Christians have always heard that only God can make them happy. In fact, some Bible translations render Psalm 16:2 as, "You are my God. My happiness lies in you alone."

But an atheist would say, “I don’t need God to be happy. I can get along just fine without him.”

It is true that an atheist can experience kinds of happiness without living for God. But if an atheist persistently and culpably rejects God, Fr. Robert Spitzer argues in a new book, he will not be able to experience ultimate or perfect happiness.

In Finding True Happiness: Satisfying Our Restless Hearts, Fr. Spitzer, founder and president of the Magis Center, elucidates four levels of happiness. The first level of happiness is the happiness associated with sensory pleasure obtained through food or drink and the pleasure experienced with the possession of material goods. The second level is happiness experienced when the comparative advantage over another is gained. The third level of happiness consists in the pleasure experienced when one contributes to the good outside of self and makes a positive difference. An atheist can attain these first three levels.

The fourth level of happiness that Fr. Spitzer identifies is transcendent happiness—the happiness experienced when the deepest human desires for perfect and unconditional (infinite) knowledge/truth, love, goodness/justice, and beauty are satisfied by the transcendent God, who is perfect and unconditional knowledge, love, goodness, and beauty itself.

Such transcendent desires are universal—that is to say, they belong to all human beings, including those who reject God. Consider the desire for perfect and unconditional knowledge. Have you ever recognized answers to your questions as incomplete? If so, what was your response? You probably were a bit frustrated—unhappy—and sought a better answer.

We have to ask ourselves, “Why do we get frustrated (unhappy) with imperfect or limited manifestations of knowledge?” As many great thinkers throughout the centuries have concluded, it is because we desire perfect and unconditional knowledge. If we didn’t desire this type of knowledge, then we would be content with imperfect and limited manifestations of it. But we are not content with imperfect and limited manifestations of knowledge. Therefore, we desire perfect or unconditional (infinite) knowledge—what Fr. Spitzer likes to call “the complete set of answers to the complete set of questions.”

Consider love. Have you ever been frustrated when someone manifested imperfect love? Those involved in any sort of relationship will affirm this to be true. But why do we get frustrated when we experience imperfect manifestations of love? As with knowledge, the answer is because we desire perfect or unconditional love.

What about justice and goodness? Have you ever been frustrated when an injustice occurs? Atheists acknowledge this to be true when they object to theism by pointing to the problem of evil. Have you ever experienced a bit of discontentment when you were confronted with imperfect goodness? Maybe you are a boss and your employees are not performing up to par. Maybe you are frustrated with your son or daughter who is not taking school seriously. We have to ask, “Why do we get frustrated with injustices and imperfect manifestations of goodness?” I think the answer is because we desire perfect and unconditional justice and goodness.

Finally, we desire perfect beauty. This desire manifests itself in various ways. We do not look good enough—neither do other people. The house layout could always be better. The beauty of the valley from a vantage point on the mountain could always be better. We are always looking for a little more beauty. But why is this? Why are we always discontent with forms of beauty in this world? You have probably guessed it—because we desire perfect and unconditional beauty.

Now, philosophers throughout the centuries have persuasively argued that God is perfect and unconditional truth, love, goodness, and beauty. From this it follows that if God does not exist, then the only things available to satisfy these natural desires are imperfect and conditioned things. But the imperfect and conditioned things of this world cannot possibly satisfy the desires for the perfect and unconditional. Therefore, without God, the desire for perfect and unconditional knowledge/truth, love, goodness/justice, and beauty go unsatisfied. But if these intrinsic human desires for the perfect and unconditional are perpetually unsatisfied, then human happiness is unachievable. If human happiness is unachievable, then life is absurd.

The bottom line is that an atheist, while able to attain some degree of happiness on this earth—at levels 1, 2, and even 3—will never attain the happiness that comes from orienting one's heart toward ultimate or perfect happiness (transcendent happiness). As St. Augustine writes in reference to God, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” In other words, we are transcendent beings, and as such we have a desire for transcendent things. Stifling or ignoring this desire eliminates the greatest peace and joy possible during our earthly existence.
 
