It’s a profound question really. Indeed, you could argue that it’s the central question of the Gospel.
Chesterton’s Innocent Smith has, of course, his own peculiar style for trying to get us to think about that vital question:
But since Innocent’s methods are of dubious utility and legality in our rather jittery culture, I think other approaches might work better in this space.
One thing that many Catholics get confused about is the reality that happiness is, in fact, the point of our lives. Many Catholics (especially those of a more grumpily reactionary bent) often tend to react to the claim that the point of the Faith is Happiness by dismissing that claim as post-Vatican II touchy feely Kumbaya Catholicism. They confuse happiness with mere pleasure and so insist that we need to forget about happiness and instead embrace self-denial. The key word upon which their misunderstanding turns is “instead.” What lies behind this is the false opposition of happiness and self-denial. For in fact, precisely the reason self-denial is commanded by our Lord is in order that we might gain our happiness. We are called lose our life in order to gain it. Christianity is, in fact, all about gaining our heavenly reward, which is happiness.
That’s not me or some Oprahfied prosperity Gospel preacher talking. That’s St. Thomas, who tells us flatly that “all men agree in desiring the last end, which is happiness.” Indeed, St. Thomas insists that we are not only made to seek happiness, but that we can’t *not* seek happiness! It’s the way we come from the factory. We are hard-wired for it. The only thing we can do is attempt to gain our happiness in rightly or wrongly ordered ways. The one who seeks his happiness in a rightly ordered way is what we call a “saint.” The one who persists in seeking his happiness in wrongly ordered ways is what we call a “sinner.” So, for instance, one attempting suicide does what he does in pursuit of happiness. The suicide ends it all in the pursuit of “peace”: that is, happiness. Even the most monstrous murderer is after something he thinks will make him happy: a thrill, vengeance, the pleasures of anger, a feeling of power. Yes, even Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin spent their lives seeking happiness—in monstrously disordered ways.
It’s easy to recognize when a monstrous sinner does some radically disordered thing. It’s less easy to see when we do something disordered because what is often present to our minds is the good thing we think will bring happiness, not the bad thing we are doing to get it. Sometimes that can be due to ignorance, but often it’s due to the fact that we have the mysterious ability to ignore our conscience and even to sear it so that we radically suppress it when it whispers, speaks, shouts and even screams at us to stop doing what we are doing. A well-formed conscience (which is to say, a conscience which has learned to listen to the Voice of the Spirit speaking through the teaching of the Church) is one of the most precious possessions a human being can have. But the purpose of that conscience will never be to tell you that you are dirt and that you don’t deserve to be happy. Rather, it’s function is to help you find the path to happiness, which is found, in the end, in the heart of God and in communion with Christ and all the saints.
Your unhappiness here on earth—your “divine discontent”—is intended to spur you on to seek your happiness in the only place it can ultimately be found:
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. (Romans 8:19-24)
So: are you happy? It’s a question you could fill an entire Lent with.
Comments
Post a Comment
I watched the trailer and all I can say is that 2009 can’t come soon enough!
You bear a nasty grudge against traditionalists whom, in this instance, you label reactionaries. Seeing as how this is Lent, why don’t you try and jettison that grudge and stop using them as your straw man.
The traditionalists I know are happy reactionaries who own the ancient Catechism of the Council of Trent which begins with happiness:
“Necessity Of Faith”
“That faith thus understood is necessary to salvation no man can reasonably doubt, particularly since it is written: Without faith it is impossible to please God. For as the end proposed to man as his ultimate happiness is far above the reach of human understanding, it was therefore necessary that it should be made known to him by God. This knowledge, however, is nothing else than faith, by which we yield our unhesitating assent to whatever the authority of our Holy Mother the Church teaches us to have been revealed by God; for the faithful cannot doubt those things of which God, who is truth itself, is the author. Hence we see the great difference that exists between this faith which we give to God and that which we yield to the writers of human history.”
The plain and simple truth is that there has been a universal collapse of Catechesis - including the reality we were made for happiness - and that is not the fault of one traditionalist.
I’m happy you know nice traditionalists. So do I. I also know reactionaries who confuse bitterness with self-denial and generally react with anger and contempt to almost any expression of joy about the faith by labeling it Kumbaya Catholicism. How you conclude that I am ascribing the collapse of catechesis to traditionalists, I haven’t the foggiest idea.
“Seek therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” Whether “these things” include what people suppose to be happiness is not something worth troubling about overly much. “[E]ye has not seen, nor ear heard: neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for them that love him.” Happiness may be a “last end,” but putting first things first, let us love God and serve Him. Cf. “I do not promise to make you happy in this life, but in the next.”
I read Tim’s comment with some amusement. On the one hand, I tend to agree with Tim. I love you, Mark, but on the surface you do seem to have some form of “irrational animus” against traditionalists. On the other hand, Tim, doesn’t your comment sort of demonstrate Mark’s point? Maybe we all just need to calm down a little bit and assume good will on the part of fellow Catholics. Now that would be a good practice for this Lent!
