+Probably around a year ago I was having a conversation with a friend of mine +over a beer (as you do) and at some point we got to talking about humor and what +is and is not acceptable, particularly as it pertains to why blasphemous humor +is wrong. The conclusion we reached was that the object of humor must be +something imperfect, but God and the sacred are perfect, thus they aren't a +proper object for humor. Then, this having been said, and as tends to happen, it +sounded about right to both of us and we moved on. But later, on my way home, +and for months ever since I have thought about not only whether this is true, +but also what the implications of it may be. +
+ ++To start, I'd like to justify the claim before going any further, for otherwise +we're really just speculating based on possibly flawed assumptions. Furthermore, +I think the claim also requires some clarification, since without nuance it can +probably lead to some wrong conclusions about what we should be laughing at. +Therefore I'll start with the inductive case and then move on to the case based +on what I think is the purpose of humor. After that we can get into what the +consequences of this claim are. +
+ ++When it comes to humor we can simplify and say that it always manifests itself +in some sort of a joke, or at least we'll use that terminology to refer to a +specific instance of humor. Now when thinking of jokes, whether ironic, +wordplay, sarcastic, etc. in all instances I have observed there is not a single +joke which has as its object something perfect, but always something imperfect +(or at least apparently imperfect). An imperfect expectation on the part of the +listener, an imperfect (or ambiguous) communication of meaning in a pun, an +imperfect use of language itself when one sarcastically says the opposite of +what one means. The object of our humor is always the imperfection. Even when an +atheist laughs at God himself, who is perfect being objectively, it is because +his subjective understanding of God is itself imperfect, and it is this +subjective understanding which is the object of his humor. I have dared friends +and family to find me a single example to the contrary, but none have given me +one example. +
+ ++We must then ask the question “why?” Why is it that this is the case? And for +this we must tend to the purpose of humor and why we do it. For this I think +there is wisdom to be found in the proverb “a cheerful heart is a good medicine, +but a downcast spirit dries up the bones.” (Prov. 17:22) Or, as the modern +version of this proverb goes: laughter is the best medicine. Laughter seems to +be a means of healing; not the body, for which we have physicians, not the soul, +for which we have the Sacraments and the priests that minister them, but the +spirit. It takes that which is imperfect in life, and although it cannot fix it, +it gives it meaning and, in the more tragic cases, it also makes the yoke a +little bit lighter. In the case of the pun it makes the imperfect ambiguities of +language attain the higher purpose of elevating the spirit, and in the case of a +real tragedy, such as living under an oppressive regime, it provides relief +enough to keep pushing onward. We thus see that humor attains an almost divine +quality, as it does precisely what we Christians claim gives answer to the +problem of evil: that “[i]n time we can discover that God in his almighty +providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, +caused by his creatures” (CCC § 312). This is not to claim, of course, that +humor makes up for the evil (which is what imperfection is) that is its object, +but certainly that it is one small piece which God has readily put at our +disposal. +
+ ++So now that we know this, we can finally ask the question: is there humor in +Heaven? At first glance I think the answer must be a resounding “no.” The +Catechism describes Heaven as “[the] perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity +[...] the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state +of supreme definitive happiness.” (CCC § 1024) If there is no imperfection, +there is not object for humor. This may seem surprising, considering what joy we +get from it, but there are other goods which likewise will not exist in Heaven +for similar reasons. For what will we need forgiveness in Heaven if there are no +transgressions? For what will we need medicine if our bodies will not need +healing? Thus it is not outlandish to assume that humor too may fade as its +function was only necessary on this side of the Eschaton. One could argue +that perhaps we could continue to find humor in the imperfections of our past, +but I find this unconvincing, for however long history may have been it will +always be finite compared to the eternity we shall spend in Heaven, thus at some +point we will have exhausted all the jokes and there will be no more new ones. +So the eschatological future looks rather bleak for humor. +
+ ++There is, however, one possibility, though for some it may at first seem +revolting, so bear with me. There is one place that for the rest of eternity +will suffer imperfection and to enormous degrees: Hell and the suffering of the +damned. Now certainly, to the damned their suffering would not seem at all +humorous, nor can there be humor within Hell since God would not provide them +with such a medicinal relief, for as the Catechism states: +
+ ++ “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone + man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for + which he longs.” (CCC § 1035) ++ +
+This does not mean, however, that those in Heaven cannot witness and find humor +in the imperfections of the suffering of the damned. This may seem cruel, but +this I think will may sense with perhaps a bit of explanation and example. +
+ ++The reason we find it cruel is because we unfortunately imagine the damned to be +unwilling in their damnation. This is because we see the damned in the same way +we see the living who, at least in our own eyes, aren't necessarily living the +most Christian life. The Catechism says the following: +
+ ++ “We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we + cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or + against ourselves. [...] This state of definitive self-exclusion from + communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.’” (CCC § 1033) ++ +
+Whereas with the living we are incapable of judging our neighbor and the state +of their soul, nor are we capable of knowing whether they shall eventually +repent and be saved by God, with the damned we are actually certain of the +sinful state of their soul and that they will never repent, for only these sorts +of people can exist in Hell. Furthermore, we must remember that Hell is a “state +of self-exclusion,” (ibid.) meaning that the damned person himself made the +conscious decision to prefer sin and damnation over repentance and eternity in +communion with the source and summit of all goodness; the Summum Bonum. +Therefore the picture that begins to form is of many wicked people causing their +own suffering, and then getting mad that they are suffering. It begins to be +quite comical and remind us of the Psalm: “Let the wicked together fall into +their own nets, while I escape.” (Ps. 141:10) +
+ ++To give an example of how this sort of thing can seem humorous, let's take the +example of Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. In this cartoon the Coyote is +constantly trying to trap the Road Runner with all sorts of schemes and plots, +but the punch line of every joke is that the Road Runner seems wholly unaffected +by the trap and the Coyote ends up falling into it himself. What's even more +funny is when he gets frustrated and angry, when we can all see that he himself +is the source of his own suffering, which he only exacerbates more by getting +angry. To add another level of silliness, he doesn't get angry at himself (the +source of his misery) but at the Road Runner whose only apparent crime was not +falling into his trap. Similarly, we can say that this is how we will feel about +the damned. They are angry at God for their punishment and blame Him for it, +when it is their own hatred of God which brought this punishment upon them in +the first place, and which continues to make them more miserable. What's more, +even the Devil himself, to whom we often mistakenly attribute a power he does +not have, we will see as nothing more than a pathetic and miserable being. +
+ ++It should be noted that the Church does not officially condemn anyone to Hell, +nor should we assume anyone to be there besides Satan and the fallen angels. The +Church's mission is not to condemn souls, but to provide the means of salvation +to the world. Therefore it would not be wise to preemptively assume to be able +to partake in this heavenly form of comedy, which I myself am only speculating +as a possibility. Even in the most apparent case of someone most likely to be +damned, Judas Iscariot, the Church does not officially condemn him for it is not +her role. +
+ ++Ultimately this is all merely some theological speculation on my part, and I am +perfectly willing to be wrong and change my mind. Send me an e-mail if you think +that's the case (though if you make it super long I may take a long while to +respond). I hope that at the very least this helped to reflect upon God and the +economy of grace and mercy, to reflect on what we believe as Christians, and to +strive for holiness in hope for the life to come, or at least in fear of the +punishment that awaits those who do not repent and love God and neighbor. God +bless you. +
+ +