Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Happiness. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
1:35 PM
There is a certain condition in human nature that is familiar to every experienced human being across the boundaries of nations or time. It is that of a relationship grown cold due to a rift--an argument or an act that causes two people once deeply engaged in one another to grow apart. This is never so evident as when it occurs in marriage, where the two are still obliged to remain together. One has no difficulty in conjuring the image of a man and woman moving laconically past one another, each in his and her own shadowy world. They do not speak; the situation has grown comfortable. Maybe they have some notion of doing something in the future to rekindle the joy they felt as they began their lives together, but that must wait for the appropriate time. They have their personal plans, and day in, day out, they move steadily and solitarily towards different goals, though to all appearances, they stay together.
In the Renaissance, thinkers posited the idea that motion itself may be dubbed 'inert' as aptly as stillness is. It logically followed that sluggishness is found in actuality as well as in potency. Not yet abandoning the link between pure reason and reality, these philosopher scientists realized that such an idea would nullify any difference between rest and motion, and so to uphold the truth that our sensory experience indeed reflects reality, many nodded as Newton posited the notions of 'absolute motion' and 'absolute place.' Those scientists, so wanting man to be the measure of all things, likely mopped their brows with relief at such a solution. Somewhere there was an eternal standard to measure individual phenomena against, thus vouchsafing˜ the credibility of man's reason.
However, the realm of human relations differs entirely. As each man is an individual endowed with sentient thought of the highest order, his personal course of action need not arise from a relation with any eternal measure. Determinists may say otherwise, but personal experience tells us that man does what he does out of free choice, and that this freedom is only lessened by the sleepy influence of inertia (for even acting on the compulsion of another implies that we choose compliance over the alternative of not complying). Whether it is true for physical objects or not, man is indeed capable of resting even as he acts, mindlessly following the course of habit.
'Heaven gives us habit instead of happiness' is the proverb stoically intoned at the beginning of Tchaikovsky's luscious opera, Onegin. As it is shown that story's prelude, the strength of habit is enough to conquer individual impulses, and in this story's case, it is for the better. The security of a repeating cycle helps one to heal after the bruises of disappointed romance.
One may say the same to be the case with the Church and the Society of Saint Pius X. The initial sunderance with Rome must have shook the earth under the bishops' feet, even as they were convinced that Canon Law ultimately justified them, even as it appeared to condemn them. The stigma branded upon them by the mainstream currents in the Church may have at first spurred them on, but after all this time, this condition has very likely become mundane.
Just as with the married couple mentioned before, there was an argument. It was an ugly argument--the sort that shatters lives and even worlds. Yet, the presence of mind in both parties allows the marriage to remain in existence, and the two decide to go seperate ways under the same roof, trusting in some misty future date for a true reconciliation. Habit reigns in place of happiness, and husband and wife are content with their domestic routines, superficial conversation, and nights of regular sleep. This life does not feed their desires. It is not a fulfillment of their vocation. It is an insult against the potential grandeur of their souls. Yet, it is also the easier thing to do. Habit is easier than happiness; routine is easier than romance. Inertia always has that upperhand over the practice of virtue.
That is why it would come as a shock to the wife, if as she prepares supper in the kitchen, or as she returns home from work herself, to suddenly come face to face with her husband and see that he is looking at her. He does not give way for her to continue what she was doing. He does not even follow his own routine. He says decisively: 'Things cannot go on as they have.' She finds now she will have to make a choice. To live with him as his wife, or not to live with him at all, because he will no longer stand for only receiving a part of her or for merely giving a part of himself.
The SSPX expected the barque of St. Peter to take a century or so to right its course, at the which time, they would seek a more visible reunion. Much like a practical wife, the Fraternity was ready to bide its time and wait for the situation to evolve. Romance however kindles revolution; it does not wait for evolution.
Yet, this sort of passion and deliberate way of thinking may end in either triumph or tragedy. The husband's confrontation with his wife could bring about a wider rift rather than a reconciliation. As Archbishop Fellay himself has said:
One must not think that things will be easy afterwards. To use the words of the Pope that describe the situation quite well: 'I know,' he said, 'that it would be easier both for the Society and for myself to leave the situation as it currently is.' This describes very well the situation, and also that the Pope himself knows that he, when he does it, will be attacked. And also that the situation will not be easy for us. That which will arise out of this situation will be with Rome or against it. Both of which will be difficult.