 
(Image credit: Pexels)

In his apostolic exhortation, The Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis beckoned Catholics to proudly bring the good news of Catholicism to as many who will listen. He did not call upon Catholics to be callous salesmen, or to triumphantly wear their religion on their sleeves; rather, he asked them to challenge the “sec­ularist rationalism” and the radical individualism that it entails. To be successful, we must provide an alternative, and there is no better tonic for our age than the good news that Catholicism offers. That is why the Holy Father exhorted us not to allow the Church to be reduced to “the sphere of the private and the personal.” He wants a public, full-throated exercise of religion.¹ There is much to Catholicism that needs to be trumpeted.

The greatest joy that Catholicism offers is the prospect of achieving salvation; its teachings provide a veritable road map to heaven. There are other benefits, as well, residual rewards such as good health and happiness. All total, Catholicism offers the best guide to achieving health, happiness, and heaven.

“Americans who are the most religious have the highest wellbeing” (his emphasis). That is the principal conclusion that Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport came to in his book God Is Alive and Well.² He is not alone in this finding. Importantly, not only are the most religious the most likely to be healthy and happy; there is an impressive body of research on priests and nuns, particularly on cloistered nuns, that shows just how true this finding is. While much of the data on religion and well-being are true for those across religions, and are not unique to Catholics, this book focuses on the ways Catholicism impacts well-being.

It is not as though the clergy and the religious steer their lives to achieve health and happiness—their mission, and their actions, are oriented toward serving God and serving those in need—but there are certain positive by-products to their efforts. And when it comes to reaching heaven, even atheists will concede that altruistic behaviors and charitable giving are promising signs; very religious people, studies show, are the most likely to be altruistic and charitable.

It is not hard to come by evidence that shows religion to be integrally tied to well-being and self-giving, but attempts to explain why are sorely lacking. The purpose of this book is to examine what I call the Three B’s of Catholicism—beliefs, boundaries, and bonds—which in turn leads to achieving the Three H’s—health, happiness, and heaven. Its central contention is profoundly countercultural: It is not the abandonment of constraint that liberates; it is its rational embrace. What we get in return—it is quite a dividend—is the greater likelihood of realizing the Three H’s. By contrast, the dominant culture, which is increasingly materialistic, casts limitations on behavior as being suspect at best, and nefarious at worst. What that vision yields, however, is not at all endearing. The evidence is decisive: when it comes to the attainment of health, happiness, and heaven, there is a clear Catholic advantage.

“Many religions,” Newport writes, “either explicitly or implicitly promote norms of behavior that are in turn associated with higher wellbeing and healthy behaviors.”³ Newport and I are both sociologists, so when we refer to “higher wellbeing” we are speaking about an overall sense of satisfaction that people have with their lives; we are not talking about some Platonic state. The term “healthy behaviors” refers to conduct that is associated with living longer, and to lifestyle choices that are not destructive to our physical or mental condition.

Beliefs and bonds are tied to these outcomes, but it is the role of boundaries that matters most in this regard: those who see boundaries as stifling are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, making for unhealthy and unhappy outcomes. Those who greet every limitation on their freedom as an unfair burden are the most likely to break norms—the rules of society that are commonly agreed to as a condition of civility. This is as unhealthy for the individual as it is destructive to society. For example, whether the behavior is driving too fast, or taking drugs, the social price tag is high. Fortunately, our Judeo-Christian heritage has many resources to draw on; the wisdom inherent in the Ten Commandments, for instance, cannot be surpassed. Add to this the bountiful resources that Catholicism has to offer—it has explicit teachings on the necessity of maintaining boundaries—and the result is a veritable guide to good living.