Carl:
I think you are confusing Tim with Vermont Crank. I have no animus against traditionalists per se. However, traditionalists tend to have a thin skin when it comes to people noting some of the extremely obvious and common features of the traditionalist subculture. The post above also skewers Oprahfied New Age Prosperity gospelism, but nobody comments on that or declares me afflicted with an “irrational animus” against such goings on. That’s because few readers here have a hypersensitivity about that particular species of Christian culture. But because some people here *do* have a hypersensitivity about their particular subgroup of traditionalists, they tend to hyperfocus on any comment I make which mentions that subculture, ignore everything else I say, and declare that I am “always” criticizing their subculture. It’s an “eye of the beholder” thing.
Dear Mr. Shea. In objecting to my post you take the occasion to take anther shot at traditionalists. And then you take another shot in your response to Mr. Sommer.
And from your repeated use of that tactic I am to conclude you bear no animus or grudge against traditionalists?
Your comment about others with thin skin is an example of your projection. One of these days you might more carefully consider what it is that is being written about your patterns of communication instead of responding to legitimate objections by describing as thin skinned those who object to your long-established patterns
Finally, I did not write that you concluded the universal collapse of catechesis is attributable to traditionalists.
In with that, I have no more to write. This pattern of yours has been brought to your attention many times in the past and it is clear that you can not extinguish it. C’et la vie.
I will conclude that I am the one with the problem.
Well, I haven’t read anything here that changes my mind. I think everyone, and I mean everyone, needs to take a deep breath and think about what we are doing. Let’s all read John 17:20-24 and reflect on how far short of that ideal we fall. Then, let’s all go to Confession!
As for me, I admire and respect Mr. Shea for all the good he has done for the Church, but he, too, can be wrong. (In fairness he has never suggested otherwise.) I also respect and admire the passion of the traditionalists, and they have a point about catechesis, but it is also true that they can be thin skinned and tend to make their points in an unlovely fashion. But Mr. Shea and Vermont Crank are my brothers in Christ. Therefore, I must exercise forebearance. Who will deliver me from this body of death?
BTW, I apologize to Tim!
V.C:
God bless you.
Carl:
Thanks for being a mensch. I really didn’t want this post to be about traditionalists, but about happiness. Sorry to have offended. Thanks for keeping the spirit of the thing.
Can apologists please stop quoting G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis? You can form your own arguments on Catholic Faith without their help, and, quoting them doesn’t help you “connect” with your readers, young or old.
Tim:
I’m happy to report the film is done and the muckety mucks are now working on getting it distributed. I have a high degree of confidence that it will be seen sometime before I die a natural death. :)
@Carl Sommer: I tried to squeeze as much animus in my post as I could. The trailer says Manalive comes alive in 2009… AND IT’S 2011! (imdb says it’s not released yet). I will not stand for this!
@Vermont Crank: I’m sure Mark’s post applies to all Catholics, not just traditionalists. I know whenever I see crazy stories on the internets about dissenting priests/nuns/laity/catholic organizations, I tend to be more of a “reactionary”, focusing more about their violations of rules than the reasons for those rules and my own obedience to them (and I don’t consider myself a traditionalist).
Can apologists please stop quoting G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis?
I suppose I can. But I won’t. I happen to enjoy them and find them very insightful. I will be quoting them till the day I die. Endure it as your Lenten penance.
You can form your own arguments on Catholic Faith without their help,
Much of my mental outlook is influenced by them. You might as well tell me I should extirpate my father from my mind.
and, quoting them doesn’t help you “connect” with your readers, young or old.
Correction: quoting them doesn’t help me connect with you. But then, you are not the measure of all things, Nick.
@Nick: I don’t know, I always like C.S. Lewis quotes. However, Chesterton, in my opinion, doesn’t come across well on a screen, but he’s great in the old fashion book medium.
@Mark P. Shea: I look forward to it.
Sorry again, Tim. It was just a stupid misreading on my part.
@Carl Sommer: no worries.
I have to say that my first reaction to “happiness is, in fact, the point of our lives” was to take a double take and reach for my big red “Kumbaya” stamp to slam down on it.
__
At second glance though, it makes sense. I personally am used to the word “Joy” being used in this way, and “happiness” including the possibility of just living a life style of transitory pleasure. But whatever word you use, our purpose is to seek God and, as the kumbaya touchy feely people keep telling us, God is Love. (I have to admit that that phrase grates on my nerves a little, but more because it has become a battle cry of the warm and fuzzies than anything else. It certainly is true, it’s just that no one really really knows what it means, and so we tend to mis-use it at times.)
