D
What is the good homosexual life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?
- Status
D
djeter
Guest
Well, I guess I walked into that Hallmark Card response but if I could pursue it a little further: so you wouldn’t feel any qualms about your son being gay? Does the phrase “happy, healthy, young and gay” pass by your ears without any cognitive dissonance at all? If your son had announced that he was into some other high risk category of living, would you still be so unquestioningly compliant? Or do you not see any risk to being gay?
I notice you passed over my question about abandoning those who struggle with same-sex attraction. So I will repeat it again: isn’t it unfair to those who do struggle to proclaim that homosexuality is a neutral moral value, of no great consequence, that homosexual acts (sodomy) are part of the natural course of human relations? Do you think men would be right to demand anal sex from their wives as part of your new moral initiative here?
I find it hard to believe that you have thought all this out. The Homosexualist lobby and their Hollywood image makers create some powerful images that make those of us who insist on a moral view of human affairs look like the second coming of Bull O’Connor (The legendary Birmingham Police Chief who turned firehouses and dogs on civil rights protestors).
The whole civil rights pose of discrimination is dead wrong BTW. When Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain approached the lunch counter of the Elm Street Woolworth’s in Greensboro, N.C. on Feb. 1, 1960, all they were looking for was something to eat. The four North Carolina Agricultural & Technical College students only wanted what any white customer might want, and on precisely the same terms — the same food at the same counter at the same price.
Those first four sit-in strikers, like the thousands of others who would emulate them at lunch counters across the South, weren’t demanding that Woolworth’s prepare or serve their food in ways it had never been prepared or served before. They weren’t trying to do something that had never been lawful in any state of the union. They weren’t bent on forcing a revolutionary change upon a timeless social institution.
All they were seeking was what should already have been theirs under the law of the land. The 14th Amendment — approved by Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1868 — had declared that blacks no less than whites were entitled to equal protection of the law. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 — passed by a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and signed into law by President Grant — had barred discrimination in public accommodations.
But the Supreme Court had gutted those protections with shameful decisions in 1883 and 1896. The court’s betrayal of black Americans was the reason why, more than six decades later, segregation still polluted so much of the nation. To restore the 14th Amendment to its original purpose, to re-create the Civil Rights Act, to return to black citizens the equality that had been stolen from them — that was the great cause of civil rights.
The marriage radicals, on the other hand, seek to restore nothing. They have not been deprived of the law’s equal protection, nor of the right to marry — only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically — by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights.
But dare to speak against it, and you are no better than Bull Connor. I see that this issue has helped to erode your faith and I grieve for you. It’s awfully hard to stand up for something that others have made morally repugnant. You really have to know what you are arguing for. Isn’t there anything in your religious upbringing that would cause you to feel concern – particularly about your son? I don’t mean condemning him, I mean seeking to make him understand that he is compromising his faith and his moral upbringing.
Thanks for your participation here.
dj
M
manualman
Guest
An earlier poster made a good distinction about legal versus religious conception of marriage. The problem with that approach is that humans don’t DO dualism very well. Marriage is marriage is far as the culture at large is concerned.
The question perhaps he was getting at is “Why does government bother with acknowledging marriage in the first place? Why has society chosen to establish benefits for those who are married?”
I think the answer is that marriage between a man and woman is inherently ordered towards producing a family, which has immense benefits to society at large. That’s too understated in fact. The raising of healthy children is crucial to the very survival of society. The culture at large recognized that benefit and chose to reward and reinforce marriage.
So the question asked in regards to homosexuals is “Are these relationships inherently ordered towards producing healthy and stable families?”
If no, then we should not confer the societal advantages of legal marriage upon them since they do not generally produce the results society needs to continue in a healthy manner.
If yes, then we SHOULD allow legal marriage on them so that society continues to reap the benefits of the outcome.
This has nothing to do with fairness or rights or equality. It is merely a cultural decision about reinforcing healthiness and cohesion against dissolution and chaos. The (legal) decision should be made on that basis.
In my opinion, there is nothing in biology or sociology to suggest that homosexual relationships are inherently ordered towards the stability and constructiveness the way that heterosexual marriages are. The relationship is by its nature physically sterile and plain old observations suggest that homosexuals have a MUCH higher inclination towards promiscuity and more difficulty finding fulfillment in lifelong faithful monogamy. I do not believe that reality will bear out the assertions made by activists that homosexual unions will result in the same sorts of societal benefits heterosexual marriage has. Both groups may have their outliers, but the center of mass is in very different places. I think the inherent physical sterility of the homosexual sex act is merely a physical manifestation of a deeper deficiency in same sex sexual relationships.