Newport stresses the importance of belief. “Religions by definition include a belief in God or a higher power: That belief can provide comfort, surcease from sorrow, and inner spiritual calmness.”⁴ Those who are not religious have never been able to find a secular counterpart to the role religion plays in dealing with adversity. There is a reason why the old adage “There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole” is commonly cited: there is much truth to it. Of course, even the faithful have been known to surge toward God when they are crying out for help, so this phenomenon is hardly unique to nonbelievers. But at least believers have something palpable to repair to when crisis strikes.

“Active participation in a religious community provides individuals with friends, fellow worshippers, social networks, and social support,” Newport writes.⁵ This explanation shows the importance of bonds. Another ancient proverb, “No man is an island,” carries great truth: God did not mean for us to be alone. The physical and mental benefits that accrue from enmeshing ourselves in communities are formidable. Religious communities, more than others, provide a steady and reliable network of social relationships that its participants can draw on—they act as a buffer to adversity. In this regard, the communal appeal of Catholicism is central. It is indeed illustrative of the fact that bonds matter: they matter especially for the achievement of health and happiness.

Those who are religious vary considerably in the intensity of their convictions; they range from the serious-minded to the lukewarm. At the other end of the spectrum are agnostics and atheists. Agnostics are not certain whether God exists; atheists are sure he doesn’t. Then there are those who do not practice any religion, but who nonetheless fail to identify with agnostics or atheists.

While there are important differences between these three sec­tors, they all share a secular vision: they believe that the best so­ciety is one that strongly limits the role of religion. By definition, they are the least likely to embrace the first of the Three B’s, namely beliefs. Less obvious is their comparatively weak commitment to bonds and boundaries. This will be explained in detail; it has much to do with their penchant for individualism. Consequently, as we shall see, they are also the least likely to achieve the Three H’s.

Therefore, two models will be presented: the Catholic vision and the secular vision. But we need to illustrate these models with personal examples. The examples chosen reflect “ideal types.” The great sociologist Max Weber devised this methodological tool so that comparisons could be made. By ideal he did not mean the best; he simply meant that the subject matter under discussion would be presented in its purest, and most accentuated, form. It is with this understanding that saints, priests, and nuns are being presented as the Catholic model. This does not mean that all the saints were walking pillars of purity; many were just the opposite in their early years. Nor does it mean that all priests and nuns have successfully embodied the teachings of Christ. It simply means that as a whole, when compared to other segments of society, they are a useful index of Catholicism in practice.

The secular model is best represented by intellectuals and Hollywood celebrities. Intellectuals are not a monolithic group: the ones under discussion in this book do not include the great theologians or contemporary scholars steeped in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The intellectuals that are illustrative of the secular model reflect a materialist worldview, as exemplified by Enlightenment writers. They reject traditional moral values, are disdainful of God, and are utopian in thought. Similarly, celebrities are not a uniform group: the ones depicted in this book are known for their hedonistic lives, hostility to conventional norms, and penchant for self-indulgence. While intellectuals and celebrities may seem to have little in common, the ones under consideration place a high value on individualism. For intellectuals, their individualism is manifested by their egotism; for celebrities, it is exhibited by their narcissism. In other words, they have practically nothing in common with saints, priests, and nuns.

The Catholic advantage over the secular model should not be interpreted as an argument against all matters secular. To be specific, the Founders crafted a secular government, one that has served us well. But they also cherished a strong religion-friendly culture. No contradiction there. Indeed, they knew that by crafting a secular form of government they would preempt the problems inherent in a theocratic state. But they also knew, as John Adams put it, that the Constitution was made “only for a moral and a religious people.”⁶ The secular model, as explained in this book, has nothing to do with our form of government—no one save extremists wants a theocracy—it has to do with religion’s devaluation.

Catholic beliefs stem from the realization that God matters; secularists hold that God does not matter. Bonds are important to Catholics, and indeed Catholicism’s communitarian elements are defining; on the other hand, secularism prizes individualism. Boundaries in Catholic thought are not inimical to freedom; for example, the imperative “Thou Shalt Not” is not reflexively seen as unfair or oppressive; secularists find boundaries constraining. By contrasting Catholicism and secularism on the Three B’s, we are able to see how their exercise affects the prospects of achieving the Three H’s.

Excerpted from The Catholic Advantage by Dr. William Donohue Copyright © 2015 by Dr. William Donohue. To be published by Image Books, a division of Penguin Random House, on March 3. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

We all want to be happy. Every day, in whatever we do, we seek this goal — one that we share with every other person on the planet. But what exactly is happiness? And how can we find it?

To discover the answer to these questions, Sonja Lyubomirsky, in her book The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want (Penguin, 2007), examines hundreds of empirical studies. She writes, “Studies show that 50 percent of individual differences in happiness are determined by genes, 10 percent by life circumstances and 40 percent by our intentional activities.”

Some people, it turns out, are naturally more optimistic, joyful and upbeat. Therefore, we should not feel bad if we find ourselves with a less cheerful temperament than others. At the same time, circumstances of life — great wealth, good weather, a promotion at work — have a relatively minor effect on our long-term level of happiness. Changing our circumstances will only slightly affect our outlook, as we quickly adapt to our new circumstances. Yet, while we cannot alter our genetic background, and altering our circumstances will not make much of a lasting difference to our happiness, we can dramatically change our intentional activities — that is, our goals in life. Engaging in work toward meaningful goals that strengthen our relationships with others can make us much happier. And regardless of our circumstances, we can become happier if we choose our priorities wisely.

Distinguishing Levels of Happiness

 
Drawing on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas, Jesuit Father Robert J. Spitzer distinguishes four levels of happiness in his book Healing the Culture (Ignatius, 2000). Level one happiness is bodily pleasure obtained by drink, food, drugs or sex. Level two happiness has to do with competitive advantage in terms of money, fame, power, popularity or other material goods. Level three happiness involves loving and serving other people. And level four happiness is found in loving and serving God. Although we may desire each level of happiness, not every level provides equal and lasting contentment.

In life, we are often faced with a choice between one level of happiness or another. For example, the Olympic athlete chooses success in athletics over pleasures of the body, which might be found in abusing drugs or alcohol.

I can have more level one happiness if I sleep late on Monday morning, but I would sacrifice level two happiness because I wouldn’t be able to earn money at work. Or, I could gain more of a certain kind of happiness by cheating others out of their money, but I would be sacrificing a higher level of happiness, because being unfair to others is the opposite of helping them. Since we often have to choose one activity over another, it makes sense to think through what kind of activities will truly lead to lasting happiness.

The first level of happiness — pleasures of the senses — has several advantages. It is easy to get; it arrives fairly quickly; and it can be intense. Level one happiness, though, leaves almost as quickly as it arrives. In addition, we build a tolerance to certain things that bring us this level of happiness so that more is needed to achieve the same degree of enjoyment. Unfortunately, many of these pleasures can lead to addictions, and the addict’s enslavement is the opposite of real happiness. Finally, this lowest level of happiness is somewhat superficial. We all want it, but we also want to achieve something more meaningful and important in life.

The next level of happiness gives greater meaning and significance than the first. It involves not just keeping up with the Joneses, but also surpassing them — in money, fame, popularity or status. We celebrate such achievements as a culture — the valedictorian, the star athlete, the millionaire. But will such success lead to lasting happiness?

Let’s take money as an example of a level two goal. More money can make you significantly happier if you are in poverty. If you don’t eat three meals a day and you sleep under a bridge, then additional money can make a great difference. Yet, in his book The Pursuit of Happiness (Harper, 1993), psychologist David Myers shows that once a person escapes from dire poverty, additional amounts of money do not significantly increase happiness. In other words, if you compare a person making $30,000 a year, another making $100,000 and a third making $500,000, there is likely little difference in self-reported happiness or levels of depression.

