considered that you lack IQ to properly understand such principles?

[Daniel]

why do you accept that situation?

Because what choice do I have? I accept the situation, but I do not like the situation. And neither do I accept the blame for what others do.

By the way, you seem to analyze every possible detail and scenario from a moral theology perspective. Have you ever considered that you lack IQ to properly understand such principles?

No I don't. I don't pretend to be a moral theologian. All I'm doing is calling out the moral theologians for making stuff up. But as far as IQ goes, that's not the problem. My IQ is just fine.

[james03]

Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud.  You can't win, and you eventually figure out that the pig is enjoying it.

Daniel read my book.  He's probably gotten advice threads at least 20 times now.  He knows exactly what he needs to do.  Instead, he chooses to look for ways so that he can bleat out: "It's not my fault!".  That's all there is to it.  Don't continue to participate in his fantasy, you only make matters worse.

Because what choice do I have?

[christulsa]

Daniel, do you own a car?  If not you can take the bus, correct?  Even within your particular moral compass, even if only 5% of jobs are morally acceptable to your conscience, then after a few hours searching unskilled labor jobs on Craigslist in your local area, you would agree you can find an appropriate job for you to apply for, to work at for a while as you send out resumes for teaching positions?  Correct?  That is if we are incorrect that you are really just being lazy and sponging off your parents indefinitely.  We could name 101 different lowly jobs out there, that they train you on the job how to do, but would you also reject those as morally beneath you?

How about?

1. Painting houses.

2. Landscaping.

3. Installing gutters.

4. Roofing.

5. General construction.

6. Detailing cars.

7. Pouring concrete.

8. Janitor.

9. Tree trimming.

10. Borrow a car and be an Uber/Grubhub/Doordash contract driver.  Etc etc etc

Most of these are just local self-employed small companies working crews, not large corporations.   If you worked 60 hours a week, $15/hour, for 2 years straight doing honest lowly work, guess what?  You'd have made $93,600.  Work just 40 hours/week, that comes out to $62,400.  That would pay off your loan IF you sincerely are telling us you think you should pursue religious life in 2 yrs.  If you keep making the same excuses, we here at SD will see right through it.

If you don't own up, and stop these kind of threads, then I second Graham's motion.

[Daniel]

Chris - It all sounds all right on paper, but it's not very realistic.

Ok, I've decided. I'll go with Graham's second option halfheartedly as I continue looking for a suitable job. (Though I never actually planned on sitting around for two years doing nothing anyway.)

Now if nobody else has any comments with regard to job interviews, I guess I'm out.

[christulsa]

Chris - It all sounds all right on paper, but it's not very realistic.

Ok, I've decided. I'll go with Graham's second option halfheartedly as I continue looking for a suitable job. (Though I never actually planned on sitting around for two years doing nothing anyway.)

Now if nobody else has any comments with regard to job interviews, I guess I'm out.

“Half-heartedly” working on a new skill while looking for a suitable job.  Duly noted. 

Then I’m telling you this is your last thread Daniel cluttering the forum  asking for advise about your life, vocation, work questions, but batting down nearly every person trying to guide you.  The last one. Do you understand?   

Or else we’re going to respond accordingly each time, including reporting you to the moderator.  You are 30 yo, unemployed for almost all of your adult life, who refuses to work, sponging off your parents, constantly asking day after day for YEARS on SD for help here but mainly just arguing with everyone who tried to help making endless excuses.  Including in this thread. 

Raking leaves, flipping burgers, painting houses is just not “practical” for you.  You are dishonest.  But you want us to have Masses said for you.  Get real. Instead, you have a Mass said for yourself. And get up tomorrow and take responsibility for your own life for once.  I’m praying for your conversion to a Christian moral life.

You have insulted every other hard working, tax paying member of society on this forum with your diabolical scruples and pride.  You owe this forum an apology before you post again.

[andy]

No I don't. I don't pretend to be a moral theologian. All I'm doing is calling out the moral theologians for making stuff up. But as far as IQ goes, that's not the problem. My IQ is just fine.

After reading some recents posts of you, it seems to me that it is you who are making stuff up. Like a high IQ imposters often do. This is a sin of subjectivism. I cannot escape an impression that you have a lot of in common with Luther. Check out this talk of Fr. Hesse

. Luther ultimately succumbed to his pride, scruples and vices. Hopefully you will break away from that addiction.

[Kaesekopf]

Plus I don't really like the idea of learning a trade only to abandon it in two years when I become a religious or enter the seminary.

Literally no seminary or religious house should accept you. 

If, somehow, you lie your butt off and manage to swindle them into accepting you, there is a 0.0% chance you make it past the first year, much less all the way through formation.

I'm sorry if that's hurtful, but you have zero reasoning to pursue that vocation or state of life.