In fact, it appears that the same inherent deficiency in the concept of ‘gay marriage’ is increasingly present (not inherently, but due to changing cultural values) in the heterosexual community. This will REALLY rile up the dissenter catholics, but the fact of the matter is that when hetersexual partners approach their marriage with the same underlying attitude of sterility that is (automatically) part of the homosexual view of sex, the sexual relationship itself loses the inherent inclination towards permanance and stability it would otherwise enjoy. This concept is viewable in the real world in the VAST difference between high divorce rates of contraceptive couples and the miniscule divorce rates of couple who reject the use of contraception (either through NFP, total openness).
The question perhaps he was getting at is “Why does government bother with acknowledging marriage in the first place? Why has society chosen to establish benefits for those who are married?”
I think the answer is that marriage between a man and woman is inherently ordered towards producing a family, which has immense benefits to society at large. That’s too understated in fact. The raising of healthy children is crucial to the very survival of society. The culture at large recognized that benefit and chose to reward and reinforce marriage.
So the question asked in regards to homosexuals is “Are these relationships inherently ordered towards producing healthy and stable families?”
If no, then we should not confer the societal advantages of legal marriage upon them since they do not generally produce the results society needs to continue in a healthy manner.
If yes, then we SHOULD allow legal marriage on them so that society continues to reap the benefits of the outcome.
This has nothing to do with fairness or rights or equality. It is merely a cultural decision about reinforcing healthiness and cohesion against dissolution and chaos. The (legal) decision should be made on that basis.
In my opinion, there is nothing in biology or sociology to suggest that homosexual relationships are inherently ordered towards the stability and constructiveness the way that heterosexual marriages are. The relationship is by its nature physically sterile and plain old observations suggest that homosexuals have a MUCH higher inclination towards promiscuity and more difficulty finding fulfillment in lifelong faithful monogamy. I do not believe that reality will bear out the assertions made by activists that homosexual unions will result in the same sorts of societal benefits heterosexual marriage has. Both groups may have their outliers, but the center of mass is in very different places. I think the inherent physical sterility of the homosexual sex act is merely a physical manifestation of a deeper deficiency in same sex sexual relationships.
In fact, it appears that the same inherent deficiency in the concept of ‘gay marriage’ is increasingly present (not inherently, but due to changing cultural values) in the heterosexual community. This will REALLY rile up the dissenter catholics, but the fact of the matter is that when hetersexual partners approach their marriage with the same underlying attitude of sterility that is (automatically) part of the homosexual view of sex, the sexual relationship itself loses the inherent inclination towards permanance and stability it would otherwise enjoy. This concept is viewable in the real world in the VAST difference between high divorce rates of contraceptive couples and the miniscule divorce rates of couple who reject the use of contraception (either through NFP, total openness).
R
rossum
Guest
If you look at the top right of my posts you will see that I am Buddhist. Genesis carries no weight with me as scripture.
AIUI the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are “created in the image of God” and hence all homosexuals are automatically “created in the image of God”. Am I incorrect?
One thing I asked in my post was actual evidence of harm from legal same-sex marriage. Opinions do not cut it with me when you are trying to restrict what other people can do. Muslims, Jews and vegetarians are perfectly free not to eat pork if they do not wish to. They are not free to prevent other people eating pork because there is no particular harm in eating pork. What evidence of harm do you have?
Ideas often lead to actions and actions have consequences. Buddhists call it karma.
rossum
E
Earnest_Bunbury
Guest
It seems to me that in the hierarchy of truth that leads to the source of that truth, God, marriage is religious and then recognized by the state as being good for society and is then given a series of benefits that is proper for the state to bestow. The harm is in changing marriage from the bottom up, from the state dictating to religion (God’s revelation), and not the correct way of the state recognizing where the true power of the state comes from, God. One clear harm in redefining marriage is that now polygamy, polyandry, marrying animals, objects, etc. can, under “equal protection”, be made legal. It is one thing to recognize the true good and it is another to try all manners of falsehood to arrive at the truth. The state can bestow that which is proper to itself to whomever it wishes, tax breaks, civil recognition, etc., but to usurp God’s Natural and Eternal Law requires all true Christians to fight for what is true and right. This doesn’t seem dualistic to me but hierarchical.
That which is not true or not part of that truth is false. Gay unions are not marriage. We did not need to experiment with Nazism or Communism to see that it was wrong and many spoke out against these falsehoods prior to their implementation. Marriage is far from a simple religious custom but is fundamental to who man is by nature as made by God and is a source of grace for man from God. It may be seen as just our opinion to some but it is because we have a relationship with the Living Source of that Truth Who is God that we speak out.
Atheists call it chance and luck and some call it cause and effect. We Christians call it God’s Will and providence. It is not just an idea or ideal we speak of but a living source of life seen in His Creation and known through His Spirit. Other than Earl Hickey, does one pray to or have a personal relationship with karma? It is this relationship that we try, often poorly, to show as being a true and better way.
B
BobObob
Guest
All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God.
Being made in the image and likeness of God means that we are made with an immortal, rational soul.
P
PassingThru
Guest
As a totally separate question: You signature at the end is intentionally ironic, right? Or, maybe I should say sarcastic. I got a chuckle, but then I thought maybe it was actually serious… ?
B
BobObob
Guest
People misinterpret my signature all the time. It seems you have as well.
Don’t worry about my signature, it’s off topic.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Maybe the question ought to be “What is the good Christian life”?
As Catholics, we all need to seek daily ever great holiness, even if we’re married and our feelings conform to opposite sex attraction…your husband…your wife.
As a married man…all my desires need to be focused on giving my wife what is truly good for her. I am second.
I shouldn’t be converting earlier in the day lusts of other women into lust for my wife.
I think Holiness if pursued will overflow in us…and people who claim or report same sex attractions will eventually notice…maybe not this week, month, year…but eventually God’s desired order that He designed for us.
I think there are many homosexuals who have somewhere along the line…in search of “happiness” have reinforced feelings along homosexual lines.
I also think some of this…a good part of this is the FAILURE of heterosexual Christians/Catholics from living holy lives. A holy life should be “naturally eye catching”, if that makes sense.
We shouldn’t brow beat homosexuals…we need to stand firm in our faith, focus on holiness, and offer through our holy lives a compelling proposal for how to pursue God through the natural order He’s created for us.
My own lack of holiness at times could have added to the “scale” in the mind of some person who was trying to figure out life and their identity. Our identity is given in Baptism. We become adopted sons and daughters of God.
These are just my musings, a proposal if you will, not trying to expound on Church doctrine.
As Catholics, we all need to seek daily ever great holiness, even if we’re married and our feelings conform to opposite sex attraction…your husband…your wife.
As a married man…all my desires need to be focused on giving my wife what is truly good for her. I am second.
I shouldn’t be converting earlier in the day lusts of other women into lust for my wife.
I think Holiness if pursued will overflow in us…and people who claim or report same sex attractions will eventually notice…maybe not this week, month, year…but eventually God’s desired order that He designed for us.
I think there are many homosexuals who have somewhere along the line…in search of “happiness” have reinforced feelings along homosexual lines.
I also think some of this…a good part of this is the FAILURE of heterosexual Christians/Catholics from living holy lives. A holy life should be “naturally eye catching”, if that makes sense.
We shouldn’t brow beat homosexuals…we need to stand firm in our faith, focus on holiness, and offer through our holy lives a compelling proposal for how to pursue God through the natural order He’s created for us.
My own lack of holiness at times could have added to the “scale” in the mind of some person who was trying to figure out life and their identity. Our identity is given in Baptism. We become adopted sons and daughters of God.
These are just my musings, a proposal if you will, not trying to expound on Church doctrine.
K
Kevin42
Guest
While I realize this will not be taken very well by many here, my answer to the question that the thread title gives is that I will be fulfilled and happy if I can:
-Continue to love and support my partner through all the happiness, sadness, and adventures that life has to bring and to cherish and be thankful for the time I have had with him thus far.
-Love my family and friends.
-Continue my pursuit of truth and knowledge.
-Become a successful lawyer that will have a positive impact on the world.
-And perhaps adopt children.
While I am aware that this is not all in line with Catholic doctorine, these are the things that would give this gay man peace on his deathbed.
-Continue to love and support my partner through all the happiness, sadness, and adventures that life has to bring and to cherish and be thankful for the time I have had with him thus far.
-Love my family and friends.
-Continue my pursuit of truth and knowledge.