Why don’t additional amounts of money make us happier in a lasting way? Research indicates that we eventually get used to whatever level of financial success we achieve and then begin to seek higher levels of affluence. We tend to compare ourselves with those who are richer than we are, rather than the vast numbers that live in poverty. The average middle-class person today enjoys luxury and comfort unknown even to medieval kings.

But maybe having not just more money, but lots more money, would lead to higher levels of happiness. Again, empirical research does not support this view. Lottery winners — after the shock wears off — report being no happier than they were before winning. Fortune 500 executives on the whole have average levels of happiness, and 37 percent of rich business leaders are less happy than the average person. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out more than seven centuries ago, we want many things that no amount of money can buy. And we cannot find true happiness in more fame, power or “winning” of any kind.

Discovering Love and Gratitude

 
There is nothing inherently wrong with worldly success or with bodily pleasures, such as eating. Rather, the trouble comes when we think that these are the ultimate goals of life. Even if we had all the money in the world, all the bodily pleasure we could handle and all the worldly success possible, we cannot be happy without true friendship and true love. Happiness, Aristotle taught, is activity in accordance with virtue. In order for us to be objectively happy, we need to engage in activities that accord with virtue, especially the virtue of charity. Without choosing higher levels of happiness, even if we subjectively feel good (for a while), we are missing out on objectively being happy.

The higher levels of happiness — love for neighbor and love for God — go together. The two great commandments given by Jesus make this clear: “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. … You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:37,39). If we truly love God, we will also love people, for they are made in his image and likeness. We cannot truly love God without also loving our neighbor. Indeed, the teachings of Jesus point us toward higher levels of happiness by guiding us towards this love: “A new commandment I give to you, love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 13:34).

Commenting on Aristotle, who argued that human happiness necessarily involves friendship, St. Thomas Aquinas added that we can be friends not only with other human beings, but also with God. Psychological research confirms this ancient wisdom. The happiest people have meaningful work that serves others (activity in accordance with virtue), and they have strong, loving relationships with their family, friends and God. On average, people who practice their faith report greater happiness than those who do not. Common religious teachings such as practicing thanksgiving, forgiving those who trespass against us and obeying the Ten Commandments bolster well-being and strengthen relationships — leading to greater happiness.

What, then, can we do to become happier? Here are several concrete suggestions: First, at the end of each day, write down three positive things, large or small, that you experienced. They could relate to any of the four levels of happiness. (I had a really good cheeseburger; I finally got that promotion; I helped my son with his math homework; I felt close to God in prayer.) Psychologists have studied this practice, called the “Three Good Things” exercise, and found that it significantly increases happiness by making us more aware of what gives us joy. St. Ignatius Loyola discovered this secret centuries ago in his daily Jesuit “examen,” which begins by recognizing the blessings God has given us each day.

Second, write someone in your life a letter of gratitude. Detail what they have done for you and what it means to you. It could be your mother or father, an old teacher or coach, a priest or spiritual director. If possible, get together with that person and read the letter to them personally. Studies have shown that a letter of gratitude powerfully increases happiness in both the letter writer and the recipient.

A final suggestion is to deepen our highest level of happiness by growing in intimacy with God. Try reading a Gospel passage each day, praying the rosary or making a visit to the Blessed Sacrament for a heart-to-heart conversation with the Lord. Prayer is a bit like exercise: It does not matter so much what kind you do, only that you consistently do something.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about the importance of expressing gratitude to God in his Summa Theologica. The Mass, or Eucharist — which literally means “thanksgiving” — is a standing invitation to thank God for the blessings of our lives.

We all want to be happier, and we all can be. You do not have to wait for that big promotion or for that party on Saturday night. Helping us achieve our true happiness — both here and eternally — is the very mission of Jesus: “I came that you might have life and have it more abundantly” (Jn 10:10). A happier life can begin today with choosing to grow in love of neighbor and of God.
 
 
Originally appeared in Columbia Magazine in June 2010. Used with author's permission.
(Image credit: Look at My Happy Rainbow)