Skip to main content

If It Makes You Happy

Actually, there's nothing wrong with the statement, "If it makes you happy, do it." My only quibble is with your definition of happiness, as a great man would say. There might be tons of things that give me pleasure of a sort, but they are not my blessedness or yours. When we're talking about happiness or blessedness, we are talking about our best and fullest selves, the most integrated with ourselves, others, and God as we can be.

There is a social dimension to everything, good and bad. That's why "public policy" is a real thing, not just a tag after someone's name. You hear people say, "You can't legislate morality." Bovine feces. We do it all the time. The only questions are, "Whose morality, and to what end?" Merits or demerits aside, the unstated minor premise of say, libertarian arguments against drug laws seems to be, "There is no social dimension to the use of drugs." Or, I suppose you could say, "The social dimension of drug use is not large enough to merit the government's attention and coercive power."

I digress. I'm beginning to learn what it means to "offer it up." The things we feel and the things we hope for are real things. It is no minor thing to bear the weight of a lost friendship, for example. The mystery of life is to take those real things in their energy and vitality--denying nothing of their power and meaning--and saying, "O God, these are yours." Not merely that they may be endured, but that they may be turned to God's will.

I could barely make it through the fourth mystery today, so powerful was the weight of what I carried. My mouth was stopped, and the tears began to well up. I cried one tear, perhaps the most meaningful I have ever cried. And I pressed on, adding a prayer of blessing for my friends.

It's starting to get crazy. I told God, "Whatever makes You happy," and I think I meant it. Quick! Someone bring me a drink and a Bible! [Why?--ed.] I don't know. I thought maybe there'd be an answer there.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...