-Become a successful lawyer that will have a positive impact on the world.
-And perhaps adopt children.
While I am aware that this is not all in line with Catholic doctorine, these are the things that would give this gay man peace on his deathbed.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Kevin,
You might want to re-consider what you mean and understand by the words “fulfilled and happy”.
These terms have lost, perhaps diabolically, their meaning and significance since probably the emergence of some forms of psychology in the 20th century.
“Back in the day”…(Aristotle’s time), Happiness was defined as a whole life well lived. One was never really happy at any point in life. They may have had contentment, but true happiness wasn’t achievable until one had finished well…morally well…their life.
We’ve obviously cheapened and muddied the terms…adding in ‘fulfillment’ to replace Kenosis (voluntary self-emptying…that is true love, self donation).
Real happiness and holiness are the same thing…they have a supernatural end…the pleasing of God.
We will be “holy” and “happy” when we seek first to please God, and if this involves obedience to his will, his design, then that’s what’s required.
Frankly, your objectives listed here don’t appear supernatural…they’re rather low shooting and secular, almost like they were pulled from a QG or Reader Digest magazine table of contents.
We are truly happy when we self-empty, willingly. Kenosis.
You might want to re-consider what you mean and understand by the words “fulfilled and happy”.
These terms have lost, perhaps diabolically, their meaning and significance since probably the emergence of some forms of psychology in the 20th century.
“Back in the day”…(Aristotle’s time), Happiness was defined as a whole life well lived. One was never really happy at any point in life. They may have had contentment, but true happiness wasn’t achievable until one had finished well…morally well…their life.
We’ve obviously cheapened and muddied the terms…adding in ‘fulfillment’ to replace Kenosis (voluntary self-emptying…that is true love, self donation).
Real happiness and holiness are the same thing…they have a supernatural end…the pleasing of God.
We will be “holy” and “happy” when we seek first to please God, and if this involves obedience to his will, his design, then that’s what’s required.
Frankly, your objectives listed here don’t appear supernatural…they’re rather low shooting and secular, almost like they were pulled from a QG or Reader Digest magazine table of contents.
We are truly happy when we self-empty, willingly. Kenosis.
K
Kevin42
Guest
Edward,
I will take what you have said into consideration, but do keep in mind that I closed my list by saying “these things would bring me peace on my deathbed.” I think that true happiness comes from a peace in one’s soul that you can only find if you are satisfied that you have lived a life of honor, honesty, and love.
Some of my list is rather worldly, namely being a successful lawyer. However, I do not see anything “low” about aiming to love people as best you can or to pursue truth and knowledge. God after all is all truth, so if I pursue truth, then I pursue God. While you may not necessarily agree with where I currently am, I would hope that you could at least find the pursuit of love and truth by a sincere man a respectable action.
Peace.
I will take what you have said into consideration, but do keep in mind that I closed my list by saying “these things would bring me peace on my deathbed.” I think that true happiness comes from a peace in one’s soul that you can only find if you are satisfied that you have lived a life of honor, honesty, and love.
Some of my list is rather worldly, namely being a successful lawyer. However, I do not see anything “low” about aiming to love people as best you can or to pursue truth and knowledge. God after all is all truth, so if I pursue truth, then I pursue God. While you may not necessarily agree with where I currently am, I would hope that you could at least find the pursuit of love and truth by a sincere man a respectable action.
Peace
.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Peace and true joy to you Kevin, too. Foremost.
Again, I was only proposing a stronger emphasis on a supernatural end point to all our actions and decisions, including our work.
At that critical supernatural moment in our life, our satisfaction that we “…have lived a life of honor, honesty, and love” matters about as much as a gnat’s satisfaction with his life. It’s God who gets to make the call; of course, you know this.
Now, being a successful lawyer from a Catholic point of view would involve converting all your legal research, all your face to face contacts, all your writing, all your thinking, your negotiations, and all your business dealings - into real prayers. Conversation with God in and through your work time. Your whole life then remains integrated and unified and powered by Christ.
Offering your work well done for God becomes a supernatural way of living and working. Being such a good lawyer, with such professionalism, virtue, human perfection, and obvious and widely known integrity that it would attract people’s attention, not to you, but to the Love of God in you. Your vocation becomes a supernatural vocation. It draws people to Christ.
And this is possible only if your intention is made pure and straight each day. All work and honor to Him. Our whole life needs to be unified around the goal of sanctifying all we do and how we live. This is huge.