'Difficult'? A very diplomatic term. The enemies of this reunion want to wreck it completely. They are ready to split the Church over it. The heretics that once accused the SSPX of schism, are now entering into formal schism (to add to their heresy):
A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience...Instead of reconciling with the ultra-conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic SSPX, the Pope should rather care about the majority of reform-minded Catholics and reconcile with the churches of the Reformation and the entire ecumenical movement. Thus he would unite, and not divide. _Hans Küng (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html)
Ultimately, those engaged in a romance must be willing to ask themselves if the other is enough. If their relationship is a great enough good to place above all other goods and all other relations. The Pope has decided that justice to the Fraternity is above the politics of diplomacy and that open arms to those outside the Church is a lie if those already within Her are not also embraced in love. His Holiness has decided to put his own house in order first, whatever the cost.
And how shall it end? That depends on whether one's trust in the good God is well-founded. Those with faith already have their answer.
However, the realm of human relations differs entirely. As each man is an individual endowed with sentient thought of the highest order, his personal course of action need not arise from a relation with any eternal measure. Determinists may say otherwise, but personal experience tells us that man does what he does out of free choice, and that this freedom is only lessened by the sleepy influence of inertia (for even acting on the compulsion of another implies that we choose compliance over the alternative of not complying). Whether it is true for physical objects or not, man is indeed capable of resting even as he acts, mindlessly following the course of habit.
'Heaven gives us habit instead of happiness' is the proverb stoically intoned at the beginning of Tchaikovsky's luscious opera, Onegin. As it is shown that story's prelude, the strength of habit is enough to conquer individual impulses, and in this story's case, it is for the better. The security of a repeating cycle helps one to heal after the bruises of disappointed romance.
One may say the same to be the case with the Church and the Society of Saint Pius X. The initial sunderance with Rome must have shook the earth under the bishops' feet, even as they were convinced that Canon Law ultimately justified them, even as it appeared to condemn them. The stigma branded upon them by the mainstream currents in the Church may have at first spurred them on, but after all this time, this condition has very likely become mundane.
Just as with the married couple mentioned before, there was an argument. It was an ugly argument--the sort that shatters lives and even worlds. Yet, the presence of mind in both parties allows the marriage to remain in existence, and the two decide to go seperate ways under the same roof, trusting in some misty future date for a true reconciliation. Habit reigns in place of happiness, and husband and wife are content with their domestic routines, superficial conversation, and nights of regular sleep. This life does not feed their desires. It is not a fulfillment of their vocation. It is an insult against the potential grandeur of their souls. Yet, it is also the easier thing to do. Habit is easier than happiness; routine is easier than romance. Inertia always has that upperhand over the practice of virtue.
That is why it would come as a shock to the wife, if as she prepares supper in the kitchen, or as she returns home from work herself, to suddenly come face to face with her husband and see that he is looking at her. He does not give way for her to continue what she was doing. He does not even follow his own routine. He says decisively: 'Things cannot go on as they have.' She finds now she will have to make a choice. To live with him as his wife, or not to live with him at all, because he will no longer stand for only receiving a part of her or for merely giving a part of himself.
The SSPX expected the barque of St. Peter to take a century or so to right its course, at the which time, they would seek a more visible reunion. Much like a practical wife, the Fraternity was ready to bide its time and wait for the situation to evolve. Romance however kindles revolution; it does not wait for evolution.
Yet, this sort of passion and deliberate way of thinking may end in either triumph or tragedy. The husband's confrontation with his wife could bring about a wider rift rather than a reconciliation. As Archbishop Fellay himself has said:
One must not think that things will be easy afterwards. To use the words of the Pope that describe the situation quite well: 'I know,' he said, 'that it would be easier both for the Society and for myself to leave the situation as it currently is.' This describes very well the situation, and also that the Pope himself knows that he, when he does it, will be attacked. And also that the situation will not be easy for us. That which will arise out of this situation will be with Rome or against it. Both of which will be difficult.