Happiness is found in the perfection of our nature in union with God. This is the Beatific Vision in heaven and is lived here by being in union with that which leads to heaven. In moral theology of a few centuries ago, obligation was the order of the day and grace was set in contradistinction to law. Vat II set to reform this. Those who see the problem today as not enough obligation imposed on the faithful wish to return to this model. The freedom of grace based on truth found in the intellect informed by God’s Divine Law makes for a people ruled by God through the Church and making a true, free, People of God. Happiness in man is union with our ultimate perfection which is God, Who moves us by grace perfecting our will, intellect, and passions based on His Law, but in freedom, not mere obligation.
“Can apologists please stop quoting G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis? You can form your own arguments on Catholic Faith without their help, and, quoting them doesn’t help you “connect” with your readers, young or old. “
Frankly both resonate with me, and they both certainly help me connect both to my faith and to my daughter, who bought be a subscription to Gilbert Magazine for my birthday, and who reads them, along with her husband, when I am done with them.
What resonates? It is the obvious joy that fairly oozes from their prose.
FB
When I read what you said about suicide, it was like a knife in my heart. My father, who suffered hugely in his childhood, was a manic-depressive, was a convert who was a very devout Catholic, who was a father of six children, was overcome by the evil of the world. He was in the Navy and ordered to do things against his (and the Church’s) beliefs. When he shot himself, it was not for “happiness” or “peace” - but rather because he was in unspeakable pain - and, no one, including his wife, his doctor, me (his oldest daughter), his Priest, or anyone else understood what he was going through - he felt totally alone - which had he been in his right mind he would have seen otherwise. He was not seeking peace or happiness but rather a release from horrendous pain. This was a spontaneous event - triggered by a very unfortunate situation. He never ever got over the hideous flashbacks from World War II - both in Europe and in the Pacific - when he was in the Navy as a sailor of 18.
SJM:
I am so sorry to hear that. My purpose in mentioning it was not to hurt, but to point out (to those who might judge the suicide) precisely that their desire for relief from their sufferings can often be a mitigating factor. May God grant your father eternal rest and peace and may Christ who suffered the cross lift the cross he bore from his shoulders. My apologies for hurting you. It was not, believe me, my intention.
Really, Mark, I think you could come up with some of your own insights and stop quoting this “Romans” fellow!
And anyone who hasn’t realized that traditionalist have earned their reputation as tending towards crankiness and paranoia is obviously a cranky, paranoid traditionalist. I say this with all love, being something of one myself, and having many dear friends who are also. Hold up a mirror and develop a sense of humor, man!
Finally, I find it exquisitely difficult to grasp onto hope while soberly looking at the reality of life, to embrace suffering in the perpetually poor way that I do, and to pursue real humility for myself and charitable love for the broken people around me. I see a lot of parallels between my spiritual journey and my on-again, off-again exercise kicks - working out hurts, is unpleasant and leaves you sore, but it’s good work, you enjoy it in a rational sort of way, and the post-workout aches are the happy pains of getting stronger.
There’s just so much more short-term buzz from cracking a mean joke and stuffing chocolate into my face. But I am happy, and sometimes I even have joy and peace - I can’t wait to lay down my weary head!
Sorry, I can’t agree with you this time, Mate. The end of life is love, not happiness.
Not exactly apropos of anything, when once asked about happiness Bob Dylan answered. “Happy? Anybody can be happy. What’s the point of that?”
My thought is that “an attitude of gratitude” is a blessing to carry forward in one’s life. If you are thankful to God for blessings, maybe that makes you feel happy. ?!?
TeaPot562
@ Jack Quirk
If by love you mean God, sure. The act of love though, His act of love, our acts of love, what is their point? Happiness isn’t an act, it is a state that results from act. Sooo, and every theologian on here can correct me, but our eternal behavior in heaven will be one of love, so to speak, while the state we will enjoy from eternally loving God for his own sake, will be a state of happiness. By loving God, and being loved, we exerience a sort of satisfaction, or contentment, that we call happiness. You can’t have happiness without the love.
To sum it up, as Mark says: “Your unhappiness here on earth—your “divine discontent”—is intended to spur you on to seek your happiness in the only place it can ultimately be found:”
You have to love to be happy, you don’t have to be happy to love. Love is not a byproduct of joy, but joy certainly is a byproduct of love. Hope that made sense.
I would agree that happiness is the secondary end. However, the glory of God is the primary end since God created all things for His glory. We desire beatituted (happiness)because the more we are perfected by His grace, the more we give Him glory. Subtle, but a big difference.
As a prodigal son that spent 15 years seeking the next high, drink…my happiness was a complete “house of cards.” As my dear mother used to say, “you are too ignorant to know you are miserable.” simple statement, simply true.
God sent a beautiful catholic girl into my life, rock bottom was hit and only a “spiritual conversion” could save me. Sober in 2005,baptized and confirmed in 2006. Now I have the responsibility of a family and joy, which is more important than fleeting happiness. Yet happiness is the purpose of life, especially if we give it to other. Thankfully, I want to be happy tonight and will not comment on the debate of the crankies that posted before me.
http://davesawakening.blogspot.com/
Dear Mr. Shea. God Bless you.
Dear opinionated. It isn’t paranoia :)
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.