That then gives what might otherwise slowly become a more temporal and secular goal, a strong, unifying, supernatural purpose. All your life needs to be similarly supernaturally pointed and aligned with the loving will of your Father God.
Peace.
Again, I was only proposing a stronger emphasis on a supernatural end point to all our actions and decisions, including our work.
At that critical supernatural moment in our life, our satisfaction that we “…have lived a life of honor, honesty, and love” matters about as much as a gnat’s satisfaction with his life. It’s God who gets to make the call; of course, you know this.
Now, being a successful lawyer from a Catholic point of view would involve converting all your legal research, all your face to face contacts, all your writing, all your thinking, your negotiations, and all your business dealings - into real prayers. Conversation with God in and through your work time. Your whole life then remains integrated and unified and powered by Christ.
Offering your work well done for God becomes a supernatural way of living and working. Being such a good lawyer, with such professionalism, virtue, human perfection, and obvious and widely known integrity that it would attract people’s attention, not to you, but to the Love of God in you. Your vocation becomes a supernatural vocation. It draws people to Christ.
And this is possible only if your intention is made pure and straight each day. All work and honor to Him. Our whole life needs to be unified around the goal of sanctifying all we do and how we live. This is huge.
That then gives what might otherwise slowly become a more temporal and secular goal, a strong, unifying, supernatural purpose. All your life needs to be similarly supernaturally pointed and aligned with the loving will of your Father God.
Peace.
D
djeter
Guest
I wasn’t being precise. Yes, men and women are created in the image of God. Same-sex attraction is not a sin, neither is being a homosexual. Engaging or performing homosexual acts, however is sin which separates us from God.
If you go back to my post you will see I have used the “Heather Has Two Daddies” popularization of homosexuality and inquired whether that doesn’t cause some slippery slope that down the road will bite us all.
I missed your Buddhist affiliation, so I understand the Genesis belief is inconsequential to you but not to our society as a whole, which is founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Counter to that is a secularistic modernity that assaults the values of those who lead lives of faith.
Thanks for the post.
dj
D
djeter
Guest
If you read the original Michael Sandel quotes you will see that he puts the full argument out there. To whit there are three courses govt can take:
*]Recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.
*]Recognize same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.
*]Don’t recognize marriage of any kind, but leave this role to private associations.
"Policy 3 is purely hypothetical, at least in the United States; no state has thus far renounced the recognition of marriage as a government function. But this policy is nonetheless worth examining, as it sheds light on the arguments for and against same-sex marriage.
Policy 3 is the ideal libertarian solution to the marriage debate. It does not abolish marriage, but it does abolish marriage as a state-sanctioned institution. It might best be described as the disestablishment of marriage. Just as dis-establishing religion means getting rid of an official state church (while allowing churches to exist independent of the state), dis-establishing marriage would mean getting rid of marriage as an official state function.
The opinion writer Michael Kinsley defends this policy as a way out of what he sees as a hopelessly irresolvable conflict over marriage. Proponents of gay marriage complain that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is a kind of discrimination. Opponents claim that if the state sanctions gay marriage, it goes beyond tolerating homosexuality to endorsing it and giving it “a government stamp of approval. “The solution, Kinsley writes, is “to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage,” to “privatize marriage.” Let people get married any way they please, without state sanction or interference.
Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. . . . Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want.
And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants — to marry him or herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let ‘em.
“If marriage were an entirely private affair,” Kinsley reasons, “all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage.” Kinsley suggests that domestic partnership laws could deal with the financial, insurance, child support, and inheritance issues that arise when people co-habit and raise children together. He proposes, in effect, to replace all state-sanctioned marriages, gay and straight, with civil unions.
From the standpoint of liberal neutrality, Kinsley’s proposal has a clear advantage over the two standard alternatives (policies 1 and 2): It does not require judges or citizens to engage in the moral and religious controversy over the purpose of marriage and the morality of homosexuality. Since the state would no longer confer on any family units the honorific title of marriage, citizens would be able to avoid engaging in debate about the telos of marriage, and whether gays and lesbians can fulfill it.
Relatively few people on either side of the same-sex marriage debate have embraced the disestablishment proposal."