(http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/rome-sspx-fellay-speaks-in-vienna-words.html)
'Difficult'? A very diplomatic term. The enemies of this reunion want to wreck it completely. They are ready to split the Church over it. The heretics that once accused the SSPX of schism, are now entering into formal schism (to add to their heresy):
A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience...Instead of reconciling with the ultra-conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic SSPX, the Pope should rather care about the majority of reform-minded Catholics and reconcile with the churches of the Reformation and the entire ecumenical movement. Thus he would unite, and not divide. _Hans Küng (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/freak-extremes-meet-hans-kung-becomes.html)
Ultimately, those engaged in a romance must be willing to ask themselves if the other is enough. If their relationship is a great enough good to place above all other goods and all other relations. The Pope has decided that justice to the Fraternity is above the politics of diplomacy and that open arms to those outside the Church is a lie if those already within Her are not also embraced in love. His Holiness has decided to put his own house in order first, whatever the cost.
And how shall it end? That depends on whether one's trust in the good God is well-founded. Those with faith already have their answer.
Labels:
Actuality,
Appeal,
Church Suffering,
Concessions,
Courage,
Desire,
Happiness,
Healing,
Love,
Passion,
Pope Benedict XVI,
Society of Pius X,
Tradition
|
0
comments
Friday, June 10, 2011
Using the more civilized Olde British metric system, I would like to share with you a little cocktail I have invented! I call it the 'Harried Catholic,' and I think it will cheer you up after reading the news (especially news about churchmen):
1 ounce Irish Cream (any brand)
1 ounce Kahlua
1 ounce Polish herbal vodka
Pour over ice, fill the glass to the brim with whole milk, and stir. Let the size of the glass be determined by how diluted you'd like it. And for the practicing Catholic, do remember that one serving is likely enough!
1 ounce Irish Cream (any brand)
1 ounce Kahlua
1 ounce Polish herbal vodka
Pour over ice, fill the glass to the brim with whole milk, and stir. Let the size of the glass be determined by how diluted you'd like it. And for the practicing Catholic, do remember that one serving is likely enough!
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Aristotle proclaimed that friendship with God was impossible, because friendship filled a need, and God by definition would have no needs. He was also the man that had asserted there were 'final ends' for everything that existed, and destinies which those things could achieve. Everything that 'is' is able to realize the purpose for which it was intended, because that is how it was made. It would seem to suggest a defect on God's part to have designed a creature that had no hope of achieving its most intense desires. Worse than a defect of judgement, it would be sadism to create a being that could thirst, but could not bring itself to water or even stand the substance when imbibed.
While the terror of eternity has subsided, it having been shown it is not an infinite line of time stretching our being ever more thinly, the soul still wonders how she will take it all in. When beautiful things give us pain, true things blind our sight, and good 
things reduce us to tears, we are all too aware of how small our capacity is for the great and noble. Like the shining Dawnstar, we love the Sun, but as He draws near to kiss us, we expire and dissolve in His light. Ourselves are too weak for Himself.
As the Angelic Doctor observes:
But man's perfect Happiness...consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now the vision of God's Essence surpasses the nature not only of man, but also of every creature...For the natural knowledge of every creature is in keeping with the mode of its substance: thus it is said of the intelligence that 'it knows things that are above it, and things that are below it, according to the mode of its substance.' But every knowledge that is according to the mode of created substance, falls short of the vision of the Divine Essence, which infinitely surpasses all created substance. Consequently neither man, nor any creature, can attain final Happiness by his natural powers. (Summa Theologiae: Prima Secundae Partis, Question V, Article v)
Perhaps then, God will only unveil some of Himself in eternity. There is a certain beatitude man is entitled to by his nature, which is the vision of God in the context of creation, i.e., seeing Him as through a mirror. It is an analogous beholding, just as all of man's knowledge is here on earth: facts drawn up by sense impressions, signs, and measurements. So we would not have a Beatific Vision in the true sense, but in a diluted sense of the idea. (Hontheim, Joseph: The Catholic Encyclopaedia; Volume VII, "Heaven")
Such a proposition is reasonable and our just deserts--assuming we have not so damaged our natures by sin that we do not merit the fellowship of man, much less that of God. However when someone is in love, and after the rigours of good judgement and virtue have had their say about the object of his love, the lover no longer concerns himself with what his beloved deserves, but things that she would like. The more stunned and overwhelmed she is, the better. To invest as much of himself in his giving as possible is his intent, not to meter out according to justice with no thought for mercy.
