I think he’s on to something. Joyce Meyer (not a Catholic) but pretty sane also says we can’t let other people’s bad choices make our lives miserable. Jesus told us not to let our hearts be troubled. It’s all related. Living in fear is not the sane way to live. The devil wants us to live in fear. If we live in fear, we’re miserable. If we’re miserable, we spread misery.
I agree with this, but…
…IMO this is easier said than done. It sort of implies that it is like flipping a light switch when in reality it is more like telling a heavy-set person to lose 100 pounds or a lifelong smoker to stop smoking cold-turkey.
I’ve listened to Dennis for years, going back to his Religion on the Line radio program in LA. Each Sunday night he would have 3 guests, a Catholic priest, Protestant minister, and a Rabbi. He would propose a topic for conversation get the various perspectives and listeners could call in. Very interesting show. I would be very surprised to learn that Dennis is a literal 6 day creationist. I’m sure you’re aware that Catholics haven’t always been against the death penalty. The current position is that given the vast resources of the modern state to incarcerate murderers and prevent them from killing again, the death penalty really isn’t necessary. Not inflicting it also allows a person extra time that might be needed to repent before God’s inevitable judgement. Even today though, there might still be hypothetical primitive societies with limited resources where Dennis’ position does not violate Catholic morality.
This topic has nothing to do with Dennis’ faith. I think he is correct, that happiness is a moral obligation. In other words, I believe even when we do not feel happy (which is frequent in this life, right?), then we still have the obligation to act happy to all people around us. It is immoral, imo, to bring people down just because we feel unhappy, which means even when we are not happy we should still present a happy demeanor to those around us (for their sake, and for ours).
Happiness is not a moral obligation but something we naturally strive for. If I were you I would listen to the following presentation by Prof. Peter Kreeft:
This is not about times when being upset or even angry with someone is a just reaction. Jesus obviously had a just reaction to the money changers.
I disagree. I believe that happiness is a moral obligation because we do NOT have the right to put our unhappiness on someone else. As I stated above, there are, of course, exceptions to this with extreme situations making it impossible for people to act happy. The point of this thread is not about the extreme situations in our life, the point is that in a general sense we should always act happy even if we are not…and we should strive to be actually happy. This is especially true for Catholics, who have the blessings of all Christ gave the world and we have the blessing of having great hope of one day being with Jesus and others in Heaven.
Blessed Mother is a wonderful example. Despite her personal torments, she presented an incredibly joyful demeanor to the world. Most people were truly shocked when they learned of her personal torments because she hid them from us so very well. She expressed joy because she knew who she had joy in–Jesus Christ. This is precisely my point…we should act happy even when we are not at all happy.
Then you don’t really disagree with what Christiano wrote. Your observation could be restated as saying that we have a moral obligation not to unduly burden others with a bad mood that is of our own choosing. That is consistent with saying that happiness is something we strive for. If we were to deliberately turn aside from happiness, then we would not be striving for it. If are unhappy despite our efforts to strive for it, that in itself is no moral fault of ours.
My point is both from a Catholic pov, and just from a practical living pov. In my view we should act happy even when we are not. It is easy to put on a happy face to others when we actually are happy–much more difficult when we are sad. It makes for a much better life for everyone if we all act happy even in the face of trials and sadness.
I still do not understand how it can be a moral obligation. Happiness is not a behavior. It is a state and we have a predisposition toward it. Moral obligations are just dictated by natural law and natural law dictates proper behaviors not states. Pursuit of happiness is the fundamental right of a natural drive. Are you saying that the pursuit of happiness is an obligation like feeding yourself to stay alive? If you are saying that then I agree with you. But a doing something morally right goes beyond that and it is based on three elements 1- doing something right, 2- doing it with the proper intent, 3- doing it under the proper circumstances. Morality is a tool that drives toward happiness. I am talking of happiness as in Eudaimonia.
There is a lot of truth to what you say. But even that principle has its limitations. Especially with those that are very close to us, who love us and want to help share our burdens, for these people we have a debt of truth to share concerns. A husband who refuses to let his wife know that he is worried about the family finances is not doing much good for the marital relationship by putting on an Academy Award winning performance of the “happy husband”. This particular act is a strong temptation for men who have a certain idea about what constitutes a “real man” who takes care of all his family’s problems. On the other hand, a man who complains to his wife about every ache and pain he feels is not doing right by happiness either.