What it does reveal is that the argument is not about solving the problem (which 3 does very well) but about what the purpose of govt. involvement in marriage ultimately is. The real issue in the gay marriage debate is whether same-sex unions are worthy of honor and recognition by the community — whether they fulfill the purpose of the social institution of marriage. In Aristotle’s terms, the issue is the just distribution of offices and honors. It’s a matter of social recognition.
"The debate over same-sex marriage is fundamentally a debate about whether gay and lesbian unions are worthy of the honor and recognition that, in our society, state-sanctioned marriage confers. So the underlying moral question is unavoidable.”
To answer that question is to answer the question of the forum here: What is the good homosexual life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?
dj
D
djeter
Guest
Would you say that the following supports your world view correctly?While I realize this will not be taken very well by many here, my answer to the question that the thread title gives is that I will be fulfilled and happy if I can:
-Continue to love and support my partner through all the happiness, sadness, and adventures that life has to bring and to cherish and be thankful for the time I have had with him thus far.
-Love my family and friends.
-Continue my pursuit of truth and knowledge.
-Become a successful lawyer that will have a positive impact on the world.
-And perhaps adopt children.
While I am aware that this is not all in line with Catholic doctorine, these are the things that would give this gay man peace on his deathbed.
“Those who argue that homosexual inclinations are “natural” utilize an understanding of nature that refers to that which is innate and unchosen within a person. “I did not choose to be the way I am.” “I discovered my homosexuality within me.” Moreover, a certain normative quality is attributed to this nature such that it can and should dictate my actions. Nature as such is good, or at least neutral in respect to ethics, so the modern mentality holds that whatever I am naturally disposed to do I should do as long as it does not involve violating the rights of others."
In short “we live in an age whose chief moral value has been determined, by overwhelming consensus, to be the absolute liberty of personal volition, the power of each of us to choose what he or she believes, wants, needs, or must possess; our culturally most persuasive models of human freedom are unambiguously voluntarist and, in a rather debased and degraded way, Promethean; the will, we believe, is sovereign because un-premised, free because spontaneous, and this is the highest good. And a society that believes this must, at least implicitly, embrace and subtly advocate a very particular moral metaphysics: the unreality of any “value” higher than choice, or of any transcendent Good ordering desire towards a higher end.” That is the conclusion of one of my favorite theologians, a fellow named David B. Hart.
Is your own free will your “highest good,” Kevin? What is the “truth” that you pursue? Is your homosexual nature a “truth?” Does your love for your partner become part of this truth? Or is it something that can’t be generalized as either heterosexual or homosexual?
Thanks in advance
[While I realize this will not be taken very well by many here] – your answers are most welcome here, please don’t discount them merely because we may believe something differently. Opinions change.
dj
L
larkin31
Guest
Love is nearly always good. Let it flourish.
D
djeter
Guest
A more robust reflection on happiness:Edward,
I think that true happiness comes from a peace in one’s soul that you can only find if you are satisfied that you have lived a life of honor, honesty, and love.
Peace
"There is nevertheless a fundamental significance, which should never be overlooked, in the very fact that a single word, “happiness,” comprehends such a variety of meanings: the immortal richness of divine life and man’s part in it, as well as the petty satisfaction of a fleeting desire. We venture to assert that this ambiguity reflects the structure of the whole of Creation. St. Thomas puts it this way: “As created good is a reflection of the uncreated good, so the attainment of a created good is a reflected beatitude.”
Now the “attainment of a created good” is a thing that happens constantly, and in a thousand varied forms. It happens whenever a thirsty man drinks, whenever a questioner receives a flash of illumination, whenever lovers are together, whenever a task is brought to a successful conclusion and a plan bears fruit. And when men call all this “happiness,” they are close to the insight that each gratification points to the ultimate one, and that all happiness has some connection with eternal beatitude. Some connection, if only this: that every fulfillment this side of Heaven instantly reveals its inadequacy. It is immediately evident that such satisfactions are not enough; they are not what we have really sought; they cannot really satisfy us at all.
Andre Gide noted in his Journals “The terrible thing is that we can never make ourselves drunk enough.”
However the human craving for happiness may time and again be distracted by a thousand small gratifications, it remains directed unwaveringly toward one ultimate satisfaction which is in truth its aim. “Among a thousand twigs,” says Vergil in Dante’s universal poem, “one sweet fruit is sought.” The finding of this fruit, the ultimate gratification of human nature, the ultimate satiation of man’s deepest thirst, takes place in contemplation.
Josef Pieper, Happiness and Contemplation
More reading selections here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/20/book-recommendation-happiness-and-contemplation-by-josef-pieper/
dj
D
djeter
Guest
Here, here or “hear, hear” as the case may be.
And now for a definition of terms. One of my favorite short stories is by Ray Carver. It made Esquires list of 75 books every man (and woman I guess) should read.
You can find a summary here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-love/
Now in addition to that depiction of modern love, I would advance my definition of love by looking to Thomas Aquinas: "Each human act is considered right and virtuous when it conforms to the standard of divine love. But when a human act does not conform to the standard of love, then it is not right, nor good, nor perfect.
This law of divine love accomplishes in a person four things that are much to be desired. First, it is the cause of one’s spiritual life. For it is evident that by the very nature of the action what is loved is in the one who loves. Therefore whoever loves God possesses God in himself; for scripture says, Whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him. It is the nature of love to transform the lover into the object loved. And so if we love God, we ourselves become divinized; for again, Whoever is joined to God becomes one spirit with him.
Augustine adds, “As the soul is the life of the body, so God is the life of the soul.” Thus the soul acts virtuously and perfectly when she acts through charity, and through charity God lives in her; indeed, without charity she cannot act; for scripture says, Whoever does not love, remains in death. If a person possesses all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but lacks charity, that person has no life. For it matters not whether one has the grace of tongues, or the gift of faith, or any other gift such as prophecy; these do not bring life without charity. Even if a dead body should be adorned with gold and precious jewels, it nevertheless remains dead."
Elsewhere Thomas has written that love is willing the good of the other as other.
Can you accept these reflections as a good definition of love or would you care to add/detract whatever?
Thanks
dj
C
chrysostim83
Guest
“What is the good homosexual life, a life that is complete, fulfilled, and happy?” Confronted with this question, a gay activist worth his or her salt would first ask what a good heterosexual life is, and then go on to say that a good homosexual life is, mutatis mutandis, the same thing. This answer has the advantage of pushing criticism of the “homosexual lifestyle” back onto the “heterosexual lifestyle,” and the further advantage of showing how it is possible to be gay and happy. It says, in effect, that gay people can be as happy as straight people.
Unfortunately, that answer also has the disadvantage of ignoring the ethical issues surrounding unnatural sex (by which I mean complete sexual acts which, merely considered as such, are not apt for generation). If after careful consideration of such acts one comes to the belief that they are intrinsically evil, then the gay activist’s answer no longer works, and the question becomes what is the good life for homosexual men and women? If something similar to the good life for heterosexuals is not possible for these men and women, then can we reasonably expect them to be happy in this world?
As a Catholic, this is the main question I have with regard to homosexuality. The OP’s question seems easy by comparison, since if I can imagine happy heterosexuals, I can virtually by the same act imagine happy homosexuals. What I can’t do is imagine a way of life that would make the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals desperate and unhappy (celibacy) and then imagine the same kind of life making homosexuals grateful and content.
[NB: I am not doubting the moral teaching of the Church here. The problem I’m pointing out, phrased more succinctly, is this: Natural Law, being a form of participated theonomy, tells us how to perfect and maintain the human species; but no one *is the human species, so the perfection and maintenance of a give human person might be contrary to Natural Law; for such a person, any conceivable action could only lead to further misery.]
Unfortunately, that answer also has the disadvantage of ignoring the ethical issues surrounding unnatural sex (by which I mean complete sexual acts which, merely considered as such, are not apt for generation). If after careful consideration of such acts one comes to the belief that they are intrinsically evil, then the gay activist’s answer no longer works, and the question becomes what is the good life for homosexual men and women? If something similar to the good life for heterosexuals is not possible for these men and women, then can we reasonably expect them to be happy in this world?
As a Catholic, this is the main question I have with regard to homosexuality. The OP’s question seems easy by comparison, since if I can imagine happy heterosexuals, I can virtually by the same act imagine happy homosexuals. What I can’t do is imagine a way of life that would make the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals desperate and unhappy (celibacy) and then imagine the same kind of life making homosexuals grateful and content.
[NB: I am not doubting the moral teaching of the Church here. The problem I’m pointing out, phrased more succinctly, is this: Natural Law, being a form of participated theonomy, tells us how to perfect and maintain the human species; but no one *is the human species, so the perfection and maintenance of a give human person might be contrary to Natural Law; for such a person, any conceivable action could only lead to further misery.]
- Status