God, after the judgements which Holiness requires (I ought not to have the same vision as Mother Teresa), is the most generous of all lovers. After Cophetua has won the beggar maid's affection in the guise of a poor man, he will not keep her in her lowly state, but will elevate her to the status of queen. Would this contradict all the rules of his state? Yes, but he is the king, and it is also a law of his that he can make exceptions to the rules. If God can create man, He can create in man the capacity for Himself, though still proper to the mode of man's existence:
For God loveth mercy and truth: the Lord will give grace and truth. (Psalm 83:12)
Just as the human body may be brought to perfect health by medicine, so it is through His assistance that we shall obtain the enjoyment of Himself. It is true that we will not infinitely comprehend Him with our finite intellects, but we may yet possess Him in an act which eternity shall not exhaust. The is the lumen gloriae, the light that allows our intellect to look on God directly, not reflected, and receive Him to the extent our being allows.
Man's more supernatural end has been explained thus:
'Comprehension is twofold: in one sense it is taken strictly and properly...and this in no way is God comprehended either by intellect, or in any other way forasmuch as He is infinite, and cannot be included in any way by the finite being...in the degree of His own Infinity.
But in another sense 'comprehension' is taken more largely as opposed to 'non-attainment'; for he who attains to anyone is said to comprehend him when he attains to him. And in this sense God is comprehended by the blessed, according to the words, 'I held him, and I will not let him go.' (Canticles 3:4)...in this way 'comprehension' is one of the three prerogatives of the soul, responding to hope, as vision responds to faith, and fruition responds to charity. (Summa Theologiae: Prima Pars, Question XII, Article vii)
As Christians, we are told not to emulate the saints or the angels, but God Himself. We have been promised that we shall see His face. How? It is simply a mystery. And so one comes round, after the toild of frenzied, intimidated reason back to these simple words:
When He shall appear, we shall be like to Him; because we shall see Him as He is. (I John 3:2)
The Problem of Infinity: Let Us Be Made for It! by Rachel Rudd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at foolishnessntears.blogspot.com.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
What Is to Make Woman Happy?
I hope I am justified in now extricating myself from the--I grant--hardly exhausted web of particulars outlining my plot and am free to proceed to universals and principles.
Happiness is first something that is hardly possible to maintain in this flawed, fallen world. If one attempts to number the exterior objects that appear to constitute contentment: health, talent, success, wealth, beauty, friends, security, etc., then one is left concluding that this blissful state is well nigh impossible. If happiness is defined by pleasant conditions, which are always beyond one's control, then I give up the argument and say with the Greeks, 'Call no man happy until he is dead.'
If however, (granting how hard happiness is to maintain) this excellent condition is defined by the disposition of man's soul, the discussion of obtaining joy becomes possible. Aristotle defined happiness thus: the activity of the soul according to virtue. This is the only sort that may be arrived at through one's own efforts, and the one which will be now considered.
As Socrates pointed out, virtue is something that is equally needed and must be equally sought by men and women, just as health and strength are equally desirable. However, aside from the various lists composed by schools of thought and faith, how does one seek what is virtuous, especially in amoral circumstances?
For a Catholic, every act that is holy is so because of its participation in Holy of holies. To be is the greatest good, and to not be is the worst evil. All acts must then be subordinated to Sum Qui Sum, and so good is achieved directly through His revelation. Since being is goodness, every act, even the commonest (e.g. eating and drinking), may be consecrated. As Socrates admitted, only a cobbler can make another cobbler. Only the Author of virtue can make one virtuous.
Regarding the quest of non-Catholics, I shall turn to the 'trinity' that a rationalist professor of mine exalted: goodness, truth, and beauty. If there is more than that on Earth ye need to know, who has found it? Let that most reasonable triduum stand as the greatest secular good. Everything one must seek to be virtuous then, ought to lead back to these three things, and possession of them will be the key to happiness.
Women then, just as men, ought to consider each of her acts in the light of these best qualities. If the question of her apparel is indifferent to truth and goodness, should it not then be beautiful? What has she to gain from ugliness, except the discomfort or disinterest of those around her? What wrong will she right with a strident voice or a constant scowl?
If she wishes to exalt truth in her heart, then is it good for her to cling to anthropological fantasties of matriarchal societies centred on Mother Goddess worship? Should she not look at all claims through the simple light of reason with the rational incredulity that has always distinguished the greatest thinkers?
And is it not worthier of her to consider the good of others, especially the fruit of her own womb, as she struggles to seek goodness itself? A heroine, like a hero, must put others first. The sedate guardian, Athena, proves a worthier model here than the hysterical murderess, Medusa. Feminists of course demand that men adhere to such rules, but it is time they started demanding the same from women rather than politically correct advantages for women.
However, though the quality of health in men and women are the same, a doctor will tell you they are often achieved by different means, as the difference in bodies entails different needs. Speaking of woman's particular destiny from a rationalist view would likely lead nowhere, as the most sincere love of reason still produces varying schools. Ursula K. Le Guin would probably argue for asexuality of roles: equality also means sameness. Hodee Edwards would likely say, 'Conquer or die,' given her view of male-female relations. Yet of the varying purely logical positions, Tennyson's proposition, made by Princess Ida's suitor, strikes one at least as the happiest:
Henceforth thou hast a helper, me, that know
The woman's cause is man's: they rise or sink
Together, dwarfed or godlike, bond or free...
...Yet in the longer years, liker must they grow...
...He gain in sweetness and moral height
Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world;
She mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind...
... My bride,
My wife, my life. O we will walk this world,
Yoked in all exercise of noble end,
And so through those dark gates across the wild
That no man knows. Indeed I love thee: come,
Yield thyself up: my hopes and thine are one:
Accomplish thou my manhood and thyself;
Lay thy sweet hands in mine and trust to me. (The Princess, Part VII)
If this is not the most credible suggestion, it is at least the most joyful one, and the one that a rational man or woman would grant is the ideal for the truly perfect society. But ideals are not always possible, and can a woman still behave in the ideal fashion of 'childlike' trust and submission in a fallen realm?
Men may disappoint women and perhaps drive them to destroy others, as in the case of abortion, or themselves, as in the case of 'Black Widow Bombers.' Yet, what has Feminism has done but led to the denial of perpetual instinct and to the spilling of innocent blood? When the nature of imperfect reality imposes itself on the ideal, I suggest the remedy is not to put one's faith in princes or princesses, but turn to Faith itself for an answer:
Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Saviour of His Body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it. (Ephesians V: 21-25)
Feminists have always done St. Paul the injustice of refusing to interpret him in the light of his own principles. If a man were to say to me that I was pale, I would only be justified in taking any degree of umbrage if he thought fair skin was unattractive. If I say to someone that their play reminded me of a Shakespearean comedy, then I must have been in a nasty mood that day, for when the Bard veers from history and tragedy, I tend to abominate him. Likewise, if a man who loves dominion says wives ought to be their husbands subjects, he must be a misogynist for he assigns to women a role he despises and would not choose for himself.
St. Paul, on the other hand, loves humility. He is a staunch follower of the Godman, who said: And whosoever will be first amongst you, shall be the servant of all. To be subject then, according to this Creed, is an honour. Here is one of many reasons why the Church was demeaned as the religion of 'slaves and women.'
Yet, even read without the context of the Gospel (which would be an absurd thing to do), women are still given the preferred role within the framework of St. Paul's verse. Women are called to represent the Church, while men are to symbolize Christ, in their relations as wife and husband. This is simply symbolism, though. In reality, men are not Christ, but also erring members of the Church. In the end, he is called to behave towards God as his own wife behaves towards him. In the Catholic Church then, women are held up as examples to men, whereas to women, men are simply practice. Which of these is the higher calling?
Men and women must both learn to find joy in the routines of their lives. To arrive at the greatest happiness, they ought to practice the best virtues. Custom and Faith have both proclaimed woman's sphere to be primarily that of passion, with some forays into the field of action. Let her, at the risk of her own unhappiness and that of society, refuse to heed that dictum.
Happiness is first something that is hardly possible to maintain in this flawed, fallen world. If one attempts to number the exterior objects that appear to constitute contentment: health, talent, success, wealth, beauty, friends, security, etc., then one is left concluding that this blissful state is well nigh impossible. If happiness is defined by pleasant conditions, which are always beyond one's control, then I give up the argument and say with the Greeks, 'Call no man happy until he is dead.'
If however, (granting how hard happiness is to maintain) this excellent condition is defined by the disposition of man's soul, the discussion of obtaining joy becomes possible. Aristotle defined happiness thus: the activity of the soul according to virtue. This is the only sort that may be arrived at through one's own efforts, and the one which will be now considered.
As Socrates pointed out, virtue is something that is equally needed and must be equally sought by men and women, just as health and strength are equally desirable. However, aside from the various lists composed by schools of thought and faith, how does one seek what is virtuous, especially in amoral circumstances?
For a Catholic, every act that is holy is so because of its participation in Holy of holies. To be is the greatest good, and to not be is the worst evil. All acts must then be subordinated to Sum Qui Sum, and so good is achieved directly through His revelation. Since being is goodness, every act, even the commonest (e.g. eating and drinking), may be consecrated. As Socrates admitted, only a cobbler can make another cobbler. Only the Author of virtue can make one virtuous.
Regarding the quest of non-Catholics, I shall turn to the 'trinity' that a rationalist professor of mine exalted: goodness, truth, and beauty. If there is more than that on Earth ye need to know, who has found it? Let that most reasonable triduum stand as the greatest secular good. Everything one must seek to be virtuous then, ought to lead back to these three things, and possession of them will be the key to happiness.
Women then, just as men, ought to consider each of her acts in the light of these best qualities. If the question of her apparel is indifferent to truth and goodness, should it not then be beautiful? What has she to gain from ugliness, except the discomfort or disinterest of those around her? What wrong will she right with a strident voice or a constant scowl?
If she wishes to exalt truth in her heart, then is it good for her to cling to anthropological fantasties of matriarchal societies centred on Mother Goddess worship? Should she not look at all claims through the simple light of reason with the rational incredulity that has always distinguished the greatest thinkers?
And is it not worthier of her to consider the good of others, especially the fruit of her own womb, as she struggles to seek goodness itself? A heroine, like a hero, must put others first. The sedate guardian, Athena, proves a worthier model here than the hysterical murderess, Medusa. Feminists of course demand that men adhere to such rules, but it is time they started demanding the same from women rather than politically correct advantages for women.
However, though the quality of health in men and women are the same, a doctor will tell you they are often achieved by different means, as the difference in bodies entails different needs. Speaking of woman's particular destiny from a rationalist view would likely lead nowhere, as the most sincere love of reason still produces varying schools. Ursula K. Le Guin would probably argue for asexuality of roles: equality also means sameness. Hodee Edwards would likely say, 'Conquer or die,' given her view of male-female relations. Yet of the varying purely logical positions, Tennyson's proposition, made by Princess Ida's suitor, strikes one at least as the happiest:
Henceforth thou hast a helper, me, that know
The woman's cause is man's: they rise or sink
Together, dwarfed or godlike, bond or free...
...Yet in the longer years, liker must they grow...
...He gain in sweetness and moral height
Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world;
She mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind...
... My bride,
My wife, my life. O we will walk this world,
Yoked in all exercise of noble end,
And so through those dark gates across the wild
That no man knows. Indeed I love thee: come,
Yield thyself up: my hopes and thine are one:
Accomplish thou my manhood and thyself;
Lay thy sweet hands in mine and trust to me. (The Princess, Part VII)
If this is not the most credible suggestion, it is at least the most joyful one, and the one that a rational man or woman would grant is the ideal for the truly perfect society. But ideals are not always possible, and can a woman still behave in the ideal fashion of 'childlike' trust and submission in a fallen realm?
