By Kelly O'Connell ——Bio and Archives--February 19, 2013
Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
LIFELONG LOVE
Since Western civilization achieved awareness of itself, no theme has been more scrutinized in literature, and later in music, than love. Everything has been said and written about it. Our own age is particularly explosive on the subject. People discuss every aspect of it: homosexual and heterosexual love, plural love, free love, transitory love, extrovert love, trial love, love without limits. Everybody is concerned about it: the psychoanalyst of course, the scientist, especially the geneticist, the doctor, the psychologist, the moralist, the bishop, and the philosopher. All have their own remedies and conceptions and proposed orientations. I might adopt once again a formula I have used many times without ever being refuted: "In a society which talks excessively about a human factor, the point is that this factor does not exist. People talk excessively about freedom when it is suppressed." This formula has always proved to be true. I would thus apply it here as well. So many novels and essays and studies and experiments and propositions are made precisely in order to hide the basic absence of love. Love does not exist in our society. It is no more than a word. Someone might object: "What does it matter what an old man says about love; he no longer knows anything about it and cannot do so; he is unaware of the beautiful blossoming of it all around him. He is simply looking at the past." Nevertheless, I think I have something to say on the matter, the fruit of long experience, something that is not often put forward today. But I must begin by challenging certain actual orientations under the heading of the disintegration of love. Here I want to present another point of view. What we very generally call love is the fruit of prolonged human evolution. Like all animals, human beings at the very first coupled together as male and female, and we do not know whether this coupling then took a permanent form. But the earliest records available to us show that by that time it was not a matter of a few minutes or of chance. There was a more complete union between a man and a woman (or several women). The sexual act was linked to a totality of life and of responsibilities. In relation to the woman the man had certain functions, as had the woman in relation to the man. This was not fleeting, temporary, or contingent coupling. The sexual union was a lasting one. In every country and tribe it had become marriage with various taboos and with a prohibiting of adultery or incest. The world of sex was integrated into a larger reality and regulated as one of the most important factors in life. Man and woman had a totally reciprocal life which included the sexual act, though this was neither primary nor exalted. The sexual act normally resulted in the birth children. Ideas relating to the union developed; it came to be magnified; it found expression; it became religious. Thus the stage of love arrived, the express commitment of one person to another, a choice, and even by way of prohibitions and taboos a sublimation. Love consisted of this emotional, voluntary, reciprocal, and vital totality. And the love of the two led to love of a third, the product of the union, when it came. If romantics have fallen into idealistic excesses regarding incorporeal love, those who deny the existence of total love fail to recognize the profound reality of human beings for at least five thousand years. The corporeal and physiological aspects are indissolubly related to the spiritual aspects, to the total relation. But what we see today is the complete disintegration of this totality. Already easy abortion breaks it open, though in a secondary way. But what we are now seeing is the breaking apart of the constituents of total love. Sexuality has been detached from the whole. To give people the right to procreate freely without any personal relation either to the donor or the recipient of sperm is to detach human love from one of its basic functions. What becomes of total love if the husband gives his sperm to some other woman, or the wife is pregnant by the sperm of another man? Or if there is in vitro fertilization? It has been well said (by a scientist!) What when a woman bears the seed of a man who is not her husband there takes place real biological adultery. And when in the discussions of the conference mentioned above someone asked what is meant after all by a couple, he was referring to the breaking up of that total complex of love. Procreation is no longer the fruit of a shared delight, a reciprocal joy, a tenderness, and a venture. It is a purely mechanical and technical act. Similarly, abortion as a merely practical and often invalid procedure has become no more than a technical operation without good reason or sense of responsibility for the life that is broken off. The final objection to my viewpoint is obvious: You are reactionary, you cannot stop progress, we now know how to clone and graft, there is no more room for discussion, the moral or humanistic criticisms are those of the rearguard that has already been left behind. This is a fine argument. What it amounts to is that we have no choice or decision to make, but have to accept what technological progress makes possible and necessary. Is this a triumph of freedom? In reality it is a triumph of bondage, of the very opposite of freedom. As slaves of progress we have to watch one of the main reasons for living, namely, love, being debased and destroyed before our very eyes. This is the question. And this is why we should pay heed to Monsignor Lustiger when he asks whether we have adequately reflected on these matters. All this is just a preamble. But I want to say how sad I am when I see before me the thoughtlessness of many love affairs, and how compassionate I feel when I note experiences that show such a fundamental ignorance of love. When I witness the end of a marriage because one of the spouses is gripped by a passion for someone else, I am as sad as at the death of a child. I am sad, too, when I see what is now the traditional confusion between the sexual act and love. People are constantly talking about "making love." But we do not "make" love. It is love perhaps that makes us by edifying us. No one has ever been able to "make" love. At best we live it. But this is another matter. For many people, however, love is no more than making love. No matter with whom! And the partner is no longer flesh of my flesh or bone of my bone or more myself than I am. The partner is simply a partner in a game or in momentary pleasure. This is what love has become. Am I a romantic? If so, then people five thousand years before Jesus Christ were romantics. I am sad when people enter into preliminary experiences to find out if they are sexually compatible, for this shows that marriage is not a matter of love but of putting the pieces together well, of constructing a good machine. I am sad when I see a union in which there is no mutual commitment but only an agreement to live together. For this means that it will last only so long But why am I sad and not scandalized? Why do I not judge and instruct? I am sad because I realize that those who are living in this way do not know what love is. They are missing a whole number of possibilities. Throughout their lives they have no knowledge of the finest of human creations. They are missing the truth, the only possible meaning of life, in the name of theories and passions. From the very outset they are failing as it lasts. to find the vital path of life. I am sad, then, as before a life that has failed. Love is not fleeting or experimental. It is not a child of Bohemia. It is a permanent thing and not a butterfly flight dependent on those who feel it. It is made to last because it is life. Life comes from it, and not life alone, but the only possible relation to the other. We cannot live without this basic relation that presupposes myself in the other and the other in myself. Love cannot exist without this existential presence. But we need to find it again and not view the other merely as an accidental instrument of my pleasure or as an absolute stranger who has nothing in common with me apart from habits and experiences. Love is not just a matter of the I-Thou that one can have in a social relationship. Here is not just some other but the other that is also myself, unique and not indeterminate. I am in this other as this other is in me. The complete otherness comes to completion in an identity which excludes mere selfhood. This is the most basic experience that we can have in life. And in it alone the statement becomes true that love is stronger than death (Cant. 8:6).
View Comments
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico.