the true social lubricant

just had a little chat with good friend melanie, who is visiting. starting from dorothy sayers' incredibly perceptive and witty portrayal of human character and interaction came the importance of manners. traditions and manners have been scoffed & eschewed in modern society, most notably since the tiresome '60s and '70s. respect, true tolerance borne of acknowledging personal dignity, and the little customs that smooth our casual contact with those at the grocery store, post office gas station, have all been lost. try talking to a check-out clerk: "i'm doing fine, thank you. how are you?" nearly always, their faces relax, sometimes they smile: suddenly they become human, instead of paid slaves doing menial jobs to serve you. it is a striking testimony to how much our actions mean. what we do or do not do affects others. small actions and words can either be an affirmation of personal worth, or can be insulting affronts that can damage the dignity of others in our little worlds.
i noticed, too, how the liberals lack basic social manners. those who have thrown off these traditions as inhibiting your "real" personality are notoriously rude, even vitriolic, with no respect or toleration from anyone who's views differ from their own. they portray a selfish, self-centred philosophy: accept me as i am or deal with it. why should i? we all have rough edges and imperfections that should not be tolerated because they are immature, petty, rude, vicious, and uncivilized. manners are a proof of natural virtue, a sign that we can raise our communications to a level based on the intelligent recognition of basic human dignity--a dignity that has been lost both in mind and in manner.

la vita y bella

this past sunday's gospel, the wedding of cana, i am sure sparked marriage homilies nationwide, perhaps even globally. likewise, our fraternity priest, fr. terra, delivered an expose on the nature of marriage and the Church's view of the sacrament. it was possibly the best talk on marriage i have ever heard, and expressed some truths about the nature of love that i have come to realize through events of the last couple years of my own life. [brief sidenote: i said recently that desolation has exquisite beauty. the 'party of the second part' said something along the lines of, 'oh, come on! you'd better be able to defend that. you can't say that sort of crap without an explanation.' being unable to adequately find words at the moment, i will attempt to do so now. only in desolation can we find humility, which is absolutely essential to holiness. only in desolation can we realize the enormous extent of our limitations, and our fundamental dependence on that nebulous thing we call "grace." only in desolation, when the results of our decisions and independence and arrogance and sin have destroyed all hope of shaping our own happiness, can we realize the necessity of bowing to the Crucifixion and relinquishing our autonomy. i do not know if that helps at all, but that is what i mean by that.]
back to the point: the nature of love. i hold that all our actions are motivated by the desire for love, which is the ultimate happiness. it is either self love, or the desire to find love for ourselves, or love for others, which itself can be healthy or unhealthy. but the self-sacrificing love of marriage, the Church promises, can bring the greatest measure of earthly happiness if we do not choose to love for our own happiness. the purpose of loving another is not to make "me" happy, and as long as we view relationships in that light, we will never be happy. loving someone who is seeking love for his own happiness is a horrible, destructive, damaging experience. happiness comes as a result of choosing to give one's self for the other. our own personal happiness results from seeking the other's good, from sacrificing to make the other happy. this is love. whenever we seek self, or try to retain any sort of autonomy in love, we will not be happy with love. and if we are not happy with love, i do not know how it is possible to be happy at all.
i have known the sort of love that is admiration without motivation. i have known the all-consuming, lightening-intense, reality-changing passion. both lacked the essential quality of true, real love, which is the desire for sacrifice. they are incomplete and therefore do not truly deserve the name of love. love is a choice, always a choice, and a choosing of other, not a choosing of self. very few people these days, perhaps throughout history, understand this. the ones that do will know and give the greatest happiness.

more later ...

pining with rossetti

dixie gipsy

back "home" (?!) to texas, and instantly back in the office (sigh). it's awfully quiet at my little house, even with four roommates and crazy dog, who writhed about the floor for about ten minutes when i first walked in the house. the dog did, that is; not roommates.
yesterday was the sort of day that i spend blissfully doing nothing with my most wonderful. today is the sort of day that i call coffee and pretzel sticks "lunch" and let it go at that.
suddenly everyone is coming to visit me, which could not delight me more! one friend of mine and i were joking that you discover your real friends when you move far away: they are the ones who come visit you. obviously some good friends have extenuating circumstances which exonerate them, but still, it's funny, and maybe a little more true.

*2007*

Hap, Hap, Hap ... Happy New Year!