Men may disappoint women and perhaps drive them to destroy others, as in the case of abortion, or themselves, as in the case of 'Black Widow Bombers.' Yet, what has Feminism has done but led to the denial of perpetual instinct and to the spilling of innocent blood? When the nature of imperfect reality imposes itself on the ideal, I suggest the remedy is not to put one's faith in princes or princesses, but turn to Faith itself for an answer:
Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Saviour of His Body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it. (Ephesians V: 21-25)
Feminists have always done St. Paul the injustice of refusing to interpret him in the light of his own principles. If a man were to say to me that I was pale, I would only be justified in taking any degree of umbrage if he thought fair skin was unattractive. If I say to someone that their play reminded me of a Shakespearean comedy, then I must have been in a nasty mood that day, for when the Bard veers from history and tragedy, I tend to abominate him. Likewise, if a man who loves dominion says wives ought to be their husbands subjects, he must be a misogynist for he assigns to women a role he despises and would not choose for himself.
St. Paul, on the other hand, loves humility. He is a staunch follower of the Godman, who said: And whosoever will be first amongst you, shall be the servant of all. To be subject then, according to this Creed, is an honour. Here is one of many reasons why the Church was demeaned as the religion of 'slaves and women.'
Yet, even read without the context of the Gospel (which would be an absurd thing to do), women are still given the preferred role within the framework of St. Paul's verse. Women are called to represent the Church, while men are to symbolize Christ, in their relations as wife and husband. This is simply symbolism, though. In reality, men are not Christ, but also erring members of the Church. In the end, he is called to behave towards God as his own wife behaves towards him. In the Catholic Church then, women are held up as examples to men, whereas to women, men are simply practice. Which of these is the higher calling?
Men and women must both learn to find joy in the routines of their lives. To arrive at the greatest happiness, they ought to practice the best virtues. Custom and Faith have both proclaimed woman's sphere to be primarily that of passion, with some forays into the field of action. Let her, at the risk of her own unhappiness and that of society, refuse to heed that dictum.
The Desires of a Woman's Heart: Conclusion by Rachel Rudd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at foolishnessntears.blogspot.com.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
...and suffer the loss of his own soul?
While to shirk the call of Love may not doom a life, the act does greatly inhibit a soul's capacity for happiness, which is simultaneously, her capacity to fulfill herself. To be unhappy is to have a grudge against something, against some part of reality. Non-being cannot make a soul unhappy. Though deprivation may trouble her a moment, it cannot make her miserable as deprivation in of itself proves that what she needs does exist somewhere.
No morbidly depressed soul can enter the Kingdom of God, because to do so, she must love its Lord. To love its Lord, would be to love reality, for He is Being Itself, Essens, not a particular essentia. Knowing myself as well as I do, and knowing how wretchedly guilty I have been of wretchedness, I can only beat my breast and beg God to give me the Love which will move my gaze outside of my little self to the one who justifies my existence. It is so difficult to participate in His life to the full at this time, though. I have not heard my calling; my earthly vocation is still a mystery.
I do expect my vocation to fulfill my happiness, but not necessarily in the pleasant sense. Happiness is not a reaction to pleasurable, interesting, or charming things. Otherwise we would never see smiles on the face of children fighting cancer, religious working amongst the poor, or married Catholics forced into celibacy by their spouses' abandoning them. Happiness is an exercise in finding traces of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If we never move beyond the infant, passive happiness, that which is aroused in us by nice things, then we shall be forever stunted in our capacity for joy, and our contment will be the most vulnerable possession we have in this world.
Riches, fame, beauty...all these passing things are inferior to the interior peace and joy that arises from falling God's calling unto Himself. It is not only because these possessions may be snatched by the Fates' fickle hands at a moment's notice, but because they are like tasteless paste spoonfed to a babe, rather than the succulent, nourishing food that require effort on the part of the eater. True happiness--following one's vocation--requires such active, spiritual effort.
We don't often see many examples of this. Some people sneer at the religious and marital vocations as the 'routine' or normal thing to do for someone who cannot excel in a rigorous profession or much admired career (not to say that married and religious people have not excelled in such spheres, but even so, these spheres were/should have been secondary to their vocations). The world admires the talented and ambitious that do not allow themselves to be pinned down by other committments, and it is usually horrified when such persons choose the 'same' route that any obscure villager might have taken.
Already, headlines reading: 'so weird you can't make it up' (http://www.faniq.com/article/Oakland-As-prospect-Grant-Desme-leaving-team-to-become-a-priest-1962246) are popping up. Some accompanied with grotesque comments and petty jibes, these articles concern the decison of Grant Desme to leave a budding career in baseball (the game and pastime honoured very highly in his country) for priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church:
I'm doing well in baseball. But I had to get down to the bottom of things, to what was good in my life, what I wanted to do with my life. Baseball is a good thing, but that felt selfish of me when I felt that God was calling me more. It took awhile to trust that and open up to it and aim full steam toward him ... I love the game, but I'm going to aspire to higher things. (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/A-s-prospect-leaving-baseball-for-call-of-the-pr?urn=mlb,215238)
It's so beautiful, so good, and it is so true! So much so that, yes, one could not have made this up.
No morbidly depressed soul can enter the Kingdom of God, because to do so, she must love its Lord. To love its Lord, would be to love reality, for He is Being Itself, Essens, not a particular essentia. Knowing myself as well as I do, and knowing how wretchedly guilty I have been of wretchedness, I can only beat my breast and beg God to give me the Love which will move my gaze outside of my little self to the one who justifies my existence. It is so difficult to participate in His life to the full at this time, though. I have not heard my calling; my earthly vocation is still a mystery.
I do expect my vocation to fulfill my happiness, but not necessarily in the pleasant sense. Happiness is not a reaction to pleasurable, interesting, or charming things. Otherwise we would never see smiles on the face of children fighting cancer, religious working amongst the poor, or married Catholics forced into celibacy by their spouses' abandoning them. Happiness is an exercise in finding traces of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. If we never move beyond the infant, passive happiness, that which is aroused in us by nice things, then we shall be forever stunted in our capacity for joy, and our contment will be the most vulnerable possession we have in this world.
Riches, fame, beauty...all these passing things are inferior to the interior peace and joy that arises from falling God's calling unto Himself. It is not only because these possessions may be snatched by the Fates' fickle hands at a moment's notice, but because they are like tasteless paste spoonfed to a babe, rather than the succulent, nourishing food that require effort on the part of the eater. True happiness--following one's vocation--requires such active, spiritual effort.
We don't often see many examples of this. Some people sneer at the religious and marital vocations as the 'routine' or normal thing to do for someone who cannot excel in a rigorous profession or much admired career (not to say that married and religious people have not excelled in such spheres, but even so, these spheres were/should have been secondary to their vocations). The world admires the talented and ambitious that do not allow themselves to be pinned down by other committments, and it is usually horrified when such persons choose the 'same' route that any obscure villager might have taken.
Already, headlines reading: 'so weird you can't make it up' (http://www.faniq.com/article/Oakland-As-prospect-Grant-Desme-leaving-team-to-become-a-priest-1962246) are popping up. Some accompanied with grotesque comments and petty jibes, these articles concern the decison of Grant Desme to leave a budding career in baseball (the game and pastime honoured very highly in his country) for priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church:
I'm doing well in baseball. But I had to get down to the bottom of things, to what was good in my life, what I wanted to do with my life. Baseball is a good thing, but that felt selfish of me when I felt that God was calling me more. It took awhile to trust that and open up to it and aim full steam toward him ... I love the game, but I'm going to aspire to higher things. (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/A-s-prospect-leaving-baseball-for-call-of-the-pr?urn=mlb,215238)
It's so beautiful, so good, and it is so true! So much so that, yes, one could not have made this up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Jacobitess
- Warsaw, Poland
- Domine, spero quia mundum vicisti. Lord, I trust that Thou hast overcome the world. Panie, ufam, żeś pokonał świat.